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 Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process 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

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