Motor Insurance Policy Covers Cross-Border Travel If Specifically Authorized By Valid Permit Under MVA: Supreme Court Petrol Pumps Act As 'Commission Agents' For Mahanagar Gas, Liable To Pay Service Tax Under Business Auxiliary Service: Supreme Court Supreme Court Refuses To Dilute 'Bangalore Water Supply' Ratio, Affirms Worker Protection Remains The Core Of Industrial Disputes Act Order XXII Rule 9(3) CPC | Application Under Section 5 Limitation Act Must Be Filed Separately To Condonate Delay In Setting Aside Abatement: Supreme Court Principle Of Parity | Supreme Court Extends Benefit Of Fixed-Term Sentence To Co-Accused Based On Remission Period Right To Catch Fish Amounts To 'Profit à Prendre' And Is Compulsorily Registrable As A Lease Under Section 17(1)(d) Registration Act: Supreme Court Supreme Court Mandates Adoption Of Guidelines To Inculcate Sensitivity And Compassion In Judicial Processes For Sexual Offences 'Last Seen' Circumstance Is Weak Without Corroboration: Supreme Court Acquits Murder Accused PSEB | Pre-Regularization Service Must Be Counted As Qualifying Service For Pensionary Benefits: Supreme Court Writ Of Quo Warranto Cannot Be Used For Redress Of Personal Grievances By Unsuccessful Candidates In Selection Process: Supreme Court 'Case Of No Investigation': Supreme Court Acquits Murder Accused Citing 'Shoddy' Police Work And Lack Of Forensic Evidence 'Status Quo Cannot Be Vacated Without Appropriate Security': Supreme Court Directs Additional ₹200 Crores Deposit In RAKIA-Matrix Case SARFAESI Act | 'Bank' As Assignee Can Invoke Recovery Measures Even If Debt Was Originally Created By Non-Notified Financial Institution: Supreme Court 'CBI Failed Miserably': Supreme Court Tears Into 'Fabricated' Case, Acquits Bank Manager In 35-Year-Old Corruption Trial Mere Delay In Tax Deposit Cannot Be Equated With Non-Payment: Supreme Court Quashes Penalty On Saudi Arabian Airlines Revisional Power Under Section 56 Karnataka Land Revenue Act Cannot Be Invoked Beyond Three-Year Limitation Period: Supreme Court Prosecution Can’t Use Known Locations To Create 'Discovery' Fiction: Supreme Court Rejects Site Plan As Evidence Irretrievable Breakdown Of Marriage And Long-Term Separation Constitute Valid Grounds For Divorce Under Section 13(1)(ib) HMA: Supreme Court 'Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt Is A Guideline And Not A Fetish': Supreme Court Acquits Man In 2007 Murder Case Over Fragile Circumstantial Evidence Plea Of Juvenility Is A Jurisdictional Fact; High Court Must Recall Final Judgments Under Section 482 CrPC To Remedy Miscarriage Of Justice: Supreme Court SEBI | Professional Clearing Members Have No Statutory Obligation To Verify Credit/Debit Positions Of Individual Clients Of Trading Members: 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