Rigours of UAPA Melt Before Article 21: Jharkhand High Court Grants Bail After Six Years of Incarceration Accused Cannot Challenge in Arguments What He Never Challenged in Cross-Examination: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds POCSO Conviction Counterblast Plea, Civil Dispute Defence No Shield When Cognizable Offence Is Disclosed: Allahabad High Court Refuses To Quash FIR Against Ex-Driver Accused Of Outraging Modesty Lawyers Who Burned a Colleague's Furniture for Defending Toll Workers Have Tainted a Noble Profession: Supreme Court A Suspicious Dying Declaration Cannot Hang a Man: Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Murder Conviction IQ of 65, Memory Loss, Frontal Lobe Damage: Supreme Court Holds Brain-Injured Manager Suffered 100% Functional Disability, Enhances Compensation to ₹97.73 Lakh Cannot Be Forced to Pay Gratuity to Retired Employees Who Refuse to Vacate Company Quarters: Supreme Court Victim Who Incited Riot Inside Court Cannot Blame Accused for Trial Delay: Supreme Court Grants Bail in Section 307 Case You Cannot Sell What You Don’t Own: ‘Vendor’s Half Share Means Buyer Gets Only Half’ : Andhra Pradesh High Court Nagaland's Oil Laws Face Constitutional Challenge: Gauhati High Court Sends Union-State Dispute to Supreme Court Order 22 Rule 3 CPC | Will's Validity Cannot Be Decided in Substitution Proceedings: Himachal Pradesh High Court 6-Year-Old Loses Arm To Live 11kV Wire Passing 'Almost Touching' Her Balcony: Punjab & Haryana High Court Awards Rs. 99.93 Lakh To Child Despite Nigam Blaming Father For 'Extending Balcony' Supreme Court Invokes Article 142 To Quash Rape & POCSO Conviction After Marriage Between Accused And Victim NGT Cannot Order Demolition of Temple On Ground of Encroachment of Park: Supreme Court Quashes Removal Order For Want of Jurisdiction Hostile Witnesses & Doubtful Recovery Can Collapse Prosecution: J&K High Court Sets High Threshold for Criminal Proof Compassion Cannot Override the Clock: Karnataka HC Denies Job to Guardian Aunt Despite 2021 Rule Change” Second Marriage During Pendency of Divorce Appeal Is Void: Kerala High Court Appearing in Exam Does Not Cure Attendance Deficiency: MP High Court Upholds 'Year Down' Against BBA Student With Sub-30% Attendance Patna High Court Directs Bihar To Submit Detailed Rehabilitation Plan For Recovered Mental Health Patients, Expand Half-Way Homes Across State Rajasthan High Court Upholds Refusal to Drop Bharat Band Stone-Pelting Case

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