[30/07, 08:40] sekarreporter1: “8.7.To recognize disability, by itself, as a ground for divorce in the facts of the present case would amount to legitimizing discrimination against persons with disabilities and would undermine the very object sought to be achieved by the constitutional guarantees and the statutory protections afforded to them. Such an approach deserves to be deprecated unequivocally. Viewed in the aforesaid legal and constitutional perspective, the conduct of the petitionerhusband in seeking dissolution of the marriage solely on the ground that the respondent-wife suffered a disability due to an accident is wholly unjustified. Such a plea is not only legally unsustainable but also deeply inconsistent with the constitutional ethos of compassion, equality, and respect for human dignity. It causes profound concern to the conscience of this Court.” https://www.sekarreporter.com/honourable-mr-justice-n-anand-venkatesh-and-the-honourable-mr-justice-k-k-ramakrishnan-c-m-a-md-no-671-of-2020-and-c-m-pmd-no-3598-of-2026-umesh-nathan-petitioner-appellant-vs-r-meenakshi/#:~:text=8.7.To%20recognize,of%20this%20Court. [30/07, 08:40] sekarreporter1: “8.7.To recognize disability, by itself, as a ground for divorce in the facts of the present case would amount to legitimizing discrimination against persons with disabilities and would undermine the very object sought to be achieved by the constitutional guarantees and the statutory protections afforded to them. Such an approach deserves to be deprecated unequivocally. Viewed in the aforesaid legal and constitutional perspective, the conduct of the petitionerhusband in seeking dissolution of the marriage solely on the ground that the respondent-wife suffered a disability due to an accident is wholly unjustified. Such a plea is not only legally unsustainable but also deeply inconsistent with the constitutional ethos of compassion, equality, and respect for human dignity. It causes profound concern to the conscience of this Court.” https://www.sekarreporter.com/honourable-mr-justice-n-anand-venkatesh-and-the-honourable-mr-justice-k-k-ramakrishnan-c-m-a-md-no-671-of-2020-and-c-m-pmd-no-3598-of-2026-umesh-nathan-petitioner-appellant-vs-r-meenakshi/#:~:text=8.7.To%20recognize,of%20this%20Court.
[30/07, 08:40] sekarreporter1: “8.7.To recognize disability, by itself, as a ground for divorce in the facts of the present case would amount to legitimizing discrimination against persons with disabilities and would undermine the very object sought to be achieved by the constitutional guarantees and the statutory protections afforded to them. Such an approach deserves to be deprecated unequivocally. Viewed in the aforesaid legal and constitutional perspective, the conduct of the petitionerhusband in seeking dissolution of the marriage solely on the ground that the respondent-wife suffered a disability due to an accident is wholly unjustified. Such a plea is not only legally unsustainable but also deeply inconsistent with the constitutional ethos of compassion, equality, and respect for human dignity. It causes profound concern to the conscience of this Court.”
[30/07, 08:40] sekarreporter1: “8.7.To recognize disability, by itself, as a ground for divorce in the facts of the present case would amount to legitimizing discrimination against persons with disabilities and would undermine the very object sought to be achieved by the constitutional guarantees and the statutory protections afforded to them. Such an approach deserves to be deprecated unequivocally. Viewed in the aforesaid legal and constitutional perspective, the conduct of the petitionerhusband in seeking dissolution of the marriage solely on the ground that the respondent-wife suffered a disability due to an accident is wholly unjustified. Such a plea is not only legally unsustainable but also deeply inconsistent with the constitutional ethos of compassion, equality, and respect for human dignity. It causes profound concern to the conscience of this Court.”
