Supreme Court Calls a Man “Unreasonable” for treating his Wife as a Chattel, rules Husband can’t force her to live with him

Must Read

Himachal Pradesh High Court Supports Promotion Based on Seniority of Post Rather Based on the Eligibility Test

In the case of Ramesh Chand Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others, the petitioner, reached the court as...

NCDRC Dismisses PIL against Urologist, Holy Family Hospital, Says Mode Of Treatment Or Skill Differs From Doctor To Doctor

The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) dismissed a petition against Holy Family Hospital and a Urologist, alleging negligence...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Disposes Suit for Possession and Permanent Prohibitory Injunction Due To Mutual Consent

In the case of Parveen Kumar vs Smt. Vijay Laxmi and Ors, the Petitioner, Parveen had filed a suit for declaration,...

Supreme Court Appoints Committee To Examine Arbitrariness of Sealing of Resorts in Elephant Corridor, Tamil Nadu

A Full Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India, in the matter of Hospitality Association of Mudumalai V. In...

Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules That Export Ban on N95 Masks & PPE Kits Does Not Violate Fundamental Right of Traders

The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the formulation and regulation of trade policies were within the subjects of...

Delhi High Court Issues Notice To Two Pleas Filed Praying for Recognition of Same-Sex Marriage

The Court heard two writ petitions which urged that the Special Marriage Act and the Foreign Marriage Act be...

Follow us

Judges:

Justice Madan B Lokur and Justice Deepak Gupta

Factual Matter of the Case:

In this particular case, a woman lodged a criminal case against her husband alleging cruelty. She said that she does not want to live with him while the man maintained that he wants to reside with her. The court had earlier referred the matter for mediation observing that both of them were educated and they would be inclined to settle their matrimonial dispute rather than going for litigation which may prolong their agony.

It had told both the man and the woman to fully cooperate with the mediation proceedings keeping their interest in mind and the fact that it might not be advisable for them to litigate for an indefinite period. It had told both the man and the woman to fully cooperate with the mediation proceedings keeping their interest in mind and the fact that it might not be advisable for them to litigate for an indefinite period. But nothing apparently came out of it.

Thereafter, the apex court was later told that the issue was not resolved in mediation.

Pleadings:

  • The man’s counsel told the court that he would try to persuade him in this regard.
  • Meanwhile, the lawyer representing the woman told the bench that she wants to get a divorce on the ground of cruelty.

“We are ready to withdraw the 498A (subjecting a married woman to cruelty) IPC case. We do not want any alimony also. She does not want to live with him,” her counsel said.

Order:

The Supreme Court has said that a wife is not a “chattel” or an “object” and she cannot be forced to reside with her husband even if the man desires to live with her.

“She is not a chattel. You cannot force her. She does not want to live with you. How can you say that you will live with her,” a bench asked the man.

The bench asked the man to “re-consider” his decision and desire to reside with his wife in view of the categorical statement by the woman’s counsel that she does not want to live with him.

“You better re-consider it,” the bench told the man.

“How can he (man) be so unreasonable? He is treating her as a chattel. She is not an object,” the bench told the lawyer appearing for the man. READ HERE

Adjournment:

The Bench has posted the matter for hearing on August 8.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Himachal Pradesh High Court Supports Promotion Based on Seniority of Post Rather Based on the Eligibility Test

In the case of Ramesh Chand Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others, the petitioner, reached the court as he was aggrieved by the...

NCDRC Dismisses PIL against Urologist, Holy Family Hospital, Says Mode Of Treatment Or Skill Differs From Doctor To Doctor

The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) dismissed a petition against Holy Family Hospital and a Urologist, alleging negligence in diagnosing the septicemia and...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Disposes Suit for Possession and Permanent Prohibitory Injunction Due To Mutual Consent

In the case of Parveen Kumar vs Smt. Vijay Laxmi and Ors, the Petitioner, Parveen had filed a suit for declaration, possession and a permanent prohibitory...

Supreme Court Appoints Committee To Examine Arbitrariness of Sealing of Resorts in Elephant Corridor, Tamil Nadu

A Full Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India, in the matter of Hospitality Association of Mudumalai V. In Defence of Environment and Animals...

Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules That Export Ban on N95 Masks & PPE Kits Does Not Violate Fundamental Right of Traders

The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the formulation and regulation of trade policies were within the subjects of the Central Government. Any reasonable...

Delhi High Court Issues Notice To Two Pleas Filed Praying for Recognition of Same-Sex Marriage

The Court heard two writ petitions which urged that the Special Marriage Act and the Foreign Marriage Act be interpreted to also apply to...

Supreme Court Allows Appeal Challenging Allahabad High Court Order Granting Interim Bail on Medical Grounds

An appeal was filed before the Supreme Court, challenging the Judgment & Order of the Allahabad High Court in the matter of State of U.P...

Bombay High Court Allows Petition Seeking Lawyers and Legal Clerks To Travel in Local Trains

The present hearing arose out of a batch of Public Interest Litigations that was filed in the Bombay High Court to permit the members...

Provisions for Retirement of Teachers Must Be Read With the Larger Interest of Students in Mind: Supreme Court

Supreme Court in Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal v State of Uttarakhand reinstated the appellants to their position as Professor on basis of re-employment till the...

Parties Cannot Deny Specific Performance Merely Due To Delay: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, in Ferrodous Estate v P Gopirathnam, revisited the law on the specific performance of a contract. It reiterated that mere delay...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -