RASHMI ROHAN SHETTY v. ROHAN RAGHUNATH SHETTY INSC 622

Name of the case: P.H. Pujar v. Kanthi Rajashekhar Kidiyappa & Ors.

Year of Judgment: 2002

Facts: In the elections of Karnataka Legislative Assembly, P.H. Pujar, the appellant was declared elected by a narrow margin of 138 votes over respondent Kanthi Rajashekhar Kidiyappa. The total polled votes were 88,353. Pujar got 40,418 votes and Kidiyappa got 40,280 votes. 3,872 ballot papers were rejected as invalid, and it was alleged that 59 ballot papers were missing. Kidiyappa challenged the election result under Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, alleging improper rejection of votes and non-compliance with electoral procedures. Issue: Whether the process of election, particularly counting and rejection of votes, was in accordance with the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and whether any irregularity materially affected the result of the election.

Decision: The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the High Court which had declared the election null and void and ordered a recount. The Supreme Court dismissed the election petition filed by Kidiyappa and thus confirmed Pujar's election.

Majority Opinion Explanation: The Supreme Court indicated that for an election recount to be justified, the petitioner has to make concrete allegations and material facts showing irregularities that may have changed the result of the election.

It held that on the facts, allegations made by Kidiyappa were too vague and not particularized enough. The Court has further reasoned out that mere proximity of votes would not entitle one to a recount in the absence of evidence of irregularity. The court further noted that the processes running in connection with the counting were significantly in compliance with the rules set, and there was no Name of the Case: Rashmi Rohan Shetty v. Rohan Raghunath Shetty year decided: 2021 Facts: Rashmi Rohan Shetty, being the wife, had filed a suit against her husband, Rohan Raghunath Shetty, who is the respondent. The case is concerning matrimonial disputes. The core issue in this case was related to the custody of their minor child and division of matrimonial properties such as immovable properties and financial rights. Mental and emotional cruelties have been stated as reasons for obtaining dissolution of the marriage and rights over the minor child. The defendant did plead against the claims, relying on his bases for shared custodial orders and equitable distribution of matrimonial property. Issues:

Whether or not the acts complained of amounted to mental cruelty that would justify a dissolution of marriage under the applicable matrimonial laws. Whether or not the welfare principle of Indian family law requires sole custody of the minor child by the plaintiff. How the division of matrimonial property should be conducted in a manner equal and fair between the parties. Judgment

The Supreme Court decided that Rashmi Rohan Shetty was entitled to the dissolution of marriage on account of mental cruelty. The custody of the minor child was given in favor of the plaintiff, allowing the defendant merely to visit in limited capacity The division of matrimonial properties was done appropriately so that he would be enabled to maintain separate financial independence and an education for the minor child. Majority Decisions on Rationale:

Mental cruelty also includes repeated emotional harassment as well as a breakdown of the marital relationship according to the precedents (Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh, AIR 2007 SC 2284). Above everything, the welfare of the minor child was kept above while awarding the custody (Gaurav Nagpal v. Sumedha Nagpal, AIR 2009 SC 557).From the evidence produced, it came out that the plaintiff was the one better capable of providing a stable and nourishing environment. Based on the matrimonial property, the Court applied fairness and equity in relation to contributions of both spouses towards marriage.

Impact of the Case:

This judgment could explain the term "mental cruelty" in matrimonial cases while providing clarity and a standard to be followed for future cases. It reinstated the welfare principle as deciding upon child custody disputes, making the welfare of the child paramount over any controversy between the parents. The decision further focused on the just division of matrimonial property. It argued that the dependent spouse should have some financial independence as well. convincing evidence revealing that the missing ballot papers and the rejected votes would have probably changed the election result. Dissenting Opinion Reasoning: There was no dissenting opinion in this case; the decision was unanimous. Impact of the case: The case reiterates the concept that election results should not be challenged on a mere or a vague allegation without proof. The judgment highlights that the petitioners must present relevant and material facts when alleging election irregularities. The judgment affirms the legitimacy of the electoral process by protecting the process so that recounts will not be granted without substantial reason, thus precluding frivolous challenges that can nullify the democratic outcome of an election. <ref>INSC 622<ref>