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

Posted on June 17 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.

Roopa Soni Vs Kamal Narayan Soni on 06 Sep 2023

Posted on February 7 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Supreme Court held as follows, while relying on landmark judgments like

From Para 10,

10. On the question of burden in a petition for divorce, burden of proof lies on the petitioner. However, the degree of probability is not one beyond reasonable doubt, but of preponderance.

From Para 17,

17. For a decade and half, the parties have been living separately. As fairly stated at the Bar, the marriage does not survive any longer, and the relationship was terminated otherwise except by a formal decree of divorce. The status quo continues, awaiting an approval from this Court.

From Para 19,

19. The Trial Court and the High Court adopted a hyper-technical and pedantic approach in declining the decree of divorce. It is not as if the respondent-Husband is willing to live with the appellant–Wife. The allegations made by him against her are as serious as the allegations made by her against him. Both the parties have moved away and settled in their respective lives. There is no need to continue the agony of a mere status without them living together.

Roopa Soni Vs Kamal Narayan Soni on 06 Sep 2023

Index of Divorce judgments is here.

Aarti Vs Kishan Meena on 22 Aug 2024

Posted on September 16, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court at Indore held as follows,

From Para 16,

16. It has also been held in Samar Ghosh (supra) where on facts there has been irretrievable breakdown of marriage, the party opposing the divorce and not letting go the other party free of the matrimonial bond, would be causing mental cruelty to the other party. This makes considerable sense in the Indian context where to reach finality by exhausting the remedy of appeals may take several years. In such situation the party opposing the grant of divorce may, in some cases, be doing so only out of spite, either to harass the other party or prevent it from remarrying or out of sheer cussedness. That may indeed also confirm the allegation that such party had been causing mental cruelty, and was now intent on causing further mental cruelty by opposing the divorce.

From Para 19,

19. Respondent by filing certified copy of impugned judgment and decree in Criminal Case No.2015/2017 under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 has proved that criminal case was lodged at the behest of appellant / wife in which ultimately appellant, his sister and parents were acquitted by the parties. Learned Court below relying upon the judgment in the case of Vandana Gupta Vs. Ramesh Gupta reported in 2009 (2) MPLJ 214, Madhuri Aaswani Vs. Arjundas Aaswani reported in 2007 (3) MPLJ 550 and Vishwanath Agrawal Vs. Sarla Agrawal reported in AIR 2012 SC 2586 concluded that prosecution of husband and her relatives on the false allegation of demand of dowry comesunder mental cruelty. The findings recorded by the learned Court below are impregnable and infallible.

From Para 21,

21. Learned Court below has recorded the finding that termination of pregnancy without consent of husband also comes under the purview of cruelty. With regard to the aforesaid finding, this Court is of the view that termination of pregnancy may come under the term ‘cruelty’ depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case.

Aarti Vs Kishan Meena on 22 Aug 2024

Index of Divorce Judgments is here.

Kanwal Kishore Girdhar Vs Seema Girdhar on 28 Feb 2024

Posted on March 2, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Delhi High Court, held that ‘Mother igniting animosity in children towards father is cruelty, valid ground for divorce’.

From Paras 32-33,

32. It is unfortunate that despite the respondent being educated, she was unable to manage her sentiments and emotions, when it came to her husband. She has made adulterous allegations against the appellant and according to her, she had even taken the phone number and the photographs of the lady. However, significantly nothing has found its way to the present proceedings and no cogent evidence of the same has surfaced. Making such unwarranted allegations of adultery without any corroboration, is an act of mental cruelty as held in the case of Vijaykumar Ramchandra Bhate v. Neela Vijaykumar Bhate, (2003) 6 SCC 334 and A. Jayachandra v. Aneel Kaur, (2005) 2 SCC 22. Similar observations were also made in the case of Jayanti vs Rakesh Mediratta, 2016 SCC OnLine Del 5760.
33. The differences between two adults may arise due to myriad reasons, some may be temperamental or factual, but the irrationality of the conduct ofthe respondent is brought forth by her conduct of involving in eight years old child, in their disputes. The petitioner and the respondent may not have been able to generate mutual affection, respect and understanding due to their differences, but it does not justify the act of the respondent in embroiling their minor daughter in their fights. Taking a small daughteralong with her with a specific design to the house of the appellant and then to make allegations of adultery and call the Police, is an act of ruining thepsyche of a child and turning her against her father. A person may be a badhusband but that does not lead to the necessary conclusion of he being a badfather. The act of the respondent in trying to turn the children against their father and even making her write a complaint against her father, is a clear case of parental alienation, which in itself is an act of grave mental cruelty.

From Para 36,

36. This is a clear case of parental alienation where the respondent has not even spared her children and has involved them in her differences, with the appellant. Such conduct of making unsubstantiated allegations of adultery coupled with involving their child in the inter se disputes between the parties, can be termed as nothing but an extreme act of cruelty.

Kanwal Kishore Girdhar Vs Seema Girdhar on 28 Feb 2024

Index of Divorce judgments is here.

Payal Sethi Vs Rohit Sethi on 09 Jan 2024

Posted on January 27, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Delhi High Court held that, repeated threats to commit suicide and the attempt to commit suicide was held to be an action amounting to cruelty, based on Supreme Court decisions.

From Pars 25-31,

25. The repeated threats to commit suicide and the attempt to commit suicide was held to be an action amounting to cruelty by the Supreme court in the case of Pankaj Mahajan Vs. Dimple, (2011) 12 SCC 1. It was further observed that cruelty postulates a treatment of a spouse with such cruelty that it would be harmful or injurious to live with the other spouse. Similarly in Narendra Vs. K. Meena (2016) 9 SCC 455, it was observed that in case the wife succeeds in committing suicide, one can only imagine how the poor husband would get entangled into the clutches of law which would virtually ruin his sanity, peace of mind, career and probably his entire life. Such threat of attempting suicide amounts to cruelty.
26. In the present case as well, the conduct of the appellant is clearly is an act of cruelty towards the respondent/husband.
27. We may note further that on leaving the matrimonial home on 15.12.2009, the appellant lodged a complaint with Crime against Women Cell, which became the basis of registration of FIR No. 508/2012 under Section 498A/406/34 IPC. The respondent was once again driven to take anticipatory bail. The appellant even made a claim of Rs.5 lakhs to settle all the disputes, but the respondent was not in a position to offer more than Rs.3 lakhs because of which the matter could not be settled.
28. Even thereafter another case under the Protection of Women Against Domestic Violence Act was filed in the year 2018 despite the separation of more than nine years. The appellant, no doubt has a legal right to take recourse for the wrong that may have been committed but making unsubstantiated allegations of having been subjected to dowry demands or acts of cruelty by the respondent or his family members, and getting criminal trials initiated against the respondent are clearly acts of cruelty.
29. In the case of K. Srinivas Vs. K. Sunita (2013) 5 SCC 226, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that filing of false complaints against the husband and his family members constitutes mental cruelty for the purpose of Section 13 (1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act. It was further observed that filing appeals questioning the acquittal of the husband indicates the relentless attempts of the wife to somehow ensure that the husband and his family are put in jail. Such acts, without a doubt, amount to cruelty.
30. The Supreme Court in Mangayakarasi v. M. Yuvaraj (2020) 3 SCC 786, observed that an unsubstantiated allegation of dowry demand or such other allegations made against the husband and his family members exposed them to criminal litigation. Ultimately, if it is found that such allegations were unwarranted and without basis, the husband can allege that mental cruelty has been inflicted on him and claim a divorce on such a ground.
31. We note that during the two years of their matrimonial life, the parties barely resided together for ten months in all and even during that time there were various acts of the cruelty of being subjected to false complaints and civil as well as criminal litigation, committed by the appellant towards the respondent. We therefore, conclude that the learned Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court has rightly held that the respondent was subjected to cruelty by the appellant and granted divorce under Section 13 (1)(ia) of the HMA.

Payal Sethi Vs Rohit Sethi on 09 Jan 2024

Index of Divorce Judgments is here.

Mamta Vs Pradeep Kumar on 05 Sep 2023

Posted on September 5, 2023 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Delhi High Court held as follows,

From Para 12,

12. Marriages under old Hindu Law are considered as a sacrament and did not recognize the concept of divorce. Once this union of marriage was established, the ties were for the entire life of the spouses which could not be severed under any circumstances. Complete shift of paradigm from the social ethos happened with the enactment of the Act, 1955 which not only introduced the concept of ‘monogamy’ but also defined certain grounds on which alone divorce could be granted. Despite this phenomenal change in the social ethos, the Act, 1955 recognises the ground of divorce only on “Fault Theory”. Unless the opposite party was shown to be at fault, whether it was for ‘Adultery’, ‘Cruelty’, ‘Desertion’ or other grounds as specified under Section 13 of the Act, 1955, no divorce can be granted. With the passage of time, experience has shown that many a times, the marriages do not work because of incompatibility and temperamental differences, for which neither party can be blamed. However, since only Fault Theory prevails, these parties end up warring with each other for years to come only because they have no way of exiting this relationship. While many debates have been held to introduce “Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage” as a ground, it has not met the approval and consent of the legislation. We are bound by limits as defined under the Act, 1955 and unless the fault of the other spouse is shown, the parties are left to suffer acrimonious relationship with no way to exit. In this backdrop, the facts of the present case may be considered.

From Para 30,

30. We conclude that in the present case the parties are living separately for 15 years now; there is no chance of reconciliation between the parties and such long separation peppered which false allegations, police reports and criminal trial has become a source of mental cruelty and any insistence either to continue this relationship or modifying the Family Court’s order would only be inflicting further cruelty upon both the parties. Living together in a marriage is not an irreversible act. But marriage is a tie between two parties and if this tie is not working under any circumstances, we see no purpose in postponing the inevitability of the situation.

Mamta Vs Pradeep Kumar on 05 Sep 2023

Citations: [2023 DHC 6384-DB]

Other Sources:

Index of Divorce judgments here.

Dr. Ramkeshwar Singh Vs Sheela Singh on 13 Jul 2022

Posted on July 18, 2023 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of High Court of Chhattisgarh held that the wife committed mental cruelty upon husband and therefore granted divorce to husband. But Court also ordered payment Rs.15,000/- per month to wife as alimony.

From Para 24,

24. The appellant is a Doctor and as stated during the course of hearing, the respondent wife is a private teacher. Therefore, facing a criminal case would always castigate a stigma in the Society. The report u/s 498-A of the IPC cannot be used as a tool to teach a lesson to the family members of the husband as it may adversely affect the future prospects of a young professional and it may take long time to fill up the gap. Therefore, we are of the opinion that false accusations made by the wife against the entire family members under section 498-A would amount to mental cruelty and such conduct of respondent wife which inflicts upon the appellant husband such mental pain and suffering would make it not possible for her to live with the appellant husband.Dr. Ramkeshwar Singh Vs Sheela Singh on 13 Jul 2022

Dr. Ramkeshwar Singh Vs Sheela Singh on 13 Jul 2022

Sivasankaran Vs Santhimeenal on 13 Sep 2021

Posted on September 16, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Apex Court granted divorce to a husband, on the grounds of Cruelty apart from irretrievable breakdown of marriage.

From Paras 4 and 5,

4. Insofar as irretrievable breakdown of marriage is concerned, no doubt, it does not exist as a ground of divorce under the Act. The issue has been debated by the Law Commission in its various reports. Breakdown of marriage was incidentally considered by the Law Commission in its 59th report (1974), but the Commission made no specific recommendations in this regard. Thereafter in its 71st report (1978), the Law Commission departed from the fault theory of divorce to recognise situations where a marriage has completely broken down and there is no possibility of reconciliation. Neither party need individually be at fault for such a breakdown of the marriage – it may be the result of prolonged separation, clash of personalities, or incompatibility of the couple. As the Law Commission pithily noted, such marriages are ‘merely a shell out of which the substance is gone’. For such situations, the Commission recommended that the law be amended to provide for ‘irretrievable breakdown of marriage’ as an additional ground of divorce. This recommendation was reiterated by the Law Commission in its 217th Report in 2010, after undertaking a suo moto study of the legal issues involved. So far, the Law Commission’s recommendations have not been implemented. In 2010, the government introduced the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2010, which inter alia proposed to add irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a new ground for divorce in both the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the Special Marriage Act, 1954. After receiving suggestions from relevant stakeholders, the bill was amended and re- introduced as the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2013. This bill was never passed.

5. The result is that, in appropriate cases, this court has granted decrees of divorce exercising its unique jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, to do complete justice between the parties. Such a course is being followed in varied kinds of cases, for instance where there are inter se allegations between the parties, in order to put a quietus to the matter, the parties withdraw these allegations and by mutual consent, this court itself grants divorce. There are also cases where the parties accept that there is an irretrievable breakdown of marriage and themselves request for a decree of divorce. One of the more difficult situations is where, in the opinion of the court, there is irretrievable breakdown of marriage but only one of the parties is willing to acknowledge the same and accept divorce on that account, while the other side seeks to oppose it even if it means carrying on with the marriage.

From Para 7,

7. A marriage is more than a seemingly simple union between two individuals. As a social institution, all marriages have legal, economic, cultural, and religious ramifications. The norms of a marriage and the varying degrees of legitimacy it may acquire are dictated by factors such as marriage and divorce laws, prevailing social norms, and religious dictates. Functionally, marriages are seen as a site for the propagation of social and cultural capital as they help in identifying kinship ties, regulating sexual behaviour, and consolidating property and social prestige. Families are arranged on the idea of a mutual expectation of support and amity which is meant to be experienced and acknowledged amongst its members. Once this amity breaks apart, the results can be highly devastating and stigmatizing. The primary effects of such breakdown are felt especially by women, who may find it hard to guarantee the same degree of social adjustment and support that they enjoyed while they were married.

From Para 14,

14. We are conscious that the Constitution Bench is examining the larger issue but that reference has been pending for the last five years. Living together is not a compulsory exercise. But marriage is a tie between two parties. If this tie is not working under any circumstances, we see no purpose in postponing the inevitability of the situation merely because of the pendency of the reference.

From Paras 17-19,

17. There are episodes of further harassment by the respondent even at the place of work of the appellant including insulting the appellant in front of students and professors, as is apparent from the judgment of the Trial Court. She is stated to have threatened the appellant of physical harm in front of his colleagues as per the testimony of PW.3 and complained to the appellant’s employer threatening to file a criminal complaint against him (PW.3). The first appellate court somehow brushed aside these incidents as having not been fully established on a perception of wear and tear of marriage. The moot point is that the marriage has not taken of from its inception. There can hardly be any ‘wear and tear of marriage’ where parties have not been living together for a long period of time. The parties, undisputedly, never lived together even for a day.

18. We are, thus, faced with a marriage which never took of from the first day. The marriage was never consummated and the parties have been living separately from the date of marriage for almost 20 years. The appellant remarried after 6 years of the marriage, 5 years of which were spent in Trial Court proceedings. The marriage took place soon after the decree of divorce was granted. All mediation efforts have failed.

19. In view of the legal position which we have referred to aforesaid, these continuing acts of the respondent would amount to cruelty even if the same had not arisen as a cause prior to the institution of the petition, as was found by the Trial Court. This conduct shows disintegration of marital unity and thus disintegration of the marriage.10 In fact, there was no initial integration itself which would allow disintegration afterwards. The fact that there have been continued allegations and litigative proceedings and that can amount to cruelty is an aspect taken note of by this court. 11 The marriage having not taken of from its inception and 5 years having been spent in the Trial Court, it is difficult to accept that the marriage soon after the decree of divorce, within 6 days, albeit 6 years after the initial inception of marriage, amounts to conduct which can be held against the appellant.

Sivasankaran Vs Santhimeenal on 13 Sep 2021

Citations :

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/48424234/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/613f760f9e99febca989f9ba

https://www.indianemployees.com/judgments/details/sivasankaran-versus-santhimeenal

Prabin Gopal Vs Meghna on 18 May 2021

Posted on May 29, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife

Relying on the Landmark judgements of Dastane and Ghosh, the Division bench of the Kerala High Court delivered a good judgment and granted Divorce to Husband on the ground of Mental cruelty.

Prabin Gopal Vs Meghna on 18 May 2021

Sarita Gosawi Vs Bharat Gosawi on 05 Mar 2021

Posted on April 2, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife

There was mental cruelty done to husband and the High Court nailed the point straight.

From Paras 18 and 19,

18. Keeping in mind the aforesaid guiding parameters, now we proceed to examine the evidence on record. Apart from the allegations and counter allegations by the parties against each other with regard to their mutual misbehavior, the crucial point on which the respondent/ husband sought decree of divorce, and which according to him is the reason for his mental sufferings and anguishes, is the suspicious and skeptical nature of the appellant/ wife, as she used to have a doubt on his character. She was doubting his relations with one lady employee from his office. It is his case that the appellant/ wife used to visit his office and used to create scenes. She used to abuse him in filthy language on his character and used to humiliate him in front of their adolescent daughters.

19. The respondent/ husband, in his pleadings and evidence, further stated that he had purchased one plot of land and constructed a house thereon on loan and at present, the same is in possession of the appellant/ wife. He is paying installments for the repayment of the loan for house from his
salary account. To pacify her, he even transferred his house in her name. He has stated that fed-up with her acrimonious behaviour, he had to lodge reports at police station, and there were counselling before the Women Cell, and in consequence thereof, she resumed cohabitation. Lastly, he said, he had no option but to leave the house and to reside in a rented house.

20. A perusal of the written statements of the appellant/ wife would reflect that she has not denied, even by way of simple denial, about the contents in para 3 of the divorce petition of the respondent/ husband which are with regard to the suspicious nature of the appellant/ wife, doubting his character, abusing in a filthy language and visiting his office and creating scenes etc.

Crucial Paras 22 and 25,

22. In the instant case, admittedly, there are no positive allegations with regard to the character of the respondent/ husband in the written statement of the appellant/ wife. However, maintaining silence in her written statement and not countering the case of cruelty of the respondent/ husband on this ground, coupled with the fact that there were specific suggestions in the cross-examination of the respondent/ husband by taking the name of the alleged lady, in the opinion of this Court, is nothing but the unfounded allegation on the character of the husband as held in the above cited case.

25. A collective reading of his cross-examination, it appears, it is more focused on the maintenance part and less on the allegations of mental cruelty as alleged by the respondent/ husband. So the material allegations, with regard to mental cruelty as pleaded by the respondent/ husband, have neither be denied in the written statement of the appellant/ wife nor have they been sufficiently countered during his cross examination. As per law, the facts, which are not denied, are deemed to have been admitted. As per Order 8 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the facts which are not denied specifically are deemed to have been admitted, and simple denial is no denial. In the instant case, there is no denial at all.

Law involved,

26. The effect of non cross-examination of a witness was discussed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Muddasani Venkata Narsaiah (Dead) Through Legal Representatives Vs. Muddasani Sarojana, reported in (2016) 12 SCC 288, wherein Their Lordships have held that the cross-examination is a matter of substance not of procedure one isrequired to put one’s own version in cross-examination of opponent. It is further observed that the effect of non-cross examination is that the statement of witness has not been disputed. In the said judgment, the Hon’ble Apex Court relied on the judgment in the case of Maroti Bansi Teli Vs. Radhabai, reported in AIR 1945 Nag 60, wherein it has been laid down that the matters sworn to by one party in the pleadings notchallenged either in pleadings or cross-examination by other party must be accepted as fully established.

Closure:

31. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent/ husband the case of Vijaykumar Bhate (supra) wherein, the Hon’ble Apex Court took the view that the false and malicious allegations against the character of a spouse is a ground for dissolving the marriage on account of causing mental cruelty.
32. Furthermore, the appellant/ wife could not prove her allegations with regard to demand of dowry and ill-treatment. On the contrary, it is borne out from the record that the respondent/ husband himself had to leave from his own house fed-up with her mis-behaviour.

Sarita Gosawi Vs Bharat Gosawi on 05 Mar 2021

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Tag: HM Act – Mental Cruelty Proved

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

Roopa Soni Vs Kamal Narayan Soni on 06 Sep 2023

Aarti Vs Kishan Meena on 22 Aug 2024

Kanwal Kishore Girdhar Vs Seema Girdhar on 28 Feb 2024

Payal Sethi Vs Rohit Sethi on 09 Jan 2024

Mamta Vs Pradeep Kumar on 05 Sep 2023

Dr. Ramkeshwar Singh Vs Sheela Singh on 13 Jul 2022

Sivasankaran Vs Santhimeenal on 13 Sep 2021

Prabin Gopal Vs Meghna on 18 May 2021

Sarita Gosawi Vs Bharat Gosawi on 05 Mar 2021