Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Collector’s Appointment of Ex-Serviceman as Lambardar: Preference for Service to the State Valid Tax to Be Computed at 100% Under DTVSV Act, Rejects Inclusion of Belated Grounds in Disputed Tax: Bombay High Court Petitioner’s Father Did Not Fall Within Definition of Enemy – Kerala High Court Quashes Land Classification Under Enemy Property Act Calcutta High Court Upholds Cancellation of LPG Distributor LOI for Violating Guidelines Recording 'Reasons to Believe' is a Mandatory Safeguard, Not a Mere Formality Under PMLA: P&H High Court Illegality Is Incurable, Unauthorized Constructions Cannot Be Regularized: Bombay High Court Kerala High Court Quashes Tribunal’s Order Granting Retrospective UGC Benefits to Librarians Without Required Qualifications Order XLI Rule 27 CPC | No Evidence Can Be Admitted Beyond Pleadings, And Additional Evidence Cannot Be Allowed Merely To Fill Lacunae: Jharkhand High Court Quashing | Mere Heated Exchanges Over Loan Repayment Do Not Constitute Abetment of Suicide: Supreme Court Prisoner Transfers Must Prioritize Security and Prevent Gang Violence: Supreme Court Restores Intra-State Transfer Order Jurisdiction Under Section 100 CPC Is Conditional Upon Framing Substantial Questions of Law: Supreme Court Panchayat Election | Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Bar on Judicial Review During Election Process Encroachment Allegation Requires Concrete Evidence, Not Mere Surmises: Bombay High Court Dismisses Plea for Disqualification of Sarpanch Order Denying Permission for Peaceful Protest Rally Set Aside: Calcutta High Court Prolonged Custody Alone Cannot Justify Bail In Cases Involving Heinous Crimes: Delhi High Court Body Shaming and Sexually Colored Remarks Are Unacceptable In A Civilized Society: Kerala High Court No Mandatory Injunction Where Failure to Prove Ownership and Possession: Punjab and Haryana High Court Supreme Court Dismisses Article 32 Petition Seeking Declaration of Bombay High Court Judgment as Illegal Specific Relief Act | Power to Extend Time Under Section 28 Is Discretionary and Must Be Exercised Prudently: Supreme Court

"Matrimonial Dispute Resolved Amicably, Both FIRs Quashed": Delhi High Court Gives Verdict in High-Profile Case Involving Two Lawyers

06 September 2024 5:39 AM

By: Admin


In a recent landmark judgment, the High Court of Delhi resolved a matrimonial dispute involving Wasim Ahmad and his spouse, both lawyers, and quashed two FIRs lodged against him. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma passed the verdict on August 29, stating, "the issue in the present case stems from a matrimonial dispute between the parties. The parties have already settled the matter and have been granted Talaq."

Wasim Ahmad, represented by Mr. D.K. Srivastava, was implicated in two FIRs filed by his spouse. The first FIR alleged mental and physical harassment, cruelty, dowry demands, and threats to life. The second FIR was registered under Section 354 IPC and 10 POCSO Act, accusing Wasim Ahmad of inappropriate behavior with their daughter. Both cases were heard together as W.P.(CRL) 1967/2023 and W.P.(CRL) 1969/2023.

During the course of the proceedings, both parties reached an amicable settlement before the Mediation Centre, Saket Courts. They agreed to separate through mutual consent (talaaq) and withdrew all pending litigations. A divorce certificate dated 11.05.2023 was also placed on record. In terms of child custody, both minor children will remain with the wife, and the husband will have visitation rights.

Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma considered the submissions and concluded that continuing the FIRs would "amount to abuse of the process of the court."

"Submissions considered," the judgment read. "Upon a careful perusal of the FIR and the pleadings before this Court, it is amply clear that the issue in the present case stems from a matrimonial dispute between the parties."

The ruling sets a precedent for the court's approach to matrimonial disputes that have been amicably resolved between the parties. It also emphasizes the importance of mediation in resolving such cases, thereby unburdening the judiciary.

The parties were present in person and were duly identified. Both expressed their relief at the conclusion of the matter and stated that they had resolved their differences voluntarily "without any fear, force or coercion," keeping in mind the "betterment and future of the children."

 Date of Decision: August 29, 2023

 xxx vs xxx

Similar News