Couple denied divorce as they fail to prove factum of wedlock
- Patna High Court stays Nitish Kumar's election as JD(U) legislature party chief
- Arvind Kejriwal gets down to business, calls for full statehood for Delhi
- President Pranab Mukherjee warns against deviation from constitutional principles
- Sunanda Pushkar murder case: SIT to quiz Shashi Tharoor tomorrow
- Shanti Bhushan accuses Arvind Kejriwal of accepting 'tainted' money
A couple's plea for decree of divorce with mutual consent has been dismissed by a Delhi court as they failed to prove that they were married to each other.
Turning down the plea for divorce, the court said the man and the woman have failed to produce original marriage certificate, while the man, who had given five different addresses in the court, has failed to establish his identity as husband.
"For these reasons in detail, this court is not satisfied that the parties have come before it with clean hands.
"They have failed to establish even the factum of their marriage and the identity of petitioner no.1 (man) i.e., one of the spouses, I do not deem it a fit case to grant the decree of divorce as prayed," Additional District Judge Sujata Kohli said.
The couple had sought divorce with mutual consent saying they had married in 2000 in Delhi, but have been living separately since December 2009 due to temperamental differences.
They said their marriage has irretrievably broken down and there was no possibility of any reconciliation.
Seeking the decree of divorce, the plea said the woman has been settled in Dubai while the man was working in the USA and there was no scope of reuniting.
The court, however, refused to give them divorce decree saying the man has not produced his photo identity proof.
"Since the parties have failed to produce the original marriage certificate, for reasons best known to them and since they have failed to explain away the self-contradictions in the addresses of the man, there being as many as five addresses coming up one after another...., the court is not satisfied about either the factum of marriage of the parties or even the identity of the man," the judge said.