If wife is HIV positive and husband apeal for Divorce, he will not get Divorce,and all make that judgement as LANDMARK judgement, at the same time if Husband is HIV Positive, women will get Divorce immedetly and force man to pay her Alimony,
Read the other news where Husband Denied Divorce on wife HIV positive Ground http://supari.org/hiv/
LONG LIVE INDIAN JUDICIARY
MUMBAI: The Bombay high court recently upheld a family court order that dissolved a marriage on the grounds that the husband was HIV-positive and cruel. The court was hearing an appeal by the husband against the family court order, which observed that the HIV virus leads to AIDS, a venereal disease that is sexually transmittable and communicable.
The defence argued that a venereal disease is a sexually transmitted disease, which is not the case with HIV or AIDS. HIV can also be transmitted through various other means such as blood transfusions, sharing of needles, etc, the defence pointed out.
The high court, however, observed that venereal diseases loosely describe a class of diseases that are transmitted not “exclusively” by sexual contact but “chiefly” by sexual contact.
Rashmi Shah (41) married businessman Bipin Shah (not their real names) on January 23, 1988. The couple have two sons. According to Rashmi, Bipin used to beat her up. In 1997, Bipin tested positive for HIV. The couple, who used to stay with Bipin’s parents, then moved out of the house and started living in together in another flat. According to Rashmi, Bipin demanded that she restore sexual relations with him. Bipin denied the allegations and contented that he contracted HIV while undergoing treatment for a wound on his private part. In 2000, the couple once again decided to live with Bipin’s parents.
The family court, in an ex-parte order dated July 6, 2005, dissolved the marriage besides imposing certain maintenance conditions on the husband. Bipin challenged the order in the high court, which referred it back to the family court in November 2007. The family court passed an order in Rashmi’s favour, which was once again challenged by Bipin in the high court.
A division bench of P B Majumdar and R P Sondurbaldota observed that it was the duty of husband to provide for his wife and protect her. The court also directed Bipin to provide a well-furnished accommodation to Rashmi in a good locality near their children’s school. The court also directed Bipin to pay Rs 20,000 every month to Rashmi as alimony, besides Rs 15,000 every month to their minor son till the time he reaches adulthood. Rashmi told Media, “Now, I am looking forward to moving on in life.”