; 

Sudhakar Vinayak Joshi v. Sulabha Sudhakar

 Jayashree Ramesh Londhe 
Vs.
 Ramesh Bhikaji Londhe

Smt. Rita Bhattacharjee

Vs.
Respondent: Shanti Ranjan Bhattacharjee

Smt . Iffath Jamalunnisa vs . Mohd . Suleman Siddiqui 

  Ashok Hurra vs . Rupa Bipin Zaveri

Romesh Chander 
Vs.
Respondent: Smt. Savitri

 Yash Mehra
Vs.
Respondent: Arundhati Mehra…..cosent cant be withdrawn

Manoj Kedia vs . Smt . Anupama Kedia ( 05 . 05 . 2010 - CGHC )……court can pass decree as no
cohibition and no scope in future

23(bb) when a divorce is sought on the ground of mutual consent, such consent has
not been obtained by force, fraud or undue influence,

23(e) there is no other legal ground why relief should not be granted, then,and in
such a case, but not otherwise, the court shall decree such relief accordingly.

1998(1) D.N.C. 509

 To buttress this submission, learned Counsel for the Respondent has placed reliance on the
decisions in the case of Sudhakar Vinayak Joshi v. Sulabha Sudhakar Joshi reported

in MANU/MH/0516/1985  : (1985) 87 Bom.L.R. 496, Rajesh Pratap Sainani v. Mrs.

Bhavna Rajesh Sainani MANU/MH/1265/2008  : 2008 (6) Mh.L.J. 853 and Apurba

Mohan Ghosh v. Manashi Ghosh MANU/WB/0021/1989  : AIR 1989 Cal. 115.

Irprevable breakdown of marrieage…..6-18

Reason is not given

Party must show Evidence to shw that the conse t was giver under force fraud or undue
unfluence sec 23 1 bb,13b,connivance

Cohibition,law is applicable,not been able to live together,mutually agrred for divorce

Smt. Sureshta Devi v. Om Prakash MANU/SC/0718/1991  : I (1991) DMC 313; Rupali alias Chetna v.

Sunil Data MANU/PH/0675/2005  : AIR 2006 P&H 93 Joshi MANU/MH/0516/1985  : (1985) 87
Bom.L.R. 496; Rajesh Pratap Sainani v. Mrs. Bhavna Rajesh Sainani MANU/MH/1265/2008  : 2008 (6)
Mh.L.J. 853; Apurba Mohan Ghosh v. Manashi Ghosh MANU/WB/0021/1989  : AIR 1989 Cal.
115; Beales v. Beales 1972 (2) All E.R. 667; Balwinder Kaur v. Hardeep Singh MANU/SC/1847/1997  :
(1997) 11 SCC 701

Sureshta Devi 
 In the case of Sureshta Devi (supra.), this Court took the view: "9. The `living separately' for a period of
one year should be immediately preceding the presentation of the petition. It is necessary that
immediately preceding the presentation of petition, the parties must have been living separately. The
expression `living separately', connotes to our mind not living like husband and wife. It has no reference
to the place of living. The parties may live under the same roof by force of circumstances, and yet they
may not be living as husband and wife. 
The parties may be living in different houses and yet they could live as husband and wife. What seems to
be necessary is that they have no desire to perform marital obligations and with that mental attitude they
have been living separately for a period of one year immediately preceding the presentation of the
petition. The second requirement that they `have not been able to live together' seems to indicate the
concept of broken down marriage and it would not be possible to reconcile themselves. The third
requirement is that they have mutually agreed that the marriage should be dissolved.