Case Analysis - Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli AIR 2006 SC 1675. - VidhiNama

3/1/23, 11:46 AM Case Analysis: Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli AIR 2006 SC 1675.
- VidhiNama

Wednesday, March 1, 2023    
ABOUT US  MORE 
HOME ACADEMY E-LIBRARY  JOURNAL  CATEGORIES  SUBMIT YOUR ARTICLES 


Case Analysis: Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli AIR

2006 SC 1675.
January 25, 2023 in Case Analysis AA 
Table of Contents
1. CITATION
2. NAMES OF PARTIES
3. JUDGES 
HOME ACADEMY
4. INTRODUCTION E-LIBRARY  JOURNAL  CATEGORIES  SUBMIT YOUR ARTICLES 

https://vidhinama.com/case-analysis-naveen-kohli-v-neelu-kohli-air-2006-sc-1675/ 1/14
3/1/23, 11:46 AM Case Analysis: Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli AIR 2006 SC 1675. - VidhiNama

5. FACTS
6. ISSUES
7. JUDGMENT
7.1. Contentions of the Appellant
7.2. Contentions of the Respondent
7.3. Findings of the Court
8. ANALYSIS
9. CONCLUSION
Author: Rishika Ramchandra Boddu.
CITATION
AIR 2006 SC 1675.
NAMES OF PARTIES
Appellant: Naveen Kohli;
Respondent: Neelu Kohli.
JUDGES
Justice B.N. Agrawal;
Advertisement
Justice A.K. Mathur;
Justice Dalveer Bhandari.
INTRODUCTION
An already-married couple can dissolve their marriage through the legal process of divorce. It is also
referred to as a dissolution of marriage and, in essence, refers to a legal process that ends a marriage
before the passing of either partner. A marriage succeeds when two people can coexist happily, not
simply for a long time. Numerous times, a couple will make an effort to get closer, but instead, they will
grow resentful and furious, which may cause them to split up. Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli is an
important judgement that deals with the irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a ground for divorce. 
Here, Naveen Kohli and Neelu Kohli got married and had three sons. The respondent tried to put the


appellant in jail multiple times. Both had made allegations against each other but did not have any
relevant proof for the allegations and the appellant filed a petition for divorce.
This article was prepared with the specific intent of discussing the concept of the “irretrievable
breakdown of marriage,” and the fact that males can also become victims of cruelty. So, in this case
analysis, we will see the current laws about the concept and whether an irretrievable breakdown of
marriage, a ground for divorce? And if not, should it be?
Advertisement
FACTS
Naveen Kohli and Neelu Kohli got married in the year 1975 and three sons were born out of that marriage. In
order to provide each of his three sons with their own factory, the appellant built three factories.
According to the appellant, the respondent has a toxic personality and impolite behaviour.
After marriage, the respondent began acting badly toward the appellant and his parents, and the appellant had
to move out of the family home and into a rental property.
When they travelled to Bombay for his father-in-law’s silver jubilee wedding anniversary, he observed the
respondent engaging in impermissible behaviour and discovered her in a compromising position with Dr.
Biswas Rout.
After the Bombay incident, the appellant started living separately and experienced severe emotional and
physical abuse.
ISSUES
1. Did the respondent cruelly abuse the plaintiff by filing a number of criminal charges, getting the news broadcast,
and starting civil proceedings?
2. Did the respondent receive cruel treatment from the defendant as a result of her unacceptable behaviour, as
claimed in the plaint?
3. Has the respondent falsely accused the plaintiff, or not? If so, what was the impact?
4. Whether the defendant engaged in behaviour with Dr. Biswas Rout that falls under the category of immorality,
as indicated in paragraph 11 of the complaint, while the plaintiff was present? If so, what was the impact?
5. Is the petition maintainable based on preliminary objections 1–3 of the written statement?
6. Has the defendant-maintained Smt. Shivangi as his concubine? If so, what was the impact?
7. If Section 11 of the C.P.C. applies, is the plaintiff’s lawsuit barred?


HOME
8. Is theACADEMY E-LIBRARY
plaintiff eligible JOURNAL
to obtain a judgement CATEGORIES
of divorce SUBMIT YOUR ARTICLES 
against thedefendant?


9. Is the plaintiff eligible for any additional relief?
JUDGMENT
Contentions of the Appellant
The respondent transferred 950000 dollars out of the appellant’s bank account. He further said that the
respondent had filed two fraudulent complaints against him in compliance with various IPC sections. It
was further argued that the eldest son reported the appellant to the police at the respondent’s request,
claiming that the appellant had physically assaulted the respondent’s son, Nitin Kohli. The appellant
cited the respondent’s actions, including her declaration that her share should be provided within 15
days and her mailing of notification for dissolving the relationship and seeking the division of the
properties.
Contentions of the Respondent

The respondent admitted that she opposed the appellant’s bail in the criminal case that was brought
against him. She also admitted that she had filed a protest petition after the police filed their final
reports in the two cases involving two of the police stations which showed that she indicated intense
animosity toward the appellant. The respondent went so far as to file a warning in the High Court for the
criminal case, she also complained about the amount of maintenance while the case was pending under
section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
In her statement, she acknowledged that the newspaper had published an ad claiming that the appellant
was an employee rather than the owner. She also acknowledged that she couldn’t recall whether or not
she had called the appellant a fake or a criminal, but she didn’t deny having used unfair means against
him. As stated in the facts, a number of cases, including criminal charges, have been brought by the
respondent against the appellant, and every effort has been made to intimidate, abuse, and even
imprison the appellant.
Findings of the Court

The Supreme Court decided the case and upheld the Family Court’s conclusions that the appellant had
been subjected to the respondent’s psychological, physical, and financial abuse to the point where their
marriage was irreparably broken. To grasp the extent of cruelty as defined in those cases, the Court dug
into a number of court decisions. In matrimonial disputes, the purpose need not always be present in
order to show “cruelty.” The claimed mistreatment may also result from socioeconomic or cultural
disparities. Thus, the term must be used in its ordinary definition, and for the purposes of Section 13(1)
(i)(a) of Hindu Marriage Act may include physical, mental, deliberate, or unintentional harm within its
ambit.
The Supreme Court ordered that the appellant has to pay the respondent Rs. 25,00,000/- in the 
HOME
directionACADEMY
of eternal E-LIBRARY
protection JOURNAL
to be paid CATEGORIES
within eight  SUBMIT
weeks in order YOUR
to resolve ARTICLES
the 
issue in the best


interests of everyone involved while also dissolving the marriage between the parties. This amount may
include the Rs. 5,00,000/- deposit made by the appellant earlier and the respondent is free to withdraw
the amount.
However, verbal abuse and insults using obscene language that constantly disturbs the other person’s
mental serenity are examples of mental cruelty. Therefore, the SC dismissed the High Court’s decision
and ordered that the parties’ marriage be dissolved in accordance with the terms of the Hindu Marriage
Act 1955.
ANALYSIS
The Hindu Marriage Act 1955 was established after 8 years of India’s independence. The reasons why
the parties might ask a competent court with jurisdiction to grant a divorce judgement are covered by
Section 13 of the Marriage Act. Until now, India’s divorce laws have not recognised a situation in which
the spouses are facing a situation in which, despite living together under the same roof, their marriage is
similar to a separation. The irretrievable breakdown of marriage is still not covered by codified law.
However, the supreme court has expressed particular concerns about the issue of making irretrievable
breakdown of marriage a reason for divorce due to changes in social norms and the changing nature of
marriage in society. In the present case, there are two legal issues involved and they are Cruelty and the
irretrievable breakdown of the marriage.
The term “irretrievable breakdown of marriage” refers to a breakdown in the marital connection or
conditions that are so harmful to the marriage that there is no longer a reasonable chance for the
spouses to stay as husband and wife for mutual support and care. “Cruelty” is commonly defined as a
marital act that results in others experiencing any form of suffering or distress, including monetary,
emotional, and physical. There is no such definition of cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act 1955.
While approaching the current situation of irretrievable breakdown of marriage in India, it may be
claimed that the legislature has not made such breakdown a ground for divorce, despite the Supreme
Court’s rulings in numerous cases have examined how important such a breakdown is as a foundation.
The Supreme Court made effective use of the authority granted to it by Article 142 of the Indian
Constitution in Srinivas Kumar v. R. Shametha, (2019) 9 SCC 409 and successfully ended numerous
marriages on the same.
In the present case, the Supreme Court has ordered the separation of marriage in order to provide full
justice and ease the suffering of the parties involved in a prolonged legal dispute. The Supreme Court
ruled that the Respondent’s cold treatment of the Appellant, her refusal to grant a mutual consent
divorce, the fact that the parties had been living apart for ten years and that both parties had filed
numerous criminal and civil lawsuits all demonstrated that the marriage had irretrievably broken down
and there was no chance of them reconciling. It was rightly decided by the Supreme Court because one
cannot live together after suffering cruelty, after putting allegations or filing cases against each other.



CONCLUSION
ABOUT US 
MORE 
The irretrievable breakdown of marriage should be recognised by the parliament as a basis for divorce,
because in my opinion, continuing to be married to someone in such a situation can be dangerous to
one’s mental health. It follows logically from the addition of the no-fault ground of mutual consent in
divorce law that the concept of irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a basis for divorce needs to be
included within the scope of divorce legislation. This is owing to the fact that mutual consent divorce
does not take into account situations in which the marriage is actually dead due to a protracted
separation but still exists on paper as a result of one party’s refusal to dissolve the union.
Advertisement
Even with the Law Commission of India’s multiple recommendations, India does not have the same type
of legislation as other nations. It is hoped that legislation would be passed in India in the upcoming
years to end the scenario where one spouse must suffer when the other is emphatic and plays with
another’s life. The irretrievable breakdown of a marriage is a serious issue that can arise between any
married couple and the law should look into this concept. In India, many people believe that only
women are the victims of such cruelty in marriage but this case is the right instance for people who
believe that. Around 51.5% of males have experienced some sort of mental cruelty in marriage and
courts have experienced such cases.
Advertisement



 Share  Tweet  Share  Send  Share 

New Summer Sport Fiber Laser Cutting We Fight For Parents -
Products Machine NYC ACS Defense
Previous Post
lawyer
Next Post
Case Analysis: Krishna Veni Nagam v. Case Analysis: Rajbala v. State of Haryana
Ad Decathlon Sports India Ad Bodor®Laser Ad fightacs.com
Harish Nagam AIR 2017 SC 1345. (2016) 2 Scc 445.
VidhiNama
VidhiNama is an all encompassing platform for legal fraternity committed to providing helpful, credible,
and authoritative information.
Leave a ReplyCase Analysis: Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli AIR 2006 SC 1675.
Tags: Case Analysis Rishika Ramchandra Boddu
Your email address

VidhiNama will not
Education andbe published.
Research LLP fields are marked *
Required
Centre
Comment *
Name *
Email * Website
Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

HOME ACADEMY
POST COMMENT E-LIBRARY  JOURNAL  CATEGORIES  SUBMIT YOUR ARTICLES 


Case Analysis - Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli AIR 2006 SC 1675. - VidhiNama

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case Analysis - Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli AIR 2006 SC 1675. - VidhiNama

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

3/1/23, 11:46 AM Case Analysis: Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli AIR 2006 SC 1675.

HOME ACADEMY E-LIBRARY  JOURNAL  CATEGORIES  SUBMIT YOUR ARTICLES 

Case Analysis: Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli AIR

Author: Rishika Ramchandra Boddu.

Respondent: Neelu Kohli.

Justice A.K. Mathur;

Justice Dalveer Bhandari.

7. If Section 11 of the C.P.C. applies, is the plaintiff’s lawsuit barred?

Contentions of the Respondent

Findings of the Court

 Share  Tweet  Share  Send  Share 

Your email address

You might also like