A division bench of Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Sharmila U Deshmukh of the Bombay Excessive Court docket has refused to grant a divorce to a person who had falsely claimed that his spouse was HIV-positive.
The husband had claimed that his spouse was affected by tuberculosis and he had helped her get remedy. Subsequently, the husband claimed that his spouse contracted herpes and after conducting all of the checks his spouse examined optimistic for HIV, which triggered him and his household psychological agony.
The spouse was then staying at her matrimonial home and when she returned to her husband’s home, she was requested to return by the husband at his mom’s request.
The husband then filed a petition for divorce on the grounds that his spouse had HIV. Nevertheless, the spouse denied the allegation and filed an utility beneath the Home Violence Act, searching for a sum of Rs 5 lakh and lodging. The household court docket rejected the petition of the husband and partly allowed the applying filed by the spouse.
The husband then moved earlier than the Excessive Court docket. The Excessive Court docket rejected the husband’s argument that there was an irretrievable breakdown of the wedding.
The HC mentioned: “We discover that on the bottom of irretrievable breakdown of marriage, the Petitioner can’t be permitted to benefit from his personal flawed.”
The bench mentioned that the husband had refused to cohabit together with his spouse though the HIV DNA was not detected.
The court docket mentioned: “Inspite of the report at Exh 27 which exhibits the take a look at consequence as HIV DNA ‘not detected’, the Petitioner has refused to co-habit with the Respondent and defamed the Respondent within the society by informing family and buddies that the Respondent has examined optimistic. The submission of the Ld. Counsel for Petitioner searching for grant of divorce on floor of irretrievable break down of marriage is liable to be rejected outright.”
Additional, the court docket additionally famous that the petitioner had not examined any professional to ascertain that his spouse was HIV-positive.
The order learn, “The burden was solid upon the Petitioner to show that the Respondent was affected by venereal illness in a communicable type. The Petitioner has not examined any professional to ascertain that Respondent is a HIV optimistic affected person, and quite the opposite the report which is at Exhibit-27 exhibits that HIV-1 and HIV-2 DNA not detected. There may be not an iota of proof produced by the Petitioner that the Respondent had examined optimistic for HIV, which triggered him psychological agony or that the Respondent has handled him with cruelty.”
Learn all of the Latest India News right here