Naveen Kohli vs Neelu Kohli case summary
FACT OF THE CASES
Naveen Kohli and Neelu Kohli got married in the year 1975 and three sons were born out of that marriage. In order to provide each of his three sons with their own factory, the appellant built three factories.
According to the appellant, the respondent has a toxic personality and impolite behaviour.
After marriage, the respondent began acting badly toward the appellant and his parents, and the appellant had to move out of the family home and into a rental property.
When they travelled to Bombay for his father-in-law’s silver jubilee wedding anniversary, he observed the respondent engaging in impermissible behaviour and discovered her in a compromising position with Dr. Biswas Rout.
After the Bombay incident, the appellant started living separately and experienced severe emotional and physical abuse.
ISSUES OF THE CASE :
Did the respondent cruelly abuse the plaintiff by filing a number of criminal charges, getting the news broadcast, and starting civil proceedings?
Did the respondent receive cruel treatment from the defendant as a result of her unacceptable behaviour, as claimed in the plaint?
Has the respondent falsely accused the plaintiff, or not? If so, what was the impact?
Whether the defendant engaged in behaviour with Dr. Biswas Rout that falls under the category of immorality, as indicated in paragraph 11 of the complaint, while the plaintiff was present? If so, what was the impact?
Is the petition maintainable based on preliminary objections 1–3 of the written statement?
Has the defendant-maintained Smt. Shivangi as his concubine? If so, what was the impact?
If Section 11 of the C.P.C. applies, is the plaintiff’s lawsuit barred?
Is the plaintiff eligible to obtain a judgement of divorce against the defendant?
Is the plaintiff eligible for any additional relief ?
JUDGEMENT
The Supreme Court decided the case and upheld the Family Court’s conclusions that the appellant had been subjected to the respondent’s psychological, physical, and financial abuse to the point where their marriage was irreparably broken. To grasp the extent of cruelty as defined in those cases, the Court dug into a number of court decisions. In matrimonial disputes, the purpose need not always be present in order to show “cruelty.” The claimed mistreatment may also result from socioeconomic or cultural disparities. Thus, the term must be used in its ordinary definition, and for the purposes of Section 13(1)(i)(a) of Hindu Marriage Act may include physical, mental, deliberate, or unintentional harm within its ambit.
The Supreme Court ordered that the appellant has to pay the respondent Rs. 25,00,000/- in the direction of eternal protection to be paid within eight weeks in order to resolve the issue In the best interests of everyone involved while also dissolving the marriage between the parties. This amount may include the Rs. 5,00,000/- deposit made by the appellant earlier and the respondent is free to withdraw the amount.
Comentarios