Consensual Relationship That Later Turns Sour Is Not Rape: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Breach of Promise Case Double Presumption of Innocence Applies; No Interference Unless Trial Court Judgment Is Perverse: Allahabad High Court in Murder Appeal Under BNSS A Single Act of Corruption Warrants Dismissal – 32 Years of Service Offers No Immunity: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds ASI’s Removal Suit Against Trustee Without Charity Commissioner’s Consent Is Statutorily Barred: Bombay High Court Government Can't Deny Implied Surrender After Refusing to Accept Possession: Madras HC Clarifies Scope of Section 111(f) of TP Act Custodial Interrogation Must Prevail Over Pre-Arrest Comfort in Hate Speech Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail for Provocative Remarks Against Migrants Mutation Order Without Notice Cannot Stand in Law: Orissa High Court Quashes Tahasildar's Rejection for Violating Natural Justice Cruelty Must Be Grave and Proven – Mere Allegations of Disobedience or Demand for Separate Residence Don’t Justify Divorce: Jharkhand High Court Rejects Husband’s Divorce Appeal Retaliatory Prosecution Cannot Override Liberty: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in PMLA Case Post CBI Trap of ED Officer Illegal Remand Without Production of Accused Is Not a Technical Lapse, But a Constitutional Breach: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Major NDPS Case Inherent Power Under Section 528 BNSS Not a Substitute for Article 226 When FIR Is Under Challenge Without Chargesheet or Cognizance Order: Allahabad High Court Possession Without Title Is Legally Insubstantial: Gujarat HC Dismisses Appeal By Dairy Cooperative Over Void Land Transfer You Can Prosecute a Former Director, But You Can’t Force Him to Represent the Company: Calcutta High Court Lays Down Clear Limits on Corporate Representation in PMLA Cases Conviction Cannot Rest on Tainted Testimony of Injured Witnesses in Isolation: Bombay High Court Acquits Five in Murder Case One Attesting Witness is Sufficient if He Proves Execution and Attestation of Will as Required by Law: AP High Court Land Acquisition | Delay Cannot Defeat Just Compensation: P&H High Court Grants Enhanced Compensation Despite 12-Year Delay in Review Petitions by Landowners Allegations Implausible, Motivated by Malice: Kerala High Court Quashes Rape Case After Finding Abuse Claims a Counterblast to Civil Dispute Adoptions Under Hindu Law Need No Approval from District Magistrate: Madras High Court Declares Administrative Rejection of Adoptive Birth Certificate as Illegal Findings of Fact Cannot Be Re-Appreciated in an Appeal Under Section 10F Companies Act: Madras High Court Equality Is Not A Mechanical Formula, But A Human Commitment: P&H High Court Grants Visually Impaired Mali Retrospective Promotions With Full Benefits Orissa High Court Rules Notice for No Confidence Motion Must Include Both Requisition and Resolution – Provision Held Mandatory Ashramam Built on Private Land, Managed by Family – Not a Public Religious Institution: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Endowments Notification Cruelty Must Be Proved, Not Presumed: Gujarat High Court Acquits Deceased Husband In 498A Case After 22 Years Trade Dress Protection Goes Beyond Labels: Calcutta High Court Affirms Injunction Over Coconut Oil Packaging Mimicry Mere Filing of Income Tax Returns Does Not Exonerate the Accused: Madras High Court Refuses Discharge to Wife of Public Servant in ₹2 Crore DA Case

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