<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1997 (11) TMI 543 - HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290874</link>
    <description>Desertion under Section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act requires withdrawal from the spouse&#039;s society without consent and with no intention to return. In assessing whether the statutory period was met, the court considered the surrounding circumstances, including the parties&#039; conduct, removal of marriage articles, absence of reunion, an earlier restitution petition, and evidence of willingness to resume cohabitation. On that appraisal, the trial court&#039;s view that desertion was not proved was found to rest on an erroneous appreciation of evidence, and desertion by the wife for the requisite period was held proved, entitling the husband to divorce.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 18 Nov 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 20 Oct 2020 10:38:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=625631" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (11) TMI 543 - HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290874</link>
      <description>Desertion under Section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act requires withdrawal from the spouse&#039;s society without consent and with no intention to return. In assessing whether the statutory period was met, the court considered the surrounding circumstances, including the parties&#039; conduct, removal of marriage articles, absence of reunion, an earlier restitution petition, and evidence of willingness to resume cohabitation. On that appraisal, the trial court&#039;s view that desertion was not proved was found to rest on an erroneous appreciation of evidence, and desertion by the wife for the requisite period was held proved, entitling the husband to divorce.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 18 Nov 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290874</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>