MACT | Fraud Vitiates All Judicial Acts, Even Without Specific Review Powers: Rajasthan High Court    |     Right of Private Defense Cannot Be Weighed in Golden Scales: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Appellant in Culpable Homicide Case    |     Pre-Arrest Bail Not a Right but an Exception: Himachal High Court Denied Bail In Dowry Death Case"    |     Service Law | Similarly Situated Employees Cannot Be Denied Equal Treatment: PH High Court Orders Regularization    |     Presumption of Innocence Remains Supreme Unless Clearly Overturned: PH High Court Affirming Acquittal    |     Any Physical Liaison with A Girl Of Less Than Eighteen Years Is A Strict Offense.: Patna High Court Reiterates Strict Stance On Sexual Offences Against Minors    |     Orissa High Court Rules Res Judicata Inapplicable When Multiple Appeals Arise from Same Judgment    |     Mandatory Section 80 Notice Cannot Be Bypassed Lightly:  Jammu & Kashmir High Court Returns Plaint for Non-Compliance    |     Bombay High Court Denies Permanent Lecturer Appointment for Failing to Meet UGC Eligibility Criteria at Time of Appointment    |     Deferred Cross-Examination Gave Time for Witness Tampering, Undermining Fair Trial: Allahabad High Court    |     Dowry Death | Presumption Under Section 113-B Not Applicable as No Proof of Cruelty Soon Before Death : Supreme Court    |     Land Acquisition | Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. (JAL) Liable for Compensation under Supplementary Award, Not Ultra-Tech Cement Ltd.: Supreme Court    |     Non-Mentioning of Bail Orders in Detention Reflects Clear Non-Application of Mind: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Order    |     Conviction Under Arms Act and Criminal Conspiracy Quashed Due to Non-Seizure of Key Evidence and Failure to Prove Ownership of Box: Jharkhand High Court    |    

Making False Allegations of Dowry demands and Domestic Violence is Mental cruelty: High Court of Delhi Grants Divorce

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment, the High Court of Delhi has granted a decree of divorce to Sandeep Singh, the appellant, under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The Court found that the respondent, Jagwanti @ Nidhi, had subjected the appellant to cruelty by making false allegations of dowry demand and domestic violence.

The pivotal legal point addressed in this judgment was the interpretation of ‘cruelty’ under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The Court observed that cruelty in a matrimonial relationship could be mental or physical, and false allegations causing mental agony can constitute mental cruelty.

The marriage between Sandeep Singh and Jagwanti was solemnized in January 2004. Following the marriage, a series of incidents involving allegations of dowry demand, desertion, and domestic violence emerged, leading to criminal trials. The appellant, aggrieved by these circumstances, sought divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion.

The Court, referring to various Supreme Court judgments, highlighted that mental cruelty is established when the conduct of one spouse inflicts such mental pain on the other, making it impossible for them to live together. The Court found the respondent’s conduct, including her false allegations leading to criminal trials, constituted such mental cruelty.

The Court also addressed the issue of desertion. It noted that the respondent’s prolonged and frequent absences from the matrimonial home, without efforts to return, constituted desertion.

In distinguishing between criminal and civil standards of proof, the Court clarified that acquittal in criminal proceedings does not automatically negate cruelty in matrimonial disputes, as the standards of proof differ.

The High Court set aside the judgment of the Family Court and granted a decree of divorce to the appellant, acknowledging the mental cruelty inflicted upon him through false allegations and subsequent criminal proceedings.

Date of Decision: February 28, 2024

“SANDEEP SINGH vs. JAGWANTI @ NIDHI”

Similar News