CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness Employee Cannot Switch Cadre At His Sweet Will After Accepting Promotion: J&K High Court Rejects Claim For Retrospective Assistant Registrar Appointment Anticipatory Bail Cannot Expire With Charge-Sheet: Supreme Court Reiterates Liberty Is Not Bound by Procedural Milestones Order II Rule 2 Cannot Eclipse Amendment Power Under Order VI Rule 17: MP High Court Refuses to Stall Will-Based Title Suit Grounds of Arrest Must Be Personal, Not Formal – But Detailed Allegations Suffice: Kerala High Court Upholds Arrest in Sabarimala Gold Misappropriation Case Grounds of Arrest Are Not a Ritual – They Are a Constitutional Mandate Under Article 22(1): Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Arrest for Non-Supply of Written Grounds Sect. 25 NDPS | Mere Ownership Cannot Fasten NDPS Liability – ‘Knowingly Permits’ Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt: MP High Court Section 308 CrPC | Revocation of Pardon Is Not Automatic on Prosecutor’s Certificate: Karnataka High Court Joint Family and Ancestral Property Are Alien to Mohammedan Law: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Injunction Right to Health Cannot Wait for Endless Consultations: Supreme Court Pulls Up FSSAI Over Delay in Front-of-Pack Warning Labels If A Son Dies Intestate Leaving Wife And Children, The Mother Has No Share: 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