1.

Rohtash Singh vs Ramedri Devi AIR 2000 SC

The petitioner was a member of the Indian Army, married to the respondent in 1990. Since the
petitioner was posted away from home, he left the respondent with his parents and elder brother.
The respondent insisted the petitioner to leave his job and stay with her and when he did not do
so, she left her house and went away to her father’s. In 1991, a notice was sent to the respondent
for restitution of conjugal rights. Then the petitioner filed a suit for dissolution of marriage under
section 13. The respondent pleaded that she was maltreated and claimed for maintenance under
Section 125 of CrPC, which was allowed by the family court. The matter went to HC in a revised
petition and the HC dismissed the revision. The matter went to the SC and the counsel for
petitioner pleaded that the first circum-stance on account of which a wife is not entitled to claim
Maintenance Allowance from her husband is that she is living in adultery. The second ground on
which she would not be entitled to Maintenance Allowance is the ground of her refusal to live
with her husband without any sufficient reason. Divorce was granted on 15th July 1995 and wife
was entitled to maintenance from the date of divorce.

2. Shrestha Devi vs Om Prakash AIR 1992 SC

The issue is whether a party to a petition for divorce by mutual consent under Section 13B of the
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ('Act') can unilaterally withdraw the consent or whether the consent
once given is irrevocable. The appellant is the wife of the respondent. They were married on 21
November 1968. They lived together for about six to seven months. Thereafter, it is said that the
wife did not stay with the husband except from 9 December 1984 to 7 January 1985. Then on 8th
January, 1985 they filed a petition under Section 13 B for divorce by mutual consent. On 15 th
January the wife filed an application stating that her consent for mutual divorce was obtained
under pressure and she did not want to be a party to the divorce. The District Judge dismissed the
petition for divorce. The High Court has observed that the spouse who has given consent to a
petition for divorce cannot unilaterally withdraw the consent and such withdrawal however,
would not take away the jurisdiction of the Court to dissolve the marriage by mutual consent, if
the consent was otherwise free. The High Court also recorded a finding that the wife gave her
consent to the petition without any force, fraud or undue influence and therefore she was bound
by that consent. The SC overruled the decision of the HC and said allowed the appeal and set
aside the decree for dissolution of marriage. It was held that it is open to one of the spouses to
withdraw the consent given to the petition at any time before the Court passes a decree for
divorce.

3. Vibha Srivastava vs Dinesh Kumar AIR 1999 MP 364

Appellant, the wife was a teacher in Rajnandgaon and respondent the husband was a field
supervisor. They also had a three year old daughter. According to the husband the wife left the
matrimonial home and insisted her husband to live with her in Rajnandgaon. The husband's case
is that the above persistent refusal of the wife to give conjugal company to the respondent
amounts to cruelty and a good ground for grant of a decree of divorce. According to the wife, she
left the husband's home because grave differences and serious misunderatanding had developed
between the two families so much so that her living at husband's place had become impossible.
The trial Court on the basis of the above pleadings and the evidence of the parties granted a
decree of divorce in favour of the husband holding that persistent refusal of the wife 'to
permanently live with the husband after leaving service amounts to an act of 'cruelty' as the
husband is deprived of married life and conjugal happiness. HC set aside the decision and
allowed the appeal of the wife.

4. Ashok Hurra vs Rupa Ashok Hurra AIR 1997 SC

The Appellant (husband) and respondent (wife) were married on 3rd Dec. 1970, there were
differences between them and they could not stay together and filed for a divorce by mutual
consent. The wife after almost 2 years filed an application withdrawing her consent for the
divorce, which was objected by the appellant. He claimed that the wife has no right to revoke the
consent which she had legally given after a period of 18 months. He also prayed that consistent
with the prayer made in the joint Hindu Marriage Petition filed on 21.8.1984 a decree for divorce
by mutual consent may be passed. The wife seems to have filed an objection thereto. After
hearing the parties, the learned City Civil Judge (the trial court) held that since consent to be
accepted and, in this view, dismissed the petition for divorce by mutual consent. The Supreme
Court in the said case held that in order to prevent abuse of its process and to cure gross
miscarriage of justice, it may reconsider its judgments in exercise of its inherent powers. In the
Curative petition, the petitioner is required to aver specifically that the grounds mentioned
therein had been taken in the review petition filed earlier and that it was dismissed by circulation.
This has to be certified by a senior advocate. The Curative petition is then circulated to the three
senior most judges and the judges who delivered the impugned judgement, if available. No time
limit is given for filing Curative petition.

To entertain the curative petitions, the court has laid down certain specific conditions. Its laid
down in order The requirements which are needed in order to accept the curative petitions are:

1. The petitioner will have to establish that there was a genuine violation of principles
of natural justice and fear of the bias of the judge and judgement that adversely affected
him.

2. The petition shall state specifically that the grounds mentioned had been taken in
the review petition and that it was dismissed by circulation.

3. The curative petition must accompany certification by a senior lawyer relating to the
fulfillment of the above requirements.

4. The petition is to be sent to the three senior most judges and judges of the bench who
passed the judgement affecting the petition, if available.

5. If the majority of the judges on the above bench agree that the matter needs hearing, then
it would be sent to the same bench (as far as possible).

6. The court could impose “exemplary costs” to the petitioner if his plea lacks merit.

5. Narinderjit Kaur va Union of India AIR 1997 P&H HC

Petitioner, a minor was taken into adoption by Mohinder Kaur d/o Harbans Singh, resident of
Canada through her attorney and brother-in-law, Surjit Singh. Mohinder Kaur Parhar had
executed a Special Power of Attorney duly embossed by the office of the Financial
Commissioner, Punjab, on 12-2-1990 in favour of Surjit Singh Jaswal, authorising him to adopt
Narinderjit Kaur on her behalf. It is not disputed that the natural parents of Narinderjit Kaur had
the capacity to give the adoptive child in adoption and the adoptive mother had the legal capacity
to take the adoptive child in adoption. Adoptive child had the legal capacity of being given and
taken in adoption. Petitioner was having a passport (No. F-447097) issued on 7-4-1989. In this
passport, name of the natural father Prabhjot Singh was mentioned. As the petitioner was being
sponsored by her adoptive mother to immigrate to Canada, necessity arose for having a new
passport mentioning the name of the adoptive mother. Petitioner applied for the fresh passport
mentioning the adoptive mother's name vide application No. 425125/95-PDL/ADOPT with the
Passport Officer, Jalandhar. The said application of the petitioner was rejected by the Passport
Officer vide order, Annexure P-l, by observing that the matter has been considered in
consultation with the Government of India who have advised that adoption was made by proxy is
not valid in Indian Law" and "It is regretted that passport facility as applied for could not be
granted. It clearly envisages that the child can be adopted "under the authority" of the parents. In
this case, the adoptive mother had executed a valid Power of Attorney authorising Surjit Singh
Jaswal to take the petitioner in adoption on her behalf. Actual adoption took place according to
the Sikh rites in the presence of Sri Guru Granth Sahib. Child was given in adoption willingly by
the natural parents and was taken in adoption by the adoptive mother through her Attorney with
the intention of transferring the child from the family of its birth. Adoption made was a valid
adoption and the finding recorded to the contrary in order, Annexure P-1, cannot be sustained.
Respondents have themselves admitted that on a subsequent advice given by the Law Ministry, it
has been clarified that adoption could be made "under the authority" given by the adoptive
parents. The ground taken by the respondents now that the passport cannot be issued to the
petitioner because of there marriage of the adoptive mother on 16-11-1994 is also not
sustainable. Adoption took place on 2-3-1990 and for all intents and purposes, adoption would be
deemed to have been completed on that date. On that date, adoptive mother had the capacity to
take the child in adoption. Adoption cannot be invalidate because of the subsequent marriage of
the adoptive mother, Petitioner became the daughter of the adoptive mother on the date she was
taken in adoption and is, thus, entitled to a new passport with the name of her adoptive mother
inserted in it. The petition was accepted and the respondents were directed to issue the passport
within two months of the receipt/production of this order.

6. Rekha Deepak Malhotra vs Deepak Jagmohan Malhotra AIR 1999 Bombay HC

This suit has been filed by the plaintiff under section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions
and Maintenance Act, 1956. She claims maintenance in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- per month. She
also claims a sum of Rs. 75 lakhs to enable her to acquire on ownership basis a residential flat in
or around the vicinity of the plaintiff's home at Worli. Notice of Motion has been taken out for
ad-interim and interim maintenance. At the ad-interim stage on 7th July, 1997, it was stated that
the wife is earning an amount of Rs. 12,000/- per month. The defendant's income was alleged to
be around Rs. 2 lakhs per month. Taking into account the above fact this Court directed the
husband to pay a sum of Rs. 7,500/-per month from July, 1997. This amount has been regularly
paid.

(a) The wife shall be entitled to maintenance in the sum of Rs. 7,500/- per month as ordered in
the ad-interim order.

(b) The injunction granted in the ad-interim order is hereby vacated.

(c) If the husband commits any default in payment of any instalment of loan in respect of a flat
purchased by the husband at Pune, the wife who is said to have signed as a guarantor shall not be
held responsible for the same.

7. T.Sareetha vs T.Venkata subbaiah AIR 1983 AP HC

The civil revision petition is filed by Sareetha, a well- known film actress of the south Indian
screen against an order passed by the learned subordinate Judge, Cuddapah, overruling her
objection raised to the enter taining of an application filed by one venkata subbaiah, under
section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act) for restitution of
conjugal rights with her. Sareetha while studying in a high school and then hardly aged about
sixteen-years and staying with her parents at Madras was alleged to have been given in marriage
to the said venkata subbaiah, at Tirupathi on
13-12-1975. Almost immediately thereafter they were separated from each other and have been
continuously living apart fromeach othe for these five-years and more. Venkata subbaish had,
therefore, filed under section 9 of the Act O.P. No. 1 of 1981 on the file of the subcourt,
cuddapah for restitution of conjugal rights with sareetha. Sareetha had taken a preliminary
objection to the jurisdiction of the cuddapah sub-court to the entertaining of that application the
contention of sareetha was that the petition filed by venkata subbaiah itself showed lack of
jurisdiction on the part of cuddapah Court to try the petition and that the sub-court cuddapah
ought to have declined jurisdiction. The basis for this objection was an allegation "that the
marriage took place at Tirupathi and that the petitioner and respondent last resided together at
madras". Sareetha relied upon this statement of venkata subbaiah to say that the cuddapah Court
had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition of venkata su bbaiah. It was this preliminary
objection taken by sareetha that had been overruled by the cuddapah sub-court, leading sareetha
to the filing of this civil Revision petition. Section 9 of the HMA was declared null and void and
the petition filed by Venkata for the relief of restitution of conjugal rights with sareetha is legally
incompetent.

8. Deepti Bhandari vs Nitin bhandari AIR 2011 SC

The Petitioner and the Respondent No.1 were married to each other according to Hindu rites at
Jaipur in the State of Rajasthan on 20th February, 2007. A girl child, Mannat, was born
prematurely to the couple on 3rd April, 2008, and had to be kept in incubator for about three
weeks. It is the Petitioner's grievance that while they were on their honeymoon in Mauritius, the
Respondent No.1, husband, began to treat her with physical and mental cruelty. Even during her
pregnancy, she was ill-treated. Ultimately, being unable to withstand the physical and mental
cruelty inflicted both on the Petitioner and her minor daughter, the Petitioner was compelled to
leave the matrimonial home and return to her parents. Respondent No.1, husband, filed an
application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 against the Petitioner, for
restitution of conjugal rights. Unable to bear the shock of the incidents, which had taken place
since the Petitioner's marriage with the Respondent No.1, the Petitioner's grandparents suffered
heart and paralytic attacks, as a result of which they have become completely bed-ridden.

9. Lakshman Singh Kothari vs Smt Rup Kuwar AIR 1961 SC

10. Upendra Kumar vs Harpriya Kumar AIR 1979 Delhi HC
11. Naveen Kohli vs Neelu Kohli AIR 2006 SC