POCSO Presumption Is Not a Dead Letter, But ‘Sterling Witness’ Test Still Governs Conviction: Bombay High Court High Courts Cannot Routinely Entertain Contempt Petitions Beyond One Year: Madras High Court Declines Contempt Plea Filed After Four Years Courts Cannot Reject Suit by Weighing Evidence at Threshold: Delhi High Court Restores Discrimination Suit by Indian Staff Against Italian Embassy Improvised Testimonies and Dubious Recovery Cannot Sustain Murder Conviction: Allahabad High Court Acquits Two In Murder Case Partnership Act | Eviction Suit by Unregistered Firm Maintainable if Based on Statutory Right: Madhya Pradesh High Court Violation of Income Tax Law Doesn’t Void Cheque Bounce Offence: Supreme Court Overrules Kerala HC, Says Section 138 NI Act Stands Independent Overstaying Licensee Cannot Evade Double Damages by Legal Technicalities: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Is Not a Stamp of Truth: Punjab & Haryana High Court Trademark Law Must Protect Reputation, Not Reward Delay Tactics: Bombay High Court Grants Injunction to FedEx Against Dishonest Use of Its Well-Known Mark Commercial Dispute Need Not Wait for a Written Contract: Delhi High Court Upholds Rs.6 Lakh Decree in Rent Recovery Suit Against Storage Defaulter Limitation Begins From Refusal, Not Date of Agreement—Especially When Title Was Under Litigation: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sale by Karta of Ancestral Property Without Legal Necessity Is Voidable, Not Void: Madras High Court Dismisses Sons’ Appeal Demand for Gold at 'Chhoochhak' Ceremony Not Dowry – Demand Must Connected With Marriage: Supreme Court Motor Accident Claims Cannot Be Decided on Sympathy – Involvement of Offending Vehicle Must Be Proved: Supreme Court Compassionate Appointment Is Not a Ladder for Career Advancement – It Ends Once Exercised: Supreme Court

False and Defamatory Complaints Can Amount to Cruelty in Divorce Cases: Delhi High Court

06 September 2024 5:48 AM

By: Admin


In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court has established a significant precedent, stating that false and defamatory complaints filed by one spouse against the other and their family members can constitute an act of cruelty, justifying divorce. The judgment, delivered by a bench consisting of SURESH KUMAR KAIT and NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, sheds light on the critical aspect of cruelty in divorce cases.

The case revolved around a couple seeking divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) and Section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The judgment analyzed the conduct of both parties, with a particular focus on the appellant-wife's actions.

The court's ruling emphasized that the appellant-wife's unfounded accusations and defamatory complaints against her husband and his family members amounted to cruelty. The judgment cited several legal precedents, including the Supreme Court's decisions in cases such as Samar Ghosh Vs. Jaya Ghosh and Ravi Kumar vs. Julmidevi, which affirmed that reckless and false accusations against a spouse and their family members could lower their reputation in society, constituting cruelty under the law.

Additionally, the court highlighted the husband's repeated efforts at reconciliation, which were met with resistance by the wife. The judgment noted that despite the husband's attempts to reconcile, the wife's animus deserendi, or intention to abandon the marital relationship, became evident.

This landmark ruling not only provides clarity on the grounds for divorce but also underscores the importance of responsible conduct in matrimonial disputes. It serves as a reminder that false and defamatory complaints should not be used as tools for revenge in marital conflicts.

This decision by the Delhi High Court sets a valuable precedent for future divorce cases, emphasizing the need for fairness, truthfulness, and sensitivity in resolving disputes within matrimonial relationships.

Date of Decision: 11 OCTOBER  2023

TAPSI VIDYARTHI vs ARVIND KUMAR SINGH

Latest Legal News