Seniority Must Be Calculated From the Date of Initial Appointment, Not Regularization: Madras High Court Rules Section 319 Cr.P.C. | Mere Association Not Enough for Criminal Liability: Karnataka HC Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds ₹25,000 Per Kanal Compensation for Land Acquired for Nangal-Talwara Railway Line, Dismisses Railway’s Appeal No Work No Pay Principle Not Applicable: Orissa High Court Orders Reinstatement and Full Back Wages for Wrongfully Terminated Lecturer No Assault, No Obstruction, Only Words Exchanged: Bombay High Court Quashes Charges of Obstruction Against Advocates Under Section 353 IPC Matrimonial Offences Can Be Quashed Even if Non-Compoundable, When Genuine Compromise Is Reached: J&K HC Plaintiff Entitled to Partition, But Must Contribute Redemption Share to Defendant: Delhi High Court Clarifies Subrogation Rights in Mortgage Redemption Labeling Someone A 'Rowdy' Without Convictions Infringes Personal Liberty And Reputation: Kerala High Court P&H High Court Denies Pensionary Benefits for Work-Charged Employee's Widow; Declares Work-Charged Service Not Eligible for ACP or Pension Benefits Acquittal is Acquittal: Rajasthan High Court Orders Appointment of Candidate Denied Job Over Past FIR At The Bail Stage, Culpability Is Not To Be Decided; Allegations Must Be Tested During Trial: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in SCST Supreme Court Dismisses Challenge to "Secular" and "Socialist" Additions in Constitution Preamble Supreme Court Rejects Res Judicata in Land Allotment Case: Fresh Cause of Action Validates Public Interest Litigation Public Resources Are Not Privileges for the Few: Supreme Court Declares Preferential Land Allotments to Elites Unconstitutional Past antecedents alone cannot justify denial of bail: Kerala High Court Grants Bail Revenue Records Alone Cannot Prove Ownership: Madras High Court Dismisses Temple's Appeal for Injunction Humanitarian Grounds Cannot Undermine Investigation: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Interim Bail in ₹200 Crore Scholarship Scam The Power Under Order XXXVIII, Rule 5 CPC is Drastic and Extraordinary; Should Not Be Exercised Mechanically or Merely for the Asking: Calcutta High Court Telangana High Court Strikes Down Section 10-A: Upholds Transparency in Public Employment Absence of Homogeneous Mixing and Procedural Deficiencies Vitiate NDPS Conviction: Punjab and Haryana High Court Business Disputes Cannot Be Given Criminal Color: Patna High Court Quashes Complaint in Trademark Agreement Case Gujarat High Court Appoints Wife as Guardian of Comatose Husband, Calls for Legislative Framework Standard of Proof in Professional Misconduct Requires 'Higher Threshold' but Below 'Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Delhi High Court Imprisonment Cannot Bar Education: Bombay HC Allows UAPA Accused to Pursue LL.B. High Court Acquits Accused in Double Murder Case, Asserts ‘Suspicion Cannot Replace Proof’ Long separation and irreparable breakdown of marriage must be read as cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Regulation 101 Applies to All Aided Institutions, Including Minority Ones, Says Allahabad High Court Fraud Unravels All Judicial Acts : Jharkhand High Court Orders Demolition of Unauthorized Constructions in Ratan Heights Case Suspicious Circumstances Cannot Validate a Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds 1997 Will Over 2000 Will

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

Similar News