State Can’t Block SARFAESI Sale by Late Revenue Entries: Secured Creditor’s Charge Prevails Over Tax Dues: Punjab & Haryana High Court Slams Sub-Registrar’s Refusal Providing SIM Card Without Knowledge of Its Criminal Use Does Not Imply Criminal Conspiracy: P&H High Court Grants Bail in UAPA & Murder Case Importer Who Accepts Enhanced Valuation Cannot Later Contest Confiscation and Penalty for Undervaluation: Madras High Court Upholds Strict Liability under Customs Act "Allegations Are Not Proof: Madras High Court Refuses Divorce Without Substantiated Cruelty or Desertion" When FIR Is Filed After Consulting Political Leaders, the Possibility of Coloured Version Cannot Be Ruled Out: Kerala High Court Mere Allegations of Antecedents Without Conviction Can't Defeat Right to Anticipatory Bail: Kerala High Court Section 106 Of Evidence Act Cannot Be Invoked In Vacuum – Prosecution Must First Lay Foundational Facts: Karnataka High Court Acquits Wife And Co-Accused In Husband’s Murder Case Parity Cannot Be Claimed When Roles Are Different: Karnataka High Court Refuses Bail to Youth Accused of Brutal Killing Injured Wife Would Not Falsely Implicate Her Husband: Gauhati High Court Upholds Conviction in Domestic Stabbing Case Disputed Bids, Missing Evidence and No Prejudice: Delhi High Court Refuses to Intervene in Tender Challenge under Article 226 License Fee on Hoardings is Regulatory, Not Tax; GST Does Not Bar Municipal Levy: Bombay High Court Filing Forged Bank Statement to Mislead Court in Maintenance Case Is Prima Facie Offence Under Section 466 IPC: Allahabad High Court Upholds Summoning Marriage Cannot Be Perpetuated on Paper When Cohabitation Has Ceased for Decades: Supreme Court Invokes Article 142 to Grant Divorce Despite Wife’s Opposition Ownership of Trucks Does Not Mean Windfall Compensation: Supreme Court Slashes Inflated Motor Accident Award in Absence of Documentary Proof Concealment of Mortgage Is Fraud, Not a Technical Omission: Supreme Court Restores Refund Decree, Slams High Court’s Remand State Reorganization Does Not Automatically Convert Cooperative Societies into Multi-State Entities: Supreme Court Rejects Blanket Interpretation of Section 103 Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Eligibility Flows from Birth, Not a Certificate Date: Delhi High Court Strikes Down Rule Fixing Arbitrary Cut-Off for OBC-NCL Certificates in CAPF (AC) Recruitment Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Once a Court Declares a Department an Industry Under Section 2(j), State Cannot Raise the Same Objection Again: Gujarat High Court Slams Repetitive Litigation by Irrigation Department “How Could Cheques Issued in 2020 Be Mentioned in a 2019 Contract?”: Delhi High Court Grants Injunction in Forged MOA Case, Slams Prima Facie Fabrication

False Criminal Charges Against Spouse Can Constitute Mental Cruelty Justifying Divorce – Delhi High Court Grants Divorce On Grounds Of Cruelty Under Section 13(1)(ia) Of The Hindu Marriage Act

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment, the Delhi High Court has overturned the decision of the Family Court and granted a decree of divorce on the grounds of cruelty, under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The court pronounced that false criminal accusations and a prolonged legal battle can amount to mental cruelty.

Legal Point: The pivotal legal point in this case centered on the interpretation of “cruelty” as a ground for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act. The court emphasized that false criminal proceedings initiated by one spouse against the other constitute mental cruelty and are sufficient grounds for dissolution of marriage.

Facts and Issues: The appellant, Dharmender Singh Bisht, had appealed the dismissal of his divorce petition by the Family Court, which initially found no sufficient evidence of cruelty or dowry harassment by the respondent, Babita Bisht. The primary allegations involved false criminal accusations lodged by the respondent against the appellant, impacting his personal and professional life.

Evidence of Cruelty: The court noted the appellant’s acquittal in the criminal proceedings initiated by the respondent, highlighting the lack of substantiated claims against him. This was seen as indicative of the respondent’s intent to inflict mental agony on the appellant.

Impact of False Allegations: Observations by the court underscored the severe impact of false allegations on the appellant’s reputation and mental health. The prolonged criminal trial, spanning nearly two decades, was deemed an act of mental cruelty.

Irretrievable Breakdown: The court observed that the marriage was irretrievably broken, with no realistic prospect of reconciliation, further substantiating the need for divorce.

Departmental Inquiry: The appellant was subjected to a departmental inquiry due to complaints filed by the respondent, which eventually exonerated him. This reinforced the claim of mental cruelty due to false accusations.

Decision: The High Court reversed the Family Court’s judgment and granted a decree of divorce on the grounds of cruelty. It was held that the cumulative acts of the respondent, particularly the initiation of baseless criminal proceedings, amounted to mental cruelty against the appellant.

Date of Decision: May 3, 2024.

Dharmender Singh Bisht vs. Babita Bisht

Latest Legal News