Dara Lakshmi Narayana and 6 Ors Vs State of Telangana and Anr on 10 Dec 2024

Posted on June 27, 2025 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Apex Court hung the false 498A IPC case high and dry and reminded the High Courts of their solemn duty to stop the misuse of matrimonial laws as weapons.

From Para 8,

8. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants never demanded any dowry from respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 in fact used to leave the matrimonial house uninformed. In fact, on one such occasion when she left the matrimonial house on 03.10.2021, appellant No.1 made a police complaint on 05.10.2021. When the police found her whereabouts, she was allegedly living with someone. Respondent No.2 after being counselled, returned to her matrimonial house. It was further submitted that respondent No.2 addressed a letter dated 11.11.2021 to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thirupathur Sub Division requesting to close the complaint made by appellant No.1 wherein she admitted that she had left her matrimonial house after quarrelling with appellant No.1 because of one Govindan, with whom she was talking over the phone for the past ten days continuously. She also stated that she would not repeat such acts in future. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that respondent No.2 again left the matrimonial house leaving appellant No.1 and children behind….

From Para 18,

18. A bare perusal of the FIR shows that the allegations made by respondent No.2 are vague and omnibus. Other than claiming that appellant No.1 harassed her and that appellant Nos.2 to 6 instigated him to do so, respondent No.2 has not provided any specific details or described any particular instance of harassment. She has also not mentioned the time, date, place, or manner in which the alleged harassment occurred. Therefore, the FIR lacks concrete and precise allegations.

From Paras 19-21,

19. Further, the record reveals that respondent No.2 on 03.10.2021 left the matrimonial house leading appellant No.1 to file a police complaint on 05.10.2021. When the police officials traced her, respondent No.2 addressed a letter dated 11.11.2021 to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thirupathur Sub Division requesting to close the complaint made by appellant No.1. In the said letter, respondent No.2 admitted that she left her matrimonial house after quarrelling with appellant No.1 as she was talking to a person by name Govindan over the phone for the past ten days continuously. She further admitted that appellant No.1 was taking good care of her. She also stated that she will not engage in such actions in future. Despite that, in 2021 itself, respondent No.2 once again left the matrimonial house leaving appellant No.1 and also her minor children.
20. Losing hope in the marriage, appellant No.1 issued a legal notice to respondent No.1 seeking divorce by mutual consent on 13.12.2021. Instead of responding to the said legal notice issued by appellant No.1, respondent No.2 lodged the present FIR 82 of 2022 on 01.02.2022 registered with Neredmet Police Station, Rachakonda under Section 498A of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Act.
21. Given the facts of this case and in view of the timing and context of the FIR, we find that respondent No.2 left the matrimonial house on 03.10.2021 after quarrelling with appellant No.1 with respect to her interactions with a third person in their marriage. Later she came back to her matrimonial house assuring to have a cordial relationship with appellant No.1. However, she again left the matrimonial house. When appellant No.1 issued a legal notice seeking divorce on 13.12.2021, the present FIR came to be lodged on 01.02.2022 by respondent No.2. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the FIR filed by respondent No. 2 is not a genuine complaint rather it is a retaliatory measure intended to settle scores with appellant No. 1 and his family members.

From Paras 24 and 25,

24. Insofar as appellant Nos.2 to 6 are concerned, we find that they have no connection to the matter at hand and have been dragged into the web of crime without any rhyme or reason. A perusal of the FIR would indicate that no substantial and specific allegations have been made against appellant Nos.2 to 6 other than stating that they used to instigate appellant No.1 for demanding more dowry. It is also an admitted fact that they never resided with the couple namely appellant No.1 and respondent No.2 and their children.Appellant Nos.2 and 3 resided together at Guntakal, Andhra Pradesh. Appellant Nos. 4 to 6 live in Nellore, Bengaluru and Guntur respectively.
25. A mere reference to the names of family members in a criminal case arising out of a matrimonial dispute, without specific allegations indicating their active involvement should be nipped in the bud. It is a well-recognised fact, borne out of judicial experience, that there is often a tendency to implicate all the members of the husband’s family when domestic disputes arise out of a matrimonial discord. Such generalised and sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete evidence or particularised allegations cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution. Courts must exercise caution in such cases to prevent misuse of legal provisions and the legal process and avoid unnecessary harassment of innocent family members. In the present case, appellant Nos.2 to 6, who are the members of the family of appellant No.1 have been living in different cities and have not resided in the matrimonial house of appellant No.1 and respondent No.2 herein. Hence, they cannot be dragged into criminal prosecution and the same would be an abuse of the process of the law in the absence of specific allegations made against each of them.

From Para 28,

28. The inclusion of Section 498A of the IPC by way of an amendment was intended to curb cruelty inflicted on a woman by her husband and his family, ensuring swift intervention by the State. However, in recent years, as there have been a notable rise in matrimonial disputes across the country, accompanied by growing discord and tension within the institution of marriage, consequently, there has been a growing tendency to misuse provisions like Section 498A of the IPC as a tool for unleashing personal vendetta against the husband and his family by a wife. Making vague and generalised allegations during matrimonial conflicts, if not scrutinized, will lead to the misuse of legal processes and an encouragement for use of arm twisting tactics by a wife and/or her family. Sometimes, recourse is taken to invoke Section 498A of the IPC against the husband and his family in order to seek compliance with the unreasonable demands of a wife. Consequently, this Court has, time and again, cautioned against prosecuting the husband and his family in the absence of a clear prima facie case against them.

From Para 29, (Cover drive by Supreme Court!)

29. We are not, for a moment, stating that any woman who has suffered cruelty in terms of what has been contemplated under Section 498A of the IPC should remain silent and forbear herself from making a complaint or initiating any criminal proceeding. That is not the intention of our aforesaid observations but we should not encourage a case like as in the present one, where as a counterblast to the petition for dissolution of marriage sought by the first appellant-husband of the second respondent herein, a complaint under Section 498A of the IPC is lodged by the latter. In fact, the insertion of the said provision is meant mainly for the protection of a woman who is subjected to cruelty in the matrimonial home primarily due to an unlawful demand for any property or valuable security in the form of dowry. However, sometimes it is misused as in the present case.

Dara Lakshmi Narayana and 6 Ors Vs State of Telangana and Anr on 10 Dec 2024

Citations:

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/93461652/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/6759166862941119016e1691

https://www.courtkutchehry.com/Judgement/Search/t/2370197-dara-lakshmi-narayana-others?s=Dara%20Lakshmi%20Narayana&refine_search=&s_acts=

https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/supreme-court/dara-lakshmi-narayana-others-v-state-of-telangana-another-2024-insc-953-498a-ipc-fir-quashed-1560806

https://www.lawtext.in/judgement.php?bid=1285

https://advamritaverma.com/legal-updates/f/498-a-ipc-has-become-the-legal-weapon?blogcategory=CPC

The Order from Telangana High Court refusing to Quash the fake 498A IPC proceedings…

Dara Lakshmi Narayana and 6 Ors Vs State of Telangana and Anr on 16 Feb 2022

Index of Quash judgments is here.

Mohammad Wajid and Anr Vs State of U.P. and Ors on 08 Aug 2023

Posted on June 26, 2025 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Supreme Court cautioned High Courts about malicious matrimonial cases.

From Para 30,

30. At this stage, we would like to observe something important. Whenever an accused comes before the Court invoking either the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to get the FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed essentially on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, then in such circumstances the Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely. We say so because once the complainant decides to proceed against the accused with an ulterior motive for wreaking personal vengeance, etc., then he would ensure that the FIR/complaint is very well drafted with all the necessary pleadings. The complainant would ensure that the averments made in the FIR/complaint are such that they disclose the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence. Therefore, it will not be just enough for the Court to look into the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not. In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection try to read in between the lines. The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution need not restrict itself only to the stage of a case but is empowered to take into account the overall circumstances leading to the initiation/registration of the case as well as the materials collected in the course of investigation. Take for instance the case on hand. Multiple FIRs have been registered over a period of time. It is in the background of such circumstances the registration of multiple FIRs assumes importance, thereby attracting the issue of wreaking vengeance out of private or personal grudge as alleged.

Mohammad Wajid and Anr Vs State of U.P. and Ors on 08 Aug 2023

Index of Quash judgments is here.

Ajay Rajendra Khare and Ors Vs State of Maharashtra on 10 Jun 2025

Posted on June 26, 2025 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Bombay High Court at Aurangabad Bench identified a fake case and dust-binned it.

From Para 7,

7 At the outset, we would like to start with observations that in matrimonial disputes suppression of facts carry importance. In fact, the marriage stands on the footing of faith, feelings and respect for each other.
….
In the information that was collected by applicant No.1 from the Right to Information Officer, Kharghar Police Station would show that the informant has been addressed as Dr. Sou. Sandhya Ashok Kadam (not as ‘Sandhya Ajay Khare’). If she had gone to Police Station and according to her, First Information Report was not taken, then why she had not lodged the report after she went to Nanded i.e. to her parental home, has not been explained by her. It is easy to make allegations against others, but when it comes to false allegations, they are hard to prove. This is the classic example of misuse of Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.

Ajay Rajendra Khare and Ors Vs State of Maharashtra on 10 Jun 2025

Index of Quash judgments is here.

Ghanshyam Soni Vs State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr on 04 Jun 2025

Posted on June 17, 2025 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Apex Court granted Divorce to husband against a lying wife.

From Para 10,

10. A perusal of the FIR shows that the allegations made by the complainant are that in the year 1999, the Appellant inflicted mental and physical cruelty upon her for bringing insufficient dowry. The Complainant refers to few instances of such atrocities, however the allegations are generic, and rather ambiguous. The allegations against the family members, who have been unfortunately roped in, is that they used to instigate the Appellant husband to harass the Complainant wife, and taunted the Complainant for not bringing enough dowry; however, there is no specific incident of harassment or any evidence to that effect. Similarly, the allegations against the five out of six sisters that they used to insult the Complainant and demanded dowry articles from her, and upon failure beat her up, but there is not even a cursory mention of the incident. An allegation has also been made against a tailor named Bhagwat that he being a friend of the Appellant instigated him against the Complainant, and was allegedly instrumental in blowing his greed. Such allegations are merely accusatory and contentious in nature, and do not elaborate a concrete picture of what may have transpired. For this reason alone, and that the evidence on record is clearly inconsistent with the accusations, the version of the Complainant seems implausible and unreliable. The following observation in K. Subba Rao v. State of Telangana Represented by Its Secretary, Department of Home & Ors.2, fits perfectly to the present scenario:
“6. The Courts should be careful in proceeding against the distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths. The relatives of the husband should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations unless specific instances of their involvement in the crime are made out.”
11. As regards the Appellant, the purportedly specific allegations levelled against him are also obscure in nature. Even if the allegations and the case of the prosecution is taken at its face value, apart from the bald allegations without any specifics of time, date or place, there is no incriminating material found by the prosecution or rather produced by the complainant to substantiate the ingredients of “cruelty” under section 498A IPC, as recently observed in the case of Jaydedeepsinh Pravinsinh Chavda & Ors. v. State of Gujarat3 and Rajesh Chaddha v. State of Uttar Pradesh.4 The Complainant has admittedly failed to produce any medical records or injury reports, x-ray reports, or any witnesses to substantiate her allegations. We cannot ignore the fact that the Complainant even withdrew her second Complaint dt. 06.12.1999 six days later on 12.12.1999. There is also no evidence to substantiate the purported demand for dowry allegedly made by the Appellant or his family and the investigative agencies in their own prudence have not added sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 to the chargesheet.

From Para 13,

13. It is rather unfortunate that the Complainant being an officer of the State has initiated criminal machinery in such a manner, where the aged parents-in-law, five sisters and one tailor have been arrayed as an accused. Notwithstanding the possibility of truth behind the allegations of cruelty, this growing tendency to misuse legal provisions has time and again been condemned by this Court. The observations in Dara Lakshmi Narayana & Ors. v. State of Telangana & Anr.5, Preeti Gupta & Anr. v. State of Jharkhand & Anr.6 aptly captures this concern.

From Para 15,

15. It is a settled position of law that for the computation of the limitation period under Section 468 CrPC the relevant date is the date of filing of the complaint or the date of institution of prosecution and not the date on which the Magistrate takes cognizance.7 The dicta laid down in the case of Bharat Damodar Kale & Anr. v. State of Andhra Pradesh8 makes it unequivocally clear that the Magistrate is well within his powers to take cognizance of a complaint filed within a period of three years from the date of the commission of offence as mandated under section 468 CrPC.

Ghanshyam Soni Vs State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr on 04 Jun 2025

Index of Quash Judgments is here.

V.Rajesh Vs S.Anupriya on 04 Jun 2025

Posted on June 16, 2025 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Madras High Court passed this Judgment.

From Para 16, (How simple mistakes can turn evidence into trash!)

16. At this juncture, the learned Counsel for the petitioner would invite the attention of this Court to Ex-R.4 in H.M.O.P. No.702 of 2021 – Screenshot of Whatsapp Chat dated October 17, 2017, and would argue that the respondent herself admitted that everything is her fault and apologised to the petitioner about 10 days before making Ex-R.5 – Complaint and that in such a scenario, Ex-R.5 – Complaint could only be a false one. This Court has perused Ex-R.4 – Screenshot. It appears that the petitioner has received a message from a contact whom he has saved as “ANU”. The respondent has denied the said message in her cross-examination. The burden is upon the petitioner to prove Ex-R.4 –Screenshot. It is true that the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 would not be strictly applicable to family court matters, in view of Section 14 of the Family Courts Act, 1984. But, said Section 14 does not dispense with the burden of proof. The burden remains upon the petitioner. But the petitioner has failed to discharge the said burden. The petitioner has not taken any steps to prove that the said contact from which he received such a message, is his wife / respondent. Hence, the argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner deserves to be rejected.

From Para 17,

17. Be that as it may, whether the averments contained in Ex- R.5 – Complaint are true or not is a matter for police investigation and the truth can be found only in the trial. But there was no investigation in the first place. The averments remain unestablished. The averments made in Ex-R.5 are of such nature that unless proved, they amount to defamation, which in turn constitutes to mental cruelty. If really the said averments are true, the respondent ought to have taken prudent steps to prove her averments when the petitioner failed to reunite with her. Unsubstantiated or uncorroborated defamatory averments made in Ex-R.5, causes stigma and mental agony to the petitioner as well as his family, and in the facts and circumstances of this case amounts to cruelty.

From Paras 20-21,

20. As elaborated above, the unestablished sexual allegations made by the respondent against the petitioner and his father, amounts to cruelty and thus, the petitioner has made out a case under Section 13 (1) (i-a) of H.M. Act. Points for consideration arising in these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are answered accordingly. The petitioner is thus entitled to a Decree of divorce.
21. It is learnt that the petitioner is paying a maintenance of Rs.25,000/- to the respondent and his 8 year old child (who is under the custody of the respondent) every month. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, especially the stand taken by the respondent that she is ready and willing to let go of the past and resume her marital life with the petitioner, this Court is of the view that though divorce is granted in favour of the petitioner, maintenance rights of the respondent shall remain unaffected.

V.Rajesh Vs S.Anupriya on 04 Jun 2025

Index to Divorce Judgments is here.

Bal Manohar Jalan Vs Sunil Paswan and Anr on 30 Jun 2014

Posted on June 8, 2025 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Apex Court held as follows,

From Para 7,

7. The right of hearing given to accused under Section 401 clause (2) of Criminal Procedure Code was elaborately dealt with by this Court in Manharibhai Muljibhai Kakadia case (supra).
8. In the present case challenge is laid to order dated 4.3.2009 at the instance of the complainant in the revision petition before the High Court and by virtue of Section 401(2) of the Code, the accused mentioned in the First Information Report get the right of hearing before the revisional court although the impugned order therein was passed without their participation. The appellant who is an accused person cannot be deprived of hearing on the face of the express provision contained in Section 401(2) of the Code and on this ground, the impugned order of the High Court is liable to be set aside and the matter has to be remitted.

Bal Manohar Jalan Vs Sunil Paswan and Anr on 30 Jun 2014

Sanjay Kumar Shaw Vs Anjali Kumari Shaw on 07 Apr 2025

Posted on April 18, 2025 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Patna High Court held as follows,

From Para 13,

13. It appears from the petition that application for divorce has been filed by the appellant under Section 13 (1) (ia) & (ib) of the Act i.e. on the ground of cruelty and desertion. However, the main ground taken for divorce is that respondent-wife is suffering from mental disease or disorder
(schizophrenia) and permanent disability in her leg and due to her abnormal behavior the appellant-husband do not like to continue the matrimonial life with respondent. The learned Trial Court in para 12 of the impugned Judgment considered this aspect and held that appellant has failed to prove that respondent is suffering from the schizophrenia disease and her leg disability. From perusal of the record the question which this court has to decide is whether the respondent is suffering from schizophrenia or other mental disorder of such a kind and to such an extent that the appellant cannot reasonably be expected to live with respondent-wife or not?

From Para 14,

14. Taking note of the evidence adduced by the appellant, it is clear that he has not proved the mental disease or disorder of the respondent-wife, as the doctor who is treating the respondent-wife has not been examined. The grounds claimed by the appellant-husband are that the respondent-wife is of unsound mind, aggressive and has deserted the appellant have not been proved from the material available on the record.

From Paras 20 and 21,

20. In view of the above pronouncement, it appears that the ground of a spouse suffering from schizophrenia, by itself is not sufficient for grant of divorce under Section 13 (1) (iii) of the Act as it may involve various degree of mental illness. The law provides that a spouse in order to prove a ground of divorce on the ground of mental illness, ought to prove that the spouse is suffering from a serious case of schizophrenia which must also be supported by medical reports and proved by cogent evidence before the Court that disease is of such a kind and degree that husband cannot reasonably be expected to live with wife.
21. Section 13(1)(iii) of the Act does not make mere existence of a mental disorder of any degree sufficient in law to justify dissolution of marriage. The contents in which the ideas of unsoundness of mind and mental disorder occur in section as ground for dissolution of a marriage, require assessment of degree of mental disorder and its degree must be such that spouse seeking relief cannot reasonable be expected to live with the other. All mental abnormalities are not recognized as grounds for grant of decree. The burden of proof of existence of requisite degree of mental disorder is on the spouse who bases his or her claim on such a medical condition.

Sanjay Kumar Shaw Vs Anjali Kumari Shaw on 07 Apr 2025

Citations:

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/146315829/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/67f4c506bdfd43233228ae45

https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/patna-high-court/patna-high-court-wife-mental-disorder-divorce-schizophrenia-hindu-marriage-act-289016

Divorce Denied: Patna HC Says Schizophrenia Isn’t Enough

https://lawtrend.in/schizophrenia-allegation-alone-not-ground-for-divorce-without-proof-of-severity-affecting-marital-life-patna-high-court/

https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/high-courts/patna-high-court/a-v-b-miscellaneous-appeal-no1152-of-2018-spouse-relief-mental-disorder-divorce-1573858

Mental Disorder Must Be Proven to Be of Severe Degree to Justify Divorce Under Hindu Marriage Act, Rules Patna High Court

Index of Divorce Judgments is here.

Analysis by Adv Talari Rajeswari

Kiran Jyot Maini Vs Anish Pramod Patel on 15 Jul 2024

Posted on April 5, 2025 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Apex Court passed this decision. Not sure, why this is a reportable judgment!

Kiran Jyot Maini Vs Anish Pramod Patel on 15 Jul 2024

Citations:

Other Sources:

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/669778a11312582eb2f9e52c

Index of Maintenance Judgments under DV Act is here. Divorce Judgments here. DV Judgements here.

Sunita Kachwaha and Ors Vs Anil Kuchwaha on 28 Oct 2014

Posted on April 5, 2025 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Apex Court held as follows,

From para 9,

9. Inability to maintain herself is the precondition for grant of maintenance to the wife. The wife must positively aver and prove that she is unable to maintain herself, in addition to the fact that her husband has sufficient means to maintain her and that he has neglected to maintain her. In her evidence, the appellant wife has stated that only due to help of her retired parents and brothers, she is able to maintain herself and her daughters. Where the wife states that she has great hardships in maintaining herself and the daughters, while her husband’s economic condition is quite good, the wife would be entitled to maintenance.

Sunita Kachwaha and Ors Vs Anil Kuchwaha on 28 Oct 2014

Citations: [AIR 2015 SUPREME COURT 554]

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/3786357/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af48e4b01497114160aa

Index of Maintenance Judgments under 144 BNSS is here.

Mudireddy Divya Vs Sulkti Sivarama Reddy on 26 Mar 2025

Posted on April 2, 2025 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Telangana High Court held as follows,

On Limitation,

22. Moreover, it is a settled rule of construction that every effort should be made to iron the creases out in two conflicting enactments and the more liberal enactment should be adopted for resolving the conflict. Both the 1955 Act and the 1984 Act are special statutes designed to ensure efficient resolution of conflicts within the family without subjecting the parties to further procedural hiccups. We also take recourse to the principle of law that when two interpretations are found to be equally possible, the Court may reasonably accept that the Legislature intended to prescribe a larger period of limitation: Shivram Dodanna Shetty Vs. Sharmila Shivram Shetty2, Sonia Kunwar Singh Bedi Vs. Kunwar Singh Bedi3 and Chaudary Chetnaben Dilipbhai Vs. Chaudary Dilipbhai Lavjibhai4.

On Evidence for Divorce in first Marriage,

28. Admittedly, the respondent in the present case did not lead any evidence of the customary divorce between the respondent and his first wife. The impugned order dated 19.11.2024 reflects that despite conditional orders, the respondent neither appeared nor filed his evidence. This means that the respondent declined to lead evidence to prove customary divorce from his first wife or otherwise. Apart from a mere pleading that the respondent obtained divorce through customary practice, no other evidence of the existence of such a customary practice or a document showing that the divorce was indeed obtained through such a customary practice was produced by the respondent.

On impleadment of a co-respondent,

46. Further, Rule 8(3), which requires addition of a co-respondent in a petition under section 11 of the 1955 Act i.e., void marriages, cannot be equated to Rule 8(1) as the issue of whether the marriage is void is essentially a question of law rather than a question of fact. The presence or absence of a co-respondent, viewed from this angle, cannot be fatal to the outcome of the case.
51. We have considered the relevant Rules regulating the proceedings initiated under the 1955 Act and the decisions placed on the point of impleadment of a co-respondent in specific cases. We accept the contentions made on behalf of the appellant in favour of giving a comprehensive construction to the Rule. We are of the view that the presence of the respondent’s first wife as a co-respondent to the lis before us is not necessary since this is not a case where the respondent’s first wife would be required to be heard for preserving the principles of natural justice. This is also not a case where the adjudication would entail questions regarding her character, integrity or reputation. We must also take a practical view of the situation, since admittedly, the respondent’s first wife has been in a state of coma for a while.
52. The requirement of impleading the respondent’s first wife is hence dispensed with under an extended meaning given to the proviso to Rule 8(1) of the 1955 Rules. In other words, we do not find non-impleadment of the respondent’s first wife to be fatal to the petition under sections 11, 5 and 25 of the 1955 Act or in the Appeal before us.

On Desertion,

60. Moreover, the respondent has remained unrepresented in the present Appeal and the whereabouts of the respondent is not known to the appellant for over 4 years. As stated above, the notice addressed to the respondent in the present Appeal was returned with an endorsement “no such person in the address”. To put it simply, the respondent has made no effort to contest the Appeal or pursue the proceedings for restitution of conjugal rights filed before the Additional Family Court at Visakhapatnam.

Most importantly, On status of previous marriage,

67. There is a patent contradiction in the findings and reasons given by the Family Court. While the Court denied alimony to the appellant on the basis of the appellant being the second wife, the Court refused to come to any finding with regard to the status of the marriage between the respondent and his first wife. A finding on this was necessary in the context of the appellant’s petition seeking annulment of marriage under section 11 of the Act i.e., on the ground that the respondent had a surviving spouse on the date of his marriage with the appellant. To put it simply, the Trial Court failed to consider that the marriage between the appellant and the respondent, both Hindus, could not have been legally solemnized if the respondent had a spouse living at the time of the marriage.

On Income Affidavits,

69. Another unsubstantiated finding is that the appellant obtained divorce from her first husband with an alimony of Rs.50.00 Lakhs and is now claiming permanent alimony of Rs.1 Crore from the respondent. The Trial Court utterly failed to consider that the respondent was equally accountable to disclose his assets in order to resist the claim of alimony. The impugned order does not disclose any direction on the parties to file their affidavits disclosing their respective assets

Mudireddy Divya Vs Sulkti Sivarama Reddy on 26 Mar 2025

Index of Divorce/Nullity judgments is here.

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Tag: 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision

Dara Lakshmi Narayana and 6 Ors Vs State of Telangana and Anr on 10 Dec 2024

Mohammad Wajid and Anr Vs State of U.P. and Ors on 08 Aug 2023

Ajay Rajendra Khare and Ors Vs State of Maharashtra on 10 Jun 2025

Ghanshyam Soni Vs State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr on 04 Jun 2025

V.Rajesh Vs S.Anupriya on 04 Jun 2025

Bal Manohar Jalan Vs Sunil Paswan and Anr on 30 Jun 2014

Sanjay Kumar Shaw Vs Anjali Kumari Shaw on 07 Apr 2025

Kiran Jyot Maini Vs Anish Pramod Patel on 15 Jul 2024

Sunita Kachwaha and Ors Vs Anil Kuchwaha on 28 Oct 2014

Mudireddy Divya Vs Sulkti Sivarama Reddy on 26 Mar 2025