138 NI Act | Admission Of Signatures On Cheque Triggers Statutory Presumption Of Debt: Punjab & Haryana HC Magistrate Cannot Straightaway Issue NBW For Non-Appearance If Accused Is Already On Bail; Bail Valid Until Cancelled: Orissa High Court Bank Cannot Dishonour Cheques Merely Because Account Title Changed From Partnership To Proprietorship: Madhya Pradesh High Court Environmental Clearance Is Site-Specific; Violations At Different Site By Related Entity Not Ground To Deny New EC: Kerala High Court Advocate’s Failure To Formally Prove Fee Bill Not Fatal To Claim If Oral Evidence Establishes Non-Payment Of Agreed Professional Fees: Delhi High Court Police Officers Cannot Fight Over Specific Postings; Disciplined Force Must Prioritize Public Interest Over Location: Karnataka High Court RERA Section 18 Interest For Delayed Possession Is An Unqualified Absolute Right; Notice Under Section 55 Contract Act Not Required: Bombay High Court State Cannot Hand Over Additional Charge Of Sensitive Posts To Tainted Officers Facing Disciplinary Action: Madhya Pradesh High Court Mandatory Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC Essential If Accused Resides Outside Jurisdiction; Commercial Breach Not Criminal Offence: Calcutta High Court Disciplinary Enquiry Cannot Be Quashed Merely For Delay In Conclusion; 6-Month Timeline Under G.O.Ms.No.679 Is Directory: Andhra Pradesh High Court Exoneration In Adjudication Proceedings No Bar To Criminal Prosecution If CBI Collects Independent Evidence Of Forgery & Conspiracy: Bombay High Court Public Prosecutor Not A 'Post Office' Of Investigating Agency; Independent Application Of Mind Mandatory For Extending Remand Beyond 180 Days Under NDPS Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Complainant Cannot Use Section 311 CrPC To Reopen Pre-Charge Stage After Explicit Waiver & Framing Of Charges: Allahabad High Court Bomb Blast In Train Is An 'Accident' Under Railways Act, Union Of India Liable To Pay Compensation: Punjab & Haryana High Court Bail Hearing Can Proceed In Informant's Absence If Notice Was Served Despite Section 483(2) BNSS Mandate: Allahabad High 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