Supreme Court Lays Down Comprehensive Guidelines To Prevent Misuse Of POCSO Act In Matrimonial Disputes Land Reforms Act | Joint Application For Pre-Emption By Adjoining Landowners Is Maintainable: Calcutta High Court Ocular Evidence In Conflict With Medical Findings Or Withholding Of Natural Witnesses Vitiates Prosecution Case: Allahabad High Court Compassionate Appointment Claim Must Be Decided Based On Policy Prevalent At Time Of Death: Bombay High Court Section 376 IPC | Failure To Prove Initial Dishonest Intent In Marriage Promise Renders Sexual Relationship Consensual: Allahabad High Court Prolonged Incarceration And Delay In Trial Are Valid Grounds To Invoke Constitutional Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 In UAPA Cases: Delhi High Court Motor Vehicles Act | Insurer Liable To Pay And Recover Compensation For Gratuitous Passengers In Goods Vehicles: Gujarat High Court Proof Of Demand And Acceptance Under PC Act Must Be Evaluated Based On Preponderance Of Probabilities In Rebuttal: Kerala High Court Tenancy Claim | Mere Possession Without Lawful Foundation Or Identification Of Tenanted Land Cannot Confer Occupancy Rights: Karnataka High Court 125 CrPC | Maintenance Cannot Be Evaded By Claiming Physical Disability If Conduct Indicates Concealment Of Financial Means: Kerala High Court M.P. Municipal Corporation Act | Locus Standi Under Section 307(5) Limited To Residents Of The Municipal Area: Madhya Pradesh High Court Writ Jurisdiction | Belated Challenge To Disciplinary Action After Superannuation Amounts To Laches; Petition Dismissed: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC | Mere Pendency Of Partition Suit Does Not Entitle Plaintiff To Injunction Restraining Reconstruction Of Residential Building: Kerala High Court Not A Mere Breach Of Contract: Telangana High Court Refuses To Quash FIR In ₹73 Crore Garment Investment Fraud Section 482 CrPC | High Court Quashes FIR Following Private Compromise In Non-Heinous Dispute Arising From Civil Conflict Mere Involvement In Criminal Case Does Not Constitute Moral Turpitude To Deny Public Appointment: Telangana High Court Pendency Of Investigation Cannot Be A Blanket Ground To Deny Permission For Foreign Travel: Rajasthan High Court Fraudulent Representation By Counsel Vitiates Ex Parte Decree: Punjab & Haryana High Court Holds Professional Misconduct As Evidence Of Fraud Writ Jurisdiction | Suppression Of Material Facts Regarding Pending Criminal And Departmental Proceedings Renders Petition Liable To Dismissal: Orissa High Court Banking Fraud | Failure Of Bank Official To Conduct Physical Inspection Of Collateral Property Constitutes Criminal Conspiracy And Abuse Of Official Position: Madras High Court Fraud Vitiates Judicial Proceedings: Judgment Obtained Through Misrepresentation And Conflict Of Interest Cannot Be Sustained, Holds Punjab And Haryana High Court Discovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act From Publicly Accessible Place Requires Caution: Supreme Court Mere Recovery Of Articles At Instance Of Accused Without Independent Corroboration Cannot Sustain Conviction: Supreme Court DNA Profile Must Be Supported By Other Conclusive Evidence To Prove Guilt: Supreme 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