MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

Delhi High Court Upholds Divorce Decree Citing ‘Mental Cruelty and Contradictions in Appellant’s Statements’”

06 September 2024 5:36 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark judgment pronounced today, the Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal filed by a woman, identified as Preeti, against a divorce decree granted in favor of her husband, Vikas. The court cited “mental cruelty” and contradictions in the appellant’s statements as the primary reasons for upholding the divorce.

The Hon'ble Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Neena Bansal Krishna presided over the case. The court observed, “The appellant has not produced any evidence to prove that her father had given Rs 10 lacs to the father of the respondent. Apart from mere assertions, there is no mention of such a payment being made to the respondent’s family.”

The court also noted that the appellant had filed a complaint against her husband and his family members, but failed to substantiate her claims with evidence. “Mere filing of FIR is not sufficient to prove the allegations of cruelty and dowry harassment without being proved by cogent evidence,” the judgment read.

The court further stated, “It appears that such complaints were merely a counter-blast to the said petition for divorce and is being used as a weapon against the respondent and his family.”

The judgment also emphasized the importance of mental cruelty as a ground for divorce, stating that “mental cruelty must be of such a nature that the parties cannot reasonably be expected to live together.”

The court concurred with the Principal Judge, Family Court, and dismissed the appeal, thereby upholding the divorce decree granted in favor of the respondent under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

Date of Decision: September 5, 2023

PREETI vs VIKAS

Latest Legal News