Another wonderful judgment from Hon’ble Apex Court in regards to the principle if grave suspicion exist the trial court should commit the case to trial.
A lot of judgments are citing herein.
Tag: Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to
Sajjan Kumar Vs C.B.I on 20 September, 2010
This judgment from Supreme Court affirms that a prima facie finding of sufficient material showing grave suspicion is enough to frame a charge. This case is related to Mr. Sajjan Kumar Member of Parliament.
Comments by Judges from Para 16:
A Magistrate enquiring into a case under section 209 of the Cr.P.C. is not to act as a mere Post Office and has to come to a conclusion whether the case before him is fit for commitment of accused to the Court of Session.
From Para 17,Following principles have emerged
(i) The Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out. The test to determine prima facie case would depend upon the facts of each case.
ii) Where the materials placed before the Court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained, the Court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial.
iii) The Court cannot act merely as a Post Office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the Court, any basic infirmities etc. However, at this stage, there cannot be a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial.
iv) If on the basis of the material on record, the Court could form an opinion that the accused might have committed offence, it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offence.
v) At the time of framing of the charges, the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into but before framing a charge the Court must apply its judicial mind on the material placed on record and must be satisfied that the commission of offence by the accused was possible.
vi) At the stage of Sections 227 and 228, the Court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to find out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value discloses the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. For this limited purpose, sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at that initial stage to accept all that the prosecution states as gospel truth even if it is opposed to common sense or the broad probabilities of the case.
vii) If two views are possible and one of them gives rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion, the trial Judge will be empowered to discharge the accused and at this stage, he is not to see whether the trial will end in conviction or acquittal.
Citations: [2011 PLJR 1 33], [2011 ALLSCR 0 24], [2010 SCC 9 368], [2010 MWN CR 3 325], [2011 MLJ CRI 1 552], [2011 AIR SC 3730], [2010 CCR 4 37], [2010 SLT 6 753], [2011 CUTLT SUPPL 252], [2010 AIOL 625], [2010 JT 10 413], [2010 SCALE 10 22], [2010 SCC CRI 3 1371], [2010 AIC 95 115]
Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/68365/ and https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609aee3e4b0149711415065
Index of Discharge Judgments u/s 227 Cr.P.C. is here.
Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from main.sci.gov.in/judgments, judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in
Kiran Dhar Vs Alok Berman on 14 May, 2014
This Allahabad High Court judgment also clarifies established below legal point in Maintenance case under section 125 of CrPC. It relies on Deoki here.
In the absence of any custom and in absence of any decree for divorce, it cannot be said that marriage between Alok Berman and Smt. Rani was dissolved, which goes to show that Alok Berman was still legally married husband of Smt. Rani, who was, admittedly, alive at the time of marriage of Smt. Kiran Dhar with Alok Berman, and the marriage between them was not annulled as per law.
Further,
26. Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act clearly requires a petition either by the husband or the wife for dissolving the marriage by decree or divorce on the ground mentioned in Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act. No other form of divorce has been recognized by Hindu Marriage Act. Annexure 5 is an agreement between Alok Berman and his earlier wife – Smt. Rani in which parties had signed a divorced deed in which they have stated that they are dissolving the marriage by this deed on the conditions mentioned in the deed. Condition no.6 is also very relevant in which she has stated that if either of the parties filed a divorce case in the Court, then another party will give consent to the divorce without making any objection.
27. It is not on record as to whether any suit for divorce was filed by Smt. Rani or not. In absence of any document and decree of divorce by the court, it can safely be presumed that no such application was moved by either of parties before the competent court for dissolution of marriage. In view of this, the only evidence of divorce is the document Annexure 5. This document has not seen the light of day during any divorce proceeding. Hindu Marriage Act does not recognize any divorce of such type. It has also not been averred and proved that there was such custom in the society of parties to recognize such type of divorce.
28. In the absence of any custom and in absence of any decree for divorce, it cannot be said that marriage between Alok Berman and Smt. Rani was dissolved, which goes to show that Alok Berman was still legally married husband of Smt. Rani, who was, admittedly, alive at the time of marriage of Smt. Kiran Dhar with Alok Berman, and the marriage between them was not annulled as per law.
29. In view of Sections 5 (1) and 11 of Hindu Marriage Act and also in view of decision of Apex Court in Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav v. Anantrao Shivram Adhav and another (supra) the marriage between Smt. Kiran Dhar and Alok Berman is void ab initio, and she is not entitled to maintenance.
30. It is also clear from the decision of Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav v. Anantrao Shivram Adhav and another (supra) that even if the second wife (Smt. Kiran Dhar) was not aware of first marriage of her husband with another woman, she is not entitled to any maintenance.
Citations: [2015 DMC ALL 2 357], [2014 ALLCC 86 807], [2015 ACR 1 945], [2014 ALR 106 405], [2015 CRIMES ALL 1 607], [2014 SCC ONLINE ALL 15005], [2015 ALL LJ 1 391], [2014 AIC 142 877], [2015 HLR 2 522]
Other Sources:
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/187951850/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56b492ff607dba348f003b0a
https://www.courtkutchehry.com/Judgement/Search/AdvancedV2?docid=158933
Dalip Singh Vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 3 December, 2009
The Supreme Court bench has delivered this landmark judgment calling out the cherished two basic values of life i.e., `Satya’ (truth) and `Ahimsa’ (non-violence) in Indian Society and exclaimed that,
“In last 40 years, a new creed of litigants has cropped up. Those who belong to this creed do not have any respect for truth. They shamelessly resort to falsehood and unethical means for achieving their goals. In order to meet the challenge posed by this new creed of litigants, the courts have, from time to time, evolved new rules and it is now well established that a litigant, who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief, interim or final.“
Other Sources :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/198000498/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609aed8e4b0149711414dd7
Citations: [2010 SCC CRI 1 324], [2010 SCC 2 114], [2009 SCALE 14 473], [2010 AIC 85 13], [2010 AIR SC SUPP 116], [2010 AIR SC 0 50], [2010 SCJ 1 863], [2009 JT 15 201], [2009 SLT 9 167], [2009 AIOL 1294], [2009 SUPREME 8 485], [2010 ALL LJ 1 536], [2010 MADLJ 2 483], [2010 AIR SCW 50]
Index of perjury case laws here.
Anticipatory Bail Orders
Anticipatory bail granted in cases filed under various IPC sections. The bare section is here.
Supreme Court of India
- Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia Etc Vs State Of Punjab on 9 April, 1980 [Landmark Judgment: AB valid until end of Trial; No FIR necessary for grant of AB]
- Prahlad Singh Bhati Vs N.C.T. Delhi and Anr on 23 Mar 2001 [Guidelines for grant of bail even in a Non-bailable offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life]
- Arnesh Kumar Vs State of Bihar and Anr on 2 July 2014 [Landmark Judgment: No automatic arrest in all cases with punishment less than or up to 7 years]
- Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs State Of Maharashtra And Others on 2 December, 2010 [Landmark Judgment: AB valid until end of Trial]
- Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth Vs State of Gujarat and Anr on 1 Sep 2015 [Ground for grant of AB]
- Sushila Aggarwal and Ors Vs State (NCT of Delhi) on 15 May, 2018
- Sushila Aggarwal and Ors Vs State (NCT of Delhi) on 29 January 2020 [Landmark Judgment: AB valid until end of Trial]
- Dr. Rajesh Pratap Giri Vs State of U.P. and Anr on 05 Mar 2021 [No need to go and obtain Regular Bail after filing of Charge sheet by IO, if Anticipatory Bail was granted earlier]
- Udho Thakur Vs State of Jharkhand on 29 Sep 2022 [No Payments when allowing Anticipatory Bail]
- Monirul Islam Vs The State of West Bengal on 01 Dec 2022 [AB cannot passed for a fixed time period]
- Bimla Tiwari Vs State of Bihar and Ors on 16 Jan 2023 [Criminal Proceedings cannot be converted into Recovery Proceedings]
- Kunal Choudhary Vs State of Jharkhand and Anr on 05 Dec 2023 [A condition to take wife to home is untenable while granting anticipatory bail]
Allahabad High Court
- Javed Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and Anr on 13 Feb 2023 [Relies on Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia; FIR is not a pre-condition to grant AB, but Reasonable Apprehension Of Being Arrested has to be explained]
Bombay High Court
Kerala High Court
District Courts
Index of all Bail matters is here.
Ajoy Kumar Ghose Vs State Of Jharkhand & Anr on 18 March, 2009
In this judgment from Apex Court, Hon’ble Bench has, in detail, explained the procedure before framing charges and the discharge procedure thereof.
Divorce Judgments
Here is the listing of divorce grant judgments on various grounds as per the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
NOTE: This will be a running document, meaning, it will be frequently updated with judgments as and when I find them.
Supreme Court Judgments
- Bipin Chander Jaisinghbhai Shah Vs Prabhawati on 19 Oct 1956 [Definition of Desertion]
- Dr.N.G.Dastane Vs. Mrs.S.Dastane (1975) 2 SCC 326
- Sureshta Devi Vs Om Prakash on 7 February, 1991 [MCD set-aside as consent was obtained fraudulently]
- V. Bhagat vs D. Bhagat on 19 November, 1993 [contours of “mental cruelty” defined such that parties cannot reasonably be expected to live together]
- Savitri Pandey Vs Prem Chandra Pandey on 8 Jan 2002 [Cruelty defined; Recommended a Time limit of 90 days to file appeal against judgments in cases under HMA resulting in amendment: Act 50 of 2003 The Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 2003 on 2003-10-23, whereby Time limit to file appeal against judgments of FC is increased from 30 days to 90 days, passed under HMA and SMA only]
- Vijay Kumar Ramachandra Bhate Vs Neela Vijay Kumar Bhate on 16 April, 2003 [Divorce set-aside for Mental Cruelty and character assassination of husband reasons]
- Naveen Kohli Vs Neelu Kohli on 21 March, 2006
- Samar Ghosh vs Jaya Ghosh on 26 March, 2007 [deprived of each other’s company and denial of conjugal relationship by the other spouse, with no effort by the respondent/wife to resume matrimonial relationship, is an act of cruelty]
- Hitesh Bhatnagar Vs Deepa Bhatnagar on 18 Apr 2011 [Mutual consent must continue till decree under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act and either party can withdraw consent before divorce is granted.]
- Pankaj Mahajan vs Dimple @ Kajal on 30 September, 2011 [constantly giving threats of suicide is cruelty]
- Vishwanath Vs Sau. Sarla Vishwanath Agrawal on 4 July, 2012
- U.Sree Vs U.Srinivas on 11 December, 2012 [False and baseless allegation cause mental cruelty]
- K. Srinivas Rao vs D.A. Deepa on 22 February, 2013
- Vidhya Viswanathan vs Kartik Balakrishnan on 22 September, 2014
- K. Srinivas Vs K. Sunita on 19 November, 2014 [filing of the false complaint against the husband and his family members ‘regarding unsubstantiated allegations of dowry demand’ also constitutes mental cruelty for the purpose of Section 13 (1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act]
- Narendra Vs K.Meena on 6 October, 2016 [Separating husband from Parents is ground]
- Amardeep Singh Vs Harveen Kaur on 12 Sep 2017 [Guidelines to waive off cooling period of 6 months in MCD cases; The statutory period (of 6 months – 18 months) contemplated under Section 13-B(2) of the Act is directory and that it is open to the Court to exercise discretion]
- Harjinder Singh Vs Rajpal on 17 January, 2018 [MCD with 22 lakhs settlement]
- Rani Narasimha Sastry Vs Rani Suneela Rani on 19 November, 2019 [Filing false cases solid ground for Divorce on the ground of Cruelty]
- Mangayarkarasi Vs M Yuvraj on 03 March 2020 []
- Amit Kumar Vs Suman Beniwal on 11 Dec 2021 [Further Guidelines to waive off cooling period of 6 months in MCD cases]
- N.Rajendran Vs S.Valli on 03 Feb 2022 [Dead Marriage dissolved under power of Article 142 of the Constitution]
- Shilpa Sailesh Vs Varun Sreenivasan on 01 May 2023 [Landmark Judgment on Dead Marriages]
- Roopa Soni Vs Kamal Narayan Soni on 06 Sep 2023 [Landmark Judgment on Dead Marriages]
- Kiran Jyot Maini Vs Anish Pramod Patel on 15 Jul 2024 [Interim Maintenance granted in DVC; Marriage terminated under Article 142; Alimony of 2 Crore granted]
- Vishal Shah Vs Monalisha Gupta and Ors on 20 Feb 2025 [SC: Landmark Judgment on Dead Marriages, since the couple lived together only for 80 days and have lived separately since, multiple litigations against each other and no child, the marriage is dead; Rs.25 Lakhs alimony granted]
- Vibhor Garg Vs Neha on 14 Jul 2025 [Electronic recording is evidence and no violation of right to privacy]
- Pradeep Bhardwaj Vs Priya on 15 July 2025 [ Divorce granted under Article 142 citing irretrievable breakdown after 16 years of separation and enhanced maintenance]
- Vishnu Dutt Sharma Vs Manju Sharma on 27 Feb 2009
- Ann Saurabh Dutt Vs Lieutenant Colonel Saurabh Iqbal Bahadur Dutt on 12 May 2026 [SC : A wife pursuing her career and prioritising her child’s welfare cannot be accused of cruelty or desertion.]
Andhra Pradesh High Court
- Jelakara Chandra Sekhar Vs Nil on 16 Jun 2022 [MCD within 1 year from date of marriage, if there are Pleadings about Exceptional Hardship u/s 14 HMA]
Allahabad High Court
- Layak Singh Vs Ekta Kumari on 21 Mar 2024 [MCD within 1 year from date of marriage, if there are Pleadings about Exceptional Hardship u/s 14 HMA]
Bombay High Court
- Devendra Vs Trupti Devendra on 27 Sep 2022 [Seeking maintenance for daughter after MCD]
- Sneha Akshay Garg and Anr Vs Nil on 25 Jul 2024 [Waiting of cooling off period; if conditions in Amardeep Singh Vs Harveen Kaur on 12 Sep 2017 are met]
Calcutta High Court
Chhattisgarh High Court
- Resham Lal Dewangan Vs Suman Dewangan on 09 May 2025 [Once a divorce decree is granted on the ground that wife is living in adultery then, wife suffers from the disqualification to claim maintenance from her ex-husband]
Delhi High Court
- Jiten Bhalla Vs Gaytri Bajaj on 08 Sep 2008 [MCD obtained; 3 years later disputed]
- Shalu Ojha Vs Prashant Ojha on 28 Ferbuary, 2019 [Divorce set-aside]
- Deepti Kapur Vs Kunal Julka on 30 June 2020 [In a contest between right to privacy and right to fair trial, both of which arise under expansive Art. 21, right to privacy may have to yield to right to fair trial]
- Kulvinder Singh Gehlot Vs Parmila on 22 Aug 2023 [Long continuous separation; false allegations;Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage]
- Mamta Vs Pradeep Kumar on 05 Sep 2023 [Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage]
- Pallavi Mohan Vs Raghu Menon on 12 Sep 2023 [Time limit to file appeal against judgments of FC is increased from 30 days to 90 days, passed under HMA and SMA only. For any other cases like Maintenance cases u/s 125 Cr.P.C. the time limit is 30 days only because Parliament did not amend the FC Act yet!]
- Deepti Vs Anil Kumar on 19 Sep 2023 [Family Courts cannot grant divorce on ground of Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage]
- Gaurav Nighawan Vs Shweta on 05 Jan 2024 [Cruelty not established but desertion is implicitly established]
- Payal Sethi Vs Rohit Sethi on 09 Jan 2024 [repeated threats to commit suicide and the attempt to commit suicide was held to be an action amounting to cruelty; relies on decisions of Apex Court in Mangayarkarasi, K Srinivas, Pankaj Mahajan]
- Nikhil Wadhawan Vs Priti Wadhawan on 05 Feb 2024 [Unwarranted interference of the parents and the family members of the respondent in the matrimonial life of the appellant]
- Kanwal Kishore Girdhar Vs Seema Girdhar on 28 Feb 2024 [Alleging false adultery and igniting animosity in children towards father is cruelty, valid ground for divorce]
- Pramod Vs Umesh at Poonam on 01 Mar 2024 [False and baseless allegation cause mental cruelty]
- Shivi Bansal Vs Gaurav Bansal on 16 Jul 2024 [Impleadment of Paramour is not necessary to decide divorce petition on adultery ground]
Jharkhand High Court
- Dr. Pankaj Kumar Vs Prerna on 16 Dec 2020 [Time limit to file appeal against judgments in cases under HMA, SMA is 90 days but not 30 days as prescribed under FC Act]
Karnataka High Court
- Divya Ganesh Nallur Vs Ganesh Nallur Shivu on 08 Jun 2023 (MCD after settlement)
- Sushil Daddimani and Anr Vs Nil on 27 Mar 2024 [MCD within 1 year from date of marriage, if there are Pleadings about Exceptional Hardship u/s 14 HMA]
- H P Komala Vs N Ravikumar on 29 Jul 2024 (Stay of divorce proceedings until arrears of interim maintenance is paid)
Kerala High Court
- Vishnudas H. and Anr Vs Nil on 27 Jul 2020 [MCD within 1 year from date of marriage, if there are Pleadings about Exceptional Hardship u/s 14 HMA]
- Arun K.R Vs Arunima T.S on 24 Mar 2025 [Husband Doesn’t Show Interest In Sex, Prefers Only Spiritual Pursuits]
- Anup Disalva and Anr Vs Union of India on 09 Dec 2022 [Cooling off period is optional]
- Emilda Varghese @ Rajani Vs Varghese P Kuriakose on 6 Oct 2025 [Divorce upheld on cruelty ground]
- Vijay R. Nair Vs Lijitha on 12 Jun 2026 [Order for Permanent Alimony set aside since wife contracted second marriage]
Madras High Court
- R.Natarajan Vs. Sujatha Vasudevan on August 29, 2011
- V.Rajesh Vs S.Anupriya on 04 Jun 2025 [Unestablished allegations of sexual harassment is cruelty]
- Shivkarthik G.S and Anr Vs Nil on 04 Sep 2025 [Waiving of cooling off period in a Christian Divorce by Mutual consent]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
- Smt. Sangita Nigam Vs Saurabh Nigam on 22 November, 2017 (Also Desertion ground)
- Aarti Vs Kishan Meena on 22 Aug 2024 (Cruelty and Desertion grounds)
- Anjali Sharma Vs Raman Upadhyay on 16 Jun 2025 [Illegally obtained WhatsApp chat is admissible as evidence in a Family Court]
Patna High Court
- Rekha Devi Vs Mahesh Kumar on 16 January, 2018
- Sanjay Kumar Shaw Vs Anjali Kumari Shaw on 07 Apr 2025 [No evidence for mental disorder (schizophrenia) so divorce denied]
Punjab and Haryana High Court
- Shashi Vs Sunny Bhumbla on 9 January, 2012 (MCD with 1.25 lakhs settlement)
- Pratham Singh vs Rajesh on 3 December, 2014 (Also Desertion ground)
- Jagbir Singh vs Nisha on 11 March, 2015
Telangana High Court
- Dandamudi Phani Krishna Vs Boyapati Lakshmi Aparna on 22 Mar 2024 [MCD within 1 year from date of marriage, if there are Pleadings about Exceptional Hardship u/s 14 HMA]
- Mudireddy Divya Vs Sulkti Sivarama Reddy on 26 Mar 2025 [Evidence for Divorce in first Marriage, impleadment of a co-respondent, Desertion and status of previous marriage]
MASTER SITEMAP here.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) – Divorce Law in India
The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (Section 13) provides several grounds for divorce, including:
- Cruelty (mental or physical)
- Desertion for a continuous period
- Adultery
- Mental disorder
- Conversion to another religion
- Venereal disease
- Renunciation of the world
- Presumption of death
Many judicial decisions interpret these grounds and clarify what conduct qualifies as cruelty or desertion.
Mental cruelty refers to conduct that causes severe emotional suffering or mental distress to a spouse, making it impossible to continue marital life. Courts have held that false criminal complaints, humiliation, threats, or persistent harassment can constitute mental cruelty.
Desertion occurs when one spouse abandons the other without reasonable cause and without consent, with the intention of ending marital cohabitation. Courts evaluate both physical separation and intention to desert while deciding such cases.
Divorce by mutual consent under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act allows spouses to dissolve their marriage by agreement. Both parties must jointly state that they have been living separately and cannot live together anymore.
The Supreme Court has clarified that the six-month cooling-off period under Section 13-B(2) is not mandatory and can be waived by courts if the marriage has irretrievably broken down and reconciliation is not possible.
The Supreme Court of India, using its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, can dissolve a marriage when it finds that the relationship has irretrievably broken down and there is no possibility of reconciliation.
However, ordinary family courts cannot grant divorce solely on this ground unless recognised under law
Yes. Courts have repeatedly held that false accusations of adultery, dowry harassment, or criminal misconduct against a spouse may amount to mental cruelty, which is a valid ground for divorce.
Yes. Judicial decisions have held that continuous threats or attempts of suicide by a spouse can amount to mental cruelty, as it causes severe emotional distress and makes matrimonial life intolerable.
Under Section 14 of the Hindu Marriage Act, a divorce petition cannot ordinarily be filed within one year of marriage. However, courts may allow it earlier if there are exceptional circumstances or extreme hardship.
Yes. Courts may grant permanent alimony or maintenance under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act depending on factors such as income, financial condition, and needs of the spouse.
Courts have increasingly accepted electronic evidence such as recordings, messages, and digital communications if they are relevant and admissible under the Indian Evidence Act.
Yes. A divorce decree can be challenged by filing an appeal before a higher court within the statutory time limit. Courts can set aside divorce orders if they find procedural errors, fraud, or lack of evidence.
Samar Ghosh vs Jaya Ghosh on 26 March, 2007
This judgment from a Supreme Court Bench comprising Justice Dalveer Bhandari has enumerated some of the illustrations of mental cruelty citing Judgments of England, America, Canada and Australia.
Intro
The appellant and the respondent are senior officials of the Indian Administrative Service, The respondent was a divorcee and had a female child from her first marriage. The custody of the said child was given to her by the District Court of Patna where the respondent had obtained a decree of divorce against her first husband, Debashish Gupta, who was also an I.A.S. officer. The respondent’s first husband, Debashish Gupta filed a belated appeal against the decree of divorce obtained by her from the District Court of Patna. Therefore, during the pendency of the appeal, she literally persuaded the appellant to agree to the marriage immediately so that the appeal of Debashish Gupta may become infructuous.
The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 13.12.1984.
… In these circumstances, the appellant has prayed that it would not be possible to continue the marriage with the respondent and he eventually filed a suit for the grant of divorce. In the suit for divorce filed by the appellant in Alipur, Calcutta, the respondent filed her written statement and denied the averments. The learned Additional District Judge came to the finding that the appellant has succeeded in proving the case of mental cruelty against the respondent, therefore, the decree was granted by the order dated 19.12.1996 and the marriage between the parties was dissolved.
The Division Bench of the High Court vide judgment dated 20.5.2003 reversed the judgment of the Additional District Judge on the ground that the appellant has not been able to prove the allegation of mental cruelty.
Key Points
Such a vital decision cannot be taken unilaterally after marriage by the respondent and if taken unilaterally, it may amount to mental cruelty to the appellant.
The finding of the High Court that the appellant started living with the respondent amounted to condonation of the act of cruelty is unsustainable in law.
The finding of the High Court that the respondent’s refusal to cook food for the appellant could not amount to mental cruelty as she had to go to office, is not sustainable….. The question was not of cooking food, but wife’s cooking food only for herself and not for the husband would be a clear instance of causing annoyance which may lead to mental cruelty.
The High Court’s finding that the husband and wife might be sleeping in separate rooms did not lead to a conclusion that they did not cohabit and to justify this by saying that the respondent was highly educated and holding a high post was entirely unsustainable. Once the respondent accepted to become the wife of the appellant, she had to respect the marital bond and discharge obligations of marital life.
During illness, particularly in a nuclear family, the husband normally looks after and supports his wife and similarly, he would expect the same from her. The respondent’s total indifference and neglect of the appellant during his illness would certainly lead to great annoyance leading to mental cruelty.
The credibility of the witness does not depend upon his financial standing or social status only. A witness which is natural and truthful should be accepted irrespective of his/her financial standing or social status.
… the appellant and the respondent have been living separately for more than sixteen and half years (since 27.8.1990). The entire substratum of the marriage has already disappeared. During this long period, the parties did not spend a single minute together. The appellant had undergone bye-pass surgery even then the respondent did not bother to enquire about his health even on telephone. Now the parties have no feelings and emotions towards each other.
Mental Cruelty Guidelines
No uniform standard can ever be laid down for guidance, yet we deem it appropriate to enumerate some instances of human behaviour which may be relevant in dealing with the cases of ‘mental cruelty’. The instances indicated in the succeeding paragraphs are only illustrative and not exhaustive.
(i) On consideration of complete matrimonial life of the parties, acute mental pain, agony and suffering as would not make possible for the parties to live with each other could come within the broad parameters of mental cruelty.
(ii) On comprehensive appraisal of the entire matrimonial life of the parties, it becomes abundantly clear that situation is such that the wronged party cannot reasonably be asked to put up with such conduct and continue to live with other party.
(iii) Mere coldness or lack of affection cannot amount to cruelty, frequent rudeness of language, petulance of manner, indifference and neglect may reach such a degree that it makes the married life for the other spouse absolutely intolerable.
(iv) Mental cruelty is a state of mind. The feeling of deep anguish, disappointment, frustration in one spouse caused by the conduct of other for a long time may lead to mental cruelty.
(v) A sustained course of abusive and humiliating treatment calculated to torture, discommode or render miserable life of the spouse.
(vi) Sustained unjustifiable conduct and behaviour of one spouse actually affecting physical and mental health of the other spouse. The treatment complained of and the resultant danger or apprehension must be very grave, substantial and weighty.
(vii) Sustained reprehensible conduct, studied neglect, indifference or total departure from the normal standard of conjugal kindness causing injury to mental health or deriving sadistic pleasure can also amount to mental cruelty.
(viii) The conduct must be much more than jealousy, selfishness, possessiveness, which causes unhappiness and dissatisfaction and emotional upset may not be a ground for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty.
(ix) Mere trivial irritations, quarrels, normal wear and tear of the married life which happens in day to day life would not be adequate for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty.
(x) The married life should be reviewed as a whole and a few isolated instances over a period of years will not amount to cruelty. The ill-conduct must be persistent for a fairly lengthy period, where the relationship has deteriorated to an extent that because of the acts and behaviour of a spouse, the wronged party finds it extremely difficult to live with the other party any longer, may amount to mental cruelty.
(xi) If a husband submits himself for an operation of sterilization without medical reasons and without the consent or knowledge of his wife and similarly if the wife undergoes vasectomy or abortion without medical reason or without the consent or knowledge of her husband, such an act of the spouse may lead to mental cruelty.
(xii) Unilateral decision of refusal to have intercourse for considerable period without there being any physical incapacity or valid reason may amount to mental cruelty.
(xiii) Unilateral decision of either husband or wife after marriage not to have child from the marriage may amount to cruelty.
(xiv) Where there has been a long period of continuous separation, it may fairly be concluded that the matrimonial bond is beyond repair. The marriage becomes a fiction though supported by a legal tie. By refusing to sever that tie, the law in such cases, does not serve the sanctity of marriage; on the contrary, it shows scant regard for the feelings and emotions of the parties. In such like situations, it may lead to mental cruelty.
Citations : [2007 SCC 4 511], [2007 SUPREME 3 26], [2007 JT 5 569], [2007 CTC 3 464], [2007 BLJR 2 1047], [2007 RCR CIVIL 2 595], [2007 RAJ 2 177], [2007 ALD SC 4 11], [2007 ALL SCR 0 881], [2007 SCALE 5 1], [2007 SCC 4 411], [2007 SLJ SC 2 705], [2007 ALT 3 62], [2007 DMC 1 597], [2007 SCJ 3 253], [2007 WBLR 3 525], [2007 GHJ 16 204], [2007 KERLT 2 55], [2007 RAJLW 2 1357], [2007 AWC 5 4820], [2007 CLT 2 72], [2007 JCIVC 2 1028], [2007 SLT 4 76], [2007 AIOL 339], [2007 BOMCR SC 6 834], [2007 SCR 4 428], [2007 GUJ LR 2 1520], [2007 MADLJ 2 1185]
Other Sources :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/766894/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ae45e4b01497114135d2
The index page is here.
Decisions of Civil Courts are binding on the Criminal Courts
Listed here are Judgments in support of legal point
Decisions of Civil Courts are binding on the Criminal Courts
Lifecycle Stages of a Section 498A IPC Case
Listed below are a reasonably laid out sequence of events in a Criminal Case filed under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code (IPC). The section is available here.
Other Life Cycles: DV Case Lifecycle || Maintenance Case u/s 125 CrPC Lifecycle. Index is here.
Initial signs of facing a false criminal case u/s 498A IPC
These days awareness of women about gender-biased laws in India has enormously increased partly due to movies and men do not need any special sign to know that they (and others in his family) are going to face false matrimonial litigation. The women are telling in your face that they will hoist a false litigation and *send you to jail* (this being the sole goal). So listen/observe carefully for such utterances and record them. This is evidence. Safe guard it. Being idiotic (read still believing that the woman will come back to his home and lead a happy marital life is a oasis) is your choice. Hope you do not regret that decision later when one or some in your family die due to false litigation (and the stigma/defamation it causes to your family)
Filing of false complaint and registration of FIR
Another must-happen is that the women hoist the false complaints only at their parental home to leverage the local feelings. (caste, regional connections will be invoked). There is a bad judgment also now to support them in this. Go find it here.
Officer in charge of the Station (Station House Officer-SHO) assigns an officer of cadre Inspector to register FIR and investigate the allegations in the complaint. This person is called as Investigation Officer (I/O).
Anticipatory Bail u/s 438 Cr.P.C.
If there are any other serious cognizable offences in the FIR (Check First Schedule in Cr.P.C. book which lists some I.P.C. offences along with details such as if a case is a cognizable and/or bailable) which may attract 7 years or more punishment. Then immediately go for Anticipatory Bail u/s 438 Cr.P.C. at Sessions Court first and on failure there go to High Court. Landmark Arnesh Kumar judgment is here. The thing to note here is that once a AB is granted in a case (FIR), the protection continues until the end of trial. Landmark case law of Sushila Aggarwal is here. Another note is, no need to convert AB into Regular Bail. Do not entertain any nonsense here.
Notice u/s 41A of CrPC
Misuse of arresting Power of Police was held to be illegal and hence Apex Court directed all DGPs of all States that they issue directions to the entire Police in their states, not to automatically arrest accused person after registering FIR but to issue a Notice to all accused to join the inquiry u/s 41A of Cr.P.C. The Arnesh Kumar judgment is here.
The Result:
Arrests (only with respect to Dowry Prohibition Act offences as an example here; No 1 cause used to support most of all false matrimonial cases) reduced considerably. Didn’t stop though. Most of the I.O.s of these arrests have committed Contempt of Court by arresting the accused (Immediately approach State High Court with a Contempt Petition). A simple RTI application to National Crime Record Bureau asking “in how many arrests under this Act, a notice u/s 41A Cr.P.C. was issued” would open up the blatant disregard for the decision of Supreme Court.
Gender-wise split of arrests… See, how many mothers and sisters were arrested in false matrimonial litigation in India, only under Dowry Prohibition Act.
Obtaining Station Bail
If Police arrested you or your family members, before you obtain Anticipatory Bail, one can give sureties to Police and obtain Station Bail. No need to give any ‘fees’ to Police.
Obtaining Default Bail
Per Section 167 Cr.P.C., if I/O is unable to complete investigation within 24 hours of apprehending you or your family, he is supposed to present you before Jurisdictional Magistrate and seek Police custody. Magistrate may remand you to Police Custody for maximum 15 days.
Obtaining Regular Bail u/s 437 CrPC
If Police do not allow you Station Bail and put you in Police custody, you or your family members, can go before Jurisdiction Court and file petition u/s 437 CrPC for obtaining Regular Bail, by giving sureties to Court. No need to give any ‘fees’ to Court. Court will grant Regular Bail while imposing certain conditions.
Quashing the FIR at High Court u/s 482 CrPC
Learn what is a Quash (not squash; it is a sport) Petition and how to make good use of it at High Court here. Then read how a baseless, maliciously motivated FIR may be quashed here.
Filing of Charge sheet by I/O
I/O does investigation to gather material and witnesses supporting the allegation and based on this outcome, files a Closure report (with reasons) or a Charge sheet (u/s 173 Cr.P.C.) into the jurisdictional Court.
Minimum documents that I/O should submit to Court along with Charge sheet (this set of documents are also called as Challan)
- Complaint
- FIR (Signature of the complaint to be taken)
- Statements of Prosecution Witnesses recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. (No signature of witness to be taken on these statements
- Typed Charge sheet
- Rough Sketch of the alleged crime scene/location
- Entries from Police Station Case Dairy
- Any documentary evidences obtained
- Notice issued to the complainant (so that complainant can protect any removal of accused/section from charge sheet)
- Delete memo (if any filed by I/O into Court)
- Arrest memo, Bail bonds, ID proofs of accused
Protest Petition
Once charge sheet is filed into the trial Court, the Court issues a notice to the de facto complainant indicating that their initial report have reached the Court in the form of a final report (which can be either a closure report indicating the police could establish the allegation in the report or a charge sheet indicating that the police could establish the allegation in the report by way of evidence and witness).
The de facto complainant can choose to object to the final report filed into the Court either or removal/diluting of sections or removal of accused from the FIR. There is no section of law from this in the Cr.P.C.
Initial Appearance in Court
It will take some time before the filing section of the Court gives a C.C. (calendar case) number to your case and issues summons to you and other accused to appear before Court and participate in Court proceedings.
On being present, these activities must happen (i) Recording Your identity and attendance, (ii) Inquiry about Engagement of own advocate or need of any Legal Aid advocate, (iii) Copies of Prosecution documents given to each accused present in Court and (iv) next date given for framing of charges.
Court provides (I/O provides actually) the following to each accused person, one copy as prescribed u/s 207 Cr.P.C.
- Complaint
- FIR (Signature of the complaint to be taken)
- Statements of Prosecution Witnesses recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. (No signature of witness to be taken on these statements
- Typed Charge sheet
- Rough Sketch of the alleged crime scene/location
You can obtain certified copy of any other documents by filing a copy application in copy section of the Court.
Discharge from case u/s 239 CrPC
Discharge petition helps accused person to come out of false litigation (Best case – All accused may be discharged from all offences in Charge sheet; worst case – Husband may have to face 498A IPC but other sections and accused may be discharged). Read when to invoke a Discharge Petition at the trial court itself here. There are a few good judgments pertaining to Discharge here. Read this judgement here to success in your discharge.
If your Discharge petition is dismissed baselessly (reason given by Magistrate is, every ground you raised is a matter of trail), your remedy is to file Revision at Sessions Court within limitation petition.
Framing of Charges
After conducting a hearing (hearing before charge – HBC stage) to complainant and accused, Magistrate will read out the charges from the charge sheet, in the language understood by accused and ask if he/she pleads guilty. If accused prays guilty, Magistrate will record such confession and move to next stage. If charges are denied then Magistrate will proceed to frame charges on the accused persons and issue a charge framing order.
Even though this is an interlocutory order, it is nevertheless a judicial order, so this can also be challenged at High Court u/s 482 Cr.P.C.
Begin of Criminal Trial
This is a criminal trial so all remedies available under Cr.P.C. can be gainfully invoked to benefit accused persons. The following are some.
Section 201 Cr.P.C. can be invoked if complainant tries to erase statutory (Marriage certificate, divorce decree, land/property documents) financial, medical, mobile, electronic (email, sms, whatsapp, video, audio) evidence which would destroy her case.
Section 202 Cr.P.C. can be invoked if truth is concealed and lies are recorded in complaint to police.
Section 205 Cr.P.C. can be invoked to dispense with personal attendance of accused. Standard forms may be available at/near courts. Fill, attach Rs.2/5 Court Stamp and file at Bench or Filing section. Prosecution will object. During hearing, plead the grounds (distance/out-station, health, advanced age etc)
Section 317 Cr.P.C. can be invoked on a per-appearance basis, if 205 petition above is not allowed.
If you are a Party-in-person, then invoke Rule 37 of the Criminal Rules of Practice and Circular Orders 1990 for High Court of A.P. here. Due to this, one accused can represent (not plead/argue) other accused persons. Using this, ensure your parents and relatives do not suffer due to travels involved.
Section 256 Cr.P.C. can be invoked if the complainant herself is not appearing nor the Assistant PP, you can pray to Court to acquit the accused. If the complainant is represented by advocate, then to mark that stage as null and proceed further. If Magistrate doesn’t oblige, file a Memo praying same, so your prayer goes on record of Court in the case. Same, if complainant dies too.
Section 91 Cr.P.C. can be invoked to summon any document held by any authority, public or private.
Try this only after exhausting Formal communication channels with the document-holding entity and via RTI Act. Else, Court will dismiss your application. Few more remedies are here.
Quash the case u/s 482 CrPC
At any point in time during trail of this case, if there appears any grounds basis which the Court shall not proceed against accused persons, they can approach High Court u/s 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings.
Examination of Complainant and Prosecution witnesses
Examination stage has two phases: Chief Examination and Cross Examination.
While examination, evidences to support either side may be submitted to Court and get them marked/numbered.
Evidence of Complainant and witnesses
Chief Examination: Complainant gives their deposition to Court. This can be filed via an affidavit. Similarly, witnesses will also finish their Examination-in-chief.
Cross-examination of Complainant and witnesses
Cross Examination: Complainant (and her witnesses) is put questions by Defence Advocate to test the veracity of truth in her allegations. Use Section 159 (Refreshing memory) of Indian Evidence Act cleverly.
Examination of Accused and Defence witnesses u/s 313 CrPC
The landmark judgment (from 2000) which held that physical presence of accused persons is NOT required for examination, if they do not have anything to say is here. Recent Karnataka HC judgment here.
Evidence of Accused
Rarely, does the need arises for accused to produce any evidence.
Cross-examination of Accused and Defence witnesses
If presented, Accused/defence witnesses/evidences have to go through Cross examination phase.
Court’s Power to Examine Accused
The Court has power to examine the Accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C.
Arguments
Advocates take turns and introduce their arguments, based on the Examination stage and Evidences brought on record of the Court. Once Oral arguments are finished, written arguments may also be submitted to Court. This is covered u/s 314 Cr.P.C.
Judgment (Acquittal/Conviction)
After conclusion of arguments, Court reserves the judgment, as Magistrate has to write the judgment. Once ready with Judgment, Magistrate pronounces the Judgment in the Open Court in the presence of parties involved in the case.
Revision/Appeal
sfdsd
Settlement/Compromise
In Andhra Pradesh, 498A IPC is made compoundable through an amendment to Cr.P.C. (a Central Act, 2 of 1974) in 2003 under Code of Criminal Procedure (Andhra Pradesh Amendment) Act, 2003 wherein both sections 494 IPC and 498A IPC were added to the list of Compoundable offences u/s 320 Cr.P.C. The sections 494, 495, 496 and 497 IPC were earlier also made Cognizable and non-bailable in Andhra Pradesh by another State Amendment.
So, this made it possible to compromise/settle 498A IPC cases (may be coupled with other offences such as 307, 406, 420, 506 IPC or Sec 3, 4, 6 of DP Act etc.) before Lok Adalat which is empowered to take up Compoundable cases as per sec 19(5) of Legal Services Authority Act 1987. So the parties can make an application to DLSA, MLSA, TLSA, as the case may be, and get their case compromised.
