Reema Aggarwal Vs Anupam And Ors on 8 January, 2004

Posted on July 21, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Defense of Accused:

Before the trial Court the accused persons put the plea that charge under Section 498-A was thoroughly misconceived as both Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC pre-suppose valid marriage of the alleged victim-woman with the offender-husband. It was required to be shown that the victim-woman was the legally married wife of the accused. Since it was admitted that the appellant had married during the lifetime of the wife of respondent no.1, what happened to his first marriage remained a mystery. Prosecution has failed to establish that it stood dissolved legally. Prosecution having failed to bring any material record in that regard, Section 498-A had no application.

From Para 18,

It would be appropriate to construe the expression ‘husband’ to cover a person who enters into marital relationship and under the colour of such proclaimed or feigned status of husband subjects the woman concerned to cruelty or coerce her in any manner or for any of the purposes enumerated in the relevant provisions Sections 304B/498A, whatever be the legitimacy of the marriage itself for the limited purpose of Sections 498A and 304B IPC. Such an interpretation, known and recognized as purposive construction has to come into play in a case of this nature. The absence of a definition of ‘husband’ to specifically include such persons who contract marriages ostensibly and cohabitate with such woman, in the purported exercise of his role and status as ‘husband’ is no ground to exclude them from the purview of Section 304B or 498A IPC, viewed in the context of the very object and aim of the legislations introducing those provisions.

Finally,

Whether the offences are made out is a matter of trial. The High Court was not justified in summarily rejecting the application for grant of leave. It has a duty to indicate reasons when it refuses to grant leave. Any casual or summary disposal would not be proper. (See State of Punjab v. Bhag Singh (2003 (8) Supreme 611). In the circumstances, we set aside the impugned order of the High Court and remit the matter back to the High Court for hearing the matter on merits as according to us points involved require adjudication by the High Court. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated.

Reema Aggarwal Vs Anupam And Ors on 8 January, 2004

The acquittal of the accused happened at sessions court and a revision on this acquittal at High Court of Punjab and Haryana was dismissed. Read it here.

Citations : [2004 AIR SC 1418], [2004 ALD CRI 1 452], [2004 CALLT SC 3 16], [2004 DMC SC 1 201], [2004 JT SC 1 177], [2004 KLJ 1 825], [2004 KLT SC 2 822], [2004 PLJR 2 64], [2004 SCALE 1 264], [2004 SCC 3 199], [2004 CRIMES SC 1 276], [2004 SCC CRI 699], [2004 SCR 1 378], [2004 SUPREME 1 355], [2004 KHC 0 668], [2004 RCR CRI 1 776], [2004 ACC 48 442], [2004 AIR SC 344], [2004 SRJ 2 49], [2004 CCR 1 163], [2004 JCRIC 1 209], [2004 CRJ 2 432], [2004 SLT 1 466], [2004 AIR SCW 344], [2004 CRLJ SC 892]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1180389/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ae01e4b0149711412ad7

https://vlex.in/vid/crl-no-000025-000025-852345777

Sanjeev Kumar Mittal Vs The State on 18 November, 2010

Posted on June 13, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Citing many landmark Perjury precedents, Justice J.R.Midha of Delhi High Court has rendered this judgment. This CrPC 340 judgment is under Sections 193, 196, 199 and 200 of the Indian Penal Code. Since there was ample evidence for fraud on court, Police were directed to conduct preliminary inquiry.

Sanjeev Kumar Mittal Vs The State on 18 November, 2010

A precedent from Supreme Court of India is available here, which is also relied upon in this instant judgment.

Citations: [2011 DRJ 121 328], [2010 CCR 4 442], [2010 DLT 174 214], [2011 RCR CRI 7 2111], [2010 SCC ONLINE DEL 4006]

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/83621866/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56090d95e4b014971117a12d

Iqbal Singh Marwah & Anr Vs Meenakshi Marwah & Anr on 11 March, 2005

Posted on June 12, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

This is an important judgment from Hon’ble Supreme Court on a contention point as documented in Para 5,

5. The principal controversy revolves round the interpretation of the expression “when such offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court” occurring in clause (b)(ii) of sub-section (1) of Section 195 Cr.P.C.

Simply put, if a document is forged before being submitted in a court, there is no bar to file a complaint on the accused of the forgery under clause (b)(ii) of sub-section (1) of Section 195 Cr.P.C.

A Magistrate may take cognizance of any offence
(a) upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such offence,
(b) upon a police report of such facts, and
(c) upon information received from any person other than a police officer, or upon his own knowledge, that such offence has been committed.

From a victim standpoint who is facing an offender of forgery, thereafter in this case, the respondents moved an application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. requesting the Court to file a criminal complaint against appellant no.1 as the will set up by him was forged.

From Paras 23-26, very valuable aspect is explained ‘expedient in the interests of justice‘:

23. In view of the language used in Section 340 CrPC the court is not bound to make a complaint regarding commission of an offence referred to in Section 195(1)(b), as the section is conditioned by the words “court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interests of justice”. This shows that such a course will be adopted only if the interest of justice requires and not in every case. Before filing of the complaint, the court may hold a preliminary enquiry and record a finding to the effect that it is expedient in the interests of justice that enquiry should be made into any of the offences referred to in Section 195(1)(b). This expediency will normally be judged by the court by weighing not the magnitude of injury suffered by the person affected by such forgery or forged document, but having regard to the effect or impact, such commission of offence has upon administration of justice. It is possible that such forged document or forgery may cause a very serious or substantial injury to a person in the sense that it may deprive him of a very valuable property or status or the like, but such document may be just a piece of evidence produced or given in evidence in court, where voluminous evidence may have been adduced and the effect of such piece of evidence on the broad concept of administration of justice may be minimal. In such circumstances, the court may not consider it expedient in the interest of justice to make a complaint. The broad view of clause (b)(ii), as canvassed by learned counsel for the appellants, would render the victim of such forgery or forged document remediless. Any interpretation which leads to a situation where a victim of a crime is rendered remediless, has to be discarded.
24. There is another consideration which has to be kept in mind. Sub-section (1) of Section 340 CrPC contemplates holding of a preliminary enquiry. Normally, a direction for filing of a complaint is not made during the pendency of the proceeding before the court and this is done at the stage when the proceeding is concluded and the final judgment is rendered. Section 341 provides for an appeal against an order directing filing of the complaint. The hearing and ultimate decision of the appeal is bound to take time. Section 343(2) confers a discretion upon a court trying the complaint to adjourn the hearing of the case if it is brought to its notice that an appeal is pending against the decision arrived at in the judicial proceeding out of which the matter has arisen. In view of these provisions, the complaint case may not proceed at all for decades specially in matters arising out of civil suits where decisions are challenged in successive appellate fora which are time-consuming. It is also to be noticed that there is no provision of appeal against an order passed under Section 343(2), whereby hearing of the case is adjourned until the decision of the appeal. These provisions show that, in reality, the procedure prescribed for filing a complaint by the court is such that it may not fructify in the actual trial of the offender for an unusually long period. Delay in prosecution of a guilty person comes to his advantage as witnesses become reluctant to give evidence and the evidence gets lost. This important consideration dissuades us from accepting the broad interpretation sought to be placed upon clause (b)(ii).
25. An enlarged interpretation to Section 195(1)(b)(ii), whereby the bar created by the said provision would also operate where after commission of an act of forgery the document is subsequently produced in court, is capable of great misuse. As pointed out in Sachida Nand Singh after preparing a forged document or committing an act of forgery, a person may manage to get a proceeding instituted in any civil, criminal or revenue court, either by himself or through someone set up by him and simply file the document in the said proceeding. He would thus be protected from prosecution, either at the instance of a private party or the police until the court, where the document has been filed, itself chooses to file a complaint. The litigation may be a prolonged one due to which the actual trial of such a person may be delayed indefinitely. Such an interpretation would be highly detrimental to the interest of the society at large.
26. Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that the courts are normally reluctant to direct filing of a criminal complaint and such a course is rarely adopted. It will not be fair and proper to give an interpretation which leads to a situation where a person alleged to have committed an offence of the type enumerated in clause (b)(ii) is either not placed for trial on account of non-filing of a complaint or if a complaint is filed, the same does not come to its logical end. Judging from such an angle will be in consonance with the principle that an unworkable or impracticable result should be avoided.

Iqbal Singh Marwah & Anr Vs Meenakshi Marwah & Anr on 11 March, 2005

Citations : [2005 AIR SC 2119], [2005 SCR 2 708], [2005 JT 3 195], [2005 SCALE 3 93], [2005 AIOL 135], [2005 MHLJ SC 3 530], [2005 BOMCR CRI SC 2 470], [2005 SCC 4 370], [2005 SUPREME 2 549], [2005 CRLJ SC 2161], [2005 SCC CRI 1101]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/618763/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ae13e4b0149711412e0a

https://mynation.net/docs/402-2005/

https://www.insaafindia.in/judgements/misc/iqbal-singh-marwah-vs-meenakshi-marwah-forgery/

Chandra Shekhar Alias Lalla Vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 April, 2018

Posted on June 2, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

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.

Chandra Shekhar Alias Lalla Alias ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 April, 2018

Sajjan Kumar Vs C.B.I on 20 September, 2010

Posted on June 2, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

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.

Sajjan Kumar Vs C.B.I on 20 September, 2010

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

Posted on May 26, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

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.

Smt.Kiran Dhar vs Alok Berman on 14 May, 2014

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

Posted on May 21, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

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.“

Dalip Singh Vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 3 December, 2009

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

Posted on May 19, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

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]
Pradeep Ram Vs State of Jharkhand and Anr on 1 Jul 2019 [In a case where an accused has already been granted bail, the investigating authority on addition of an offence or offences may not proceed to arrest the accused, but for arresting the accused on such addition of offence or offences it need to obtain an order to arrest the accused from the Court which had granted the bail.]
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

Chandra Kanjappa Kuchchikurwe Vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr. on 14 December, 2012

Kerala High Court

District Courts

In re:- Arnab Rao @ Arnad Roa

Index of all Bail matters is here.

Ajoy Kumar Ghose Vs State Of Jharkhand & Anr on 18 March, 2009

Posted on May 12, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

In this judgment from Apex Court, Hon’ble Bench has, in detail, explained the procedure before framing charges and the discharge procedure thereof.

Ajoy Kumar Ghose vs State Of Jharkhand & Anr on 18 March, 2009

Divorce Judgments

Posted on April 30, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

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

Subhash Chandra Das Chowdhury Vs Sandhya Das Chowdhury on 18 July 2008

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!]
Sushila Vs Joginder on 13 Sep 2023 [Filing of false complaint against the husband and his family members constitutes mental cruelty for the purpose of Divorce; Acquitted in 498A IPC and DV cases]
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.

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Tag: Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to

Reema Aggarwal Vs Anupam And Ors on 8 January, 2004

Sanjeev Kumar Mittal Vs The State on 18 November, 2010

Iqbal Singh Marwah & Anr Vs Meenakshi Marwah & Anr on 11 March, 2005

Chandra Shekhar Alias Lalla Vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 April, 2018

Sajjan Kumar Vs C.B.I on 20 September, 2010

Kiran Dhar Vs Alok Berman on 14 May, 2014

Dalip Singh Vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 3 December, 2009

Anticipatory Bail Orders

Ajoy Kumar Ghose Vs State Of Jharkhand & Anr on 18 March, 2009

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) – Divorce Law in India

1. What are the common grounds for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955?+

+

2. What is “mental cruelty” in divorce cases?+

3. What is desertion in matrimonial law?+

4. What is divorce by mutual consent?+

5. Is the six-month cooling-off period mandatory in mutual consent divorce?+

6. Can courts grant divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage?+

7. Can false allegations against a spouse be grounds for divorce?+

8. Can repeated threats of suicide be treated as cruelty?+

9. Can a divorce petition be filed within one year of marriage?+

10. Can a spouse claim maintenance after divorce?+

11. Can evidence like electronic recordings or messages be used in divorce cases?+

12. Can a divorce decree be challenged or set aside?+