Mere Reproduction Of Evidence Can Never Be Equated With Appreciation: Karnataka High Court Quashes Penalty Against Govt Employee Accused Cannot Repeatedly Send Cheque To FSL Till Favourable Report Is Obtained: Kerala High Court In NI Act Case Succession Certificate Cannot Be Issued For Gold Jewels Pledged With Bank, Applies Only To Debts And Securities: Madras High Court Order 11 Rule 14 CPC | Court Cannot Direct Production Of Documents Without Ascertaining They Are In Party's Possession: Calcutta High Court Undertrial Prisoners Don't Suffer 'Civil Death', Retain Fundamental Right To Alienate Property From Jail: Rajasthan High Court Direction For Reasonable Annual Enhancement Of Maintenance Under Section 125 CrPC Merely Preserves Its Real Value Against Inflation: Delhi High Court Testimony Of Sole Interested Witness Must Be Of 'Sterling Quality' To Base Conviction: Patna High Court Acquits Murder Convict Failure To Communicate Written Grounds Of Arrest Renders Arrest Constitutionally Infirm, Accused Entitled To Bail: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 482 CrPC Petition Not Maintainable Against Order Framing Charge Under SC/ST Act, Appeal Lies Under Section 14A: Tripura High Court Disputed Questions Of Fact Regarding Title And Forged Documents Cannot Be Decided Under Article 226: Telangana High Court Matter To Be Enquired By Bar Council: Madhya Pradesh High Court Dismisses Lawyer's PILs With Costs For Suppressing Attorney-Client Relationship BDA Cannot Arbitrarily Reverse Resolutions Passed To Comply With Judicial Directives: Karnataka High Court Section 52A NDPS Act: Mere Non-Compliance Does Not Automatically Vitiate Trial Unless Evidence Is Doubtful: Punjab & Haryana High Court Seniority Must Be Determined From Date Of Substantive Appointment, Not Ad-Hoc Service: Allahabad High Court Uncorroborated Testimony Of Drug Inspector Cannot Form Sole Basis For Conviction Under Drugs Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Suppression Of Adverse Facts Strikes At Root Of Equitable Jurisdiction: Bombay High Court Denies Injunction In HUF Property Dispute

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