Ankit Saha Vs State of UP and Anr on 03 Dec 2025

A single judge of Allahabad bench of Allahabad High Court held as follows on two aspects,

From Paras 9 to 11, (Failed to prove that Wife was ‘unable to maintain herself‘)

9. From the perusal of Section 125 Cr.P.C., it is clear that maintenance can be awarded to the wife, when she is unable to maintain herself.
10. A perusal of the paragraph 23 of the impugned judgment which is at internal page no. 12 of the impugned indicates that in the affidavit filed before the trial court, the opposite party no. 2 herself admitted that she is a Post-Graduate, Web Designer by qualification, and is working as a Senior Sales Coordinator in Keiath Telecom Pvt. Ltd., getting salary of Rs. 34,000/- per month but in her cross-examination she has further admitted that she is earning of Rs. 36,000/- per month and such amount, for a wife who has no other liability, cannot be said to be meagre, whereas the revisionist has the responsibility of maintaining his aged parents and other social obligations.
11. Thus, this Court is of the view that as per the provision of Section 125(1) (a), the opposite party no. 2 is not entitled to get any maintenance from her husband/revisionist as she is an earning lady and able to maintain herself.

From Paras 12 to 15,

12. On the second issue, learned counsel for the revisionist has alleged that she did not came before the trial court with clean hands. A perusal of the affidavit filed by the opposite party no.2 at page no. 67-70 clearly reflects that she has not mentioned that she is an earning lady as well as a perusal of application under Section 125 Cr. P.C. paper no. 33 to 38 at paragraph no. 16 reflects that she has claimed herself as an illiterate and unemployed woman but when the document filed by the revisionist was shown to her before the trial court, she has admitted her aforesaid income during her cross-examination. Thus, it is clear that she did not came before the trial court with clean hands.
13. It is settled law that when a person approaches a Court, he should approach the Court not only with clean hands but also with clean mind, clean heart and clean objective. It is a law of nature that one should not be enriched by the loss or injury to another. The judicial process should never become an instrument of appreciation or abuse or a means in the process of the Court to subvert justice. No litigant has a right to unlimited drought on the Court time and public money in order to get his affairs settled in the manner he wishes. Easy, access to justice should not be misused as a licence to file misconceived and frivolous petitions. If a petitioner is guilty of suppression of very important fact his case cannot be considered on merits. Thus, a litigant is bound to make “full and true disclosure of facts”.
14. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Rekha Sharad Ushir Vs. Saptashrungi Mahila Nagari Sahkari Patsansta Ltd. reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC641, para no. 11 is reproduced herein below:
“11. It is settled law that a litigant who, while filing proceedings in the court, suppresses material facts or makes a false statement, cannot seek justice from the court. The facts suppressed must be material and relevant to the controversy, which may have a bearing on the decision making. Cases of those litigants who have no regard for the truth and those who indulge in suppressing material facts need to be thrown out of the court.”
15. In view of the said judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court, the opposite party no. 2 does not deserve any sympathy and is not entitled to receive maintenance from the revisionist.

Ankit Saha Vs State of UP and Anr on 03 Dec 2025

Index of Maintenance Judgements under Section 144 BNSS here.

Sahiba Sodhi Vs State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr on 09 Dec 2025

Posted on February 14 by ShadesOfKnife

From Paras from 13 to 17,

13. From the affidavit of income, assets and liabilities filed by the petitioner-wife before the learned Trial Court in November 2020, it is evident that she did not disclose the income earned during her period of employment between April 2020 and July 2020. In the said affidavit, she asserted that she had worked only for ten months during the entire eight years of marriage. However, she later admitted having worked for a few months in 2020 also, only after the learned Trial Court specifically directed her to file her bank account statements for the period April 2020 to November 2020 – statements which she had not annexed with her affidavit despite filing it in November 2020.
14. It is further noted that although an updated income affidavit was filed by the petitioner in April 2021 in compliance with the directions of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Rajnish v. Neha: (2021) 2 SCC 324, she still did not file her income tax returns for the preceding three years, claiming that the husband had been filing them on her behalf. The learned Trial Court observed that ITRs could nevertheless be accessed using her PAN details and granted her a final opportunity to file them, while imposing costs of ₹1,000/-. The relevant bank statements were eventually filed in July 2021, but legible copies were not furnished to the respondent-husband. In view of the petitioner‟s repeated non-compliance and withholding of material documents, the learned Trial Court was constrained to stay the operation of the ad-interim maintenance order. When bank statements were eventually produced, the salary of about ₹18,000/- per month, admittedly earned by the petitioner during those three months as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner before the Court, was not reflected in the bank account statements, nor was any termination letter filed contemporaneously. These omissions led the learned Trial Court to conclude that the petitioner did have a source of income, which she attempted to suppress.
15. The learned Trial Court also took note of the petitioner‟s earlier ITRs which showed that, contrary to her claim of having no source of income, she had declared substantial earnings in the years immediately preceding the filing of the complaint. Her ITR for the FY 2017–2018 reflected a gross income exceeding ₹3,00,000/-, comprising rental income and income from other sources. Similarly, her ITR for the FY 2018–2019 showed a gross income of more than ₹3,50,000/-, again arising from rent and deposits. These disclosures were inconsistent with her submission that she was unemployed and that whatever she earned was taken away by her husband.Her bank account statements also reflected electronic transfers, credit entries and investments, none of which were satisfactorily explained by her. These circumstances, at the interim stage, provided sufficient basis for the learned Trial Court to draw a prima facie inference that the petitioner had additional sources of income which she had not disclosed in her income affidavit, and thus, suppressed material facts relating to her financial capacity.
16. The learned Sessions Court, after independently examining the Trial Court record, affirmed these findings and held that the petitioner had not approached the Court with clean hands. It noted that the petitioner had produced the relevant records only when confronted with the documents filed by the respondent-husband and only after specific and repeated directions were passed by the learned Trial Court. The learned Sessions Court also observed that her explanations for the credit entries in her bank accounts were merely oral and unsupported by documents.
17. The record further reflects that the petitioner had received substantial amounts towards maturity of LIC policies and recurring deposits upon the demise of both her parents. Her own explanation is that these amounts were reinvested for the benefit of herself and the child. However, the fact remains that such reinvestments would reasonably generate returns in the form of interest, which constitute a source of income that was never disclosed. The respondent-husband has also placed on record the ITR Acknowledgement for AY 2025–2026, of the petitioner-wife, showing an income of ₹2,04,730/-.

The beauty in this judgment is as follows:

20. However, this Court finds merit in the submission of the petitioner regarding her right to secure adequate residence. It is undisputed that after the parties vacated the rented premises, the petitioner and the minor child have been residing at her brother‟s house. The petitioner is not paying any rent and is residing there purely out of goodwill.
21. Section 19(1)(f) of the PWDV Act empowers the Court to direct the respondent to secure for the aggrieved woman the same level of alternate accommodation as enjoyed by her in the shared household, or to pay rent for the same. The husband also owes a statutory duty to provide residence for his minor child, who resides with the petitioner. The fact that the petitioner may not be entitled to monetary maintenance due to concealment of income does not, ipso facto, in the interregnum, disentitle her to a residence order under Section 19 of the PWDV Act.
22. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that the petitioner-wife is entitled to a sum of Rs. 10,000/- per month, as expenses towards securing a rented accommodation for herself and the minor child, which shall be paid by the respondent herein. The directions qua payment of interim maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- per month to the minor child, as directed by the learned Trial Court and upheld by the Sessions Court, have not been challenged before this Court, and the same are accordingly not interfered with.

The mere fact that the case is only at a Stage where there is challenge to the Interim Orders, this Order sustains. Otherwise, no relief may be granted under DV Act unless DV is established by way of evidence. One should not forget that, as per Section 19(1)(f) of DV Act, ONLY on being satisfied that DV actually happened (obviously by way of evidence), the relief in sub-section can be granted, that to in Main petition

19. Residence orders.—(1) While disposing of an application under sub-section (1) of section12, the Magistrate may, on being satisfied that domestic violence has taken place, pass a residence order—
(a) xxxx;
(b) xxxx;
(c) xxxx;
(d) xxxx;
(e) xxxx; or
(f) directing the respondent to secure same level of alternate accommodation for the aggrieved person as enjoyed by her in the shared household or to pay rent for the same, if the circumstances so require:
Provided that no order under clause (b) shall be passed against any person who is a woman.

Frankly, why is interim maintenance granted to the child, when DV was not held to be prima facie established?

Sahiba Sodhi Vs State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr on 09 Dec 2025

Citations: [2025:DHC:11064]

Other Sources:

Anu Aggarwal Vs Sushant Aggarwal on 20 Jan 2026

Posted on January 31 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court held as follows,

From Paras 5 and 6, (Lies about adopting a child!)

5. The evidence brought on record clearly demolishes the case now being sought to be set up by the petitioner. The petitioner had taken a plea that she had adopted a child, who happens to be the daughter of her real sister; however, she has specifically admitted in her cross-examination that the respondent had never given his consent for the said adoption. Admittedly, neither there is any documentary evidence or ceremony performed for the alleged adoption, nor any application was moved to change the details in the official records of the said child to demonstrate that the petitioner’s name was recorded or shown as the mother and the respondent’s name was recorded as a father of the said child.
6. The above-said fact clearly demonstrates the mala fide intent of the petitioner to mislead the Court and seek undue sympathy, which stand belied by her own admissions during cross-examination.

From Paras 7 and 8, (Multiple sources of Income)

7. Further, as regards her entitlement for maintenance, the petitioner has concealed the material facts that she was duly recorded as an employee of Markanda Oil Store. Though it has been vehemently argued by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was never an employee of the said firm, however, in her cross-examination she admitted that she had availed various medical insurance benefits on the basis of the entries recorded in Markanda Oil Store, showing her as an employee. Moreover, the petitioner was also working as a teacher in a school, namely St. Joseph School, Ambala City; however, she failed to disclose the same in her affidavit of income and expenditure.
8. Furthermore, the petitioner has admitted that she holds various Kisan Vikas Patras and a Public Provident Fund account, wherein, the account balance exceeds Rs. 15 lakhs. Apart from these accounts, the petitioner also maintains other bank accounts, which were duly considered by the learned Trial Court, which clearly demonstrate that there was no distress or immediate financial hardship necessitating the grant of maintenance to the petitioner. Admittedly, the petitioner deliberately concealed these facts from the Court. She further admitting a separate salary account with Axis Bank, however, she neither produced proof thereof nor disclose the balance lying therein. Despite a specific suggestion being put to her, she knowingly withheld details regarding her income.

From Paras 10 and 11, (Surprise surprise!)

10. It is indeed strange that while earlier the petitioner was drawing a salary of Rs. 18,000/- per month but now she claims to be earning only Rs. 12,200/- per month, which appears highly improbable. This conduct clearly reflects an attempt to abuse the process of law merely to keep the respondent-husband entangled in continuous litigation and to extract money at her own convenience by misusing the judicial process.
11. The concept of grant of maintenance has been introduced to protect the dignity of women; however, it can’t be permitted to be used as a tool for unjust enrichment. The rising number of false and frivolous cases being filed today not only defeats the very object of the law but also inadvertently undermines a woman’s self-respect, dignity, and self-reliance. The petitioner cannot be permitted to play hide and seek with the Court and abuse the process of law. In the absence of any material to demonstrate that the petitioner is in dire need of financial assistance or maintenance, the very filing of the petition amounts to an abuse of the process of law.

From Para 12, (Settled proposition of law)

12. It is settled proposition of law that maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is payable only when the wife is unable to maintain herself. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai”, (2008) 2 SCC 316 has categorically held that a wife having sufficient independent income or means is not entitled to maintenance. This principle has been reiterated and streamline in “Rajnesh v. Neha”, (2021) 2 SCC 324 wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court emphasized full disclosure of income and assets and clarified that Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a measure to prevent destitution and not a source of unjust enrichment.

From Para 13,

13. Moreover, Section 125 Cr.P.C. has been enacted with a specific purpose to protect women and children and to prevent vagrancy and destitution among them. It provides speedy remedy to the destituted and helpless women to establish their claim, it was incumbent upon the petitioner to prove that she is unable to maintain herself and her child but in the present case, the petitioner has concealed her employment and claimed his husband is earning handsome amount, her conduct in suppressing relevant information from the Court and the fact that she is not only qualified but is capable of earning good money. Furthermore, this Court also observed that when a person approaches a Court, he/she should approach the Court not only with clean hands but also with clean mind, clean heart and clean objective. No litigant has a right to draught on the Court’s time and public money in order to get his/her affairs settled in the manner, he or she desires. Therefore, this Court does not find any error in the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court. Moreover, the petitioner has also failed to bring on record any cogent evidence to demonstrate that she was living separately from her husband on account of any situation created by the respondent-husband.

Anu Aggarwal Vs Sushant Aggarwal on 20 Jan 2026

Citations: [2026:PHHC:002754]

Other Sources:

Index of Maintenance Judgments u/s 144 BNSS is here.

Deepak Gangadhar Dadge Vs Vijaya and Anr on 17 Jan 2026

Posted on January 26 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Bombay High Court at Aurangabad Bench set aside the maintenance granted to a professor wife but did not initiate suo moto perjury proceedings. Be it so. My foot.

From Para 7,

7. On one hand, while asserting financial support from husband Respondent, Wife set up a case that, husband earns almost Rs.10,000/- per day from his practice and as such, he also earns Rs. 20,00,000/- from agriculture income apart from earning Rs.20,000/- from rental income of medical shop.

Further…

In affidavit, wife claims that, she has to expend Rs. 20,000/- towards house rent, medical expenses of son to the tune of Rs.5,000/- and Rs.30,000/- for her own transportation and conveyance. For child, she claims that, she is required to expend Rs.2,00,000/- towards school fees; Rs.30,000/- for his transportation charges per annum; Rs.20,000/- for his food & clothing and Rs.15,000/- for extra classes and tuition fees. In her affidavit, she also claims that, she has borrowed vehicle loan and she pays EMI to the tune of Rs.12,000/-, as well as she pays Rs.70,000/- for housing loan. However, except stating so in the affidavit, she has not placed on record, documentary evidence, more particularly, of housing loan to the tune of Rs.70,000/-. Though she claims to be spending Rs.20,000/- towards rent, her salary slip shows that, she is already a beneficiary of House Rent Allowance. On Court’s query, learned Counsel for Respondent-Wife informed that, she is spending Rs.30,000/- for her transportation to travel from Latur to the place of her job, but even details of the mode of conveyance and transportation are not supplied by her. Be it so.

Hahahaha…

Revision Petitioner Husband has placed on record before this Court salary slip of her wife for the month of August, 2025 i.e. post orders passed by Trial Court as well as learned First Appellate Court. This is neither refuted nor denied by Respondent Wife. Thus, as on today wife is shown to be receiving salary of Rs. 1,38,192/-.

Deepak Gangadhar Dadge Vs Vijaya and Anr on 17 Jan 2026

Citations:

Other Sources:

Index of DV Judgments is here.

N.Santhosh Kumar Vs S.Priyadarshini on 25 Oct 2025

Posted on January 11 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Madras High Court held as follows,

From Paras 9 and 10,

9.As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondent has suppressed her true income in her affidavit. It is clear from the pay slip for December 2022 that the respondent is gainfully employed and earning a gross salary of more than Rs.1 lakh per month. In the affidavit filed in support of the application for interim maintenance, the averments are vague and do not even indicate whether the respondent wants maintenance for herself also or only for her minor child.
10.Be that as it may, considering the fact that the respondent, even on the date of filing of the application for interim maintenance, was employed with Cognizant and earning a gross income of more than Rs.1 lakh, I am inclined to dispose of the revision in the manner following:
(i) The order of the Sub-Court, Alandur is modified and the interim maintenance is fixed at Rs.10,000/-. However, the respondent is entitled to seek adjustment of Rs.5,000/- per month, subject to proof of payment of Rs.5,000/- for the relevant period, that is, from 14.03.2022, till disposal of the HMOP.298 of 2021.

N.Santhosh Kumar Vs S.Priyadarshini on 25 Oct 2025

Citations:

Other Sources:

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/68fcfd509a22022a0496b67d

Index of Maintenance Judgments u/s 144 BNSS is here.

Devendra Vs Trupti Devendra on 27 Sep 2022

Posted on January 11 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Bombay High Court at Aurangabad bench held as follows,

From Paras 22 and 23,

22 On having microscopic examination of paragraph No.4, one would find that the respondent / wife has pleaded in her application for maintenance for her daughter that the petitioner / husband has paid only Rs.1,00,000/- and though assured to pay remaining amount of Rs.1,00,000/-, not stick up to his promise and refused to pay the remaining amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. It is stated in the application that though it is mentioned that the fixed deposit would be made in the name of daughter, the petitioner has avoided the same though it was his liability. It is pertinent to note that in paragraph No.5, respondent / wife has nowhere stated about her affidavit filed in the proceedings for mutual consent divorce and acceptance of Rs.2,00,000/- towards permanent alimony and giving up right of maintenance. As pointed out earlier, her examination-in-chief on affidavit before the Civil Court makes it very clear that she has received Rs.2,00,000/- towards permanent alimony and she has given up right of maintenance for herself and her daughter.
23 In this background, it was very much incumbent on respondent / wife to produce the copy of affidavit, which is sworn and filed by her in the Civil Court in the proceedings for mutual consent divorce. By suppressing the said document, she has made averments that she has received only Rs.1,00,000/- towards permanent alimony and petitioner / husband is liable to pay remaining amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and since he has not paid that amount, she constrained to file maintenance proceedings under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C for her daughter. It is nothing but playing fraud on the Court while filing proceedings under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. According to the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in case of S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (supra), respondent / wife ought to have produced all the relevant documents in the proceedings under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. including her affidavit as well as the affidavit of her husband filed in a proceedings of mutual consent divorce. She has withheld those vital documents only with a view to obtain the order of maintenance and this inference can be drawn easily in the above factual scenario.

Devendra Vs Trupti Devendra on 27 Sep 2022

Citations:

Other Sources:

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/63432328feb20c33dafe2fdd

Index of divorce Judgments is here. Index of Maintenance Judgments is here.

Ritu @ Ridhima and Another Vs Sandeep Singh Sangwan on 15 Mar 2022

Posted on January 15, 2023 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court held that there is nothing wrong in initiating the Perjury proceedings against the Assistant Professor when she was caught lying about her job and income, just before filing the maintenance case.

From Para 10 and 11,

10. Admittedly, the petitioner joined as an Assistant Professor in Chitkara University, Rajpura on a monthly salary of Rs.28,000/- on 3.7.2017. Her petition under Section 125 Cr.PC was filed on 26.07.2017. During the entire litigation including when her application for interim maintenance was decided she did not disclose information about her job and her earnings and infact deliberately and intentionally to grab maintenance, submitted wrong information to the Court that she was unemployed. The only explanation offered by the petitioner is that she had given the documents to her counsel in the month of May 2017 to file the petition under Section 125 Cr.PC which was filed on 26.07.2017 because of which her joining on 3.7.2017 is not disclosed.
11. In my opinion, this explanation is completely falacious. The petitioner is an Assistant Professor and a highly educated person. At no stage of proceedings uptill her cross examination did she disclose that she was employed including when her application for interim maintenance was decided and Rs.5000/- was awarded to her. Assuming that the said fact was missing in her petition under Section 125 Cr.PC, the Court could have been informed during the course of proceedings that there had been change of circumstances regarding her obtaining employment. However, as has already been mentioned above, no such information was furnished and only the cross examination revealed her job and consequent salary. Thus it can safely be said that the possibility of her conviction was high and her actions were certainly deliberate and conscious to obtain maintenance.

Ritu @ Ridhima and Another Vs Sandeep Singh Sangwan on 15 Mar 2022

Index of Perjury decisions is here.

Monica Morton Vs Durgesh Kumar Pal on 01 August, 2019

Posted on August 14, 2019 by ShadesOfKnife

Learn how to let perjury go unchecked at the highest level Court in India.

Monica Morton Vs Durgesh Kumar Pal on 01 August, 2019

Citations: [

State (GNCT) of Delhi) Vs Babita on 10 April, 2013

Posted on March 24, 2019 by ShadesOfKnife

Another braindead knife tried to rope in relatives that live far away from her matrimonial home at Delhi and rightly shown the door by Learned MM as well as the casual revision filed by State is gutted.

Frivolous litigations which eat into the judicial time have to be curbed and it is necessary for the Courts to impose a heavy costs on the Routine Litigation being filed by the State for wasting public time where other important judicial work can be taken care off. At this stage, the Ld. Public Prosecutor submits that due care would be taken in future by the Department so as to ensure the compliance of the directions of the Hon’ble High Court and hence it is on his persuasions that I am not imposing any cost in the present case.

State (GNCT) of Delhi) Vs Babita on 10 April, 2013

Man Mohan Sharma Vs State of NCT of Delhi on 25 February, 2011

Posted on March 24, 2019 by ShadesOfKnife

Knife came to court with baseless allegations and Dr Kamini Lau of Delhi District Court sent her packing.

it was revealed that at the time of the alleged incident dated 23.10.1998 as mentioned in Para 14 of the complaint, the revisionist Man Mohan Sharma was not in Delhi and was in fact posted at Mumbai being a government servant. This fact is also reflected from his service record certificate issued by the Commandant Director (Personnel) for Director General, Coast Guards, that the revisionist Man Mohan Sharma was posted at Mumbai in the Head Quarter, Coast Guard Region (West) as Deputy Regional Law Officer w.e.f. 31.10.1996 to 31.12.1998 and was thereafter posted at Port Blair in the Head Quarter, Coast Guard Region (A&N) as Deputy Law Officer w.e.f. 1.1.1999 to 15.8.2001. Though, at the time of filing of the chargesheet the said certificate showing the period and place of posting of the revisionist Man Mohan Sharma was not verified but now at this stage while hearing the revision petition, this court directed the investigating officer to confirm and verify the same and inform this court his place of posting in October, 1998. The investigating officer has got this aspect verified and has reported that as per the verification conducted from the Director (Personnel), Coast Guard Head Quarter, it stands confirmed that the accused Man Mohan Sharma was residing separately at Mumbai during the period 31.10.1996 to 31.12.1998 and at Port Blair thereafter till the year 2001. This being so, the incident dated 23.10.1998 as narrated by the complainant in her complaint does not stand confirmed.

In simple english, the above BOLD text is called as LIE.

And this is the last nail in the kunning knife’s coffin…

Lastly, I am compelled to observe that Section 498A IPC in the recent years has become consummate embodiment of gross human rights violation, extortion and corruption and even the Apex Court of our country had acknowledged this abuse and termed it as Legal Terrorism. The provisions of Section 498 A IPC are not a law to take revenge, seek recovery of dowry or to force a divorce but a penal provision to punish the wrong doers. The victims are often misguided into exaggerating the facts by adding those persons as accused who are un-connected with the harassment under a mistaken belief that by doing so they are making a strong case. Courts cannot be a party to any kind of exploitative situation and it is necessary for every complainant to remember that it is only an honest complaint which succeeds in law where contents are supported by facts on the ground and persons, who are not connected with the harassment, should never be arrayed as accused. The platform of the courts cannot be permitted to be used to wreck personal vendetta or unleash harassment and the tendency of the complainants to come out with inflated and exaggerated allegations by roping in each and every relation of the husband is required to be deprecated. The obligation of the court is to ensure that innocent persons are not put to harassment and to curtail the frivolous allegations at the earliest stage by looking for due corroboration from the facts.
(Ref.:- Savitri Devi Vs. Ramesh Chand & Ors., CRL (R) 462/2002 decided on 30.5.2003);
Criminal Appeal No. 339-41/05 dated 2.3.2010, Delhi High Court;
Arjun Ram Vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr., 2004 CLJ 2989;
Mukesh Rani Vs. State of Haryana, 2002 (1) RCR (Criminal) 163 and
Anu Gill Vs. State & Anr., 2001 (2) JCC (Delhi) 86.

One more para,

I may further add that in any matrimonial dispute, it is the primary duty of every court to ensure that for any fault of the husband, his other relatives including married sisters and brothers who may be living jointly or separately and the aged parents are not involved either out of vengeance or to curl out appropriate settlement.

Man Mohan Sharma Vs State of NCT of Delhi on 25 February, 2011

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Tag: Perjury – Not Initiated Suo Moto

Ankit Saha Vs State of UP and Anr on 03 Dec 2025

Sahiba Sodhi Vs State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr on 09 Dec 2025

Anu Aggarwal Vs Sushant Aggarwal on 20 Jan 2026

Deepak Gangadhar Dadge Vs Vijaya and Anr on 17 Jan 2026

N.Santhosh Kumar Vs S.Priyadarshini on 25 Oct 2025

Ritu @ Ridhima and Another Vs Sandeep Singh Sangwan on 15 Mar 2022

Monica Morton Vs Durgesh Kumar Pal on 01 August, 2019

State (GNCT) of Delhi) Vs Babita on 10 April, 2013

Man Mohan Sharma Vs State of NCT of Delhi on 25 February, 2011