Section 32 Arbitration Act | Termination for Non-Payment of Fees Ends Arbitrator’s Mandate; Remedy Lies in Section 14(2): Supreme Court False Allegations of Dowry and Bigamy Amount to Mental Cruelty: Madras High Court Upholds Divorce Plaintiff Must Prove Her Own Title Before Seeking Demolition Of Defendant’s Pre-existing House: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mismatch Between Bullet and Recovered Gun Fatal to Prosecution: Calcutta High Court Acquits Man Convicted for Murder Where the Conduct of the Sole Eye-Witness Appears Unnatural and No Independent Witness Is Examined, Conviction Cannot Stand: Allahabad High Court Fraudulent Sale of Vehicle During Hire Purchase Renders Agreement Void: Gauhati High Court Upholds Decree for Refund of ₹4.90 Lakhs Unsigned Written Statement Can’t Silence a Defendant: Hyper-Technical Objections Must Yield to Substantive Justice: Delhi High Court Default Bail | No Accused, No Extension: Delhi High Court Rules Custody Extension Without Notice as Gross Illegality Under Article 21 Gratuity Can Be Withheld Post-Retirement for Proven Negligence Under Service Rules – Payment of Gratuity Act Does Not Override CDA Rules: Calcutta High Court Cognizance Is of the Offence, Not the Offender: Madras High Court Rejects Challenge to ED’s Supplementary Complaint in PMLA Case Acquittal in Rajasthan No Bar to Trial in Madhya Pradesh: MP High Court Rejects Double Jeopardy Plea in Antiquities Theft Case 20% Deposit Isn’t Automatic in Cheque Bounce Appeals: Right to Appeal Can’t Be Priced Out: Punjab & Haryana High Court Checks Mechanical Use of Section 148 NI Act A Child Is Not a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets New Benchmark in Compensation for Minors’ Deaths 90 Days Is Not Sacrosanct – Courts Can Permit Reply to Counter-Claim Even Beyond Prescribed Time in Interest of Justice: Punjab & Haryana High Court Magistrate Can Proceed Only for Offences Committed in India Until Sanction Is Obtained for Acts Outside India: Orissa High Court on International Financial Fraud Award Is Vitiated by Non-Consideration of Material Evidence: Orissa High Court Sets Aside Industrial Tribunal’s Wage Award in IMFA Case POCSO | Absence of Child's Name in Birth Certificate Not Fatal: Kerala High Court No One Has the Right to Impute Illicit Motives to Judges in the Name of Free Speech: Karnataka High Court Jails Man for Criminal Contempt DV Complaint Cannot Be Quashed at Threshold Under Article 227: Madras High Court Refuses to Interfere, Directs Accused to Seek Remedy Before Magistrate Recovery Wasn't From Accused's Exclusive Knowledge — Cylinder Already Marked in Site Plan Before Arrest: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man in Murder Case 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 Setting Fire to House Where Only Minors Were Present is a Heinous Offence – No Quashing Merely Because Parties Settled: Calcutta High Court No Exclusive Possession Means Licence, Not Lease: Calcutta High Court Rules City Civil Court Has Jurisdiction to Evict Licensees Defendant's Own Family Attested the Sale Agreement – Yet She Called It Nominal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Specific Performance Renewal Not Automatic, No Evidence Of Notice Or Mutual Agreement: AP High Court Dismisses Indian Oil’s Appeal Against Eviction

High Court Upholds Divorce on Grounds of Cruelty, Cites "Mental Cruelty Must Be of Such a Nature That Parties Cannot Reasonably Be Expected to Live Together"

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark ruling, the Delhi High Court, comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Hon'ble Ms. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, has upheld a Family Court decree granting divorce on the grounds of cruelty. The decision, pronounced on December 20th, 2023, reflects a significant observation by the court that “mental cruelty must be of such a nature that the parties cannot reasonably be expected to live together.”

The case, involving appellant Ritu Sethi and respondent Vivek Sethi, revolved around numerous allegations of cruelty made by the husband, which led to the grant of divorce by the Family Court. Upholding this decision, the High Court meticulously dissected the evidence presented, highlighting the severe mental trauma and distress faced by the respondent due to the actions of his wife.

Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, in her judgement, emphasized the gravity of mental cruelty in matrimonial cases. She stated, "It is a matter to be determined in each case having regard to the facts and circumstances of that case." The court observed that the cumulative behavior of the appellant, including false criminal allegations, abusive conduct, and disrespect towards the respondent's family, constituted mental cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

One of the pivotal points in the case was the filing of false criminal cases against the respondent and his family. The court noted that such actions, especially when proven to be baseless, can have a debilitating impact on the mental well-being of the spouse, thus amounting to cruelty.

Additionally, the court took serious note of the appellant's withdrawal from mutual consent for divorce, after initially agreeing to it. This act was seen as further contributing to the respondent's mental agony and was deemed a form of cruelty.

The High Court, in its judgement, also referred to several landmark Supreme Court cases to substantiate its decision. The judgement is seen as a reinforcement of the legal understanding of mental cruelty in matrimonial relationships and sets a precedent for future cases.

The case was represented by senior advocate Mr. Raman Kapur and Mr. Varun Kapur for the appellant, and Mr. Amarjit Singh Bedi & Mr. Varun Chandiok for the respondent.

This decision is expected to have a significant impact on how courts interpret mental cruelty in matrimonial disputes, providing a clearer framework for future judgements.

Date of Decision:20th December, 2023

RITU SETHI  VS  VIVEK SETHI

 

Latest Legal News