Scribd
Upload
39 views4 pages

Summary 11arguments

The document discusses two issues: 1) Whether concealment of unemployment constitutes grounds for withdrawal from a conjugal relationship under Indian law. The document argues that concealment alone does not provide substantial grounds, as it does not establish intentional cruelty as required by law. 2) Whether the High Court has powers to take up cases from subordinate courts under Article 227. The document argues that Article 227 provides supervisory powers to ensure justice and proper procedures, as was reasonably applied in this case given related matters before the courts. The document analyzes relevant laws and precedents and ultimately finds that concealment of unemployment does not legally justify withdrawing from a marriage, and the High Court reasonably invoked its Article 227 powers in this specific

Uploaded by

Technical World
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
39 views4 pages

Summary 11arguments

The document discusses two issues: 1) Whether concealment of unemployment constitutes grounds for withdrawal from a conjugal relationship under Indian law. The document argues that concealment alone does not provide substantial grounds, as it does not establish intentional cruelty as required by law. 2) Whether the High Court has powers to take up cases from subordinate courts under Article 227. The document argues that Article 227 provides supervisory powers to ensure justice and proper procedures, as was reasonably applied in this case given related matters before the courts. The document analyzes relevant laws and precedents and ultimately finds that concealment of unemployment does not legally justify withdrawing from a marriage, and the High Court reasonably invoked its Article 227 powers in this specific

Uploaded by

Technical World
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 4

Arguments

Issue 1: Concealment of Unemployment as Ground for Withdrawal from Conjugal Relationship

Ms. Riya alleges that Mr. Rahul's concealment of his unemployment constitutes a just and reasonable
ground for withdrawal from the conjugal relationship. However, this contention lacks legal merit and
precedent.

The concealment of Mr. Rahul's unemployment cannot be considered a just and reasonable ground
for withdrawal from the conjugal relationship. The respondent, Mr. Rahul, did not intend to cause
mental trauma to the appellant, Ms. Riya. The conjugal relationship should be evaluated based on the
overall conduct and behavior of the parties, not solely on one isolated incident.

Relevant Indian Law:

Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: This section states that the ground of cruelty for
divorce includes conduct that causes mental or physical suffering to the petitioner, making it
intolerable for the petitioner to live with the respondent. Mere concealment of information does not
necessarily constitute cruelty unless it is of such nature and magnitude to cause severe mental
distress.

Argument 1.1: Inadequate Ground for Withdrawal


Concealment of unemployment alone does not provide substantial grounds for withdrawal from the
conjugal relationship. The Supreme Court, in the case of Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli (2006), held
that mere non-disclosure of certain facts by one spouse to the other does not amount to cruelty or
justify dissolution of the marriage. It is established that matrimonial disputes should be settled
within the framework of the Hindu Marriage Act, and such non-disclosures cannot be a legitimate
reason for withdrawal.

Argument 1.2: No Intentional Cruelty

Concealment of unemployment cannot be equated to intentional cruelty. The case of A. Jayachandra


v. Aneel Kaur (2005) clarified that intentional cruelty is necessary to invoke the provisions of
divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act. Mr. Rahul's omission to disclose his unemployment might be
a matter of oversight or reluctance rather than intentional cruelty.

Lack of Justification for Withdrawal: The fact that Mr. Rahul concealed his unemployment from Ms.
Riya does not constitute a just and reasonable ground for withdrawal from the conjugal relationship.
The concealment of a single aspect does not outweigh the commitment and vows of marriage shared
by the couple for several years. The sanctity of marriage is preserved by addressing issues through
communication and understanding, not by abrupt withdrawal.

No Legal Precedent: Indian law, including the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, does not explicitly recognize
concealment of unemployment as a valid ground for divorce or withdrawal from the conjugal
relationship. A marriage is a bond of mutual support, and a single instance of non-disclosure does not
warrant the drastic step of separation.

B. Relevant Sections of Indian Law:

The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, does not explicitly list concealment of unemployment as a ground for
divorce under its provisions. The Act primarily considers grounds like cruelty, adultery, desertion, and
more. Therefore, the concealment of unemployment, while a matter of concern, cannot be legally
invoked to justify withdrawal from the conjugal relationship.

Issue 2: High Court's Power under Article 227


Ms. Riya questions whether the High Court has the power to take up any case from a Subordinate
Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

The High Court has the power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to exercise its
supervisory jurisdiction over subordinate courts. The exercise of such power is discretionary and is
aimed at ensuring that justice is upheld and proper procedure is followed. The High Court, in this case,
rightly invoked its powers under Article 227 to consider the issue of matrimonial dispute between the
parties in conjunction with the eviction matter.

Relevant Indian Law:

Article 227 of the Constitution of India: This article empowers the High Court to exercise supervisory
jurisdiction over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises
jurisdiction. The High Court can interfere to ensure that subordinate courts and tribunals act within
their jurisdiction and follow the principles of natural justice.

Argument 2.1: Scope of Article 227

Article 227 empowers the High Court to exercise supervisory jurisdiction over Subordinate Courts
within its territorial jurisdiction. However, this jurisdiction is not unlimited and must be exercised
within the parameters of legality and reasonability. The case of Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar v. State of
Maharashtra (1967) upheld the High Court's authority to intervene in cases involving grave injustice
or excess of jurisdiction by Subordinate Courts.

Argument 2.2: Application to the Present Case

In the present case, the High Court's intervention under Article 227 is justified due to the presence of
a matrimonial dispute and its implications on both the eviction appeal and the suit for restitution of
conjugal rights. The High Court's intention is to ensure justice and coherence in the proceedings. The
case falls within the scope of Article 227 as it concerns grave injustice and has the potential to impact
the rights and interests of all parties involved.

Limited Scope of Article 227: Article 227 of the Constitution of India grants the High Court the power
of superintendence over subordinate courts. While this includes the authority to ensure that judicial
tribunals function within the bounds of their authority and adhere to principles of natural justice, it
does not automatically confer the power to transfer cases from subordinate courts to the High Court.

Respect for Judicial Hierarchy: The principle of judicial hierarchy is fundamental to the functioning of
the Indian judicial system. Transferring a case from a subordinate court to the High Court under
Article 227 should be an exception rather than the rule, and such transfers should only be made to
ensure proper justice administration or rectify gross miscarriages of justice.

B. Relevant Legal Provisions:

Article 227 of the Constitution of India empowers the High Court to exercise its superintendence over
all courts and tribunals throughout the territory in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. However,
this power is not intended to be used to transfer cases routinely but rather to ensure the proper
functioning of subordinate courts and tribunals

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy