Since I am not aware of the details ,I can’t comment on the judgment but prima facie the High Court appears to have passed an impugned order.Let the husband challenge the said verdict in the Supreme Court.

total coverage of pune:
Judge denies divorce, tells man it’s his duty to look after ailing wife
Prashant Aher. Pune
Turning down a man’s plea for divorce, a family court in Pune has ruled that
it is his moral duty to be with his HIV-infected wife and take care of her.
The man — a 34-year-old businessman and resident of Bhawani Peth — had
sought a divorce from his HIV-positive wife in 2006.
After hearing both parties, family court judge RV Deshmukh ruled that the
petitioner was not entitled to a divorce. ”HIV-infected persons need care
and love, especially from near and dear ones,” the judge said. The husband
was avoiding his wife because of her HIV status and wanted custody of their
only daughter on the plea that he feared she would get infected.
Sunita Jangam and Goraksha Kale, counsel for the wife, hailed it as a
landmark ruling. The petitioner had not only accused his wife of subjecting
him to cruelty but had also alleged that she and her family members had
concealed information about her condition at the time of their marriage.
According to the petitioner, when he got married on December 4, 1996, he was
pursuing his MCom, while his wife, the daughter of a former MLA, was doing
her graduation from a Mumbai college.

After marriage, she continued to stay in Mumbai. She started staying with
her husband after May 1997.
The woman conceived in January 2000 and that is when her HIV status was
diagnosed after a medical check-up. Both the husband and the unborn foetus
were found to be HIV-negative.
The husband’s contention was that his wife had inflicted cruelty on him by
trying to end her life. To that the court ruled that the petitioner had
deposed that when he feared being infected, he himself had contemplated
suicide.
Deshmukh, in his judgment, also rapped the petitioner saying he wanted a
divorce only because his wife was HIV-positive. ”But divorce is not sought
on account of this, but on the grounds of cruelty and desertion,” the court
said.
Tejaswi Sevekari, director of the NGO Saheli, welcomed the order. ”This
decision proves that a person living with HIVAids deserves to live like any
other normal human being,” she said.
District government pleader SY Deshmukh also backed the verdict. ”Even if
the petitioner is ready to provide alimony and financial support to his wife
after divorce, his duty as a husband does not end,” Deshmukh said.

The judges think they are doing great service to agree to whatever women say and disagree to whatever men say because they are themselves thoroughly incompetent, inefficient and not fit to do the job they are doing. They should step down immediately rather than doing this dis-service to the community.

yes virag,
judgement must be in line with fact of individual incidents not by the crocodile tears of women.

Did that Mumbai Judge get to sleep with that wife whom he granted all those favors? I think he must have...

On the other hand, the Pune Judge cannot get that as she’s HIV+ve.

Poor Sex starved Bastards!

Majority of these so-called honourable judges are from the earlier generations and are still in the older world. Judges are human beings afterall and their judgements are couloured by their own lives and values. Further, they are all confused between tradition and modernity. This, the clever women misuse. They shed tears; immediately, the judges get up from their chair and pass strictures against the poor husband. Thus, tears are the strenght of a woman! Weakness of the man for the woman is her second weapon in the arsenal.

What were the reasons that made High Court grant divorce to wife ?Anyway, there is a contradiction in the approach of High Court.These can be referred to in a petition filed in Supreme Court.

There are contradictions in facts as well.You have said that High Court upheld the Pune’s family court order.However,it’s also stated that ”Family Court” did not grant ”divorce” and Bombay Court did grant the ”divorce”.Either you have not stated all facts or there are some missing links.The facts suggest that High Court has turned down the judgment of Pune Court because if it would have upheld the Family Court’s order there would have been no divorce since Family Court has turned down husband’s request for divorce.

Interestingly, if original petition filed in Family court dealt with husband’s plea for divorce then how come in the appeal at High Court wife was granted ” divorce ” ?

Total coverage of bombay:
http://timesofindia .indiatimes. com/Cities/ HC_allows_ wife_to_divorce_ HIV_husband/ articleshow/ 3867829.cms

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 TOI, ”Now, I am looking forward to moving on in life.’’