Unsuccessful in obtaining divorce on grounds of cruelty and desertion, the husband pleaded that the marriage had broken down irretrievably. Rejecting the plea, the Supreme Court held that such grounds be entertained only in extreme circumstances. When the wife entered the witness box, the husband charged her with bigamy. But findings revealed he had made false allegations, although the wife was compelled to leave and was ready to return. The husband himself is at fault hence he cannot claim divorce on the ground that the marriage has irretrievably broken down. (Shyam Sunder Kohli vs Sushma Kohli).
During the pendency of a case concerning dishonour of cheques, the complainant died. Her children executed power of attorney in favour of two persons who were permitted by the magistrate to continue with the prosecution. But the accused contested the permission. The Supreme Court held inter alia that such prayer made by the power of attorney-holders is not permissible under the law. Either the heirs of the complainant should file a petition for continuing the prosecution or they should seek permission from the court to continue prosecution through their power of attorney-holders. Liberty was granted to the heirs to file fresh applications. (Jimmy Jahangir Madan vs Bolly Cariappa Hindley).
In a divorce proceeding, the family court passed directions in respect of a jointly-owned house. In another petition for maintenance to the minor son, the court created charge on the house property. The father/husband contended that such directions cannot be given in respect of the house as section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act empowers the court to pass order with regard to jointly-owned property presented ?at or about the time of marriage?. The Bombay High Court held inter alia that evidence reveals that the property was acquired during subsistence of marriage. The order passed in respect of the house was set aside. (Kamalakar Ganesh Sambhus vs Tejas Kamalakar Sambhus).
SOLON
