Trial Courts Must Award Just Compensation In POCSO Cases Beyond Fine Amounts; Interim Payment No Reason To Deny Final Relief: Madras High Court Section 482 CrPC Power Not For Conducting 'Mini-Trial'; Disputed Facts Must Be Adjudicated At Trial: Allahabad High Court Right To Walk On Demarcated Footpaths Is A Fundamental Right; Municipal Authorities Under Enforceable Duty To Provide Pedestrian Infrastructure: Supreme Court Right To Walk Is A Fundamental Right Under Articles 19(1)(d) & 21; Priority Over Motorised Vehicles: Supreme Court Municipal Commissioner Is Disciplinary Authority For All Employees Post-1993 Amendment; Existing Regulations Can't Fetter Statutory Power: Supreme Court High Court Cannot Force Plaintiff To Accept Monetary Compensation Instead Of Removal Of Encroachment Without Prayer: Supreme Court Recruitment Merit Is Not A Vested Right; Public Interest Justifies Disclosing Marks Of Candidates Outside Selection Zone: Supreme Court Special Police Establishment Not An 'Intelligence & Security Organisation', State Cannot Exempt It From RTI Act: Supreme Court Medical Practitioner Not Negligent Merely Because Result Was A Failure If Procedure Adopted Was Acceptable To Medical Science: Calcutta High Court Long Service Cannot Be Denied Regularization On Mere Technicalities If Appointment Wasn't Illegal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejection Of Nomination Paper Can Only Be Challenged Through Election Petition; Article 329(b) Bars Writ Jurisdiction: Supreme Court NI Act | Benefit Of Presumptions Under Sections 118 & 139 Not Available If Complainant Lacks Direct Knowledge Of Transaction: Kerala High Court Landowners Entitled To Solatium Under National Highways Act; Failure To Grant Is Ground To Challenge Award Under Section 34: MP High Court Transfer Policy Only Broad Guideline, Not Enforceable Under Article 226/227 In Absence Of Mala Fides: Rajasthan High Court

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