Employees Cannot Pick Favourable Terms and Reject the Rest: Bombay High Court Upholds SIDBI’s Cut-Off Date for Pension to CPF Optees Rules of the Game Were Never Changed: Delhi High Court Upholds CSIR’s Power to Prescribe Minimum Threshold in CASE-2023 Resignation Does Not Forfeit Earned Pension: Calcutta High Court Declares Company Superannuation Benefit as ‘Wages’ Under Law Fraud Vitiates Everything—Stranger Can File Independent Suit Against Compromise Decree: Bombay High Court Refuses to Reject 49-Year-Old Challenge at Threshold Mere Long Possession By One Co-Owner Does Not Destroy The Co-Ownership Right Of The Other: Madras High Court State Cannot Hide Behind An Illegal Undertaking: Punjab & Haryana High Court Questions Denial Of Retrospective Regularization Article 21-A Cannot Be Held Hostage to Transfer Preferences: Allahabad High Court Upholds Teacher Redeployment to Enforce Pupil–Teacher Ratio Arbitrator Cannot Rewrite Contract Or Travel Beyond Pleadings: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes ₹5.18 Crore Award Director’ in GeM Clause 29 Does Not Mean ‘Independent Director’: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Technical Disqualification Section 25(3) Is Sacrosanct – Removal of a Trademark Cannot Rest on a Defective Notice: Delhi High Court Not Every Broken Promise Is Rape: Delhi High Court Draws Clear Line Between ‘Suspicion’ and ‘Grave Suspicion’ in False Promise to Marry Case Section 37 Is Not A Second Appeal On Merits: Delhi High Court Refuses To Re-Appreciate Evidence In Challenge To Arbitral Award Recovery After Retirement Is Clearly Impermissible: Bombay High Court Shields Retired Teacher From ₹2.80 Lakh Salary Recovery Paying Tax Does Not Legalise Illegality: Bombay High Court Refuses to Shield Alleged Unauthorized Structure Beneficial Pension Scheme Cannot Be Defeated By Cut-Off Dates: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs EPFO To Follow Sunil Kumar B. Guidelines On Higher Pension Claims Equity Aids the Vigilant, Not Those Who Sleep Over Their Rights: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses to Revive 36-Year-Old Pay Parity Claim Students Cannot Be Penalised For Legislative Invalidity: Supreme Court Protects Degrees Granted Before 2005 Yash Pal Verdict Restructuring Without Fulfilment of Conditions Cannot Defeat Insolvency: Supreme Court Reaffirms Default as the Sole Trigger Under Section 7 IBC Section 100-A CPC Slams The Door On Intra-Court Appeals In RERA Matters”: Allahabad High Court Declares Special Appeal Not Maintainable Mental Distance Between ‘May Be’ and ‘Must Be’ Is Long: Patna High Court Acquits Six in Murder Case Built on Broken Chain of Circumstances Where Corruption Takes Roots, Rule of Law Is Replaced by Rule of Transaction: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail to DIG Harcharan Singh Bhullar Mere Voter List and Corrected SSC Certificate Cannot Prove Paternity: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects 21-Year-Old Bid for DNA Test in Partition Appeal Section 147 NI Act Makes Offence Compoundable At Any Stage: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Concurrent Convictions in Cheque Bounce Case After Settlement Bald Allegations of Adultery Based on Suspicion Cannot Dissolve a Marriage: Jharkhand High Court Once a Document Is Admitted in Evidence, Its Stamp Defect Cannot Be Reopened: Madras High Court

"Marriage of Judicial Officer Dissolved by Madhya Pradesh High Court on Grounds of Cruelty"

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has dissolved the marriage of a judicial officer, Avinash Kumar Tripathi, citing 'continuous harassment and false allegations' by his wife, Smt. Priyanka Tripathi. The Division Bench comprising Justices Sheel Nagu and Devnarayan Mishra delivered the landmark verdict on December 13, 2023, overturning the Family Court's previous decision.

The court's ruling came after careful analysis of multiple allegations of cruelty, false criminal charges, and dowry demands, levied by both parties against each other. The case, First Appeal No. 1664 and 165 of 2018, highlighted complex matrimonial disputes under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

In the detailed judgment, the High Court noted, "The acts/conducts of the respondent constitute cruelty and they cannot be treated as normal wear and tear of matrimonial life." This observation was pivotal in the court's decision to dissolve the marriage solemnized on February 20, 2011.

The appellant-husband, a Judicial Officer in Chhattisgarh, had filed for divorce, alleging that his wife subjected him to mental cruelty, including doubting his character and making false criminal allegations. The respondent-wife, on the other hand, denied these allegations and accused her husband and his family of dowry harassment.

The High Court meticulously examined the evidence and incidents presented, emphasizing the impact of false allegations on the appellant's mental state and professional life. "The respondent continuously filed cases, sought judicial enquiries, made various complaints to higher authorities about the conduct of the appellant, and thus, she has left no stone unturned to embarrass, harass, intimidate, abuse and belittle," stated the Court in its judgment.

In a significant turn of events, the Court allowed the appeals filed by the appellant, leading to the dissolution of the marriage. The judgment underscores the legal recognition of mental cruelty in matrimonial disputes and sets a precedent for future cases involving similar complexities.

Legal experts view this judgment as a critical development in family law, highlighting the importance of addressing mental cruelty and false allegations in matrimonial disputes.

Date of Decision: 13-12-2023

AVINASH KUMAR TRIPATHI  Vs. SMT. PRIYANKA TRIPATHI

Latest Legal News