Registration Of FIR Is Mandatory If Information Ex Facie Discloses Commission Of  Cognizable Offence: Supreme Court 'No Res Judicata': Supreme Court Holds Rejection Of Section 156(3) CrPC Plea Is No Bar To Subsequent Registration Of FIR Auto Dealers' Referral Charges From Banks & Insurers Constitute 'Business Auxiliary Service', But No Penalty If Tax Paid Before Show Cause Notice: Supreme Court MACT | Appellate Courts Must Liberally Admit Additional Evidence Under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC To Compute 'Just Compensation': Supreme Court MACT | Post-Accident Vehicle Position On Sketch Cannot Be Sole Basis To Infer Contributory Negligence: Supreme Court Enhances Compensation To ₹50.8 Lakhs 'Sanction Under Section 19(1)(c) PC Act Must Be Granted By Removing Authority': Supreme Court Sets Aside Conviction Mere Recovery Of Money Cannot Resurrect Prosecution Proof Of Demand Is Sine Qua: Supreme Court Lok Adalat Awards Without Signatures Of All Rival Claimants Are Invalid, Order I Rule 8 CPC Inapplicable: Supreme Court Lok Adalat Cannot Decide Title Disputes, Mere Physical Possession Doesn't Prove Ownership": Supreme Court Quashes Land Acquisition Awards Power Discoms Can't Escape Liability: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Damages For Death Caused By Snapped Live Wires Lying On Ground Extra-Judicial Confessions To Village Administrative Officers Cannot Be Accepted As Gospel Truth Without Signatures And Corroboration: Madras High Court Acquits Murder Accused 'Article 21 Trumps UAPA Rigors': Allahabad High Court Grants Bail To PFI Members After 5 Years In Jail Due To 'Sluggish' Trial" Daughters Cannot Be Denied Equal Share: Orissa High Court Upholds Compensation Apportionment In Favor Of Daughters Under Hindu Succession Act Cannot Reopen Closed Chapter Years Later: Calcutta High Court Dismisses BSF Ex-Head Constable's Plea Claiming Voluntary Retirement Was Extracted Under Coercion Long-Standing Relationship And Public Recognition Prove Valid Marriage: Karnataka High Court Upholds Second Wife's Right To 1/3rd Share In Property Collector Becomes Functus Officio Once Duty Is Determined: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Penalty On Stamp Duty Deficiency Eyewitness Testimony Contradicted By Medical Evidence Cannot Sustain Murder Conviction: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Woman In IPC 302 Case

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