Mere Reproduction Of Evidence Can Never Be Equated With Appreciation: Karnataka High Court Quashes Penalty Against Govt Employee Accused Cannot Repeatedly Send Cheque To FSL Till Favourable Report Is Obtained: Kerala High Court In NI Act Case Succession Certificate Cannot Be Issued For Gold Jewels Pledged With Bank, Applies Only To Debts And Securities: Madras High Court Order 11 Rule 14 CPC | Court Cannot Direct Production Of Documents Without Ascertaining They Are In Party's Possession: Calcutta High Court Undertrial Prisoners Don't Suffer 'Civil Death', Retain Fundamental Right To Alienate Property From Jail: Rajasthan High Court Direction For Reasonable Annual Enhancement Of Maintenance Under Section 125 CrPC Merely Preserves Its Real Value Against Inflation: Delhi High Court Testimony Of Sole Interested Witness Must Be Of 'Sterling Quality' To Base Conviction: Patna High Court Acquits Murder Convict Failure To Communicate Written Grounds Of Arrest Renders Arrest Constitutionally Infirm, Accused Entitled To Bail: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 482 CrPC Petition Not Maintainable Against Order Framing Charge Under SC/ST Act, Appeal Lies Under Section 14A: Tripura High Court Disputed Questions Of Fact Regarding Title And Forged Documents Cannot Be Decided Under Article 226: Telangana High Court Matter To Be Enquired By Bar Council: Madhya Pradesh High Court Dismisses Lawyer's PILs With Costs For Suppressing Attorney-Client Relationship BDA Cannot Arbitrarily Reverse Resolutions Passed To Comply With Judicial Directives: Karnataka High Court Section 52A NDPS Act: Mere Non-Compliance Does Not Automatically Vitiate Trial Unless Evidence Is Doubtful: Punjab & Haryana High Court Seniority Must Be Determined From Date Of Substantive Appointment, Not Ad-Hoc Service: Allahabad High Court Uncorroborated Testimony Of Drug Inspector Cannot Form Sole Basis For Conviction Under Drugs Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Suppression Of Adverse Facts Strikes At Root Of Equitable Jurisdiction: Bombay High Court Denies Injunction In HUF Property Dispute

"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