Limitation | Delay Condonation Cannot Be An Act Of Generosity: Supreme Court Refuses To Condone 31-Year Delay To Challenge Decree Sentence Suspension In Murder Cases Only Under Exceptional Circumstances; Presumption Of Innocence Erased Upon Conviction: Supreme Court Inquiry Commission Report Cannot Be Used For Disciplinary Action If Statutory Right To Cross-Examine Denied: Gauhati High Court Use Of Trademark On Website Accessible In India Constitutes Domestic Use, Geo-Blocking Mandatory For Territorial Restrictions: Delhi High Court Civil Court Jurisdiction To Interfere With DRT Proceedings Is Absolutely Barred Even For Third Parties: Madras High Court Adding a Prefix Can’t Erase Deceptive Similarity – Delhi High Court Orders Removal of ‘ARUN’ from Trademark ‘AiC ARUN’ Cannot Resile From Mediated Settlement After Taking Benefits: Supreme Court Quashes Wife's DV Case, Grants Divorce Absolute Indemnity Obligation Triggers Immediately Upon Court-Directed Deposit, Not On Final Appeal: Supreme Court Magistrate Directing Investigation Under Section 156(3) CrPC Only Requires Prima Facie Satisfaction Of Cognizable Offence: Supreme Court Cancellation Of Sale Deed Under Specific Relief Act Not A Pre-Condition To Initiate Criminal Case For Forgery: Supreme Court Amalgamated Company Cannot Claim Set-Off Of Predecessor's Losses Under Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act Without Specific Statutory Provision: Supreme Court Overlapping Split Chargesheets May Raise Double Jeopardy Concerns, Supreme Court Notes While Granting Bail To Former Jharkhand Minister Supreme Court Grants Bail To Convicted Ex-Jharkhand Minister Facing Overlapping Prosecutions From Split Chargesheets Electricity Act Appellate Authority Is A Quasi-Judicial Body Subject To High Court’s Supervisory Jurisdiction: Madhya Pradesh High Court Mere Discrepancy In Date Of Birth Across Certificates Doesn't Amount To Fraud If No Undue Advantage Is Derived: Allahabad High Court Interest Earned On Funds Temporarily Parked Pending Project Deployment Cannot Be Taxed As 'Income From Other Sources': Delhi High Court Reference Court Cannot Set Aside Collector's Award Or Remand Matter For Fresh Determination: Allahabad High Court Administrative Transfer Causing Revenue Loss Defies Court Process: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Ferry Ghat Handover Government Can Resume Leased Land For Public Purpose; 'Substantial Compliance' Of 60-Day Notice Sufficient: Kerala High Court Revenue Can't Cite Pending Litigation to Justify One Year of Adjudication Inaction: Karnataka High Court

Divorce Granted – In Cross Exam No Rebuttal To Disprove Allegation – Delhi HC

06 September 2024 5:10 AM

By: Admin


Delhi High Court in a recent case in which decree of divorce was challenged (DEEPTI BHARDWAJ Vs. RAJEEV BHARDWAJ D.D. 09 Feb 2023) held that argument made by the counsel for the appellant that specific dates and times are not mentioned loses significance as the respondent husband testified that the words were used repeatedly during quarrels, and there was no rebuttal or attempt to disprove the imputations during cross-examination, indicating that the allegations were duly proved and established.

A judgement passed on 27.07.2022 has been challenged by the appellant, which allowed a petition filed by the respondent-husband under Section 13(1) (i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956, seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty and granted a decree of divorce. The appellant's counsel argued that there was no pleading to support the suggestion made by the respondent-husband's counsel during cross-examination that the husband filed the petition for divorce because he was having an extramarital affair with his co-worker. The appellant's counsel further argued that the allegations of cruelty were unsubstantiated, and no specific dates were mentioned. However, the respondent's counsel argued that the allegations of adultery were made in the replication of the petition filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C by the appellant and that the respondent had sufficiently established that he was treated with cruelty.

The court stated that the use of derogatory and humiliating words against an individual constitutes cruelty and can cause mental agony and suffering. The proved conduct of the appellant-wife in the present case caused mental agony, pain, anger, and suffering to the respondent-husband on a regular and continuous basis, thus amounting to cruelty.

Court held that  argument made by the counsel for the appellant that specific dates and times are not mentioned loses significance as the respondent husband testified that the words were used repeatedly during quarrels, and there was no rebuttal or attempt to disprove the imputations during cross-examination, indicating that the allegations were duly proved and established.

Court further held that the finding returned by the Family Court that the respondent has been treated with cruelty was upheld, and the cruelty that has been proved on record is sufficient and constitutes cruelty as required under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The appeal was dismissed.

DEEPTI BHARDWAJ Vs. RAJEEV BHARDWAJ

Latest Legal News