Bombay High Court Rules Spouse Need Not Justify Mental Cruelty Claims Nagpur: The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court recently ruled that a spouse seeking divorce on grounds of mental cruelty is not obligated to provide explanations for the alleged behavior of their partner. The court emphasized that such claims should be evaluated based on the cumulative impact of conduct rather than isolated incidents. This decision overturned a Family Court order that had denied a husband’s divorce petition, dissolving a marriage solemnized in March 2019. The case centered on a husband who filed a divorce petition through senior counsel Firdos Mirza and lawyer JB Gandhi, alleging persistent erratic behavior by his wife, including public altercations, threats, abusive communication, and emotional distress. The Family Court initially dismissed the petition, citing a lack of proof for the allegations or linking them to claims of mental disorder, a ground the husband later abandoned. The High Court’s division bench, comprising Justices Mukulika Jawalkar and Nandesh Deshpande, rejected the Family Court’s approach, calling its reasoning “legally unsound” and “fallacious.” The bench clarified that mental cruelty and mental disorder are distinct legal grounds, stating that the withdrawal of the mental disorder claim did not invalidate the husband’s case of cruelty. A key factor in the case was a series of WhatsApp messages exchanged between the couple. The wife reportedly sent messages expressing regret for her “irrational and uncontrollable behavior,” which the court deemed evidentiary. The bench noted that an admission by the accused constitutes the best evidence in law.#bombay_high_court #nagpur_bench #firdos_mirza #jb_gandhi #justices_mukulika_jawalkar
Court pulls up 93 schools for skipping bus safety norms Nagpur: The Bombay High Court’s Nagpur bench on Tuesday criticized 93 schools in the city for failing to comply with mandatory safety protocols for school buses. The court noted that out of 131 institutions, only 38 submitted details about transport committee meetings, which are required to review student safety. The case originated from a suo motu public interest litigation (PIL) initiated after the death of a schoolchild who was struck by a bus, highlighting systemic safety lapses in educational institutions. The court emphasized that schools must adhere to state norms requiring transport committees to meet every three months. These committees must include school heads and parent representatives to ensure accountability. Senior advocate Firdos Mirza, appearing as a court-appointed amicus curiae, supported the bench, while the state was represented by additional government pleader Deepak Thakre. The Nagpur Municipal Corporation (NMC) was represented by advocate Abhay Sambre. The court directed all respondent schools to submit detailed records of transport committee meetings from the past two years. Despite an extension of the deadline, most schools failed to comply, prompting the court to order the government to issue formal notices to those who had not yet been served. The bench warned of strict consequences, stating that schools refusing to provide the information could face a penalty of 50,000 rupees each. The court underscored its concern over student safety, noting that compliance remained inadequate despite repeated opportunities. The next hearing has been scheduled for April 4, with the court stressing the need for stricter enforcement of safety measures to prevent future tragedies.#bombay_high_court #nagpur_municipal_corporation #firdos_mirza #deepak_thakre #abhay_sambre
