Audit Report Alone Is Not Proof of Loss: Himachal Pradesh High Court Rejects ₹2.54 Crore Insurance Claim Filed by Co-operative Bank for Employee Fraud Divisional Commissioner Has No Jurisdiction to Cancel Sale Permission Once Conveyance Is Complete: Bombay High Court Rules in Landmark Land Transfer Case Once Land Is Vested Under LDP Act, There Is No Lapse, No Going Back: Calcutta High Court Refuses Fresh Acquisition Under 2013 Act Courts Cannot Conduct a Mini-Trial at Cognizance Stage—Delhi High Court Upholds Summoning in SC/ST Act, IPC Case Involving Police Officer Liberty Cannot Override the Horrors of Lynching: Bombay High Court Denies Bail in Palghar Mob Killing Case Exorbitant Damages Without Proof Are Unsustainable: Madhya Pradesh High Court Strikes Down ₹3.84 Lakh Monthly Damage Order Against Industrial Occupant Specialization Cannot Be Used as a Tool for Harassment: Allahabad High Court Quashes Mid-Term Transfer of Law Officer for Violating Bank's Transfer Policy Delay in Passing Arbitral Award Not Sufficient to Invalidate It Unless Prejudice Is Proven: Bombay High Court Upholds ₹43 Crore Arbitral Award Against Director-Guarantor Builder Disputes Can't Be Dressed as Criminal Offences to Seek FIRs: Delhi High Court Dismisses Writ Seeking CBI Probe Against NBCC Mere Plea of Oral Partition Not Sufficient Without Corroborative Evidence: Karnataka High Court Plaintiff Cannot Claim 2/3 Share Without Proving Settlement or Joining All Co-Heirs: Madras High Court Voluntary Abandonment of Infant Child Constitutes Cruelty; Father Retains Custody: Karnataka High Court Mere Delay Is No Ground To Quash Disciplinary Proceedings When Serious Financial Irregularities Are Alleged: Madhya Pradesh High Court Upholds Charge-Sheet For Fraudulent Medical Claims Employer’s Insurance Cannot Offset Motor Accident Compensation: Delhi High Court Upholds Just Claims of Deceased’s Family Dying Declaration Must Inspire Confidence—Absence of Dowry Allegation Weakens Prosecution Narrative: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Acquittal in Dowry Death Case Proposed Accused Cannot Challenge FIR Direction: Allahabad High Court Dismisses Criminal Revision Against Magistrate’s Order Under Section 156(3) CrPC Delay in Impleading Legal Heirs No Ground to Dismiss Entire Revision: Supreme Court Restores Civil Revision, Condemns Overtechnical Approach Generalised Allegations Without Specifics Against In-Laws Are Not Enough To Sustain Criminal Prosecution: Supreme Court Quashes Dowry Case Conviction for Rape on Promise to Marry Quashed as Couple Marries: Supreme Court Invokes Article 142 to Do Complete Justice Recruitment Process Initiated Under Valid Policy Cannot Be Set Aside Merely Due to Later Change in Committee Composition: Calcutta High Court Conviction for Theft of Public Electricity Infrastructure Upheld; Hostile Witnesses Won’t Dismantle Case Where Recovery Is Proven: Karnataka High Court

Filing False Complaints Against Spouse Is Mental Cruelty Warranting Divorce — Supreme Court Affirms Separation After 26 Years of Discord

12 September 2025 4:24 PM

By: sayum


“A Father Cannot Shirk the Modest Duty of Funding His Daughter’s Marriage …..Meeting the reasonable expenses of his daughter’s marriage is a natural extension of his duty as a parent, irrespective of differences with the spouse." —  Today, On September 12, 2025, the Supreme Court of India finally brought closure to a 26-year-old embittered matrimonial saga by affirming the husband’s divorce on the ground of mental cruelty and directing him to pay ₹10,00,000 towards the marriage expenses of the daughter, stating that his parental responsibility continues regardless of marital hostility.

The Court reiterated that false accusations and repeated police complaints lodged by one spouse against another constitute “mental cruelty” sufficient to grant divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and added that a parent’s legal and moral duty towards a child does not dissolve with the marriage.

"Marriage, in this case, was nothing but a long-standing battlefield" — Supreme Court observes irreversible breakdown of relationship

The marriage, solemnized in May 1996, produced two children—a daughter and a son. However, by 2009, the husband had approached the Family Court seeking divorce on grounds of cruelty, narrating a long-standing pattern of mental torture by his wife, including persistent allegations and police complaints. The wife, on the other hand, countered with claims of domestic violence and physical abuse.

In a parallel proceeding under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, she initially received monthly maintenance and later succeeded in obtaining a compensation order of ₹7 lakhs, after the High Court enhanced the earlier award of ₹2 lakhs. The husband's challenge to that award was dismissed by the Supreme Court in March 2023.

The Family Court eventually granted divorce in September 2019, which was affirmed by the Delhi High Court in December 2023, observing that the wife’s repeated false complaints and police interventions had created an atmosphere of unresolvable acrimony, thereby amounting to mental cruelty.

The High Court remarked: “The parties have been in constant acrimony since the inception of their marriage… Lodging false complaints amounts to cruelty.”

“Even after a divorce, a parent’s obligation to the child remains” — Supreme Court balances law with human responsibility

Before the Supreme Court, the wife chose not to reopen the issue of divorce but limited her prayer to a one-time contribution of ₹10 lakhs from the husband towards the upcoming marriage of their daughter. She contended that the husband had income from business and rental properties, while the husband maintained that he had no earnings whatsoever.

The Court, however, found merit in her claim and observed: “We are satisfied that the respondent is capable of making provision for his daughter’s marriage.”

While accepting that the marital relationship had “ceased to exist in substance” and attempts at reconciliation had failed, the Court acknowledged the mother’s solitary role in raising both children, adding:

“The appellant-wife has raised and supported both children largely on her own. It is a father’s duty to provide for his children, and meeting the marriage expenses of his daughter is a modest obligation.”

The Bench, comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, did not hesitate in enforcing this moral and legal responsibility upon the husband. It directed:

“The respondent-husband is directed to pay an amount of ₹10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) to the appellant-wife towards the marriage expenses of their daughter on or before 15th October 2025.”

The Court also inserted a compliance safeguard: “In case of default, the Registry shall revive these appeals for further consideration and appropriate orders.”

It also instructed the wife to furnish her bank details for smooth transaction of the ordered amount.

False Allegations May End a Marriage, But Parenthood Is a Lifelong Contract

While affirming the decree of divorce, the Court went a step further to assert that parenthood is not dependent on the success or failure of a marriage. In explicitly holding that a father is bound to support his daughter’s wedding despite estrangement from the spouse, the Supreme Court reinforced that emotional duties cannot be escaped by legal severance.

“Meeting the reasonable expenses of his daughter’s marriage is a natural extension of his duty as a parent, irrespective of differences with the spouse.”

The judgment stands as a dual pronouncement of law and conscience — that false accusations in matrimonial life are fatal to its survival, and that parental duties cannot be outsourced to acrimony.

Date of Decision: September 12, 2025

Latest Legal News