Naveen Kohli Vs Neelu Kohli

NAVEEN KOHLI vs NEELU KOHLI
SUBMITTED BY PRASUN VARDHAN(1352) , [B.A.L.L.B. (HONS.)]
SUBMITTED TO Dr. RAVI RANJAN., LECTURER OF FAMILY LAW
A Final draft for the fulfilment of project of Family Law
On
Naveen Kohli vs Neelu Kohli
OCTOBER 2016
SESSION 2015-2020
CHANAKYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

NYAYA NAGAR, MITHAPUR
PATNA
NAVEEN KOHLI VS NEELU KOHLI
Contents
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ...................................................................................................................... 3
DECLARATION .................................................................................................................................... 4
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES .................................................................................................................... 5
HYPOTHESIS ........................................................................................................................................ 5
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................ 5
SOURCES OF DATA ............................................................................................................................ 5
LIMITATIONS OF STUDY .................................................................................................................. 5
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 7
CHAPTER 2 FACTS ....................................................................................................................... 9
A. NEW CONCEPT AFTER THIS
CASE............................................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
B. JUDGEMENT ................................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
CHAPTER 3 RELEVANTY PROVISIONS OF LAW ................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
CHAPTER 4 CASE STUDY ......................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION ........................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
B.
SUGGESTION.........................................................................................................................
BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................................................................. 30
2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Writing a project is one of the most difficult academic challenges I have ever faced. Though
this project has been presented by me but there are many people who remained in veil, who
gave their support and helped me to complete this project.
First of all I am very grateful to my subject teacher Mr. Ravi Ranjan without the kind support
of whom and help the completion of the project would have been a herculean task for me. He
took out time from his busy schedule to help me to complete this project and suggested me
from where and how to collect data.
I acknowledge my friends who gave their valuable and meticulous advice which was very
useful and could not be ignored in writing the project. I want to convey most sincere thanks
to my faculties for helping me throughout the project.
Thereafter, I would also like to express my gratitude towards our seniors who played a vital
role in the compilation of this research work.
For all my project I took the help from Mr. Ajit Sharma, Mr. Prasun Kumar, Mr. Samar
Pratap Singh, Ms. Ankita Gupta, and Mr. Rahul Singh who have helped me to complete this
research work, I cannot thank them less for helping me in this field work.
I would also like to express my gratitude towards the library staff of my college which
assisted me in acquiring the sources necessary for the compilation of my project.
Last, but not the least, I would like to thank the Almighty for obvious reasons.
PRASUN VARDHAN
(1352)
3
DECLARATION
I hereby declare that the work reported in the BA LL.B (Hons.) Project Report entitled
NAVEEN KOHLI vs NEELU KOHLI submitted at Chanakya National Law University,
Patna is an authentic record of my work carried out under the supervision of MR. RAVI
RANJAN. I have not submitted this work elsewhere for any other degree or diploma. I am
fully responsible for the contents of my Project Report.
PRASUN VARDHAN Signature of the students
(1352) .
4
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

The researcher will do the research to know
To study the provisions which were used to decide the case.

To know the issue raised in this case and the principle laid down.
HYPOTHESIS
The researcher presumes that:-
Reaseacher for the purpose of this research has presumed that even the females
exploit their partner in marriage and the same can be considered as a valid ground for
granting divorce.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The researcher would emphasized and used the doctrinal method to do this project.
SOURCES OF DATA
Primary sources Secondary sources
Legislative provisions Books
Case law Newspapers
Magazines
Websites
LIMITATIONS OF STUDY
The researcher has following limitations:
The researcher was bound by the time (2 months) to do the research.

The researcher was confined to the doctrinal mode of research.
5
SCOPE OF THE STUDY

This research will be a source for further research.
6
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
The appellant aggrieved by the said judgment of the High Court had preferred special leave
petition under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. This Court granted special leave to
appeal to the appellant.
The appellant, Naveen Kohli got married to Neelu Kohli on 20.11.1975. Three sons were
born out of the wedlock of the parties. The appellant constructed three factories with the
intention of providing a separate factory for his three sons. He also constructed bungalow
no.7/36 A for their residence. The parties got all their three sons admitted and educated in a
public school in Nanital. According to the appellant, the respondent is bad tempered and a
woman of rude behaviour. After marriage, she started quarrelling and misbehaving with the
appellant and his parents and ultimately, the appellant was compelled to leave the parental
residence and started to reside in a rented premises from May 1994. According to the version
of the appellant, the respondent in collusion with her parents got sufficient business and
property transferred in her name.
The High Court ought to have considered the repercussions, consequences, impact and
ramifications of all the criminal and other proceedings initiated by the parties against each
other in proper perspective. For illustration, the High Court has mentioned that so far as the
publication of the news item is concerned, the status of husband in a registered company was
only that of an employee and if any news item is published, in such a situation, it could not,
by any stretch of imagination be taken to have lowered the prestige of the husband. In the
next para 69 of the judgment that in one of the news item what has been indicated was that in
the company, Nikhil Rubber (P) Ltd., the appellant was only a Director along with Mrs.
Neelu Kohli whom held 94.5% share of Rs.100/- each in the company. The news item further
indicated that Naveen Kohli was acting against the spirit of the Article of the Association of
Nikhil Rubber (P) Ltd., had caused immense loss of business and goodwill. He has stealthily
removed produce of the company, besides diverted orders of foreign buyers to his
proprietorship firm M/s Navneet Elastomers. He had opened bank account with forged
signatures of Mrs. Neelu Kohli and fabricated resolution of the Board of Directors of the
company. Statutory authority-Companies Act had refused to register documents filed by Mr.
Naveen Kolhi and had issued show cause notice. All business associates were cautioned to
avoid dealing with him alone. Neither the company nor Mrs. Neelu Kohli shall
3|Page
7
be liable for the acts of Mr. Naveen Kohli. Despite the aforementioned finding that the news
item was intended to caution business associates to avoid dealing with the appellant then to
come to this finding in the next para that it will by no stretch of imagination result in mental
cruelty is wholly untenable1.
1
www.scdecision.in/volume/27/580(accessed on 4th September)
8
CHAPTER 2 FACTS
The husband, Naveen Kohli got married to Neelu Kohli on 20.11.1975. Three sons were born
out of the wedlock of the parties. The husband constructed three factories with the intention
of providing a separate factory for his three sons. He also constructed bungalow no.7/36 A
for their residence. According to the husband, the wife is bad tempered and a woman of rude
behaviour. After marriage, she started quarrelling and misbehaving with the husband and his
parents and ultimately, the husband was compelled to leave the parental residence and started
to reside in a rented premises from May 1994.
The husband alleged that in the month of May 1994, when he along with the wife and their
children visited Bombay to attend the golden jubilee marriage anniversary of his father-in-
law, he noticed that the wife was indulging in an indecent manner and found her in a
compromising position with one Biswas Rout. Immediately thereafter, the husband started
living separately from the wife since May 1994. The husband suffered intense physical and
mental torture.2
According to the husband, the wife had withdrawn Rs.9,50,000/- from the Bank Account of
the husband and deposited the same in her account.
The husband alleged that the wife got a false first information report registered against him
under Sections 420/467/468 and 471 IPC which was registered as Case No.156 of 1995.
According to him, the wife again got a case under Sections 323/324 I.P.C. registered in the
police station Panki, Kanpur City and efforts were made to get the husband arrested.
The husband filed a Civil Suit No. 1158/1996 against the wife. It was also reported that the
husband was manhandled at the behest of the wife and an FIR No.156 of 1996 was filed by
the eldest son at the behest of the wife against the husband in police station, Panki
complaining that the husband had physically beaten her son, NitinKohli.3
The wife in her statement before the Trial Court had mentioned that she had filed an FIR
against the husband under Section 420/468 IPC at the Police Station, Kotwali and the wife
had gone to the extent of filing a caveat in the High Court in respect of the said criminal case
so that the husband may not obtain an order from the High Court against her filing the said
FIR.
In the same statement, the wife had admitted that she had filed an FIR No.100/96 at the
Police Station, Kohna under Section 379/323 IPC against the husband.
2
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1643829/(accessed on 4th september)
3
Ibid
9
The wife had also filed a complaint against the husband and his mother under Sections
498A/323/504/506 IPC at Police Station, Kohna.
The wife in her statement had admitted that she had opposed the bail of the husband in the
criminal case filed at the Police Station, Kotwali on the basis of legal advice. In that very
statement she further admitted that after the police had filed final report in both the criminal
cases relating to Police Station, Kotwali and Police Station, Kohna, she had filed protest
petition in those cases.
This clearly demonstrates the wife's deep and intense feeling of revenge. The wife in her
statement had also admitted that she had filed a complaint in the Women Cell, Delhi in
September 1997. According to the husband, the wife had filed a complaint no.125 of 1998
against the husband's lawyer and friend alleging criminal intimidation which was found to be
false.
According to the husband, the wife filed a forged complaint under sections 397/398 of the
Companies Act before the Company Law Board, New Delhi and in the affidavit of the wife
she stated that the husband was immoral, alcoholic, and was having affairs with numerous
girls since marriage. She also called him a criminal, infidel, forger and her manager to
denigrate his position from the proprietor to an employee of her company.
The husband also mentioned that the wife filed a false complaint in Case No.1365 0f 1988
using all kinds of abuses against the husband.
On 8.7.1999, the wife filed a complaint in the Parliament Street Police Station, New Delhi
and made all efforts to ensure the husband's arrest with the object of sending him to jail. The
husband was called to the police station repeatedly and was interrogated by the police and
only after he gave a written reply and the matter on scrutiny was found to be false, the
husband with great difficulty was able to save himself from imprisonment.
On 31.3.1999 the wife had sent notice for breaking the Nucleus of the HUF, expressly stating
that the Family Nucleus had been broken with immediate effect and asking for partition of all
the properties and assets of the HUF and stating that her share should be given to her within
15 days. According to the husband, this act of the wife clearly broke all relations between the
husband and the wife on 31.3.1999.
The wife had filed a complaint against the husband under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage
Act directing payment of maintenance during the pendency of the case. This was rejected by
the Trial Court and she later filed an appeal in the High Court.
The husband had deposited Rs.5 lacs on Court's directions but that amount was not
withdrawn by the wife. On 22.1.2001 the wife gave an affidavit before the High Court and
10
got non-bailable warrants issued against the husband. Consequently, the husband was
harassed by the police and ultimately he got the arrest order stayed by the High Court. The
wife admitted in her statement that she got the advertisement published in the English
National Newspaper 'Pioneer'. The advertisement reads as under :
PUBLIC NOTICE
Be it known to all that Mr. Naveen
Kohli S/o Mr. Prem Kumar Kohli was
working with my Proprietorship firm
as Manager. He has abandoned his
job since May 1996 and has not
resumed duties.
He is no more in the employment of
the firm. Any Body dealing with him shall be doing so at his own risk, his authority to
represent the firm has
been revoked and none should deliver him orders, cash cheques or drafts
payable to the firm.
NEELU KOHLI
Sole Proprietor
M/s NITIN RUBBERS
152-B, Udyog Nagar,
Kanpur
The wife in her statement before the Court did not deny the contents of the affidavit but
merely mentioned that she did not remember whether she called the husband a criminal,
infidel and a forger in the affidavit filed before the Company Law Board.
The wife did not deny her using choicest abuses against the husband but merely stated that
she did not remember.
The wife also filed a contempt petition in the Company Law Board against its order of the
Company Law Board dated 25.9.2000 in order to try and get the husband thrown out of the
little apartment and urged that the husband be sent to jail.
Before the Family Court, the wife stated about solemnization of the marriage with the
husband on 20.11.1975. In her written statement she had denied the fact that she was either a
rude or a quarrelsome lady. The wife also denied that she had mentally, physically and
financially harassed and tortured the husband. She also stated that she never refused
cohabitation with the husband. She also denied indulging in any immoral conduct. She
11
averred in the written statement that the husband has been immorally living with a lady
named 'Shivanagi'.
The husband, Naveen Kohli got married to NeeluKohli on 20.11.1975. Three sons were born
for their residence
he noticed that the wife was indulging in an indecent manner and found her in a
living separately from the wife since May 1994.
The husband filed a Civil Suit No. 1158/1996 against the wife
mental torture.
complaining that the husband had physically beaten her son, NitinKohli.
12
FIR.
In the same statement, the wife had admitted that she had filed an FIR No.100/96 at the
Police Station, Kohna under Section 379/323 IPC against the husband.
The wife had also filed a complaint against the husband and his mother under Sections
498A/323/504/506 IPC at Police Station, Kohna.
The wife in her statement had admitted that she had opposed the bail of the husband in the
criminal case filed at the Police Station, Kotwali on the basis of legal advice. In that very
statement she further admitted that after the police had filed final report in both the criminal
cases relating to Police Station, Kotwali and Police Station, Kohna, she had filed protest
petition in those cases.
This clearly demonstrates the wife's deep and intense feeling of revenge. The wife in her
statement had also admitted that she had filed a complaint in the Women Cell, Delhi in
September 1997. According to the husband, the wife had filed a complaint no.125 of 1998
against the husband's lawyer and friend alleging criminal intimidation which was found to be
false.
According to the husband, the wife filed a forged complaint under sections 397/398 of the
Companies Act before the Company Law Board, New Delhi and in the affidavit of the wife
she stated that the husband was immoral, alcoholic, and was having affairs with numerous
girls since marriage. She also called him a criminal, infidel, forger and her manager to
denigrate his position from the proprietor to an employee of her company.
The husband also mentioned that the wife filed a false complaint in Case No.1365 0f 1988
using all kinds of abuses against the husband.
On 8.7.1999, the wife filed a complaint in the Parliament Street Police Station, New Delhi
and made all efforts to ensure the husband's arrest with the object of sending him to jail. The
husband was called to the police station repeatedly and was interrogated by the police and
only after he gave a written reply and the matter on scrutiny was found to be false, the
husband with great difficulty was able to save himself from imprisonment.
On 31.3.1999 the wife had sent notice for breaking the Nucleus of the HUF, expressly stating
that the Family Nucleus had been broken with immediate effect and asking for partition of all
the properties and assets of the HUF and stating that her share should be given to her within
15 days. According to the husband, this act of the wife clearly broke all relations between the
husband and the wife on 31.3.1999.
13
The wife had filed a complaint against the husband under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage
Act directing payment of maintenance during the pendency of the case. This was rejected by
the Trial Court and she later filed an appeal in the High Court4.
The husband had deposited Rs.5 lacs on Court's directions but that amount was not
withdrawn by the wife. On 22.1.2001 the wife gave an affidavit before the High Court and
got non-bailable warrants issued against the husband. Consequently, the husband was
harassed by the police and ultimately he got the arrest order stayed by the High Court. The
wife admitted in her statement that she got the advertisement published in the English
National Newspaper 'Pioneer'. The advertisement reads as under :
PUBLIC NOTICE
Be it known to all that Mr. Naveen
Kohli S/o Mr. Prem Kumar Kohli was
working with my Proprietorship firm
as Manager. He has abandoned his
job since May 1996 and has not
resumed duties.
He is no more in the employment of
the firm. Any Body dealing with him shall be doing so at his own risk, his authority to
represent the firm has
been revoked and none should deliver him orders, cash cheques or drafts
payable to the firm.
NEELU KOHLI
Sole Proprietor
M/s NITIN RUBBERS
152-B, Udyog Nagar,
Kanpur
The wife in her statement before the Court did not deny the contents of the affidavit but
merely mentioned that she did not remember whether she called the husband a criminal,
infidel and a forger in the affidavit filed before the Company Law Board.
The wife did not deny her using choicest abuses against the husband but merely stated that
she did not remember.
The wife also filed a contempt petition in the Company Law Board against its order of the
Company Law Board dated 25.9.2000 in order to try and get the husband thrown out of the
little apartment and urged that the husband be sent to jail.
Before the Family Court, the wife stated about solemnization of the marriage with the
husband on 20.11.1975. In her written statement she had denied the fact that she was either a
4
www.scdecision.in/volume/27/580 (accessed on 4th September)
14
rude or a quarrelsome lady. The wife also denied that she had mentally, physically and
financially harassed and tortured the husband. She also stated that she never refused
cohabitation with the husband. She also denied indulging in any immoral conduct. She
averred in the written statement that the husband has been immorally living with a lady
named 'Shivanagi'.
for their residence
he noticed that the wife was indulging in an indecent manner and found her in a
living separately from the wife since May 1994.
The husband filed a Civil Suit No. 1158/1996 against the wife
The following cases were filed by the wife against the husband.
1. The wife filed FIR No. 100/96 at Police Station, Kohna under Sections 379/323 IPC
2. The wife got a case registered under Sections 323/324 registered in the police station
Panki, Kanpur City.
3. At the behest of the wife FIR No.156 of 1996 was also filed in the police station, Panki.
4. The wife filed FIR under Section 420/468 IPC at the Police Station, Kotwali.
5. The wife got a case registered under Section under Sections 420/467/468 and 471 IPC.
6. The wife filed a complaint against the husband under Sections 498A/323/504/506 IPC at
Police Station, Kohna.
7. The wife had even gone to the extent of opposing the bail application of the husband in
criminal case filed at the police station, Kotwali
8. When police filed final report in two criminal cases at police station, Kotwali and police
station, Kohna, the wife filed protest petition in these cases.
9. The wife filed complaint no.125 of 1998 in the Women Cell, Delhi in September 1997
against the husband's lawyer and friend alleging criminal intimidation.
10. The wife filed a complaint under sections 397/398 before the Company Law Board, New
Delhi.
15
11. The wife filed a complaint in Case No.1365 0f 1988 against the husband.
12. Again on 8.7.1999, the wife filed a complaint in the Parliament Street Police Station, New
Delhi and made all efforts to get the husband arrested.
13. On 31.3.1999, the wife have sent a notice for breaking the Nucleus of the HUF.
14. The wife filed a complaint against the husband under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage
Act.
15. The wife had withdrawn Rs.9,50,000/- from the bank account of the husband in a
clandestine manner.
16. On 22.1.01 the wife gave affidavit before the High Court and got non-bailable warrants
issued against the husband.
17. The wife got an advertisement issued in a national newspaper that the husband was only
her employee. She got another news item issued cautioning the business associates to avoid
dealing with the husband.
The learned Trial Court came to a definite conclusion that the wife had filed a very large
number of cases against the husband and got him harassed and tortured by the police.
According to the Trial court, there was no possibility to reconnect the chain of marital life
between the parties. Hence, the Trial Court found that there is no alternative but to dissolve
the marriage between the parties. The Trial Court also stated that the wife had not filed any
application for allowing permanent maintenance and Stridhan but, in the interest of justice,
the Trial Court directed the husband to deposit Rs.5,00,000/- toward permanent maintenance
of the wife. The Trial Court also ordered that a decree of dissolution of marriage shall be
effective after depositing the payment of Rs.5,00,000/- by the husband. Admittedly, the
husband had immediately deposited the said amount.
The wife, aggrieved by the judgment of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Kanpur City,
preferred the first appeal before the High Court, which was disposed of by a Division Bench
of the Allahabad High Court.
According to the High Court, the husband had been living with one Shivangi. As per the High
Court, the fact that on Trial Court's directions the husband deposited the sum of Rs.5,00,000/-
within two days after the judgment which demonstrated that the husband was financially well
off. The Division Bench of the High Court held that actions of the husband amounted to
misconduct, un-condonable for the purpose of Section 13(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act.
The appeal was allowed and the Trial Court judgment has been set aside.
16
The husband preferred a Special Leave Petition before the Hon. Supreme Court.
Both the parties have levelled allegations against each other for not maintaining the sanctity
of marriage and involvement with another person. According to the wife, the husband is
separately living with another woman, 'Shivanagi'. According to the husband, the wife was
seen indulging in an indecent manner and was found in compromising position with one
Biswas Rout. According to the findings of the Trial Court both the parties failed to prove the
allegations against each other. The High Court has of course reached the conclusion that the
husband was living with one 'Shivanagi' for a considerable number of years. The fact of the
matter is that both the parties have been living separately for more than 10 years. Number of
cases including criminal complaints have been filed by the wife against the husband and
every effort has been made to harass and torture him and even to put the husband behind the
bars by the wife. The husband has also filed cases against the wife5.
the matrimonial bond between the parties is beyond repair. A marriage between the parties is
only in name. The marriage has been wrecked beyond the hope of salvage, public interest and
interest of all concerned lies in the recognition of the fact and to declare defunct de jure what
is already defunct de facto. To keep the sham is obviously conducive to immorality and
potentially more prejudicial to the public interest than a dissolution of the marriage bond.
A. NEW CONCEPT AFTER THIS CASE:-
Irretrievable Breakdown Of Marriage
This means the couple can no longer live together as man and wife. Both partners, and one
partner, must prove to the court that the marriage broke down so badly that there is no
reasonable chance of getting back together.
The laws in India regarding the issue of divorce had not recognized a situation where the
spouses are facing a situation that despite the fact that they live under the same roof, their
marriage is equivalent to a separation. That is, there is still no codified law for irretrievable
breakdown of marriage.6
5
www.thehindu.com/news/national/divorce-to-become-easier/article451879.ece (accessed on 5th September)
6
http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/article/irretrievable-breakdown-of-marriage-676-1.html (accessed
on5th September)
17
The Marriage Laws (Amendment) Bill 2010 was approved by the Union Cabinet The
amendment makes it possible for anyone to seek divorce by proving that there has been
"irretrievable breakdown of marriage" .The Bill provides for amendment of the Hindu
Marriage Act 1955 and the Special Marriage Act 1954. The Bill would provide safeguards to
parties to marriage who file petition for grant of divorce by consent from the "harassment" in
court if any of the party does not come to the court or wilfully avoids the court to keep the
divorce proceedings inconclusive.The amendment bill has been prepared on the
recommendations of the Law Commission as well as the Supreme Court that "irretrievable
breakdown of marriage" should be incorporated as another ground for grant of divorce. The
new clause will be in addition to the existing grounds for divorce include adultery, cruelty,
desertion, conversion to another religion, unsoundness of mind, virulent and incurable form
of leprosy, venereal disease in a communicable form, renouncement of the world and not
heard as being alive for a period of seven years.7
B. JUDGEMENT
In our considered view, looking to the peculiar facts of the case, the High Court was not
justified in setting aside the order of the Trial Court. In our opinion, wisdom lies in accepting
the pragmatic reality of life and take a decision which would ultimately be conducive in the
interest of both the parties.
Consequently, we set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and direct that the
marriage between the parties should be dissolved according to the provisions of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955. In the extra-ordinary facts and circumstances of the case, to resolve the
problem in the interest of all concerned, while dissolving the marriage between the parties,
we direct the husband to pay Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty five lacs) to the wife towards
permanent maintenance to be paid within eight weeks. This amount would include
Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lacs with interest) deposited by the husband on the direction of the
Trial Court. The wife would be at liberty to withdraw this amount with interest. Therefore,
now the husband would pay only Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty lacs) to the wife within the
stipulated period. In case the husband fails to pay the amount as indicated above within the
stipulated period, the direction given by us would be of no avail and the appeal shall stand
7
https://www.nalsar.ac.in/pdf/Journals/Nalsar%20Law%20Review-Vol.%205.pdf(accessed on 6th september)
18
dismissed. In awarding permanent maintenance we have taken into consideration the

financial standing of the husband.8
Before we part with this case, on the consideration of the totality of facts, this Court would
like to recommend the Union of India to seriously consider bringing an amendment in the
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 to incorporate irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a ground for
the grant of divorce. A copy of this judgment be sent to the Secretary, Ministry of Law &
Justice, Department of Legal Affairs, Government of India for taking appropriate steps.
The appeal is accordingly disposed of. In the facts and circumstances of the case we direct
the parties to bear their own costs.9
8
www.scdecision.in/volume/27/580(accessed on 6th September)
9
https://hemrajsingh.wordpress.com/tag/supreme-court-of-india/(accessed on 6th September)
19
3. RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF LAW
Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code:- Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt.Whoever,
except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine
which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code :- Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of
property.Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver
any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable
security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into
a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code:- Forgery for purpose of cheating.Whoever commits
forgery, intending that the 1[document or electronic record forged] shall be used for the
purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Section 24 in The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 :- Maintenance pendente lite and expenses of
proceedings. Where in any proceeding under this Act it appears to the court that either the
wife or the husband, as the case may be, has no independent income sufficient for her or his
support and the necessary expenses of the proceeding, it may, on the application of the wife
or the husband, order the respondent to pay to the petitioner the expenses of the proceeding,
and monthly during the proceeding such sum as, having regard to the petitioner's own income
and the income of the respondent, it may seem to the court to be reasonable: Provided that the
application for the payment of the expenses of the proceeding and such monthly sum during
the proceeding, shall, as far as possible, be disposed of within sixty days from the date of
service of notice on the wife or the husband, as the case may be.
Section 10 in The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 :- Judicial separation . (1) Either party to a
marriage, whether solemnized before or after the commencement of this Act, may present a
petition praying for a decree for judicial separation on any of the grounds specified in sub-
section (1) of section 13, and in the case of a wife also on any of the grounds specified in sub-
section (2) thereof, as grounds on which a petition for divorce might have been presented.
20
(2) Where a decree for judicial separation has been passed, it shall no longer be obligatory for
the petitioner to cohabit with the respondent, but the court may, on the application by petition
of either party and on being satisfied of the truth of the statements made in such petition,
rescind the decree if it considers it just and reasonable to do so.
Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code :- [498A. Husband or relative of husband of a
woman subjecting her to cruelty.Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband
of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term
which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.For the
purpose of this section, cruelty means
(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit
suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical)
of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any
person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is
on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.]
Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code :- Using as genuine a forged 1[document or electronic
record].Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any 1[document or electronic
record] which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged 1[document or electronic
record], shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such 1[document or
electronic record].
Section 13(1) in The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
(1) Any marriage solemnised, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, may,
on a petition presented by either the husband or the wife, be dissolved by a decree of divorce
on the ground that the other party
[(i) has, after the solemnisation of the marriage, had voluntary sexual intercourse with any
person other than his or her spouse; or]
[(ia) has, after the solemnisation of the marriage, treated the petitioner with cruelty; or]
[(ib) has deserted the petitioner for a continuous period of not less than two years
immediately preceding the presentation of the petition; or]
(ii) has ceased to be a Hindu by conversion to another religion; or
21
[(iii) has been incurably of unsound mind, or has been suffering continuously or
intermittently from mental disorder of such a kind and to such an extent that the petitioner
cannot reasonably be expected to live with the respondent.
Explanation .In this clause,
(a) the expression mental disorder means mental illness, arrested or incomplete
development of mind, psychopathic disorder or any other disorder or disability of mind and
includes schizophrenia;
(b) the expression psychopathic disorder means a persistent disorder or disability of mind
(whether or not including sub-normality of intelligence) which results in abnormally
aggressive or seriously irresponsible conduct on the part of the other party, and whether or
not it requires or is susceptible to medical treatment; or]
(iv) has [***] been suffering from a virulent and incurable form of leprosy; or
(v) has [***] been suffering from venereal disease in a communicable form; or
would naturally have heard of it, had that party been alive; [***] [ Explanation. In this
sub-section, the expression desertion means the desertion of the petitioner by the other
party to the marriage without reasonable cause and without the consent or against the wish of
such party, and includes the wilful neglect of the petitioner by the other party to the marriage,
and its grammatical variations and cognate expressions shall be construed accordingly.]
[***]
Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code
506. Punishment for criminal intimidation.Whoever commits, the offence of criminal

intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to two years, or with fine, or with both; If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt,
etc.And if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any
property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or [imprisonment for life], or
with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute, unchastity to a
woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.
Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code :- Punishment for theft.Whoever commits theft shall
be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three
years, or with fine, or with both.
22
Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code :- Forgery of valuable security, will, etc.Whoever
forges a document which purports to be a valuable security or a will, or an authority to adopt
a son, or which purports to give authority to any person to make or transfer any valuable
security, or to receive the principal, interest or dividends thereon, or to receive or deliver any
money, movable property, or valuable security, or any document purporting to be an
acquittance or receipt acknowledging the payment of money, or an acquittance or receipt for
the delivery of any movable property or valuable security, shall be punished with
1[imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code :- Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of
the peace.Whoever intentionally insults, and thereby gives provocation to any person,
intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause him to break the public
peace, or to commit any other offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
Section 398 in The Companies Act, 1956 :- Application to Company Law Board for relief in
cases of mismanagement.
(1) Any members of a company who complain-
(a) that the affairs of the company are being conducted in a manner prejudicial to public
interest or] in a manner prejudicial to the interests of the company; or
(b) that a material change (not being a change brought about by, or in the interests of, any
creditors including deben-
1. Subs. by Act 31 of 1988, s. 67 (w. e. f. 31- 5- 1991 ).
2. Subs. by Act 53 of 1963, s. 10, for" are being conducted" (w. e. f. 1- 1- 1964 ).
3. Subs. by s. 11, ibid., for" are being conducted" (w. e. f. 1- 1- 1964 ).
ture holders, or any class of shareholders, of the company) has taken place in the
management or control of the company, whether by an alteration in its Board of directors, or
of its managing agent or secretaries and treasurers or manager], or in the constitution or
control of the firm or body corporate acting as its managing agent or secretaries and
treasurers, or in the ownership of the company' s shares, or if it has no share capital, in its
membership, or in any other manner whatsoever, and that by reason of such change, it is
likely that the affairs of the company will be conducted in a manner prejudicial to public
interest or] in a manner prejudicial to the interests of the company; may apply to the
23
Company Law Board] for an order under this section, provided such members have a right so
to apply in virtue of section 399.
(2) If, on any application under sub- section (1), the Company Law Board] is of opinion that
the affairs of the company are being conducted as aforesaid or that by reason of any material
change as aforesaid in the management or control of the company, it is likely that the affairs
of the company will be conducted as aforesaid, the Company Law Board] may, with view to
bringing to an end or preventing the matters complained or apprehended, make such order as
it thinks fit.
Section 13(1)(i) in The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 :- [(i) has, after the solemnisation of the
marriage, had voluntary sexual intercourse with any person other than his or her spouse; or]
Section 13 in The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 :- Divorce.
(1) Any marriage solemnised, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, may,
on a petition presented by either the husband or the wife, be dissolved by a decree of divorce
on the ground that the other party
[(i) has, after the solemnisation of the marriage, had voluntary sexual intercourse with any
person other than his or her spouse; or]
(ii) has ceased to be a Hindu by conversion to another religion; or
[(iii) has been incurably of unsound mind, or has been suffering continuously or
intermittently from mental disorder of such a kind and to such an extent that the petitioner
cannot reasonably be expected to live with the respondent.
Section 11 in The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955:- Void marriages. Any marriage solemnised
after the commencement of this Act shall be null and void and may, on a petition presented
by either party thereto 11 [against the other party], be so declared by a decree of nullity if it
contravenes any one of the conditions specified in clauses
(i) , (iv) and (v) of section 5.
24
Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code :- Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or
means.Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt by
means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as
weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by
means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive substance or
by means of any substance which it is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or
to receive into the blood, or by means of any animal, shall be punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
Section 13(1)(a) in The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
(a) the expression mental disorder means mental illness, arrested or incomplete
development of mind, psychopathic disorder or any other disorder or disability of mind and
includes schizophrenia;
Article 142 in The Constitution Of India 1949
142. Enforcement of decrees and orders of Supreme Court and unless as to discovery, etc.
The Supreme Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such
order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it, and
any decree so passed or orders so made shall be enforceable throughout the territory of India
in such manner as may be prescribed by or under any law made by Parliament and, until
provision in that behalf is so made, in such manner as the President may by order prescribe
(2) Subject to the provisions of any law made in this behalf by Parliament, the Supreme
Court shall, as respects the whole of the territory of India, have all and every power to make
any order for the purpose of securing the attendance of any person, the discovery or
production of any documents, or the investigation or punishment of any contempt of itself.
(vi) has renounced the world by entering any religious order; or
(vi) has not been heard of as being alive for a period of seven years or more by those persons
who
25
4. CASE STUDY
At present, various grounds for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce are laid down
in section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The grounds inter alia include adultery,
cruelty, desertion, conversion to another religion, unsoundness of mind, virulent and
incurable form of leprosy, venereal disease in a communicable form, renouncement of the
world and not heard as being alive for a period of seven years or more. Section 27 of the
Special Marriage Act, 1954 also lays down similar grounds. However, section 13-B of the
Hindu Marriage Act and Section 28 of the Special Marriage Act provide for divorce by
mutual consent as a ground for presenting a petition for dissolution of marriage. The said
sections inter alia provide that a petition for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent, if not
withdrawn before six months after its presentation or not later than 18 months, then, the court
may, on being satisfied after making inquiry, grant decree of divorce by mutual consent.
However, it has been observed that the parties who have filed petition for mutual consent
suffer in case one of the parties abstains himself or herself from court proceedings and keeps
the divorce proceedings inconclusive. This has been causing considerable hardship to the
party in dire need of divorce.
Incidentally, it may be pertinent to point out here that such a legal proposition has been
recommended by the Law Commission of India in its 217th report on Irretrievable
Breakdown of Marriage Another Ground for Divorce. Further, the Honble Supreme
Court, in the case of Ms. Jorden Diengdeh Vs. S.S. Chopra reported in AIR 1985 SC 935
and in the case ofNaveenKohli Vs. NeeluKohli AIR 2006 SC 1675, has observed and
recommended that irretrievable breakdown of marriage should be incorporated as another
ground for grant of divorce.10
10
www.thehindu.com/news/national/divorce-to-become-easier/article451879.ece(accessed on 6th september)
26
5. CONCLUSION
.
It can be said that marriage is an institution in the maintenance of which the public at large is
deeply interested. There is no useful purpose surved by continuing such a marriage. Thus, on
the basis of "irretrievable breakdown theory" such marriage should be dissolved for the
common betterment of both the spouses
mental torture.
complaining that the husband had physically beaten her son, NitinKohli.
27
bars by the wife. The husband has also filed cases against the wife.
B. SUGGESTION
bars by the wife. The husband has also filed cases against the wife.
28
Demerits
(i) It will make divorce easy. It will allow the spouses or even to any one of the spouse to
dissolve the marriage oyut of their own pleasure.
(i) It will allow the guilty spouse to take the advantage of his own fault by getting separated
and dissolving the marriage.
Even after these demerits It can be said that marriage is an institution in the maintenance of
which the public at large is deeply interested. There is no useful purpose surved by
continuing such a marriage. Thus, on the basis of "irretrievable breakdown theory" such
marriage should be dissolved for the common betterment of both the spouses
29
BIBLIOGRAPHY
BOOKS
PROF KUSUM, FAMILY LAW I (4th Edition, LexisNexis, 2015).
DR. POONAM PRADHAN SAXENA, FAMILY LAW II (3rd Edition, LexisNexis, 2011).
PARAS DIWAN, FAMILY LAW (8th Edition, 2008).
WEBSITES
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1643829
www.scdecision.in/volume/27/580
www.thehindu.com/news/national/divorce-to-become-easier/article451879.ece
http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/article/irretrievable-breakdown-of-marriage-676-
1.html
https://www.nalsar.ac.in/pdf/Journals/Nalsar%20Law%20Review-Vol.%205.pdf
https://hemrajsingh.wordpress.com/tag/supreme-court-of-india/
www.thehindu.com/news/national/divorce-to-become-easier/article451879.ece
30

Naveen Kohli Vs Neelu Kohli

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Naveen Kohli Vs Neelu Kohli

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

NAVEEN KOHLI vs NEELU KOHLI

SUBMITTED BY PRASUN VARDHAN(1352) , [B.A.L.L.B. (HONS.)]

SUBMITTED TO Dr. RAVI RANJAN., LECTURER OF FAMILY LAW

A Final draft for the fulfilment of project of Family Law

Naveen Kohli vs Neelu Kohli

CHANAKYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

PRASUN VARDHAN Signature of the students

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

To study the provisions which were used to decide the case.

Legislative provisions Books

Case law Newspapers

The researcher was bound by the time (2 months) to do the research.

SCOPE OF THE STUDY

A. NEW CONCEPT AFTER THIS CASE:-

Irretrievable Breakdown Of Marriage

dismissed. In awarding permanent maintenance we have taken into consideration the

3. RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF LAW

Section 13(1) in The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

(ii) has ceased to be a Hindu by conversion to another religion; or

Explanation .In this clause,

Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code

506. Punishment for criminal intimidation.Whoever commits, the offence of criminal

(1) Any members of a company who complain-

1. Subs. by Act 31 of 1988, s. 67 (w. e. f. 31- 5- 1991 ).

3. Subs. by s. 11, ibid., for" are being conducted" (w. e. f. 1- 1- 1964 ).

Section 13 in The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 :- Divorce.

(ii) has ceased to be a Hindu by conversion to another religion; or

(i) , (iv) and (v) of section 5.

Section 13(1)(a) in The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

Article 142 in The Constitution Of India 1949

(vi) has renounced the world by entering any religious order; or

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen