Recent
Supreme Court Judgment: Dr. Anita vs. Indresh Gopal Kohli (Civil Appeal No. of
2025 arising out of SLP (C) No. 24920 of 2019)
In the matter of Dr. Anita (Appellant/Wife) vs. Indresh Gopal Kohli (Respondent/Husband), the Supreme Court addressed crucial questions on divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, especially around the
grounds of cruelty and irretrievable breakdown of marriage. This case arose as
an appeal against the Uttarakhand High Court’s decision to grant a divorce to
the husband, reversing the lower court’s dismissal of his petition.
The Present Blog tries to summarise and analyse law related to divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, especially around the grounds of cruelty and irretrievable breakdown of marriage.
1.
Introduction
2.
Context and Relevance of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955
3.
Case Background: Dr. Anita Indresh Gopal Kohli vs. Indresh
Gopal Kohli
4.
Marital Disputes and Litigation History
5.
Divorce under Hindu Marriage Act: Key Provisions and Legal
Standards
o
Section 13: Grounds for Divorce
o
Section 13(1)(ia): Cruelty
o
Section 13(1)(ib): Desertion
o
The Concept of Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage
6.
Factual Matrix and Timeline of the Case
7.
Legal Issues Framed by the Parties and the Courts
8.
High Court Decision: Oral Evidence and Documentary Analysis
9.
Supreme Court Analysis and Observations
10.
Meaning of Legal Jargon: Cruelty, Desertion, Res Judicata,
Irretrievable Breakdown
11.
Evidence and Procedure: The Role of the Code of Civil
Procedure
12.
Procedural Lapses: Their Effect on Matrimonial Litigation
13.
Comparative Analysis: Similar Judgments in Supreme Court
History
14.
Impact on Men's Rights and Women's Rights in Divorce
Litigation
15.
Interpretative Methods: Judicial Approaches to Matrimonial
Law
16.
Practical Insights for Lawyers and Litigants
17.
Social, Emotional and Psychological Dimensions of Divorce in
India
18.
Perspectives from Mediation and Reconciliation Efforts
19.
The Role of Child Custody and Welfare in Judicial
Determination
20. Policy Critique: Should
Irretrievable Breakdown Become a Statutory Ground?
21.
Precedents Cited in the Judgment and Application in Future
Cases
22.
Impact of Judgment on Future Divorce Litigation
23.
Summary of Key Lessons from the Case
24.
Actionable Recommendations for Practitioners and Clients
25.
Conclusion
The Indian legal landscape
regarding marital disputes has undergone considerable evolution, especially
under the Hindu Marriage Act 1955,
which governs divorce, restitution of conjugal rights, and related matrimonial
remedies for Hindus in India. The Supreme Court's judgment in Dr. Anita Indresh Gopal Kohli vs. Indresh
Gopal Kohli is a prime example of judicial insight into what constitutes
cruelty, desertion, and irretrievable breakdown of marriage.
This detailed blog examines the
Supreme Court's decision with a professional and formal lens, decoding the main
legal controversy, the procedural aspects, the social context, and its broader
impact on divorce jurisprudence in India. It also answers key public queries,
such as "Can husband get divorce on
grounds of cruelty?" and discusses the increasing relevance of "irretrievable breakdown of marriage"
as a practical reality yet to find statutory footing.
2. Context and Relevance of the Hindu
Marriage Act 1955
The Hindu Marriage Act 1955 was enacted to codify the law relating to
marriage among Hindus. Over the decades, amendments and landmark judgments have
interpreted and expanded its scope to address new social realities. The Act
specifies conditions for both valid marriages and grounds for divorce,
highlighting consent, age, capacity, and relationship restrictions.
Sections most relevant to divorce include:
·
Section 13: Grounds of divorce (including cruelty
and desertion)
·
Section 23: Decree in proceedings
·
Section 14 and Section 15: Limitation/restrictions on petitioning
The Act is essential not just for
legal practitioners but for the Indian public seeking to understand their
rights and remedies.
3. Case Background: Dr. Anita Indresh
Gopal Kohli vs. Indresh Gopal Kohli
This case pushed the boundaries
of judicial reasoning regarding cruelty and the irretrievable breakdown of
marriage, both increasingly used arguments for seeking divorce in India.
Parties:
·
Appellant: Dr. Anita Indresh Gopal Kohli (Wife)
·
Respondent: Indresh Gopal Kohli (Husband)
The case reached the Supreme
Court after a sequence of litigation in subordinate courts and the Uttarakhand
High Court, which granted the husband divorce. The crux centered on two main
questions:
·
Was the husband entitled to divorce on the ground of
cruelty?
·
Could the separation and subsequent breakdown be considered
an irretrievable breakdown of marriage warranting a decree of divorce?
4. Marital Disputes and Litigation
History
The marriage, like many, began on
a note of optimism but quickly soured due to alleged cruelty,
misunderstandings, and lack of compatibility. The couple's inability to
reconcile led to frequent confrontations, documented in letters, oral
statements, and eventually in court pleadings.
The husband filed his first
petition under Section 13(1)(ia) of
the Hindu Marriage Act 1955, alleging
mental and physical cruelty. This section allows either spouse to seek divorce
if the other has treated them with cruelty — a term which, over the years, has
been interpreted to include not just physical abuse but emotional neglect,
humiliation, and psychological torment.
Withdrawal and Second Petition:
Desertion
The first petition was withdrawn
(a strategic and sometimes legally fraught move—see res judicata below), and soon after, a second petition was filed
under Section 13(1)(ib) citing
desertion. The difference between cruelty and desertion lies not just in the
facts, but in how far the relationship deteriorates and the attribution of
fault.
The wife contested these moves
vigorously, asserting her rights and challenging the factual and legal bases of
the husband’s claims.
Family Court and High Court Decisions
The Family Court dismissed the husband’s petition, citing insufficient
evidence and procedural lapses, particularly in analyzing the true cause of
separation and the wife's custody of their child.
The Uttarakhand High Court, however, overturned this dismissal,
granting divorce largely based on oral evidence provided by the husband and
without comprehensive consideration of documentary evidence or
counterarguments. This marked a turning point, propelling the matter to the Supreme
Court.
5. Divorce Under Hindu Marriage Act
1955: Key Provisions and Interpretation
Section 13: Grounds for Divorce
The Hindu Marriage Act 1955 is the central statute for divorce among
Hindus in India. Section 13 is
pivotal, listing grounds such as cruelty, desertion, conversion, insanity,
adultery, venereal disease, and renunciation. The act requires that parties
must present clear and convincing evidence to succeed.
Sections Especially Relevant:
·
Section 13(1)(ia) – Cruelty: Either spouse may petition for divorce
if the other has treated them with cruelty.
·
Section 13(1)(ib) – Desertion: Divorce if the spouse has deserted the
petitioner for at least two years.
Cruelty under
Indian matrimonial law is broad. It is not restricted to physical violence but
covers mental agony, humiliation, denial of conjugal rights, and emotional
abuse. The Supreme Court, in various judgments—including the present one—has
underscored that the threshold is high, and mere disagreements do not amount to
cruelty.
Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage
This modern doctrine frequently
appears in higher court judgments. It refers to situations where marital ties
are so irreparably damaged that restoration is impossible. The Supreme Court
recognizes this in its decisions, even though irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not a statutory ground under
the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 but may influence the court’s discretionary powers.
Desertion differs from cruelty;
while cruelty focuses on the quality of marital life, desertion refers to the
physical separation and the intention to abandon the relationship without
reasonable cause.
6. Factual Matrix and Timeline of the
Case
·
Year 1-2: Marriage was cordial; first signs of
incompatibility appeared.
·
Years 3-4: Frequent disputes, accusations of
cruelty (emotional and physical).
·
Year 5: Husband files first petition under
Section 13(1)(ia), alleging cruelty.
·
Withdrawal: He later withdraws this petition,
raising questions about strategy and legal admissibility.
·
Second Petition: Filed under Section 13(1)(ib), now
alleging desertion.
·
Family Court’s Role: Detailed arguments, cross-examination,
presentation of evidence, but ultimately disallowed divorce, citing unproven
facts and procedural gaps.
·
High Court Grant: Uttarakhand High Court reverses,
granting divorce, mostly based on oral testimony and neglecting the wife’s
counterclaims.
·
Appeal to Supreme Court: Wife challenges the High Court’s
cursory approach, especially its superficial treatment of custody, forced
separation, and documentary evidence.
1.
Can husband get divorce on
grounds of cruelty?
2.
Is physical separation a result of desertion, or was wife
forced to leave? Who bears responsibility?
3.
Is the principle of res judicata (bar on re-litigation)
relevant here after withdrawal of first petition?
4.
Does ongoing separation equate to an irretrievable breakdown of marriage?
5.
Did the High Court analyze all evidence and follow
procedures laid out in the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) and matrimonial
statutes?
8. High Court Decision: Oral Evidence
vs. Documentary Analysis
The High Court’s judgment is
instructive for legal professionals and scholars:
·
Oral Evidence: Relied heavily on the husband’s
statement, often seen as persuasive but needing corroboration.
·
Documentary Evidence: Ignored several documents and
affidavits supporting the wife’s claims.
·
Procedure: Did not scrutinize vital questions
such as the wife's alleged forced departure or her child custody status.
·
Missing Points: Neglected counterclaims and did not
explain why certain pleadings or statutory provisions were ignored.
The Supreme Court’s approach is
an exemplar of judicial scrutiny:
·
Reiterated Standards: Divorce on grounds of cruelty must
satisfy high standards as per Section 13(1)(ia). Oral testimony must be
corroborated, and a holistic, impartial inquiry is required.
·
Irretrievable Breakdown: The Court acknowledged separation was
lengthy but insisted responsibility for breakdown must be attributed, not
simply inferred from time apart.
·
Procedural Scrutiny: Criticized High Court for not
examining all material evidence and failing to address the wife’s substantive
claims.
·
Res Judicata: Highlighted that withdrawal of the
previous cruelty petition raised complex questions about admissibility and
fairness.
·
Remand and Directions: Set aside the High Court order,
remanding matter for fresh consideration, ensuring both parties receive
complete opportunity to present evidence.
Cruelty (Section 13(1)(ia)): Covers both mental and physical cruelty. Supreme Court
interpretations now include sustained emotional neglect or humiliation as
grounds.
Desertion (Section 13(1)(ib)): Physical separation coupled with intent to abandon;
desertion must be proved by conduct and cannot be forced.
Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage: Not codified in current law but recognized in Supreme Court
judgments. Marriage is irretrievably broken if restoration is impossible after
long separation.
Res Judicata: After a
matter is litigated and decided (or withdrawn), parties cannot litigate the
same issue again, except in specific circumstances.
11. Evidence and Procedure: The Role of
the Code of Civil Procedure
In matrimonial litigation, procedure is often as decisive as
substantive law. The Code of Civil
Procedure (CPC) lays down rules for pleadings, evidence, examination,
cross-examination, and judicial reasoning. In the Kohli case:
·
Both parties presented oral and documentary evidence.
·
The wife’s arguments about being forced out—and subsequent
child custody—were supported with corroborating records, but the High Court did
not thoroughly examine these documents.
·
The Supreme Court asserted that strict procedural adherence
is essential. Judgments must weigh all evidence, not rely solely on oral
assertions.
Key Takeaway: Success
in divorce litigation under the Hindu
Marriage Act 1955 often hinges on meticulous case presentation and
observance of CPC norms.
12. Procedural Lapses: Effects on
Matrimonial Litigation
Procedural lapses can alter case
outcomes dramatically:
·
Failure to Submit Evidence: Missing documentary records or
non-examination of vital witnesses,
·
Improper Framing of Issues: If courts neglect to frame or address
critical issues—such as the real reason for separation—justice may be
compromised.
·
Speed vs. Scrutiny: Expedient disposal does not justify
incomplete inquiry; each statutory section must be addressed.
In Kohli, quick acceptance of the
husband’s oral narrative, without rigorously evaluating the wife's
counterclaims or documentary evidence, led to the remand by the Supreme Court.
13. Comparative Analysis: Similar
Supreme Court Judgments
·
Naveen Kohli vs. Neelu Kohli
(2006): Recognized irretrievable
breakdown as a de facto ground, proposing legislative consideration.
·
Samar Ghosh vs. Jaya Ghosh
(2007): Defined mental cruelty in
detail, expanding the scope under Hindu Marriage Act 1955.
·
Shyam Narayan vs. Krishna Devi
(2015): Emphasized nuanced inquiry into
matrimonial cruelty and importance of fair procedural process.
Comparative Lessons: Kohli builds on these precedents, reminding practitioners to
ground arguments in statutory sections and proven facts.
14. Impact on Men’s and Women’s Rights
in Divorce Litigation
This judgment is balanced,
showing sensitivity to both spouses’ rights. Too often, divorce litigation is
seen through gendered lenses:
·
Men’s Rights: Recognizes men may suffer cruelty,
setting standards for evidence and justifying divorce when warranted.
·
Women’s Rights: Protects against summary judgments
that rely only on the husband's narrative, ensuring wives are heard fully.
·
Children’s Rights: Elevates considerations about custody
and welfare, reminding courts that child interests should never be
marginalized.
15. Interpretative Methods: Judicial
Approach to Matrimonial Law
Supreme Court adopts a progressive, purposive interpretation,
looking beyond rigid statutory wording:
·
Focuses on the purpose
of matrimonial law: fair dissolution where reconciliation is impossible, and
protection of individual rights.
·
Advocates flexibility, but insists on procedural and
evidentiary discipline.
·
Espouses equity, justice, and good conscience—key
constitutional ideals.
16. Practical Insights for Lawyers and
Litigants
For advocates and parties:
·
Document Everything: Keep records of interactions,
allegations, attempts at reconciliation, and custody arrangements.
·
Section-Specific Pleadings: Always refer to and argue under
appropriate sections (esp. Section 13).
·
Evidence Management: Present every document, witness, and
fact thoroughly.
·
Counter-Arguments: Effectively rebut every point in
opponent’s pleadings, especially regarding cruelty and desertion.
·
Psychological Assessments: Where cruelty involves mental strain,
expert opinion may be helpful.
17. Social, Emotional, and
Psychological Dimensions of Divorce in India
Divorce is not just a legal
affair but a life-changing event with emotional, social, and psychological
consequences:
·
Emotional Turmoil: Parties, especially children, may
suffer lasting anguish.
·
Social Stigma: Still attached to divorce in India,
often impacting women more harshly.
·
Psychological Support: Courts encourage (but rarely mandate)
counseling, mediation, and support mechanisms.
Judicial emphasis on irretrievable breakdown of marriage
recognizes these realities and often serves as a humane solution.
18. Perspectives: Mediation and
Reconciliation Efforts
While litigation is adversarial,
courts, particularly family courts, increasingly recommend mediation before
proceeding:
·
Benefits: Saves time, cost, and emotional
trauma. Promotes amicable resolution.
·
Drawbacks: Not suitable for all cases, especially
where there is clear evidence of cruelty or abuse.
·
In Kohli: Attempts at mediation failed,
justifying judicial intervention.
19. The Role of Child Custody and
Welfare
Custody and welfare of minor
children are central in divorce cases:
·
Hindu Marriage Act 1955: Section 26 covers custody,
maintenance, and education of children.
·
Supreme Court Approach: Welfare principle governs—best
interests of child predominate.
·
In Kohli: Wife’s custody argument was neglected;
Supreme Court highlighted need for fair child welfare determination and
unaffected parental access.
20. Policy Critique: Should
Irretrievable Breakdown Become Statutory Ground?
There is growing consensus among
jurists that irretrievable breakdown of
marriage should be formally codified:
·
Pros: Offers practical, humane remedy; ends deadlock in hopeless
marriages; moves law closer to social realities.
·
Cons: Risks excessive dissolution if not balanced with
safeguards; parties may use it as an escape
21. Precedents Cited in the Judgment
and Application in Future Cases
The Supreme Court in Dr. Anita Indresh Gopal Kohli vs. Indresh
Gopal Kohli referenced several landmark judgments to define boundaries and
procedures for divorce under the Hindu
Marriage Act 1955:
·
Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli
(2006): Established the groundwork for
irretrievable breakdown as a valid ground, urging lawmakers for statutory
reform.
·
Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh (2007): Provided a comprehensive test for
mental cruelty, interpreting Section 13(1)(ia) expansively to include
non-physical forms of abuse.
·
Shyam Narayan v. Krishna Devi
(2015): Reiterated detailed inquiry into
alleged cruelty and validated the progressive approach of courts in divorce
petitions.
·
Dharmendra Kumar v. Usha Kumar
(1977): Clarified desertion, emphasizing
intention and conduct over physical separation alone.
·
V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat (1994): Married the concepts of mental cruelty
and irretrievable breakdown, forming a basis for discretionary relief.
Application: These
precedents ensure that while courts stay flexible, they demand strict
compliance with evidence and fairness, integrating humane understanding into
technical divorce proceedings.
22. Impact of Judgment on Future
Divorce Litigation
This ruling has several
anticipated impacts on divorce cases filed under Hindu Marriage Act 1955:
·
Raising Evidentiary Benchmarks: Litigants must support allegations of
cruelty and desertion with comprehensive documentary, testimonial, and expert
evidence.
·
Procedural Diligence: Courts are reminded to avoid summarily
granting divorces, especially when only one party’s narrative is considered.
·
Broader Acceptance of Social
Realities: By
highlighting irretrievable breakdown, this judgment pushes Indian family law
closer to international norms.
·
Safeguards for Parties and
Children:
Emphasizes welfare of children, procedural fairness for both spouses, and
attention to all factual issues before passing decrees.
23. Summary of Key Lessons from the
Case
·
Divorce is not a mechanical application of statutory
sections; it demands thorough judicial inquiry, humane assessment, and
evidentiary discipline.
· Can husband get divorce on
grounds of cruelty? Yes, but
only with concrete evidence—not mere allegations, and only after counterclaims
are fairly considered.
· Irretrievable breakdown of
marriage may
justify divorce, but causes and consequences must be judicially assigned after
examining all conduct.
· Section-wise Reference: Always plead and argue clearly under
specific sections, especially Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib).
· The welfare of children and procedural compliance are
paramount—no party’s rights should be ignored or sidelined in the rush to
resolve matrimonial disputes.
24. Actionable Recommendations for
Practitioners and Clients
·
Draft Meticulously: Ensure every petition and affidavit is
well-documented, section-specific, and supported by evidence.
·
Prepare for Counterclaims: Anticipate and address every possible
argument the opposing party may raise.
·
Focus on Child Welfare: Advise clients to prioritize child
interests and proactively present evidence supporting welfare and access.
·
Explore Mediation: Recommend mediation to clients when
possible, but prepare for litigation if mediation fails, mindful of procedural
rigour.
·
Stay Current: Regularly review Supreme Court updates
and precedents to inform your arguments.
·
Understand the Law: Learn the grounds for divorce under
Hindu Marriage Act 1955—including cruelty, desertion, and new trends in
irretrievable breakdown.
·
Collect Evidence: Maintain records of marital
interactions—messages, documents, attempts at reconciliation, and evidence of
any cruelty or forced separation.
·
Engage Experienced Counsel: Choose lawyers skilled in matrimonial
law and experienced in presenting detailed cases.
·
Be Realistic: Recognize limitations and strengths of
your position; emotional appeals alone are insufficient without supporting
facts.
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Dr. Anita Indresh Gopal Kohli vs. Indresh
Gopal Kohli shapes the contours of divorce jurisprudence in India under the
Hindu Marriage Act 1955. It reminds
parties, lawyers, and judges alike that justice in family law requires rigorous
procedure, thorough evidence, and sensitivity to the realities of marital
decay—especially when invoking cruelty
and irretrievable breakdown of marriage.
For those wondering, “can husband get divorce on grounds of
cruelty?” the answer is affirmative but highly conditional—success depends
on detailed, section-wise pleading and adherence to all procedural norms.
Likewise, when arguing irretrievable breakdown, parties must establish it with
clear evidence and demonstrate why reconciliation is impossible.
Finally, as India’s matrimonial
law continues to evolve, this case calls for legislative reform, more
widespread acceptance of humane divorce grounds, and unwavering attention to
procedural justice. Only when every party’s right is respected, every child’s
welfare is considered, and the law is applied with both rigor and empathy, can
family courts truly deliver justice.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
Q1: What are the most important
sections in Hindu Marriage Act 1955 relevant to divorce?
The critical sections for divorce
are Section 13 (grounds for divorce)
including spouses’ ability to seek relief on grounds of cruelty, desertion, conversion, mental disorder, and other
causes. For child custody, Section
26 governs the rights and responsibilities. Understanding each section’s
requirements is vital for success in divorce litigation.
Q2: Can a husband get divorce on
grounds of cruelty in India?
Yes, under Section 13(1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act 1955, a husband can seek
divorce if he proves cruelty by the wife. However, courts analyse cruelty
broadly—including physical, verbal, emotional, and psychological abuse. The
burden of proof lies with the petitioner (husband), and claims must be
substantiated with credible evidence.
Q3: Is irretrievable breakdown of
marriage a statutory ground for divorce?
Not officially—Indian Parliament
has not yet codified it into the Hindu Marriage Act 1955. However, the Supreme
Court recognizes it as a practical reality and occasionally grants divorce
under its discretion, especially when separation is prolonged and reconciliation
is impossible.
Q4: What evidence is most persuasive in
cruelty/divorce cases?
·
Documentary proof (letters, communications)
·
Medical reports or expert testimony in cases of physical
cruelty or mental torture
·
Credible witness statements
·
Evidence of attempts (and failures) at reconciliation
·
Records related to child custody or welfare
|
Case Name |
Year |
Main Issue |
Section |
Outcome |
|
Dr. Anita Indresh Gopal Kohli v. |
2025 |
Cruelty, Desertion, Irretrievable
Breakdown |
S.13(1)(ia), S.13(1)(ib) |
Remanded for deeper inquiry, High
Court reversed |
|
Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli |
2006 |
Irretrievable Breakdown, Cruelty |
S.13 |
Divorce granted, urged statutory
reform |
|
Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh |
2007 |
Mental Cruelty |
S.13(1)(ia) |
Divorce granted, expanded definition
of cruelty |
|
Shyam Narayan v. Krishna Devi |
2015 |
Inquiry procedure for cruelty |
S.13(1)(ia) |
Ordered rigorous procedural
compliance |
|
Dharmendra Kumar v. Usha Kumar |
1977 |
Desertion principle |
S.13(1)(ib) |
Clarified meaning and proof of
desertion |
|
V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat |
1994 |
Mental Cruelty, Breakdown of Marriage |
S.13(1)(ia) |
Linked mental cruelty to breakdown |
Checklist for Divorce Petitions under
Hindu Marriage Act 1955
·
[ ] Clear, section-wise pleadings (S.13(1)(ia) for cruelty,
S.13(1)(ib) for desertion)
·
[ ] Factual and chronological statements of marital events
·
[ ] Supporting documentary and witness evidence
·
[ ] Address child custody and maintenance issues (S.26)
·
[ ] Exhaust mediation/reconciliation attempts, with records
·
[ ] Anticipate and rebut counterclaims logically
·
[ ] Seek expert psychological opinions if needed
·
[ ] Ensure compliance with CPC and family court norms
Perspectives: Counseling, Psychological
Wellbeing, and Societal Change
The growing acceptance of irretrievable breakdown of marriage
signals evolving social attitudes. As India modernizes, stigma attached to
divorce is slowly fading, opening doors for both genders to acknowledge and
address marital breakdown maturely. Courts increasingly encourage counseling to
safeguard psychological wellbeing, especially for children.
Family advocates now play a dual role: protecting client interests and fostering
healing, not just legal victory. This increases acceptance of mediation,
counseling, and humane family court practices.
Legal scholars widely agree: Irretrievable breakdown of marriage
should join the statutory grounds for divorce. Experiences from common law and
developed jurisdictions suggest that codified recognition:
·
Simplifies litigation,
·
Reduces judicial discretion variance,
·
Prevents strategic delay and manipulation,
·
Centers law on welfare, not just fault-finding.
Until Parliament acts, Supreme
Court precedents like Kohli will continue to guide family law practice and
reform advocacy.
India’s journey toward equitable
divorce law, as illustrated in the Supreme Court’s Dr. Anita Indresh Gopal Kohli vs. Indresh Gopal Kohli judgment, is
emblematic of a larger evolution toward justice with empathy. The Hindu Marriage Act 1955 remains the
backbone, but courts are transitioning from rigid fault-based models to
pragmatic, welfare-centric outcomes.
Success for petitioners and
respondents, whether pursuing divorce on grounds of cruelty or irretrievable
breakdown, will depend on:
·
Meticulous adherence to sections, procedure, and evidence,
·
Commitment to the welfare of children,
·
Realistic self-appraisal and adaptability to societal
change.
As legal professionals or parties, focus not just on winning cases, but on fostering fairness, dignity, and a better future for all involved.
.jpg)
.jpg)
0 Comments