VIDHYA VISWANATHAN Vs. KARTIK BALAKRISHNAN
LAWS(SC)-2014-9-82
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: MADRAS)
Decided on
September 22,2014
Vidhya Viswanathan
Appellant
VERSUS
Kartik Balakrishnan
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
VINITA SAXENA VS. PANKAJ PANDIT [REFERRED TO]SAMAR GHOSH VS. JAYA GHOSH [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
NISHI VS. JAGDISH RAM [LAWS(DLH)-2016-9-48] [REFERRED TO]NAVODIT MISHRA VS. RICHA MISHRA [LAWS(CHH)-2022-2-56] [REFERRED TO]
KAMINI SONDHI VS. KAPIL SONDHI [LAWS(DLH)-2016-9-13] [REFERRED TO]
RAJEEV KUMAR VS. VIDYA DEVI [LAWS(DLH)-2016-9-59] [REFERRED TO]
PANATI MADHUSUDHANA REDDY VS. MADDALI RENUKA @ SUHASINI [LAWS(APH)-2015-3-10] [REFERRED TO]
B SRINIVAS PRASAD VS. B LAXMI [LAWS(APH)-2015-4-19] [REFERRED TO]
SAHADEB DAS VS. MINI DAS [LAWS(TRIP)-2019-12-39] [REFERRED TO]
BIJAY VS. RITU [LAWS(MAD)-2020-11-217] [REFERRED TO]
HIMADRI SEKHAR ROY VS. BULTI SAHA [LAWS(TRIP)-2022-8-12] [REFERRED TO]
J MUTHU KRISHNAN VS. G RADHIKA [LAWS(MAD)-2018-8-443] [REFERRED TO]
CHARANJIT SINGH VS. HARKIRAN KAUR [LAWS(P&H)-2015-2-500] [REFERRED TO]
RIT FOUNDATION VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2022-5-366] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)Leave granted.
(2.)This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 13.2.2012 passed in CMA No.2862 of 2011 by the High Court of Judicature at Madras whereby the said Court has allowed the appeal filed by the husband under Section 19 of Family Courts Act, 1986, and dissolved the marriage between the parties.
(3.)Brief facts of the case are that the appellant, Vidhya Viswanathan got married to the respondent, Karthik Balakrishnan on 6.4.2005 in Chennai following the Hindu rites. After the marriage, the couple went to London where the respondent (husband) was working, and they lived there for some eight months. In December, 2005, the appellant and the respondent came back to India. However, the appellant went back to England all alone, and his wife did not go there though her husband had purchased a return ticket for her. On 13.9.2008, the husband filed a petition under Section 13 (1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of marriage. It is pleaded by the respondent (husband) that while the appellant was with him in London, she used to insult him. It is alleged by him that at times she used to get violent and hysterical. The husband further pleaded that even after his best efforts, the appellant did not allow him to consummate the marriage. It is further stated that in November, 2005 i.e. about seven months after the marriage the wife ( the present appellant) fell sick, and she was taken to a Medical Specialist who diagnosed that she was suffering from tuberculosis. According to the husband, he provided the best possible treatment to his wife. After the couple came back to India in December, 2005, the wife stayed back in Chennai and continued her treatment. It is alleged by the present respondent (husband) that his wife used to send him e-mails which were derogatory and in bad taste. It is also alleged by the respondent that his wife refused to join his company even after his best efforts. With the above pleadings, the present respondent filed a petition for divorce before the Family Court, Chennai on the ground of cruelty.
(2.)This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 13.2.2012 passed in CMA No.2862 of 2011 by the High Court of Judicature at Madras whereby the said Court has allowed the appeal filed by the husband under Section 19 of Family Courts Act, 1986, and dissolved the marriage between the parties.
(3.)Brief facts of the case are that the appellant, Vidhya Viswanathan got married to the respondent, Karthik Balakrishnan on 6.4.2005 in Chennai following the Hindu rites. After the marriage, the couple went to London where the respondent (husband) was working, and they lived there for some eight months. In December, 2005, the appellant and the respondent came back to India. However, the appellant went back to England all alone, and his wife did not go there though her husband had purchased a return ticket for her. On 13.9.2008, the husband filed a petition under Section 13 (1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of marriage. It is pleaded by the respondent (husband) that while the appellant was with him in London, she used to insult him. It is alleged by him that at times she used to get violent and hysterical. The husband further pleaded that even after his best efforts, the appellant did not allow him to consummate the marriage. It is further stated that in November, 2005 i.e. about seven months after the marriage the wife ( the present appellant) fell sick, and she was taken to a Medical Specialist who diagnosed that she was suffering from tuberculosis. According to the husband, he provided the best possible treatment to his wife. After the couple came back to India in December, 2005, the wife stayed back in Chennai and continued her treatment. It is alleged by the present respondent (husband) that his wife used to send him e-mails which were derogatory and in bad taste. It is also alleged by the respondent that his wife refused to join his company even after his best efforts. With the above pleadings, the present respondent filed a petition for divorce before the Family Court, Chennai on the ground of cruelty.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.