Supreme Court Lays Down Comprehensive Guidelines To Prevent Misuse Of POCSO Act In Matrimonial Disputes Land Reforms Act | Joint Application For Pre-Emption By Adjoining Landowners Is Maintainable: Calcutta High Court Ocular Evidence In Conflict With Medical Findings Or Withholding Of Natural Witnesses Vitiates Prosecution Case: Allahabad High Court Compassionate Appointment Claim Must Be Decided Based On Policy Prevalent At Time Of Death: Bombay High Court Section 376 IPC | Failure To Prove Initial Dishonest Intent In Marriage Promise Renders Sexual Relationship Consensual: Allahabad High Court Prolonged Incarceration And Delay In Trial Are Valid Grounds To Invoke Constitutional Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 In UAPA Cases: Delhi High Court Motor Vehicles Act | Insurer Liable To Pay And Recover Compensation For Gratuitous Passengers In Goods Vehicles: Gujarat High Court Proof Of Demand And Acceptance Under PC Act Must Be Evaluated Based On Preponderance Of Probabilities In Rebuttal: Kerala High Court Tenancy Claim | Mere Possession Without Lawful Foundation Or Identification Of Tenanted Land Cannot Confer Occupancy Rights: Karnataka High Court 125 CrPC | Maintenance Cannot Be Evaded By Claiming Physical Disability If Conduct Indicates Concealment Of Financial Means: Kerala High Court M.P. Municipal Corporation Act | Locus Standi Under Section 307(5) Limited To Residents Of The Municipal Area: Madhya Pradesh High Court Writ Jurisdiction | Belated Challenge To Disciplinary Action After Superannuation Amounts To Laches; Petition Dismissed: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC | Mere Pendency Of Partition Suit Does Not Entitle Plaintiff To Injunction Restraining Reconstruction Of Residential Building: Kerala High Court Not A Mere Breach Of Contract: Telangana High Court Refuses To Quash FIR In ₹73 Crore Garment Investment Fraud Section 482 CrPC | High Court Quashes FIR Following Private Compromise In Non-Heinous Dispute Arising From Civil Conflict Mere Involvement In Criminal Case Does Not Constitute Moral Turpitude To Deny Public Appointment: Telangana High Court Pendency Of Investigation Cannot Be A Blanket Ground To Deny Permission For Foreign Travel: Rajasthan High Court Fraudulent Representation By Counsel Vitiates Ex Parte Decree: Punjab & Haryana High Court Holds Professional Misconduct As Evidence Of Fraud Writ Jurisdiction | Suppression Of Material Facts Regarding Pending Criminal And Departmental Proceedings Renders Petition Liable To Dismissal: Orissa High Court Banking Fraud | Failure Of Bank Official To Conduct Physical Inspection Of Collateral Property Constitutes Criminal Conspiracy And Abuse Of Official Position: Madras High Court Fraud Vitiates Judicial Proceedings: Judgment Obtained Through Misrepresentation And Conflict Of Interest Cannot Be Sustained, Holds Punjab And Haryana High Court Discovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act From Publicly Accessible Place Requires Caution: Supreme Court Mere Recovery Of Articles At Instance Of Accused Without Independent Corroboration Cannot Sustain Conviction: Supreme Court DNA Profile Must Be Supported By Other Conclusive Evidence To Prove Guilt: Supreme Court

Allegations of Illicit Relationship in Divorce Petition Not Sufficient for Mental Cruelty: Delhi High Court

04 September 2024 11:00 AM

By: Admin


In a significant legal decision, the High Court has ruled that mere allegations of an illicit relationship made in a divorce petition are not automatically indicative of mental cruelty. The ruling came in response to a divorce appeal filed by a husband seeking dissolution of his marriage on grounds of mental cruelty due to allegations of an illicit relationship made by his wife. The court emphasized that such allegations need to be proven false or motivated to qualify as cruelty.

Quoting from the judgment, the court noted, “Mere fact that she is not able to prove the same would not necessarily mean that the allegation was per se false or actuated by any malice or ill-will, unless held so by the Court.” The court reiterated that unproven charges in a written statement do not necessarily constitute cruelty. “A fact which was not proved does not necessarily mean that it was false one,” the judgment stated.

The ruling further emphasized that the burden of proof rests with the petitioner seeking divorce on grounds of mental cruelty. The court highlighted that the petitioner should have shown that the allegations were false, rather than shifting the burden to the respondent.

The court’s decision also pointed out that the husband had failed to mention in his affidavit any mental trauma caused by the allegations made in the written statement. “His affidavit (Ex. PW1/A) is conspicuously silent on the said crucial score,” the judgment noted. The court highlighted that the husband’s failure to include such claims in his affidavit undermined his plea for mental cruelty.

The judgment referred to various precedents that underlined the need to differentiate between unproved allegations and cruelty. The court remarked, “A decree of divorce cannot follow merely on the ground of delay in disposal of divorce proceedings.” It emphasized that the court should assess each case individually and consider the evidence presented before making a determination of mental cruelty.

High Court set aside the Family Court’s judgment and dismissed the husband’s petition seeking divorce on grounds of mental cruelty. This ruling sheds light on the need for well-substantiated evidence of mental cruelty in divorce cases, rather than relying solely on allegations made in the written statements.

D.D- 8.08.2023

KAMLESH SHARMA vs  YOGENDER KUMAR SHARMA

Latest Legal News