Denying physical relationship to husband, suspecting him of affair is ground for divorce: HC
A division bench of Justices Revati Mohite Dere and Neela Gokhale on Thursday said the woman's conduct can be construed as 'cruelty' against her husband.
Mumbai, Jul 18 (PTI) Denial of physical relationship to husband and suspecting him of an extra-marital affair amounts to cruelty and is hence a ground for divorce, the Bombay High Court held while refusing relief to a woman challenging a family court's divorce order.
The couple got married in 2013, but started living separately in December 2014. In 2015, the man approached the family court in Pune seeking divorce on the grounds of cruelty, which was granted.
The woman, in her plea, stated that her in-laws had harassed her, but she still had love for her husband and hence, does not wish for the marriage to end.
The man, however, claimed cruelty on several grounds, including denial of physical intimacy, suspecting him of having extra-marital affairs and causing mental agony by embarrassing him in front of his family, friends and employees.
He further claimed that his wife deserted him when she left his house and went to her parents' home.
'The appellant's (woman) behaviour with the man's employees is sure to cause agony to him. Similarly, humiliating the man in front of his friends is also cruelty to him,' the high court held.
It noted that the woman's apathetic and indifferent behaviour with the man's specially abled sister is also sure to cause pain to him and his family members, the court said.
The court, while dismissing the woman's plea, said the marriage between the couple is broken without any possibility of being mended. PTI SP ARU
This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News18
37 minutes ago
- News18
Karnataka cabinet accepts Justice D'Cunhas report on stadium stampede
Agency: PTI Bengaluru, Jul 24 (PTI) Karnataka cabinet on Thursday accepted Justice John Michael D'Cunha's report on the stampede near Chinnaswamy stadium here on June 4 that killed 11 people and injured many. The cabinet also decided that it will initiate action against private organisations that were involved in holding the RCB victory celebration, Karnataka Law and Parliamentary Affairs Minister H K Patil told PTI after the meeting. 'The cabinet has decided to accept Justice John Michael D'Cunha's report and take legal action on its basis," he said. The legal action will be against private associations and companies such as the Royal Challengers Bengaluru (RCB), Karnataka State Cricket Association (KSCA) and DNA Entertainment Networks. As far as the officers are concerned, a departmental inquiry will be initiated, the minister said. He further said that whoever is responsible for the stampede and negligence have been indicated in Justice D'Cunha report. The judicial probe was ordered by Chief Minister Siddaramaiah on June 5, a day after the tragedy took place. The incident occurred during a victory parade organised by the RCB franchise after their successful IPL campaign. A massive crowd gathered outside the stadium, leading to stampede. PTI GMS GMS KH view comments First Published: July 24, 2025, 15:00 IST Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
The Wire
an hour ago
- The Wire
ED Begins PMLA Investigation Against Anil Ambani's Reliance Group Companies
Over 35 premises, 50 companies and over 25 individuals are covered in search operations undertaken by the ED under section 17 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. A security guard outside industrialist Anil Ambani's office, in Mumbai, Thursday, July 24, 2025. The Enforcement Directorate on Thursday conducted simultaneous raids as part of a money laundering investigation linked to an alleged bank loan fraud of Rs 3,000 crore against Anil Ambani group companies and Yes Bank. photo: PTI. New Delhi: The Enforcement Directorate has begun investigating the Anil Ambani's Reliance Group companies after the Central Bureau of Investigation registered two first information reports against them. Over 35 premises, 50 companies and over 25 individuals are covered in search operations undertaken by the ED under section 17 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. The case has to do with Yes Bank, which in 2017, when it was headed by Rana Kapoor, invested in Reliance Commercial Finance Limited, Reliance Capital Ltd and Reliance Home Finance Ltd to the tune of Rs 900 crore, Rs 1,000 crore and Rs 1,000 crore respectively. In turn, Anil Ambani Group entities advanced loans to family entities of Rana Kapoor to the tune of Rs 285 crore, allegedly as bribe. Yes Bank's investments in the Anil Ambani Group companies turned 'non performing' in 2019, after which it filed a complaint with the CBI in 2020. The probe agency registered FIRs RC2242022A0002 and RC2242022A0003 in 2022. The ED conducted searches after a three-year gap. Other agencies and institutions like the National Housing Bank, SEBI, National Financial Reporting Authority (NFRA), and Bank of Baroda are also learnt to have shared information with the ED. Preliminary investigation by ED has revealed a well-planned and thought out scheme to divert or siphon off public money by cheating banks, shareholders, investors and other public institutions. The offence of bribing bank officials including the promoters of Yes Banks Limited is also under the ED's scanner. The ED has said that its preliminary investigation reveals illegal loan diversion of around Rs 3,000 crores from Yes Bank between 2017 and 2019. ED has found that just before the loan was granted, Yes Bank promoters received money in their concerns. Among violations that the ED found in Yes Bank loan approvals to Reliance Anil Ambani Group of companies are backdated credit approval memorandums, investments proposed without any due diligence or credit analysis in violation of banks credit policy and so on. In violation of loan terms, these loans were further diverted to many group companies and shell companies. Some red flags found by ED include the fact that loans given to entities with weak financials, no proper documentation of loans, no due diligence, borrowers have common addresses or common directors and so on. The ED also found diversion of loans to promoter group entities, ever-greening of GPC loans, loans onward lent on same date, loans disbursed on same date as date of application, loans disbursed prior to sanction, and misrepresentation of financials. SEBI is also learnt to have shared its findings with ED in the case of Reliance Home Finance Ltd. The ED is looking at a dramatic increase in corporate loans by RHFL, from Rs 3,742.60 crore in FY 2017-18 to Rs 8,670.80 crore in FY 2018-19. It is also investigating issues of irregular and expedited approvals, process deviations and other illegalities. Reliance Power's and Infrastructure's statements Reliance Power and Reliance Infrastructure have released identical notes saying that the ED's actions "have absolutely no impact on the business operations, financial performance, shareholders, employees, or any other stakeholders of" Reliance Power or Reliance Infrastructure. "The media reports appear to pertain to allegations concerning transactions of Reliance Communications Limited (RCOM) or Reliance Home Finance Limited (RHFL) which are over 10 years old. It is clarified that [Reliance Power/Reliance Infrastructure] is a separate and independent listed entity with no business or financial linkage to RCOM or RHFL," it said. They also added that while RCOM is undergoing the corporate insolvency resolution process as per the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, for the last six years, RHFL has been fully resolved following a Supreme Court judgement. "Further, Mr. Anil D. Ambani is not on the Board of [Reliance Power/Reliance Infrastructure] . Accordingly, any action taken against RCOM or RHFL has no bearing or impact on the governance, management, or operations of [Reliance Power/Reliance Infrastructure]," the statements said. The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
Kerala man who claimed judges working under Sangh influence gets 3 days in jail for contempt of court
A division bench of the Kerala High Court recently sentenced a person to undergo three days of imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs 2,000 in a suo motu contempt of court case registered on charges of publishing contemptuous and intemperate remarks against the judges on social media. The convicted person, P K Suresh Kumar, a resident of Alangad in Ernakulam district, had made a series of social media posts about high court judges. While the court convicted Kumar on July 16, the bench of Justices Raja Vijayaraghavan and Jobin Sebastain noted that he had faced a similar contempt of court case for making scandalous statements against a judge, but was discharged after he tendered an unconditional apology. In the suo motu proceedings initiated against Kumar, the court noted that the accused had stated that the judges comprising the devaswom (temple affairs) bench of the high court were functioning under the influence of the Sangh Parivar and other external agencies, and that judgments were being rendered to appease such factions. In another Facebook post, he had alleged that a judge of the high court had publicly endorsed the Sangh Parivar and participated in events organised by such groups, purportedly to secure favour from them. Finding that the accused person committed criminal contempt by scandalising the court with mala fide intent, the judge said, 'The shoulders of the court are broad enough to shrug off certain comments, and there cannot be any dispute on the same. While fair and temperate criticism is protected, criticism based on distortion, falsehood, and aimed at vilifying the institution cannot be countenanced. The comments made by the respondent cannot be categorised as an isolated or inadvertent remark,'' said the court in its order.
