No cohabitation between the parties for one year &rcr decree

It is the job of your own Lawyer…

Be careful to note that; RCR is for harmonious co-habitation….and there should be NO continuing matrimonial offence……..

And either of the spouse has his/her own rights to agitate..

And courts of law do take a stand that illegality and immorality cannot be countenanced as aids for a person to secure relief in matrimonial matters…………

Refer;

The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

13 Divorce. —

 

1A; (ii) that there has been no restitution of conjugal rights as between the parties to the marriage for a period of 22 [one year] or upwards after the passing of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights in a proceeding to which they were parties.]

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1284729/

The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

13 Divorce. —

 

1A; (ii) that there has been no restitution of conjugal rights as between the parties to the marriage for a period of 22 [one year] or upwards after the passing of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights in a proceeding to which they were parties.]

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1284729/

 

The spouse succeeded by establishing merits in the case..

Go thru, carefully, the simple to understand and as clear as water judgment;

 

Bombay High Court

Arun Narayanrao Marathe vs Varsha Arun Marathe on 14 October, 2014

Bench: R.M. Borde

 

15. The petitioner-husband has proved that there is no resumption and cohabitation for more than one year or upwards after passing decree of restitution of conjugal rights in his favour . We do not find that the petitioner-husband wanted to take advantage of his own wrong, as provided under Section 23(1) of the said Act. We accordingly answer the point No.1 in affirmative.

16. Accordingly, the appeal is hereby allowed. The judgment and decree passed by the In charge Judge, Family Court, Aurangabad dated 24.3.2000 in Petition No. 38 of 2001 is hereby quashed and set aside. The petition No. 38 of 2001 is hereby allowed and the marriage between the petitioner-husband Arun Narayanrao Marathe and respondent-wife Varsha Arun Marathe is hereby dissolved by decree of divorce. Decree be drawn up accordingly.

17. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.

18. At this stage, learned counsel appearing for respondent-wife prays for direction to stay the operation of this judgment for a period of four weeks. However, for the reasons recorded in the judgment, request need not be considered. Oral request made stands rejected.

 

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/139872501/

 

This should provide you with insights to succeed..

 

Whereas spouse failed in following;

(ii) that there has been no restitution of conjugal rights as between the parties to the marriage for a period of one year or upwards after the passing of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights in a proceeding to which they were parties.

 

illegality and immorality cannot be countenanced as aids for a person to secure relief in matrimonial matters…………

Hirachand Srinivas Managaonkar Vs. Sunanda

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1872470/

 

Go thru other prspecives;

Delhi High Court

Sudha Gupta vs Har Prasad Gupta on 7 October, 2016

 

6. The object of decree for restitution of conjugal rights is to bring about cohabitation between the parties so that they can live at the matrimonial home in amity. If the decree for restitution of conjugal rights is not complied with for a period of one year it becomes a ground to seek dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1A)(ii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

7. As per the scheme of the Hindu Marriage Act the decree for restitution of conjugal rights is a stepping stone and passage towards divorce. Section 13(1A)(ii) provides that if the withdrawing spouse is disobedient to the decree of restitution of conjugal rights and the husband and wife continue to live separately as before, each of them is entitled to seek dissolution of marriage. Thus, the legal position is that on passing of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights at the most it can be said that the law enforces cohabitation but it does not and cannot enforce s*xual intercourse. The apprehension in the mind of the appellant that if the decree is executed she will be forced to have cohabitation with her husband, is a mistaken notion.

15. It is a matter of record that various civil and criminal litigations are pending between the parties. The purpose behind filing of a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for seeking a decree for restitution of conjugal rights or filing the execution appears to be not to force the wife to resume cohabitation but with an objective to be achieved under Section 13(1A)(ii) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 which enables a party to seek divorce if a decree for restitution of conjugal rights is disobeyed.

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/154265535/

 

Approach a very able senior LOCAL counsel of unshakable repute and integrity specializing in Family matters and having successful track record ….. and worth his/her salt …with all record for a considered opinion…per detailed facts of your matter.

Such counsels can handle defects/loopholes if any, so far in your matter.. 

Change advocate.

Thank you very much all the respected lawyers for their valuable suggestions.  

If you are PIP and well versed with court procedures, law, can argue, handle OP and lawyers of OP, and are confident to handle the matter on your own then you may very well go ahead….

If you have realized that your lawyer is good for nothing change ASAP and engage a counsel as already suggested.

Chose carefully…and avoid those… that collude with OP for few Ruppalli (Rupees) and entangle the citizens in cass for years...

Ask around and you can find out at your own location.

You are welcome and wish you the very best.

is there NY recent amendments taken place regarding limitations of filing dv act after incident, my lawyer told me that previously it was OK, but recently in 2018 march there is an amendment, so we can't take this in court now, please help me to know whether it is in law or not (filing dv after one year of incident)