POCSO Presumption Is Not a Dead Letter, But ‘Sterling Witness’ Test Still Governs Conviction: Bombay High Court High Courts Cannot Routinely Entertain Contempt Petitions Beyond One Year: Madras High Court Declines Contempt Plea Filed After Four Years Courts Cannot Reject Suit by Weighing Evidence at Threshold: Delhi High Court Restores Discrimination Suit by Indian Staff Against Italian Embassy Improvised Testimonies and Dubious Recovery Cannot Sustain Murder Conviction: Allahabad High Court Acquits Two In Murder Case Partnership Act | Eviction Suit by Unregistered Firm Maintainable if Based on Statutory Right: Madhya Pradesh High Court Violation of Income Tax Law Doesn’t Void Cheque Bounce Offence: Supreme Court Overrules Kerala HC, Says Section 138 NI Act Stands Independent Overstaying Licensee Cannot Evade Double Damages by Legal Technicalities: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Is Not a Stamp of Truth: Punjab & Haryana High Court Trademark Law Must Protect Reputation, Not Reward Delay Tactics: Bombay High Court Grants Injunction to FedEx Against Dishonest Use of Its Well-Known Mark Commercial Dispute Need Not Wait for a Written Contract: Delhi High Court Upholds Rs.6 Lakh Decree in Rent Recovery Suit Against Storage Defaulter Limitation Begins From Refusal, Not Date of Agreement—Especially When Title Was Under Litigation: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sale by Karta of Ancestral Property Without Legal Necessity Is Voidable, Not Void: Madras High Court Dismisses Sons’ Appeal Demand for Gold at 'Chhoochhak' Ceremony Not Dowry – Demand Must Connected With Marriage: Supreme Court Motor Accident Claims Cannot Be Decided on Sympathy – Involvement of Offending Vehicle Must Be Proved: Supreme Court Compassionate Appointment Is Not a Ladder for Career Advancement – It Ends Once Exercised: 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

Latest Legal News