Case BriefsHigh Courts

Chhattisgarh High Court: The Division Bench comprising of Prashant Kumar Mishra and Gautam Chourdiya, JJ. allowed an appeal to grant a decree of divorce in favour of the appellant-husband for being subjected to mental cruelty by the wife.

The present appeal calls in questions the legality, validity and the propriety of the judgment passed by the trial court in which it had dismissed the appellant/plaintiff’s suit for grant of decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion.

Submissions by the appellant

Appellant submitted that the respondent-wife was not paying proper respect to his parents and used to instruct his mother to prepare meals as per her menu. Respondent wife had returned to her parental house after a few days of marriage and returned after repeated requests and that is when she started pressurizing the appellant to live separately.

Appellant states that even after accepting all her demands, there was no change in her attitude and behaviour. To make the situation worse, she filed a false complaint of demand of dowry, after which she again returned to her parental house and never joined back the company of the appellant-husband.

Therefore, based on the above circumstances, the plaintiff/appellant prayed for a decree of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty and desertion.

Respondent wife denied all the above allegations and in fact pleaded that she was subjected to cruelty, her in-laws retained the Streedhan properties and appellant threatened her that he will obtain a divorce and remarry. Further, she categorically stated that she is willing to join the company of the appellant.

Observation

On perusal of the pleadings and depositions, it was noted that the appellant had been making allegations that the respondent impleaded him, his parents and other relatives in a false criminal case for offence under Sections 498-A and 323 of Penal Code, 1860.

Trial Magistrate had acquitted the accused persons of the charges under Sections 498-A/34 and 323 IPC. Further, it was noted that, the respondent-wife stated that she was subjected to disrespectful and indecent behaviour by the appellant and his family members. Allegation of cruelty and demand of dowry or causing simple hurt was not found by the Trial Magistrate

In the present suit when respondent-wife was examined, a specific question was asked to her that, whether she is willing to reside with the appellant, to which she answered with an emphatic ‘NO’, ‘Never’.

The above makes it clear that she made false allegations along with that she was also not willing to reside with the appellant and all of this was contrary to her own pleading.

Held

The High Court, while relying on the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa, (2013) 5 SCC 226 in which it was observed that:

“Scandalous, vulgar and defamatory statement by the wife against the mother of the appellant causes mental cruelty to the husband.”

Adding to the above observation, it was also stated that wife failing to prove her complaint in which she has placed unfounded, indecent and defamatory allegation would all amount to causing mental cruelty.

Therefore, in the present case, the respondent-wife made allegations which she had failed to prove and the allegations were to the extent of scandalous and indecent ones against the father-in-law along with the demand of dowry and causing simple hurt, which were all false.

Thus, the appeal to grant the decree of divorce in favour of the appellant to dissolve the marriage between the parties was allowed. [Chandan Singh v. Sangeeta Singh, 2019 SCC OnLine Chh 89, decided on 20-08-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Punjab and Haryana High Court:  Deepak Sibal, J. dismissed the present petition as the impugned order was not defective on the ground that framing of the issue was not challenged by the petitioner and evidence were led only on the same ground. 

A petition was filed against the dismissal order in which application filed by the petitioner was prayed for withdrawal of divorce petition with permission to file afresh.

The brief facts of the case were that petitioner filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of the marriage between the parties on the ground of cruelty.  During the course of the trial, at the final argument stage, petitioner filed an application under Order 23 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil procedure, 1908 seeking withdrawal of his divorce petition with permission to file a fresh petition on the same cause which through the order impugned in the present proceedings has been dismissed.

Manish Kumar Singla, counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was a formal defect in the petition as averments had been made in the petition with regard to the respondent-wife having deserted the petitioner but since between the alleged date when the respondent-wife had deserted him and the filing of his petition the statutory period of 2 years had not elapsed, the Trial Court erred in not permitting the petitioner to withdraw his divorce petition with permission to file a fresh one on the same cause.

Karan Bhardwaj, counsel for the respondent submits that with regard to the issue of desertion, there was no formal defect in the petitioner’s petition and therefore, the petitioner cannot be allowed to withdraw his petition with permission to file fresh one on the same cause.

The Court opined that the respondent-wife had refused to join the company of the petitioner would not give a cause to the petitioner to seek divorce on the ground of desertion and there was no formal defect in the petitioner’s defect. It was further submitted that the ground of desertion was neither available to the petitioner nor taken by him. During the pendency of the petition, even if such ground has become available, the same would not make the petitioner’s petition as defective. Thus the matter was dismissed. [Kulwinder Singh v. Manmohan Kaur, 2019 SCC OnLine P&H 1337, decided on 25-07-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Kerala High Court: Alexander Thomas, J. while hearing a revision petition, remitted a matrimonial case to the Family Court, Kalpetta for consideration and disposal afresh, after hearing both the parties.

Revision petitioner herein sought maintenance in Family Court, Kalpetta, from the respondent-husband. She was aggrieved by the judgment that dismissed her plea to seek maintenance on the ground that she had engaged in adultery, and also because she was employed and getting enough income to maintain herself. Hence, she filed the instant revision petition.

The petitioner contended that there was no visual or documentary evidence produced by the respondent to prove an act of adultery. The decision was passed on the basis of the respondent submitting one instance of lapse of virtue on the part of the petitioner. 

It was submitted before the Court that it is a common fact as held by the same court in Sandha v. Narayanan, 1999 SCC OnLine Ker 64 that to constitute an act of adultery, there should be a continuous course of conduct or living in the state of quasi-permanent union with the adulterer, and in the case of unchastity or a few lapses of virtue, it will not prevent a wife from claiming maintenance from her husband. As there was no evidence to prove the continuation of adultery, the revision petitioner had stated the judgment of the Family Court to be legally unsustainable.

It was further contended that the Family Court Judge failed to consider the status of her employment in light of Chaturbhuj v. Sitabhai, (2008) 2 SCC 316 that the term “unable to maintain herself” means the inability of the wife to maintain herself in the same manner in which she used to live with her husband, and will not take into consideration the efforts of the wife to maintain herself after desertion. The petitioner provided a certificate as evidence that she was not employed as staff but was kept as a data entry operator apprentice and was only given money to manage the expenses for bus charges, etc.

Owing to the aforementioned contentions, this Court directed the Family Court to reconsider the case in detail by hearing both the sides, and pass an order disposing of the case, without any delay within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. [Faseela v. Shafeek, RP (FC) No. 115 of 2019, decided on 23-05-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Kerala High Court: A Division Bench of A.M. Shaffique and N. Anil Kumar, JJ. dismissed a matrimonial appeal filed by the husband of a lady who was granted a divorce by the Family Court on the grounds of cruelty and desertion.

Respondent herein had filed a petition against her husband (appellant herein) before the Family Court, seeking divorce alleging cruelty and desertion. The contention urged by the respondent was that the appellant was demanding her to bring patrimony and she had to suffer cruelty at the hands of the appellant on account of such demands. Apart from this, the appellant also demanded her parents to sell the property which was allotted to her share in the will executed by her parents. Further, she was asked to perform perverted sex against her liking. As a result, she left the matrimonial home and started living separately since 30-12-2005. She also had a case that no attempt had been made by the appellant after the said date to take her back to the matrimonial home, and he had also not taken care of her or their child’s interest in any manner. Thus, such acts amounted to desertion for more than 2 years.

The Family Court after evaluating the evidences found that the wife was successful in proving cruelty and therefore she was entitled to a divorce. It was also found that the husband had deserted the wife and the child for more than two years and therefore the wife was entitled to divorce on the ground of desertion as well. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant filed an appeal.

Counsels for the appellant, Sebastian Champapilly, Annie George and Kurian Antony Edassery, argued that there was no material to prove any form of cruelty being meted out against the respondent. Further, it was contended that the respondent had left the matrimonial home without the knowledge and approval of the appellant. She had also not stated any specific reason for remaining away from the matrimonial home and therefore the allegation of desertion was not proved.

Whereas, counsel appearing for the respondent-wife, R. Reji, submitted that the court below had relied upon sufficient material to arrive at the finding that the wife had been subjected to severe cruelty and thus was justified in granting a divorce.

The Court held that “There is no perversity or illegality in the said finding warranting any interference.” As far as the appellant placed reliance upon certain photographs to prove that the couple had been leading a happy married life, the Court observed that “At the time of taking the photographs, they seem to be in a happy mood but that by itself does not mean that the couple was leading a happy married life, and there was no demand for patrimony.”

It was observed that the Family Court had placed reliance upon sufficient material to arrive at a finding that the appellant-husband had ill-treated his respondent-wife, which amounts to mental and physical cruelty. There was no reason to interfere with the said finding of fact, and there was no perversity or illegality in the said finding warranting any interference of this Court.

In view of the above, it was held that the matrimonial tie between appellant and respondent was irretrievably broken and there was no chance for a reunion. Thus, the appeal was dismissed. [Anish Jacob v. Rinku Jacob, 2019 SCC OnLine Ker 2210, decided on 21-05-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Uttaranchal High Court: The Division Bench of Alok Singh and Ravindra Maithani, JJ. contemplated the present appeal filed by the appellant-husband, where the order passed by the Family Court dismissing a suit for divorce was challenged. 

Factual matrix of the appeal was that marriage was solemnized between the parties in 2007. The appellant contended that the alleged behavior of the respondent – wife was not good towards the husband and his family members. Marriage was solemnized against the wishes of the respondent. She threatened them to implicate in a false case of dowry and treated them with cruelty. It was further contended that a divorce petition on the said grounds of cruelty was filed by the appellant and was subsequently dismissed by the trial Court. Appellant sought dissolution of marriage mainly on two counts viz. cruelty and desertion.

P.K. Chauhan, Advocate for the appellant submitted that the learned trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence available on record in the right perspective and had attained a wrong conclusion. Thus, impugned judgment and decree was liable to set aside and decree of divorce was to be granted. 

The Court placed reliance on the judgments of Supreme Court in Ramchander v. Ananta, (2015) 11 SCC 539 and Adhyatma Alwar v. Adhyatma Bhattar Sri Devi, (2002) 1 SCC 308, where the Court explained the scope of ‘cruelty’ and ‘desertion’. 

The Court observed that in the present case, in order to prove cruelty at the hands of wife, the appellant stated that the respondent used to quarrel with him. She maltreated him and his family members. It was alleged that she threatened them to implicate in false case of dowry. The Court further found no evidence to prove desertion or cruelty by the respondent as was stated in the plaint. The Court stated that, the appellant made bald allegations against the respondent. Appellant failed to point out the cause of quarrel. It was further noted that, respondent did not want to marry him but in the statement on oath he himself admitted that he did not want to marry with her. Appellant stated that their marriage was solemnized without any dowry but his father himself contradicted his statement. He stated that respondent’s father gave Rs 30,000 – 40,000 in the marriage. Court took note that appellant husband had completed his B.Sc. but was still unemployed and hence the conduct of the appellant revealed that appellant was not interested to shoulder his responsibility. Court concluded that appellant has failed to prove cruelty and desertion at the hands of respondent – wife. Accordingly, appeal failed and was dismissed. [Deepak Kumar v. Meena, 2019 SCC OnLine Utt 546, decided on 01-07-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Uttaranchal High Court: A Division Bench of Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ramesh Chandra Khulbe, JJ. entertained an appeal by the appellant-wife under Section 19 of Family Courts Act, 1984 against the impugned judgment granting divorce passed by Principal Judge of Family Court.

Facts giving rise to this appeal were, the respondent had filed a suit earlier under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 which was decreed already. When the marriage was solemnized between the parties, the respondent was working as a Sepoy in the Indian Army and it was a smooth sail for both of them. Subsequently, respondent-husband filed for divorce and for dissolution of marriage on the grounds that appellant was suffering from epilepsy prior to marriage and such essential fact was not disclosed to him, the appellant also suffered from different ailments which served as a hindrance, physically and mentally in their prosperous marriage. But the actual ground on which suit was filed for divorce was cruelty and desertion.

The Court observed that parties are living separately for a long time, the issues framed by the Family Court were sufficient to grant a divorce in this particular case. It was also observed that the Family Court found that appellant suffered from epilepsy and was treated for the same in addition to it she also suffered from tuberculosis, and such physical suffering of the appellant served as mental cruelty upon the husband. The expert opinion stated that due to such ailments the appellant was not in a fit state to conceive a child. The Court appreciated that such ailments were not relevant grounds to prove cruelty and to dissolve the marriage prime facie but non-disclosure of such important facts before marriage led to cruelty which is a proper ground for divorce.

The Court stated that there was enough evidence before the court below to establish that there was cruelty on the part of the appellant/wife, such as threatening the husband to falsely implicate in criminal cases and making a complaint to the superior officers of the husband. The wife had also made unnecessary allegations against the respondent before the Commanding Officer, which lowered his esteem in the eyes of his superior officer.

Hence, the Court awarded permanent alimony and disposed the application of maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, it also found that there was no need to interfere with the Order of Family Court and setting aside the divorce decree.[Himani v. Rohit Bisht, 2019 SCC OnLine Utt 448, decided on 13-05-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: The Bench of Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. disposed of a petition holding that the petitioner (wife) was not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC for a period prior to the grant of divorce.

The petitioner and the respondent (husband) were married. They were living separately since 2004. Divorce was granted in 2015 on an application filed by the respondent on the ground of mental cruelty and desertion by the wife. The decree of divorce was upheld by the Supreme Court. Prior to that in 2007, the petitioner had applied under Section 125 CrPC for interim maintenance. By the impugned judgment, the trial court dismissed the application for maintenance on petitioner’s failure to show that she had sufficient cause to live separately.

S.K. Srivastava and Gurjeet Singh, Advocates for the petitioner assailed the impugned judgment while Senior Advocate Kirti Uppal with Sidharth Chopra and Shaini Bharadwaj, Advocates representing the respondent supported it.

The High Court referred to Section 125(4)which states that wife is not entitled to receive maintenance is not entitled to receive maintenance if without any sufficient reason she refuses to live with her husband. Relying on Rohtash Singh v. Ramendri, (2000) 3 SCC 180, the Court held that as the divorce decree was passed on ground of desertion which was upheld by Supreme Court, the petitioner was clearly disentitled to maintenance under Section 125. However, it was cleared that she could still file application for maintenance provided she is able to satisfy the condition of Section 125(1)(a) that she is unable to maintain herself. [Archita v. Sunil Seth, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 6484, Order dated 11-01-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Chhattisgarh High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Goutam Bhaduri, J. dismissed an appeal filed against the order of the lower court regarding a divorce suit filed by the appellant/husband on the ground that the respondent/wife deserted him.

In the present case, it has been stated that, after the marriage of appellant and respondent, the respondent got an opportunity of a job and was selected as an Assistant Professor in the Education Department and she had to join her posting somewhere else other than her place of matrimonial home. Further, the husband suggested the wife not to join her place of posting, but she did not hear the advice and however supported by her family members and without the consent eventually, she joined her job at other place. It was pleaded for this very reason, that the wife deserted the husband, therefore, the marriage be annulled by a decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(i-b) of Hindu Marriage Act.

“Husband was completely depending as a parasite on his mother and father, therefore, despite the fact that the husband was agreed for his wife to join the job, he could not oppose.”

The Court below found no ground to hold that the wife had deserted the husband, therefore, dismissed the petition, which lead for the instant appeal.

The High Court on considering the circumstances and submissions of the present appeal, concluded its decision while stating that,

“When the girl is well educated, it is not expected that she would be kept in a boundary of matrimonial obligation only in confinement. It is for the husband and wife to balance the marital ties, which they are duly bound to do for each other”.

The Court while referring to the Supreme Court decision in Joseph Shine v. Union of India, 2018 SCC OnLine SC 1676, in which it was observed that “wishes of the husband to throw a choice to the wife to hear to his wishes to make a choice” as has happened in this case will slaughter her core identity. Therefore, the husband and wife are to be equally treated and if the wife opted to join the job at different place, she cannot be otherwise forced at the behest of the husband or his family members to remain at her matrimonial home alone.

Thus, the grounds stated by the appellant in regard to desertion cannot be entertained as the job against the wishes of the husband does not justify the claim that the wife has deserted and except that no ground of mental cruelty has been pleaded or evidence has been adduced. The appeal was accordingly dismissed. [Hemant Parasar v. Kamini Parasar,2018 SCC OnLine Chh 663, order dated 26-11-2018]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Bombay High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Mangesh S. Patil, J. dismissed a husband’s challenge to the award of compensation to his divorced wife granted by the Additional Sessions Judge.

The appellant-husband and respondent-wife were married in 2003. Subsequently, they developed discord and the wife left the husband alleging harassment. The husband filed petition for restitution of conjugal rights which was allowed. However, even after that, the parties couldn’t live together. Thereafter, the husband filed a divorce petition on grounds of desertion by the wife. The said petition was allowed and the marriage between the parties was dissolved, which decree had become final. Subsequent to that, the wife filed an application for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. The application was rejected by the Judicial Magistrate; however, on appeal, the Additional Session Judge allowed the same. Aggrieved by the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, the husband had filed the present petition.

The High Court perused the record and found that the facts stated above were the admitted position of the parties. Marriage between the parties was indeed dissolved by a decree of dissolution which had become final. The question before the  Court was whether, under Section 125 CrPC, the Court could grant maintenance to a wife who was divorced on grounds of desertion. For adjudication, the Court relied on the Supreme Court decision in Rohatash Singh v. Ramendri, 2000 (3) SCC 180  wherein it was held that even such a wife can claim maintenance under the section; however, it would be available to her only from the date on which decree for dissolution of marriage had been passed. Accordingly, the husband’s challenge to award of maintenance granted to the wife was dismissed. However, it was held that the wife would be entitled to maintenance only from the date of divorce decree, and not from the date of filing of an application under Section 125 as held by the Additional Sessions Judge. The petition was disposed of in the terms above. [Dnyaneshwar Eknath Kachre v. Sunita,2018 SCC OnLine Bom 2243, dated 24-08-2018]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Chhattisgarh High Court: An appeal filed challenging the decision of the District Judge whereby he dismissed appellant’s petition filed under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, was dismissed by a Single Judge Bench comprising of Sharad Kumar Gupta, J.

Brief facts of the case were that the appellant-husband filed a divorce petition against the respondent-wife on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. The said petition was dismissed by the learned District Judge holding that the grounds on which divorce was sought by the petitioner (appellant) were not proved. The appellant filed the instant appeal challenging the said decision contending that the trial court did not examine the evidence in proper perspective and reached a wrong conclusion.

For deciding the appeal, the Court referred to various decisions of the Supreme Court as well as other High Courts and observed the essence of ‘desertion’- For the offence of desertion, two essential conditions must be there; (1) the factum of separation and (2) the intention to bring cohabitation permanently to an end (animus deserendi). Two elements are essential as far as deserted spouse is concerned; (1) the absence of consent and (2) absence of conduct giving reasonable cause to the spouse leaving the matrimonial house to form the necessary intention. Mere severance of relation or separation without desertion is not sufficient. Desertion is not walking out of the house but is withdrawing from home. Desertion consists in withdrawing not from a place but from a state of things.

In regard to ‘cruelty’, the Court observed that a consistent course of conduct inflicting immeasurable mental agony and torture constitute cruelty within the meaning of Section 13(1)(ia) of HMA. Mental cruelty may consist of verbal abuses and insults by using filthy and abusive language leading to constant disturbance of mental peace of the other party.

The Court held that the appellant failed to prove any of the elements to establish desertion or cruelty on the part of the respondent. No cogent evidence was provided by the appellant that could establish the grounds for divorce as prayed for by the appellant in the divorce petition. Thus, the Court on dismissing the appeal held that the impugned judgment of the trial court which was challenged in this appeal does not suffer from any infirmity. [Sanjeev Kumar Kaushik v Mongra Bai, 2018 SCC OnLine Chh 480, dated 24-04-2018]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Karnataka High Court: While deciding an appeal filed under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, a Division Bench comprising of L. Narayana Swamy, J and Dr. H.B. Prabhakara Sastry, J. dissolved the marriage solemnized between the appellant-husband and the respondent-wife holding that the wife deserted the husband for a continuous period of not less than two years.

The husband filed the petition under Section 13(1)(ib) of HMA against his wife, seeking dissolution of their marriage. The said petition was dismissed by the learned Principal Judge. The appellant contended that the court below committed a serious error even after assessing the evidence of the respondent who categorically stated in her disposition that she did not want to live with the appellant.

The High Court perused the material on record and submissions made in behalf of the parties. The Court found that the respondent in her cross-examination admitted that she resided with her husband for two years after the marriage and she had lived in her parental home after the marriage for about six years. This meant that after her marriage for more than half of the period she lived at her parental home. It was also noticed that even after graduating in her studies she did not join the husband to live with him. The respondent did not give any reason for her living separately from her husband. It was found that in total, the respondent lived separately from her husband for about 16 years, which fact was established. Accordingly the factum of separation was also established.

It was also observed that ‘desertion’ mentioned under Section 13(1)(ib) of the HMA is not the withdrawal from a place but from a state of things, for what the law seeks to enforce is the recognition and discharge of the common obligations of the married state. In the instant case, the wife sated that she was not ready to live with the husband. As such, the animus deserendi on the part of the wife was established.

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed. The impugned order was set aside and the marriage between the parties was dissolved. [Dundappa v. Renuka, MFA No. 21724 of 2010 (MC), order dated 11.10.2017]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

High Court of Delhi: While judging the legality and validity of the divorce decree granted to the husband respondent by the learned trial court, the Bench comprising of Pradeep Nandrajog and Yogesh Khanna, JJ., observed that since desertion is often invoked as ground of divorce however it cannot be tested by merely ascertaining which party left the matrimonial home first but if one spouse is forced by the conduct of the other to leave, the desertion could be by such conduct of other spouse thus, the Court setting aside the divorce granted to a husband/respondent held that the learned Judge, trail court had misread the evidence while granting a decree of divorce on the ground that wife /appellant left the matrimonial home without the consent of her husband thereby deserting him and failed to join his company, despite his repeated requests, thereby committing cruelty upon him by denying him  matrimonial bliss.

The Court while examining the contentions of the parties observed that the trail court had erred in passing the divorce decree as it disbelieved all the allegations lodged against the wife/appellant by the husband/respondent and only on the ground that the wife left the matrimonial home without according any reason, granted the divorce decree. The Court while setting aside the divorce decree observed that since the wife never wished to bring her marital ties permanently to an end but was forced by the conduct of the respondent to leave the matrimonial home and that it is the respondent who is guilty of constructive desertion as he failed to prove the behavior of the appellant towards him was such that it ever caused a reasonable apprehension in his mind that it was not safe for him to continue the matrimonial relations with the appellant. The Court further observed that desertion is not a withdrawal from a place, but from a state of things and it is the repudiation by one of all obligations of marriage and it cannot be tested by merely ascertaining which party left the matrimonial home first.  [Nisha Rani v. Sohan Singh Nehra, 2017 SCC OnLine Del 6404, decided on 6th January 2017]

Supreme Court Cases

Cases Reported in 2014 SCC Vol. 7 August 28, 2014 Part 4

For the offence of desertion so far as the deserting spouse is concerned, two essential conditions must be there (1) the factum of separation, and (2) the intention to bring cohabitation permanently to an end (animus deserendi). Similarly two elements are essential so far as the deserted spouse is concerned: (1) the absence of consent, and (2) absence of conduct giving reasonable cause to the spouse leaving the matrimonial home to form the necessary intention aforesaid. For holding desertion as proved the inference may be drawn from certain facts which may not in another case be capable of leading to the same inference; that is to say the facts have to be viewed as to the purpose which is revealed by those acts or by conduct and expression of intention, both anterior and subsequent to the actual acts of separation. Malathi Ravi v. B.V. Ravi, (2014) 7 SCC 640