Diljit Dosanjh's Satluj, which had been fighting a prolonged battle over censor approval, was pulled from streaming giant ZEE5 two days after its release in India. Diljit shared his first reaction on Sunday night, hours after the streamer issued a statement about its decision. Early Monday, Diljit hosted an Instagram Live thanking fans for their constant support. He reiterated one point throughout the live session: once something is online, it can't be erased. Diljit asked fans who have watched and downloaded the film to show it to others who haven't seen it yet. "I came live on Instagram to thank people for watching Satluj. "What I had feared actually happened. I thought the film would be taken down by Monday, but it happened sooner than expected. That's why we didn't promote the film. It was best to release the film (online) without any promotion. Today's youth is talking about Jaswant Singh Khalra. Every home is talking about Jaswant Singh Kha...
The Allahabad High Court has declined to accept a husband's contention that non-observance of ‘parda' (veil) by his wife would entitle him to obtain divorce on the grounds of mental cruelty.
A bench of Justices Saumitra Dayal Singh and Donadi Ramesh was hearing an appeal filed by the appellant-husband against the dismissal of his petition seeking divorce on grounds of mental cruelty and desertion.
The Justice Singh-led Bench, in its judgment regarding the issue of cruelty, declined to accept the contention that the wife had been a “free-willed person”, who would go out on her own to the market and other places and did not observe 'parda'.
"The act of the wife being free-willed or a person, who would travel on her own or meet up with other members of the civil society without forming any illegal or immoral relationship, may not be described as an act of cruelty committed, in these facts", it said.
Further, the Allahabad High Court said that "insofar as such acts and other acts have been attributed to the respondent (wife), it is difficult to accept the same as acts of cruelty committed, insofar as both parties are well educated. The appellant (husband) is a qualified Engineer, whereas the respondent (wife) is a government teacher".
"Differences of perception towards life may give rise to different behaviours by individuals. Such differences of perception and behaviour may be described as cruel by others by observing the behaviour of another. At the same time, such perceptions are neither absolute nor such as may themselves give rise to allegations of cruelty unless observed and proven facts are such as may be recognised in law to be acts of cruelty," it added.
The Justice Singh-led Bench upheld the decision of the family court in not acting on the plea of insults caused by the wife, saying that the husband has not described such acts with details of time or place of occurrence, nor have they been proven before the court below.
"As to the act of immoral relations alleged by the respondent (wife), no conclusive evidence could be led by the appellant (husband). Besides, the allegation of the respondent (wife) having formed an immoral relationship with a person described as 'Punjabi Baba', no other fact was attempted to be proved and no direct or credible evidence could be led," it added.
However, the Allahabad High Court said that the husband may claim mental cruelty committed by the wife, to the extent she has deserted him for very long, adding that the wilful act of the wife and her refusal to cohabit with the appellant-husband to revive her matrimonial relationship appears to be an act of desertion committed of degree as may itself lead to dissolution of her marriage.
Further, it said that the wife has not only refused cohabitation with the husband, but she has also never made any effort to seek restitution of her conjugal rights.
Allowing the plea for dissolution of marriage, the Allahabad HC noted that "both parties are gainfully employed. The only child born to them has remained in the custody of his wife. He is about 29 years of age. Therefore, neither any prayer has been made nor any occasion exists to provide for permanent alimony".
(This story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
from NDTV News- Special https://ift.tt/4TUc9eB
via IFTTT
Comments
Post a Comment