Useful Judgements |
Select a page

Useful Judgements

  • PARIMI MEHAR SESHU Vs. PARIMI NAGESWARA SASTRY

    Court:ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
    Threat to put life to an end, Removing of Mangalsutram from her neck, Beatings to the child, Frequent desertion of Husband amounts to cruelty.

  • JAIPRAKASH DATTATRAY PATADE Vs. USHA JAIPRAKASH PATADE

    Court:BOMBAY HIGH COURT
    Day-to-day behaviour of wife made life of petitioner intolerable and he left his own matrimonial home to stay with his own relatives Husband not given properly cooked food. He was forced to wash his own clothes and two children tutored by Wife to turn against Husband. Irretrievable breakdown of marriage on account of cruelty inflicted by wife on husband. Husband had no conjugal relations with wife. Wife not filed written statement and was absent on all dates except one date. Marriage dissolved by decree of divorce.

  • MRS. NEELU KOHLI Vs. NAVEEN KOHLI

    Court:ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
    Intention to be cruel not essential element : In marital matters, feelings and attitudes of minds are material.

  • SMT. PRATIKSHA Vs. PRAVIN

    Court:MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
    Courts Hearing Petitions Regarding Conjugal Rights and Matrimonial Obligations Can Issue Injunctions and Preventive Orders and in Case Element of Property under Dispute, Court Can Exercise Power.

  • AMARAVATHY Vs. R.A. PAKKIRINATHAN

    Court:MADRAS HIGH COURT
    Husband suffered mental agony and pain. Entitled to divorce.

  • KAMLESH KUMARI Vs. VINOD KUMAR

    Court:HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT
    False case registered against Husband and his family members only to settle personal scores. Attitude of appellant wife in leaving matrimonial home at her sweet will and pleasure and showing disrespectful attitude to husband and family members, without any justifiable cause is cruelty towards Husband. Parties living apart for 6-7 years, which is admitted and proved on record — Divorce granted.

  • MRS. NILIMA KISHORE MHASKE Vs. KISHORE A. MHASKE

    Court: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
    Family Court Right in Concluding that Husband made out Case for Divorce on Ground of Cruelty and he is Entitled to Decree of Divorce.

  • MAHABIR SINGH Vs. NIRMALA DEVI

    Court:PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
    Offensive language — Addressed the husband as “Fauji Gadha or Fauji Tatoo” — Would not be acceptable to any self-respecting husband — Cruelty made out.

  • SHAMA RAO D. Vs. DR. ANUPAMA

    Court:KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
    Spouse, well educated, responsible, well natured in general sense, abusing the other spouse, physically and mentally, humiliating, using filthy language in front of family members, relatives and mistaking for unintentional deeds. This would amount to cruelty.

  • KAMLAKANT JOSHI Vs. SANTOSHBAI PANDYA

    Court:MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
    Wife guilty of making false, baseless and dirty allegations against her husband concerning his character. Husband bound to suffer mental agony and embarrassment living jointly with his parents and family members : Wife living separately from last more than 12 years. No valid and sufficient reason of defendant of living separately from her husband : Circumstances sufficient to hold Wife guilty of matrimonial offence of mental cruelty. Husband deserves dissolution of marriage by decree of divorce.

  • SUBHASH CHANDRA DAS CHOWDHURY Vs. SANDHYA DAS CHOWDHURY

    Court:CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
    Forceful entry in house of Husband by Wife with help of local people during pendency of divorce proceedings, amounts of cruelty.

  • DINESH NAGDA Vs. SHANTIBAI DINESH NAGDA

    Court: MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
    False prosecution of Husband and his family members. Appellant and his family members including female family members of appellant had to face agony of trial of criminal case for long 7 years. They had to suffer humiliation during this period and ultimately charges levelled against them could not be substantiated.

  • BHAVANA N. SHAH Vs. NITIN CHIMANLAL SHAH

    Court:BOMBAY HIGH COURT
    False, frivolous and unsubstantiated allegations against husband of having illicit relations with his sisters — No contemporaneous evidence produced by wife to corroborate her version — It was clearly an attempt to sully reputation not only of respondent-husband but also of two sisters who were in profession of Medicine and Law respectively — That by itself is a good and germane ground to dissolve marriage between parties and to grant decree of divorce.

  • VANDHANA GUPTA Vs. RAJESH GUPTA

    Court:MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
    Wife behaving cruelly with Husband and his family members and she left matrimonial house and living separately without any just and proper cause. She has deserted respondent for continuous period of not less than two years. Husband entitled to decree of divorce.

  • PRAVEEN MEHTA Vs. INDERJIT MEHTA

    Court:SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
    Husband Deprived of Normal Cohabitation and Suffered Social Embarrassment Due to Behaviour of Wife. Conduct of Wife in Approaching Police Complaining against Her Husband and His Parents and Taking False Plea that She Conceived But there was Miscarriage, Caused Sense of Mental Depression and amounts to Mental Cruelty to Husband.

  • MRS. GAYATRI MISHRA Vs. PRAMOD KUMAR NANDA

    Court:ORISSA HIGH COURT
    Wife Voluntarily Deprived Her Husband of Her Society and Cohabitation for Years, Which Amounts to Mental Cruelty. Husband can definitely be said to be under strain of wilful separation for years and complete denial of conjugal relationship.

  • SHASHI BALA Vs. RAJIV ARORA

    Court:Delhi High Court
    Denial of sexual intercourse after marriage and refusal to perform customary rituals amounts to cruelty.

  • JATINDER SINGH Vs. ROOPLEEN KAUR

    Court:PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
    Cruelty — To be determined on consideration of various factors i.e. social status, background, custom & tradition, etc. The Court should determine that relationship between the parties has deteriorated to such an extent that it is impossible to live together without mental agony — Need not be of such a character as to cause danger to life or health.

  • D. PARTHASARATHY Vs. MRS. VINAYAPRABHA

    Court:KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
    Conduct of Wife in prosecuting Husband while at same time seeking restitution of conjugal rights shows lack of self-control driving Wife to restrain from cohabitation. Wife persisently indulging in vicious allegations, unmindful of their impact. Husband cannot be found at fault with and his conduct cannot fall within expression “his own wrong”.

  • SMT. NIDHI DALELA Vs. DEEPAK DALELA

    Court:RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
    Evidence Produced by Wife not Sufficient to Disprove Charge of Cruelty and Adultery Levelled against Her : She made Unsuccessful Attempt to Establish that her Husband had Illicit Relations and Wanted to Marry Another Lady. Husband Proved Successfully his Apprehension that it will be Harmful for him to Live with Wife because of her Conduct that Caused Disgrace to him.

  • MUKESH KUMAR Vs. CHANCHAL

    Court:DELHI HIGH COURT
    No strait jacket formula of what is cruelty. Single or even isolated acts of grave severity can constitute cruelty. However, on other hand whole body of evidence may not measure upto required standard to constitute cruelty.

  • C.R. CHENTHILKUMAR Vs. K. SUTHA

    Court: MADRAS HIGH COURT
    Meaning of Cruelty — No specific set of facts which could be taken as one which would constitute cruelty — Gravity, intensity and seriousness of acts of parties should necessarily be considered.

  • G.V.N. KAMESWARA RAO Vs. G. JABILLI

    Court:Supreme Court of India
    Appellant was subjected to serious traumatic experience because of non-cooperation and hostile attitude of respondent, which can safely be termed as ‘cruelty’. Decree of dissolution of marriage granted.

  • ASIT BARAN BHATTACHARYA Vs. GOURI BHATTACHARYA

    Court:CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
    Cruel behaviour of spouse although is a good defence against action of restitution of conjugal right, law does not permit wronged spouse inflicted with mental cruelty to commit cruelty against wrong doer in retaliation . If counter cruelty of different nature is proved, simply on basis of such counter cruelty, divorce can be granted.

  • AJAY PAL SINGH Vs. ROSY SINGH (DR.)

    Court:CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT
    Respondent wife consumed huge amount of sleeping pills in absence of appellant-husband, on account of which she had to be admitted in Hospital. This act of Wife amounted to cruelty to Husband. In addition to treating Husband and his parents with cruelty,Wife also interfered in his official work, which adversely affected his official position. Wife also lodged complaint under Section 498A, IPC without disclosing fact of being treated with cruelty by Husband and his parents in connection with dowry demand. This conduct of Wife also reflects her cruelty of extreme degree towards Husband.

  • GAJJALA SHANKAR Vs. ANURADHA

    Court:ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
    Wife filed criminal case against husband and her in-laws, which was held not proved by Criminal Court and maintenance which has been granted. These two factors prove strong desire of wife to be disassociated with husband and matrimonial home as a whole. She had no real intention to lead happy marital life with husband. Specific case of appellant husband that he was subjected to “mental cruelty” Divorce granted to Husband.

  • SMT. ROOPA @ ROOPMATI Vs. VIJAY KUMAR

    Court:MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
    Though condonation not pleaded as defence by Husband. It is the duty of Court to examine evidence of parties to find whether cruelty was condoned. Not proved that at any time during continuance of marriage, husband behaved with wife in such a way as to have condoned her acts of cruelty. Divorce granted.

  • CAPT. DEEPAK KUMAR Vs. MANISHA

    Court:PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
    After departure Wife levelled such type of allegations which could not be Expected from Her which Amounts to Act of Cruelty

  • ABDUL RAZIK Vs. REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER

    Court:MADRAS HIGH COURT
    Mere pendency of FIR cannot be bar for consideration of claim for issuance of passport. Respondent directed to consider application for re-issuance of passport submitted by petitioner without reference to FIR lodged against him and issue passport, if he is otherwise eligible for same.

  • SANTOSH SHARMA & ORS. Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR.

    Court:RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
    No evidence available on record to show standard of living to which respondent wife was accustomed during period in which she lived with her husband. In absence thereof it cannot be said that salary which respondent wife is getting is not sufficient for her proper maintenance.

  • SATYAWATI & ORS. Vs. STATE

    Court:DELHI HIGH COURT
    Children Entitled to Claim Maintenance, for awarding maintenance to wife living separately, Court to conclude whether she is justified in living separately or not.

  • BIBI PARWANA KHATOON @ PARWANA KHATOON AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

    Court:SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
    Courts must guard against false implication of relatives of Husband.

  • MANMOHAN ATTAVAR Vs. NEELAM MANMOHAN ATTAVAR

    Court:SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
    Wife has never stayed with Husband in the premises in which she has been directed to be inducted. In order for Wife to succeed, it was necessary that two parties had lived in a domestic relationship in the household. Therefore Wife demanding Right to Residence under Domestic Violence Act does not sustain.

  • REENA DEVI Vs. RAVINDER

    Court:DELHI HIGH COURT
    Wife did not behave rationally, making it impossible for husband to live with her. Wife even failed to prove her own allegation that she had been poisoned or husband was medically unfit.

  • RAJ TALREJA Vs. KAVITA TALREJA

    Court:SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
    Proceedings launched against wife under Section 182 of IPC upon investigation by the police that not just the complaint was false but also injuries were self inflicted by wife. Marriage dissolved by a decree of divorce.

  • AJAY PAL & ORS. Vs. STATE

    Court:DELHI HIGH COURT
    Prosecution has failed to prove its case under Section 498A, IPC against appellants and judgment of conviction deserves to be set aside — By failing to prove essential ingredient of dowry death as provided under Section 304-B IPC, prosecution has also failed to make out its case against appellants for causing dowry death of deceased.

  • SATISH KUMAR BHATIA Vs. STATE

    Court:DELHI HIGH COURT
    No proof to say that deceased Wife was harassed or meted with cruelty for or in connection with demand of dowry. Husband Acquitted.

  • ARCHANA Vs. HIMANSHU BAHL

    Court:DELHI HIGH COURT
    In matrimonial disputes, where hardly any documentary evidence surfaces, rival version have to be weighed in context of conduct of a reasonable person and/or if some documentary evidence viz. registered consumer of mobile number, etc.

  • ASHISH BHARTI Vs. MEETA SACHDEV

    Court:DELHI HIGH COURT
    Impugned order passed mechanically by apportionment of income pie overlooking cost of living for stay abroad. No basis for assessing alleged income of Husband in Indian currency without realising when he was earning in Dirham, he ought to be spending for his stay in Dubai in Dirham and cost of living being high there. Approach of Family Court casual in assessing income and expenditure of spouses. Impugned order set aside.

  • RITA DEY CHOWDHURY NEE NANDY Vs. Dr. KALYAN DEY CHOWDHURY

    Court:CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
    Provident Fund contribution of husband should not be deducted from husband’s salary to arrive at his income for fixing quantum of maintenance.

  • RENU YADAV Vs. ARUN SINGH YADAV

    Court:DELHI HIGH COURT
    Wife’s behaviour towards Husband and his family members was abusive, lacked respect, understanding, companionship and trust. The wife failed to substantiate her contention that respondent husband is living in adultery. Unsubstantiated allegations of adultery amounts to cruelty.

  • SANJAY CHOUDHARY @ SANJAY JAISWAL Vs. ANJALI DEVI & ORS.

    Court:PATNA HIGH COURT
    Filing of false criminal complaint against husband and family members under Section 498A, IPC and other allied Sections of IPC, constitutes matrimonial cruelty. Marriage solemnized between parties dissolved on ground of cruelty.

  • ARCHANA AGGARWAL Vs. SURESH JINDAL

    Court:DELHI HIGH COURT
    No justifiable reason on part of wife for not allowing mother of husband to live with family of husband. It is mental torture for husband in not permitting old aged widowed mother who was forced to live in village after death of her elder son with whom she was living earlier.

  • DR. N.G. DASTANE Vs. MRS. S. DASTANE

    Court:SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
    The Supreme Court of India in this landmark judgment explains the term ‘Cruelty’ by Wife and Condonation.

  • INDU BAI Vs. KOUTIK

    Court:MADHYA PRADESH HIGHCOURT
    Threat by Wife to commit suicide and nagging tendencies can tantamount to causing mental cruelty to the Husband.

  • Geeta Yogesh Mehta vs Yogesh Jethalal Mehta

    Court:Bombay High Court
    Wife not giving sexual satisfaction to Husband. Husband entitled to get the decree of divorce in his favour on the ground of mental cruelty and desertion.

  • Smt. Sona vs Karambir

    Court:Punjab-Haryana High Court
    Wife is not able to discharge her marital obligations. Evident that it has become impossible for the Husband to reside with the her. Divorce granted.

  • Mrs. Abha Gupta vs Rakesh Kumar Gupta

    Court:Punjab-Haryana High Court
    Not allowing husband to consummate marriage inspite of his pursuation that it was an essential aspect of married life amounts to cruelty.

  • Suman Ramchandra Shetye (Smt.) Vs. Ramchandra Sakharam Shetye

    Court:Bombay High Court
    Taunts, constant nagging, violence and insulting behaviour by Wife amounts to cruelty.

  • Velayudhan vs Chandrika

    Court:KERALA HIGH COURT
    The act of living together or sharing bed with another man itself amounts to cruelty. Marriage dissolved.

  • Rakesh Sharma vs Surbhi Sharma

    Court:Rajasthan High Court
    The Wife has deserted her Husband without any reasonable cause and without his consent and it amounts to cruelty.

  • Rita Das Biswas vs Trilokesh Das Biswas

    Court:Gauhati High Court
    Leaving the nuptial home frequently after marriage and final departure within a period of one year from the date of marriage amoutns to cruelty. Divorce granted to Husband.

  • Sanyogta Verma Vs. Vinod Verma

    Court:Delhi High Court
    After 40 days of the birth of a child, the appellant wife went to her parents’house on a ceremonial visit, but never returned. This amounts to desertion.

  • Balbir Kaur vs Daljit Singh

    Court:Punjab-Haryana High Court
    Insisting to live separately from mother and sister of Husband without any valid reason is cruelty towards Husband. Divorce granted to Husband.

  • Smt. Sulekha Bairagi Vs. Prof. Kamala Kanta Bairagi

    Court:Calcutta High Court
    Inciting some other person to give blow on husband’s head is cruelty.

  • Smt. Nirmala Manohar Jagesha Vs. Manohar Shivram Jagesha

    Court:Bombay High Court
    Irresponsible, wild and baseless allegations of impotency of Husband amounts to cruelty. Divorce granted to husband.

  • MAMTA RAI Vs. YOGENDRA KUMAR RAI

    Court:UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
    Wife having independent source of earning, not entitled for any benefit under Section 24 of Act.

  • KUNAL CHAUHAN Vs. NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR WOMEN & ANR.

    Court:DELHI HIGH COURT
    NCW asked to pay compensation to husband.

    NCW or State Commission can not adjudicate matters like maintenance or order registration of case. It’s role is just recommendatory.

  • P. Natarajan vs Thamizhmani

    Court:Madras High Court
    Heaping insults upon Husband and his family amounts to cruelty.

  • Mandeep Kaur vs Sukh Dev Singh

    Court:Himachal Pradesh High Court
    Handcuffing of husband and his father because of a false complaint filed by wife amounts to cruelty.

  • Savitri Balchandani vs Mulchand Balchandani

    Court:Delhi High Court
    Grabbing testicles and giving beating to Husband is cruelty, divorce granted.

  • Rekha Rani vs Narinder Mohan

    Court:Punjab-Haryana High Court
    Giving Birth to illegitimate child is cruelty on the part of Wife towards Husband.

  • Kalpana Srivastava vs Surendra Nath Srivastava

    Court:Allahabad High Court
    Getting rid of pregnancy without consent of Husband amounts to cruelty.

  • Prem Lata vs Murari Lal

    Court:Punjab-Haryana High Court
    Filing false complaint under Section 498A and 506 IPC amounts to cruelty.

  • Kotti Veera Venkata Padmavathi vs Kotti Sriram

    Court:Andhra High Court
    Filing a criminal case after divorce petition is cruelty.

  • Smt. Neelu Kohli vs Naveen Kohli

    Court:Allahabad High Court
    False, scandalous, malicious, baseless and unproved allegations by one spouse on other is cruelty.

  • Pushpa Rani vs Krishan Lal

    Court:Delhi High Court
    False imputation of adultery is cruelty.

  • Narendra Kumar Gupta vs Smt. Indu

    Court:Rajasthan High Court
    False FIR under section 498A IPC amounts to cruelty.

  • Amaravathy Vs. R.A. Pakkirinathan

    Court:Madras High Court
    False complaint given to dowry cell amounts to cruelty

  • Smt. Sadhana Srivastava Vs. Sri Arvind Kumar Srivastava

    Court:Allahabad High Court
    Wife had been in the habit of keeping the husband under mental torture either by teasing his parents or spreading frivolous stories in the family which amounted to cruelty.

  • Paramjeet vs Ranjit Singh

    Court:Punjab-Haryana High Court
    False and frivolous allegations to superior officer about husband amounts to cruelty. Decree of divorce granted.

  • Manjit Kaur vs Avtar Singh

    Court:Punjab-Haryana High Court
    False allegation by wife that husband is leading an adulterous life. Cruelty Proved.

  • Hari Krishan vs Neelam Rani

    Court:Punjab-Haryana High Court
    Serious but false allegations were made by the wife against her husband, even stating that he had put kerosene oil on her. Marriage dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty.

  • Smt. Vimla Ladkani Vs. Dr. Chandra Prakash Ladkani

    Court:Madhya Pradesh High Court
    False allegation about character of husband and family members amounts to mental cruelty.Divorce granted.

  • Harpal Sharma Vs. Smt. Tripta Rani

    Court:Punjab-Haryana High Court
    False allegation that husband’s plea for her treatment was a tactic to get rid of her. No cogent/reliable evidence.
    Amounts to mental cruelty.

  • URMILA DEVI AND OTHERS Vs. RAVI PRAKASH

    Court:DELHI HIGH COURT
    Husband’s petition for divorce on ground of wife’s cruelty. Allegations made by wife in her maintenance application u/s. 125 Cr.P.C. in her notice and written statement to divorce proceedings that husband is a drunkard, gambler and womanizer. Allegations based on hearsay and Unfounded and false to the knowledge of wife and amount to crulety, decree of divorce confirmed.

  • BALRAM SINGH Vs. SUKHWANT KAUR

    Court:PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
    False Allegation by wife that Husband contracted second marriage during subsistance of first marriage with her. Such allegations against her husband constitute mental cruelty on her part.

  • Ashok Kumar vs Smt. Vijay Laxmi

    Court:DELHI HIGH COURT
    Making Grave but False allegation by Wife of attempt to burn her by Husband is Cruelty.

  • Nemai Kumar Ghosh vs Sm. Mita Ghosh

    Court:Calcutta High Court
    Wife Doubting that husband was in illicit connection with his own sister-in-law amounts to cruelty.

  • PRAVEEN MEHTA Vs. INDERJIT MEHTA

    Court:SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
    Denial of sexual intercourse amounts to cruelty.

  • Smt. Pranati Chatterjee vs Shri Goutam Chatterjee

    Court:Calcutta High Court
    There was no just reason for depriving the Husband of the Company of the wife and that itself is an instance of mental cruelty.

  • Rani vs Amar Nath

    Court:Punjab-Haryana High Court
    Declining to go to matrimonial home even when her Mother- in- law has died is cruelty.

  • UMA WANTI Vs. ARJAN DEV

    Court:PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
    Day-to-day behaviour of Wife disturbed mental peace and harmony of Husband — Amounting to legal cruelty — Wife may not be of unsound mind, but her peculiar ways of behaviour proved by respondent sufficient to constitute legal cruelty.

  • JHABAR MAL Vs. GUDDI @ KAMLA

    Court:RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
    Conviction of Wife for Murdering Her Mother-in-law, does Amount to Cruelty on Husband : Even if Wife is Acquitted, it shall not be Humanly Possible for Husband to Stay or Cohabitate Once Again with Respondent-wife and to Accept her as his Wife.

  • Chuni Lal Gulati vs Krishana Rani

    Court:Punjab-Haryana High Court
    Constantly insulting Husband in presence of friends amounts to cruelty.

  • SHARDHA NAND SHARMA Vs. KIRAN SHARMA

    Court:DELHI HIGH COURT
    Making false and reckless allegations on the character of the spouse amounts to mental cruelty.

  • A.S. PAINTAL Vs. IRIS PAINTAL

    Court:DELHI HIGH COURT
    In different attitude of respondent towards the appellant’s relatives( brother, mother,father etc.) this conduct of respondent amounted to cruelty against husband.

  • SMT. S. VIJAYALAKSHMI Vs. S. BHEEM REDDY

    Court:ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
    On complaint lodged by wife, husband arrested and sent to judicial custody. Kept under suspension by his employer, Matter reached point of no return. Any amount of pursuasion to keep matrimonial home in good stead is of no use.Marriage dissolved by granting decree of divorce.

  • UMA BASSI Vs. ANIL KUMAR BASSI

    Court:DELHI HIGH COURT
    Wife alleging husband of an incestuous relationship with his cousin sister amounts to cruelty .

  • Susarla Subrahmanya Sastry Vs. S. Padmakshi

    Court:Andhra Pradesh High Court
    Relationship between parties irretrievably broken and because of non-co-operation and hostile attitude of respondent wife, appellant husband subjected to serious traumatic experience : It can safely be termed as ‘cruelty’ within meaning of Section 13(1)(ia) of Act . Acts of respondent and her parents saying appellant cannot perform sexual intercourse amounts to cruelty.

  • Vijay Kumar Sharma Vs. Smt. Sadhna Sharma

    Court:Rajasthan High Court
    False Allegation by Wife that husband used to beat her amounts to cruelty.

  • N. Sreepadachar vs Vasantha Bai

    Court:Karnataka High Court
    The Wife abused Husband in public and treated the Husband with such cruelty as to cause reasonable apprehension in his mind that it would be harmful or injurious for him to live with her.

  • SUSHIL KUMAR VERMA Vs. USHA

    Court:DELHI HIGH COURT
    Wife got the pregnancy terminated without the consent of the Husband and thus caused mental cruelty to him. termination of pregnancy without the consent of the husband amounts to cruelty

  • Chand Parkash Sharma Vs. Kaushlya Devi

    Court:Himachal Pradesh High Court
    Bald and reckless allegations against Husband of sexual misconduct, fathering illegitimate children, threatening respondent with dire consequences and posing danger to his/her life and limb, activating official machinery against him — Withdrawal of respondent-wife from matrimonial home without justification, abstaining from sexual relationship without any reasonable cause, in totality constitutes acts which amount to mental cruelty within meaning of Act.

  • STATE OF U.P. Vs. SUSHIL KUMAR JAIN & ORS.

    Court:ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
    Not Dowry but Suspected Bad Character of Wife was Main Cause of Strained Relationship Between Two and such Strained Relationship Turned into Bitterness, Eventually Leading to their Divorce. Trial Court Rightly Recorded Finding of Accused being not Guilty. Acquittal of Accused Justified.

  • JAYESH RAMESHBHAI SHAH & ORS. Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

    Court:GUJARAT HIGH COURT
    Appreciation of Evidence: No Material to Proceed against Accused Family Members of Husband.

  • BABAJI CHARAN BARIK Vs. STATE

    Court:ORISSA HIGH COURT
    Appreciation of evidence, no evidence for demand of dowry by Husband. Acquitted.

  • TARUN @ GAUTAM MUKHERJEE Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

    Court:SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
    Appreciation of Evidence : Charge Not Established — High Court on scrutiny of evidence held that offence under Section 306, I.P.C. not established by prosecution but offence under Section 498-A, I.P.C established — This Court scrutinised evidence of P.Ws. 2, 4 and 5 — Material omission in statement of P.W. 4, maid servant — Evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 5 not of such nature to establish cruelty on part of husband to bring home offence under Section 498-A, I.P.C. — High Court erroneously upheld conviction under Section 498-A, I.P.C.

  • SHEKHAR AMONKAR Vs. STATE

    Court:BOMBAY HIGH COURT
    Apreciation of evidence, benefit of doubt given to accused Husband.

  • B. VENKAT SWAMY Vs. VIJAYA NEHRU & ANR.

    Court:SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
    Appeal against acquittal — Circumstantial evidence — Prosecution has not established accusations — In cross-examination P.W. 1 categorically admitted that deceased never personally informed him about alleged harassment by respondent — Evidence of P.W. 6 also has some more loose ends — Evidence of P.W. 3 also corrodes prosecution version — P.W. 3 fairly accepted that he presumed that respondent accused was making demands through his wife-deceased — To add to vulnerability of prosecution case, examination under Section 313, Cr.P.C. done as an empty formality — Incriminating materials not put to him.

  • BASAPPA @ BASANAGOWDA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

    Court: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
    Accused Husband and complainant Wife amicably settled matter and filed application under Section 320(6), Cr. P.C. Both submitted to have no differences and having two small kids, not appropriate for this Court to send accused behind bars.

  • DAGADU SHANKAR TODMAL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

    Court:BOMBAY HIGH COURT
    Altercation or conflict between husband and wife does not amount to “cruelty” and cannot attract provisions of Section 498A.
    Conviction cannot be based on sentimental approach.

  • STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. DULICHANDRA & ANR.

    Court:MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
    Vague allegations of cruelty against Husband. Absence of direct and clinching evidence against Husband in respect of cruelty under Section 498A, IPC to victim. Failure of prosecution to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt against both respondents. No infirmity in impugned order.

  • RAJENDRA RAMKRISHNA LANDE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

    Court:BOMBAY HIGH COURT
    Allegations of general nature. Not a case of prosecution that Husband used to physically ill-treat deceased Wife.Fit case to grant benefit of doubt to appellant.

  • UMESH @ BANTI & ORS. Vs. STATE OF U.P. & ANR.

    Court:ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
    Allegations made in FIR are so absurd and inherently improbable on basis of which it is not possible to proceed against accused person. Criminal proceedings quashed.

  • STATE Vs. DHRUV KUMAR SINGH

    Court:RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
    The complainant did not even breathe the Allegations of Cruelty in Reply to Divorce Petition. No Illegality in Findings of Acquittal recorded by Magistrate based on Appreciation of Evidence. Offence under Sections 498-A and 406, I.P.C. not proved against Accused. – Acquittal Upheld

  • SANGANNAGARI NARASIMULU Vs. STATE OF A.P.

    Court:ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
    Only source of information for mother is that, deceased informed her about alleged harassment. Said statement cannot be taken as gospel truth and weak piece of evidence as deponent is not subjected to cross-examination. Conviction under Section 498A, Indian Penal Code set aside.

  • CHERUKU UMAPATHI Vs. STATE OF A.P.

    Court:ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
    Prosecution unable to point out any other legally acceptable evidence to sustain conviction of Husband under Section 498-A, I.P.C.: Conviction and sentence recorded against Husband under Section 498-A, I.P.C. unsustainable and set aside.

  • BANDAKURI PARVATHI Vs. BANDAKURI VIJAYA KUMAR & ANR.

    Court:ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
    Difference between wife and husband cannot be branded as cruelty as defined in Explanation to Section 498A, Indian Penal Code : Ingredients not even alleged, much less proved : Order of acquittal cannot be converted to one of conviction in revision.

  • RUPAM RIMPI VERMA Vs. DR. PRANAY VERMA & ORS.

    Court:JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
    Considering materials brought on record and respective cases of parties, Trial Court rightly acquitted Husband on cogent reasons, No grounds made out for interference with impugned judgment.

  • CHHOTU SINGH & ANR. Vs. SMT. RAMDINI

    Court:RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
    Increased amount of maintenance shall be taken from the date of passing of order and not from date of application.

  • S. VIJAYA & ORS. Vs. S. DHARMARAJU & ANR.

    Court:ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
    In absence of any specific direction to pay maintenance from date of order or application, It should be construed that payment of maintenance is from date of order in view of Section 125(2), Cr. P.C. If Court intended to pass order for payment from date of application it should be stated in order.

  • MOHANDAS Vs. JAYANTHI

    Court:KERALA HIGH COURT
    Precautions and procedures to be taken while enforcement of maintenance order.

  • SURENDRA SINGH Vs. SHAKUNTALA DEVI & ORS.

    Court: UTTRANCHAL HIGH COURT
    Effective date of payment for maintenance, Date of order in normal circumstances however, in extraordinary circumstances it may be ordered to be paid from date of application. Court below gave no reason for allowing interim maintenance from date of application. Impugned order modified to extent that husband will pay interim maintenance from date of order and not from date of application.

  • SANJAY BHARDWAJ & ORS. Vs. STATE & ANR.

    Court: DELHI HIGH COURT
    Domestic Violence Act does not create any additional right in favour of wife regarding maintenance. The Act is silent about duties of husband and wife. No law provides that a husband has to maintain a wife, living separately, irrespective of fact whether he earns or not. Court cannot tell husband that he should beg, borrow or steal but give maintenance to wife, more so when both are equally qualified and capable of earning. Fixing of maintenance by Court without there being even proof of husband being employed in India is contrary to law. An unemployed husband holding an MBA degree cannot be treated differently to an unemployed wife also holding MBA degree. Both are on equal footing, one cannot be asked to maintain other unless one is employed and other is not employed. Parents cannot be burdened to maintain husband and wife. Orders passed below set aside.

  • RATHINA MARIE PREMA & ANR. Vs. MARCEL FERNANDOS

    Court:MADRAS HIGH COURT
    Divorce between Husband and Wife on the basis of joint memo, wherein the wife had waived her claim for maintenance. Wife not entitled to claim maintenance unless order in divorce is set aside Order not binding on minor son. Minor son entitled to maintenance.

  • S.T. PRABHAKAR Vs. SECRETARY OF GOVERNMENT HOME DEPARTMENT, FORT ST. GEORGE & ORS.

    Court: MADRAS HIGH COURT
    Distress warrant for realisation of maintenance amount to be issued only when the defaulter has failed to comply to the order without sufficient cause.

  • SALAM Vs. AYISHA & ANR.

    Court:KERALA HIGH COURT
    Dispute regarding paternity — DNA test answered against petitioner — Claimant submitted she has no further evidence — Learned Counsel for petitioner submits petitioner wants evidence to be adduced — Even assuming erroneous submission made before Family Court Judge that petitioner has no evidence to adduce, humane and reasonable view be taken — Petitioner may be granted one further opportunity to adduce evidence on his side — Interests of justice will be served ideally by granting petitioner further opportunity to adduce all such evidence he wants to adduce on next date of posting subject to appropriate conditions.

  • C. SUBRAMANYAM Vs. C. SUMATHI & ANR.

    Court:ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
    Magistrate has no power to dismiss petition under Section 125, Cr.P.C. for default : For any reason, if it is dismissed, said Court will become functus officio : It has no power to set aside default order, earlier order illegal notwithstanding : Affected party has to take recourse to revisional jurisdiction as contemplated under Cr.P.C.

  • GEETA BARETH Vs. KESHAV PRASAD BARETH

    Court:CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT
    There is bar of filing appeal against order passed under Chapter IX of Cr.P.C. — In view of specific bar of appeal and fact that order challenged in this appeal has been passed under Chapter IX of Cr.P.C., this appeal is not maintainable — Objections raised by learned Counsel for respondent is unsustainable in the eyes of law — This will not debar appellant to file revision under Section 19(4) of F.C. Act if same is permissible under law.

  • PINKI DAS (SARKAR) Vs. SWAPAN SARKAR

    Court:GAUHATI HIGH COURT
    “Without reasonable excuse”. Clause as engrafted in Section 9, H.M. Act, 1955 and clause “without any sufficient reason” as engrafted in Section 125(4), Cr.P.C., do carry identical meaning and purport but situations or contexts are distinguishable in view of statutory objections.

  • SYED MOHD. GHOUSE Vs. NOORUNNISA BEGUM & ORS.

    Court:ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
    Court cannot Compel Person to Give Sample of Blood for DNA or Other Test, if that person refuses to give blood sample without any valid reason, Court is at liberty to draw inference as necessary corollary in sequel thereof.

  • MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA Vs. KAMLESH KUMARI & ANR.

    Court:ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
    Magistrate is fully competent to recover the maintenance amount remaining unpaid from husband and to pay the same to wife. — Magistrate is directed to issue recovery warrant for maintenance amount remaining unpaid and if warrant remains unexecutable by any other reason, then to sentence defaulting husband according to law.

  • JAIVIR Vs. SANTOSH

    Court:PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
    Default in paying maintenance allowance — Warrant of arrest cannot be issued as a matter of first resort — Resort prior in point of time, has to be made to attach property.

  • ABDULRAHIMAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

    Court:KERALA HIGH COURT
    One month’s imprisonment for each month default is not sole criteria which governs Court for imposing maximum punishment to the Husband Court has to exercise its discretion judicially in fixing quantum of punishment.

  • AMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

    Court:ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
    Wife wilfully disobeys directions given by Court in decree for restitution of conjugal rights cannot claim maintenance allowance from her husband.

  • SUBHASCHANDRA Vs. INDUBAI & ANR.

    Court:KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
    Daughter-in-law as well as Grandson cannot claim maintenance from father in Law and Grandfather under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

  • DUGGI VEERAPPA Vs. D. MAHESWARI & ANR.

    Court:ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
    Daughter-in-law cannot claim maintenance from her father-in-law under Section 125. Indeed, lady would be entitled to maintenance if any in share of property of her late husband.

  • MOHD. ISMAIL Vs. SMT. BILQUEES BANO

    Court:ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
    Date of payment of maintenance should normally be from the date of order and sufficient reaso should be given if awarded from date of application.

  • BABULI @ RAJKISHORE RANA Vs. PRASANTI @ PURNAMASI RANA & ANR.

    Court:ORISSA HIGH COURT
    No specific instances of ill-treatment to Wife by Husband. No evidence to show that Wife apprehended danger to her life if she would live with her husband. Maintenance order against Husband liable to be set aside — However, maintenance in favour of Son maintained.

  • SUSHILABAI Vs. RAVAN ELJI PATIL & ANR.

    Court:BOMBAY HIGH COURT
    Once a Consolidated Amount is agreed upon and paid by the Husband, The Wife Cannot Claim Periodical Maintenance .

  • RADHESHYAM Vs. SMT. PHOOLWATI

    Court:MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
    If there is Compromise between Parties the Recovery Proceedings Deserve to be Dropped.

  • S. RAGENDRAN Vs. REVATHY

    Court:MADRAS HIGH COURT
    Order of maintenance made — Matter compromised — Lived together for some time. Cannot execute the order of maintenance — No order of cancellation.

  • P.M. DEVASSIA Vs. ANCY & ORS.

    Court:KERALA HIGH COURT
    Civil Court liable to take into account order of maintenance competent to pass under Section 125, Cr.P.C. while considering claim for maintenance in civil suit.

  • SAROJA Vs. JANARDHANAN

    Court:KERALA HIGH COURT
    Change in Circumstances : Finding of Civil Court that Wife and Children not Entitled to Maintenance : Orders of Civil Court have Bearing on Criminal Court : Criminal Court can Vary Its Earlier Order to Grant Maintenance.

  • N.P. ABU Vs. VELLAM THOTTIL ASMA & ORS.

    Court:KERALA HIGH COURT
    Children Entitled to Claim Maintenance, for awarding maintenance to wife living separately, Court to conclude whether she is justified in living separately or not.

  • GOPI Vs. SMT. KRISHNA

    Court:Punjab-Haryana High Court
    Child Born to Wife Long After Divorce : Child is Illegitimate Child of Wife and not Entitled to Maintenance.

  • RAMRATAN Vs. MAYA & ANR.

    Court: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
    Change in circumstances as Husband alleged to have retired from service. Applicant is at liberty to bring change in circumstances to notice of Judge of Family Court concerned and pray for alteration in quantum of maintenance allowance.

  • BHAGWAN RAOJI DALE Vs. SUSHMA @ NANDA BHAWAN DALE & ANR.

    Court:BOMBAY HIGH COURT
    Maintenance : “Wife” Includes Woman Divorced By or Has Obtained Divorce From Her Husband and Has Not Re-married — Two types of divorcee women included in definition of “wife” — One who has been divorced by her husband i.e. divorced unilaterally by her husband under Muslim Personal Law or Customary Law prevalent among Hindus — Secondly, woman who has obtained decree of divorce from competent Court of law by proving ground in her favour.

  • LAXMAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL & ANR.

    Court:UTTARAKHAND HIGHCOURT
    Application for recovery of maintenance allowance beyond 12 months is barred under proviso to Section 125(3), Cr.P.C.

  • VEERABHADRAPPA Vs. SMT. VEDAVATHI

    Court:KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
    Magistrate convinced about prima facie case made out on basis of affidavit in support of I.A. and grants maintenance, Petitioner cannot escape from his liability to pay interim maintenance as ordered.

  • SARADA MAJHI Vs. SANJAYA MAJHI

    Court:ORISSA HIGH COURT
    Maintenance : Realisation of Arrears : In the Name of Liberal Interpretation Period of Limitation Cannot be Ignored or Bypassed.

  • SHANTHA @ USHADEVI AND ANR. Vs. B.G. SHIVANANJAPPA

    Court:Supreme Court of India
    Arrears of maintenance : Bar of limitation : Application shall be made within a period of one year of date when amount became due .

  • NANHI BAI Vs. NETRAM

    Court: MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
    Wife is adultrous, Maintenance denied to her but husband liable of maintaining children.

  • SUKRO DEVI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND & ANR.

    Court:JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
    The petitioner wife voluntarily left house of husband without reasonable cause or excuse and refused to live with him without just cause — No infirmity in findings recorded by Trial Court and Revisional Court — No ground to interfere with impugned orders.

  • B. SRINIVASULU @ SRINIVASACHARI Vs. VEENA KUMARI @ LATHASREE

    Court:ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
    Husband and Wife lived together for period of 11 months and after desertion by wife disassociation of husband continuing since 1994 for about 13 years. This is absolutely sufficient to grant divorce .

  • KOLASANI SIVAKUMARI & ORS. Vs. KOLASANI SAMBASIVA RAO & ORS.

    Court:ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
    Quantum of maintenance depends upon gathering together of all facts of situation, amount of free estate, past life of married parties and families, etc. — Determination of quantum of maintenance is not left to caprice but to exercise of sound discretion by Court..

  • N. SREE RAMUDU Vs. N. LAHARI

    Court:ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
    Maintenance of minor female child : Both mother and father of minor child gainfully employed and having equal financial capacity, responsibility to be equally shared.

  • PRABHAKARAN NAIR Vs. PREETHY P. NAIR

    Court:KERALA HIGH COURT
    Any Child, Legitimate or Illegitimate, One of Whose Parents is Hindu by Religion and Who is Brought up as a Hindu is Hindu and Entitled to Claim Maintenance under Act. The Child can Claim Maintenance Either Against Father or Mother.

  • KULWANT KAUR @ PREETI & ORS. Vs. PREM NATH & ORS.

    Court:Punjab-Haryana High Court
    In Maintenance Cause of Action of Wife is against Husband and not Anybody Else i.e. Partners and Co-owners of Property of Husband..

  • ETTIAPPA MUDALIAR & ANOTHER Vs. T. SUBRAMANIAN

    Court:MADRAS HIGH COURT
    Maternal grand parents directed to handover the custody of the minor to father. Absence of positive proof, Father did not suffer any disqualification. Father alone, fit and proper person to have the custody of the child.

  • YUDHISTIR MOHANAND Vs. DALIMBA MOHANAND

    Court:ORISSA HIGH COURT
    Wife filed petition for restoration of child below 5 years of age, to her — Alleging she was driven away from matrimonial home and child was snatched from her. Search warrant was issued. Child in custody of father for the last more than six months.Father is natural Guardian, confinement does not amount to offence, search warrant recalled.

  • ALAMELU SOCKALINGAM Vs. VENKATACHALAM

    Court:MADRAS HIGH COURT
    Custody of minor — Appointment of Guardian — Minor child, aged about 9 years in custody of mother for last 8 years — Even during pendency of OP, child is with mother and going to school — Minor child also expressed her desire to be with mother — Respondent father has got married to another woman — In his evidence, respondent has admitted that he is not contributing to growth and maintenance of child all these years and mother has contributed for everything — Petitioner can be appointed as guardian — Respondent can only have visitorial right.

  • NALINI PRAVA BEHERA & ORS. Vs. AKSHAYA KUMAR BEHERA

    Court:ORISSA HIGH COURT
    Perrmanent Alimony and maintenance : Quantum : While deciding amount Social status, economic condition and standard of living of parties should be kept in view : Taking provision of education of children and marriage of female child.

  • DOLI BANERJEE Vs. PRABIR BANERJEE

    Court:CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
    Paramount consideration –– Welfare of minor not legal right of parties — Physical and mental upkeep and education of child –– Court to decide.

  • ANAND DUBEY Vs. SARIKA DUBEY

    Court: UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
    Welfare of child is of paramount consideration, to be taken into consideration by Judge, Family Court . Directions issued and matter remanded to decide it afresh recording reasons pertaining to welfare of child. Directions issued and matter remanded to decide it afresh recording reasons pertaining to welfare of child.

  • VIKRAM VIR VOHRA Vs. SHALINI BHALLA

    Court:Supreme Court of India
    Guardianship — Custody of child — Marriage between parties already dissolved by mutual consent — Welfare of the child is of paramount importance in matters relating to child custody — Welfare of the child may have a primacy even over statutory provisions.

  • VINNY PARMVIR PARMAR Vs. PARMVIR PARMAR

    Court:Supreme Court of India
    Status of wife before marriage is one of the relevant factors for determining amount of maintenance.

  • BHAUSAHEB Vs. LEELABAI

    Court:BOMBAY HIGH COURT
    Status of woman as ‘wife’ not recognised by provisions of Act, which confers right for permanent alimony, she cannot be entertained for grant of relief in absence of recognition of her status by Act. No maintenance granted.

  • CHANDAMMA & ORS. Vs. MUKTABAI & ANR.

    Court:KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
    Second wife not entitled to invoke Section 25 of Hindu Marriage Act to seek maintenance — Section 25 of Hindu Marriage Act cannot be invoked to seek maintenance by either of the spouses of such bigamous marriage.

  • SURAJMAL Vs. RUKMINIBAI

    Court:MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
    Amount of maintenance can be reduced if it is justifiable.

  • MUKUNDAN NAVEEN Vs. ANJALIKA DINESH

    Court:Punjab-Haryana High Court
    Matrimonial dispute can be instituted by party through duly constituted power of attorney holder — Rules made by High Court will prevail over any other rules to the contrary — Permitting the petitioner to institute proceedings by power of attorney will not detract from the power of Court to insist on personal appearance at any subsequent stage as contemplated in law.

  • LOKESHWARI Vs. SRINIVASA RAO

    Court:ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
    Maintenance/Permanent Alimony to Divorced Wife: Factors to be Taken into Consideration — Status of parties, their sources of income and properties, employment are to be taken into consideration — Both husband and wife are doctors — Husband has to maintain his first daughter, his second wife and son born through his second wife — Grant of permanent alimony instead of monthly maintenance just — Same was awarded besides amount already paid by orders of Court during pendency of appeals — Amount towards legal expenses also paid — Pending payment of lump sum amount of permanent alimony, monthly maintenance granted.

  • RUMA CHAKRABORTY Vs. SUDHA RANI BANERJEE & ANR.

    Court:Supreme Court of India
    Wife cannot claim to be directly interested in tenanted suit premises by way of her entitlement towards maintenance which includes residence as per Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act : She is not necessary party and her presence not necessary to enable Court effectually and completely to adjudicate all questions involved with suit — Appellant had no right to contest or defend herself nor right to file and prosecute eviction proceedings — No privity of contract between appellant and landlady — Tenancy is in favour of appellant’s husband — Family Court granted decree for divorce on payment of certain sum by way of maintenance — Appellant’s husband-tenant, contesting rent control proceedings and in written statement denied claim of landlady — Landlady not recognized appellant as sub-tenant — Trial Court and High Court committed no jurisdictional error nor acted with material irregularity in dismissing application.

  • RAM LAL Vs. SMT. SURINDER KAUR

    Court:Punjab-Haryana High Court
    Requirement of Court while granting maintenance — To see whether spouse claiming maintenance was earning himself/herself — The other party could not be saddled with monetary burden.

  • MANOKARAN @ RAMAMOORTHY Vs. M. DEVAKI

    Court:MADRAS HIGH COURT
    Wife secured private job and getting salary of Rs. 4,500/- p.m. and staying with her brother : She is having sufficient independent income and cannot be granted interim maintenance.

  • DUDHIBEN MERAKHBHAI Vs. NATHABHAI HAZABHAI & ANR.

    Court:GUJARAT HIGH COURT
    Wife is being supported and maintained by an adulterer — Husband has not sufficient means. Maintenance denied to wife.

  • ASHOK KUMAR DESHMUKH Vs. GAYATRI

    Court:CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT
    Wife has an affair, lived with husband for only 18 days and then deserted him to live at maternal home. Divorce granted on ground of desertion.

  • ASOKA MITRA Vs. SWAPAN KUMAR MITRA

    Court:CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
    Wife left matrimonial home without consent and reasonable cause. Further, wife condoned wrong on part of husband, even if there be any — No justification in regard to ground of desertion.

  • USHA Vs. LAXMI NARAYAN NAGAICH

    Court:MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
    Wife left her place of residence and refused to come back — Petition filed on a later date, desertion proved.

  • SMT. SUMAN SINGH Vs. TULSI RAM PATEL

    Court:MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
    Wife Wilfully Left Matrimonial Home After Eight Months of Her Marriage and Did Not Come Back — She was unable to prove that she deserted respondent on account of inhumanly treatment given to her by respondent or his family members.

  • SUDHAKAR Vs. SMT. KALAVATI

    Court:MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
    Wife Left Her Matrimonial House on Her own Accord and Did Not Return to Her Husband In Spite of Efforts Made by Him. Reconciliation Not Possible : Decree of Divorce Granted.

  • MAMTA DEVI Vs. DINESH KUMAR

    Court: HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT
    Wife has been withdrawing from the company of her husband without any justifiable cause — Animus deserendi proved .

  • MEENA RANI Vs. MADAN LAL

    Court:Punjab-Haryana High Court
    By withdrawing herself from society of husband she has treated him with cruelty Divorce granted to husband.

  • GIRRAJ PRASAD SHARMA Vs. SMT. TARA MISHRA

    Court:RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
    Wife deserted husband continuously for two years or more immediately preceding filing of this petition — Husband entitled to divorce on this ground

  • SATISH KUMAR Vs. SHASHI PRABHA

    Court:MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
    Wife deserted husband entitled to divorce .

  • JASWINDER KAUR Vs. HARVINDER SINGH

    Court:Punjab-Haryana High Court
    Appellant wife deserted respondent husband for continuous period of 2 years immediately preceding filing of petition, without any sufficient cause, with intention to put an end to matrimonial ties permanently — Husband was always ready and willing to rehabilitate wife, in the house as his wife, but she refused to live with him in his house as his wife — She deserted him with intention to put an end to matrimonial ties forever — Trial Court was right in holding that husband did not treat appellant wife with cruelty.

  • KAVITA CHAUDHRI (DR.) Vs. EVENEET SINGH & ANR.

    Court:Delhi High Court
    Property which exclusively belongs to father-in-law or mother-in-law or to both of them in which husband has no right, title or interest, cannot be called “shared household”

  • DILIP KUMAR BISWAS Vs. SUSMITA BISWAS

    Court:CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
    Lived together with husband for only 7 days, and was unable to justify cause for living apart. Desertion of embarrassing length proved.

  • ANAGALLA PADMALATHA Vs. A. SUDERSHAN RAO

    Court:ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
    Wife abandoned company of husband without reasonable cause and filed 498A and CrPC 125, Desertion Proved. Cruelty need not be proved to get decree of divorce if desertion is proved.

  • VIKAS PANDEY Vs. VANDITA GAUTAM

    Court:ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
    Wife highly educated and more than husband and clearly in a position to earn more. Maintenance is for wife who unable to maintain herself.

  • ABHA ARORA Vs. ANGELA SHARMA & ANR.

    Court:Delhi High Court
    Any claims for residence or maintenance by Wife can only be made against her husband only.

  • BOMMI & ANR. Vs. MUNIRATHINAM

    Court:MADRAS HIGH COURT
    When marriage itself is disputed, DNA test to check the legitimacy of child before passing maintenance award can be demanded and should be allowed.

  • JAYALAKSHMI Vs. KRISHNA PADAYACHI

    Court:MADRAS HIGH COURT
    Woman marrying person while first marriage is subsisting : In law, woman can be given recognition either as wife of man or as his concubine : There cannot be any intermediary clause described as an “illegitimate wife” : Appellant not entitled to maintenance.

  • SMT. KUDUPUDI LAKSHMI VERRA VENKATARATNAM Vs. KUDUPUDI SRI KRISHNA VARA PRASAD & ORS.

    Court:ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
    Maintenance : Husband Neglects Wife Without Reasonable Cause — Both under Section 125, Criminal Procedure Code and under Section 18, Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, if husband neglects wife without any reasonable cause, wife would be entitled to maintenance — Object of both sections is to provide maintenance to neglected wife — Scope and difference in two sections — Subsequent resumption of cohabitation would not affect decree of maintenance obtained by wife against her husband, unless by mutual consent husband and wife vary or cancel decree or it is cancelled by Competent Court.

  • PRAMOD KAPLISH Vs. SMT. ALKA KAPLISH

    Court:MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
    Circumstances — Statement of assessable income produced by revision petitioner — Proved his income increasing over years — Added circumstance of absence of specific denial in counter — Interim maintenance — Only for future and not past — Quantification made by Trial Court — Not perverse — But for the purpose of quantification granting interim maintenance — Should be governed by averments in plaint, written statement and documentary/oral evidence — Assurance by parties to co-operate with lower Court — Lower Court directed to dispose of suit expeditiously.

  • SHEETAL PRASAD GAUR AND OTHERS Vs. BHAGWANDAS

    Court: MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
    Alleged commission of offences punishable under Secs. 294, 506-B and 500 r/w Sec. 120-A I.P.C. — Filed with ulterior motive of harassing the petitioners — Allegations patently absurd and inherently improbable — Complaint registered mechanically — Whether correct ? (Yes).

  • ARJUN RAM Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ANR.

    Court: JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
    Quashing of order taking cognizance : Cruelty, hurt, theft, bigamy : Complaint case filed only after coming to know of filing of Title (M) Suit for divorce and it is actuated with mala fide intention : Order taking cognizance quashed.

  • SURENDRA HOTA & ORS. Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

    Court: ORISSA HIGH COURT
    Complaint petition itself does not disclose commission of any offence committed by petitioners — Rather it reflects anguish of complainant for having been impleaded as OP in case filed for award of compensation due to death of her husband in vehicular accident and non-return of articles alleged to have been given at the time of her marriage to deceased husband — Continuance of criminal proceeding would be abuse of process of law and result in failure of justice — Proceedings quashed.

  • SANTOSH KUMAR MAURYA @ SANTOSH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR & ANR.

    PATNA HIGH COURT
    No specific instances of alleged torture or cruelty with exact date and time as also location furnished — General and bald statement of victim being subjected to torture and cruelty as also assault has been made — Instant complaint is by way of counterblast to divorce case filed by petitioner which eventually was decreed and first appeal preferred there against before Allahabad High Court was dismissed.

  • YOGESH CHHIBBAR Vs. STATE OF U.P.

    Court:ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
    Complaint Filed by Un-authorised Person : Cognizance Wrongly Taken — Dowry Prohibition Officer Not Empowered to File Complaint — Power to file complaint cannot be inferred from analogy of powers of Dowry Prohibition Officer enumerated in Section 8B.

  • DEEPAK SHUKLA Vs. MAHENDRA CHANPURIYA

    Court: MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
    Cruelty for Demand of Dowry Alleged to be made on 1.6.1993; Complaint Filed Beyond Three Years of Date 1.6.1993, Barred by Limitation : Allegations Regarding Demand of Dowry Figment of Imagination : Complaint Filed by Complainant More than Three Years After Filing of Divorce Petition by Petitioner against Respondent : Continuance of Criminal Proceedings against Petitioner, Abuse of Process of Court : Proceedings Quashed.

  • AMIT GARG & ORS. Vs. STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

    Court:ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
    Hurt, Cruelty, Criminal Intimidation, Dowry Demand — Quashing of charge-sheet — CJM took cognizance but not perused the charge-sheet and perused order in a casual manner — He has not applied his judicial mind — Impugned order is illegal and set aside.

  • SHAILENDRA KUMAR & ORS. Vs. STATE OF BIHAR & ANR.

    Court:PATNA HIGH COURT
    Cost of jewellery given at time of negotiation already returned — Continuance of criminal prosecution would amount to misuse of process of Court.

  • MOKA RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR.

    Court: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
    Cognizance of offence taken on vague statements recorded By Investigation Officer of the rank of Dy. Superintendent of Police : No Specific Allegation Against Petitioner.

  • V. CHANDRASEKHARAN Vs. VASANTHA & ANR.

    Court:DELHI HIGH COURT
    Plea of entrustment of jewelry and refusal to return demand for the first time — Other litigation pending — Whether proceedings liable to be quashed ? (Yes).

  • SATISH KUMAR GOGIA & OTHERS Vs. STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER

    Court:Punjab-Haryana High Court
    Brothers of husband arraigned as accused without substance — FIR quashed a qua them.

  • PASHAURA SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.

    Court:SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
    Bigamy — Ingredients of Section 494, discussed — In present case ingredients of Section 494 not satisfied — Appellant’s marriage with K was not subsisting on date of second marriage — From the affidavit filed by complainant it is apparent that her husband obtained divorce judgment — Nothing in affidavit that divorce judgment has been stayed or set aside — FIR liable to be quashed.

  • RISHI ANAND & ANR. Vs. GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI & ORS.

    Court:Supreme Court of India
    Alleged Acts of Beating, Even if Assumed to be Correct, does not make out Case to Proceed under Section 406, IPC .

  • KAVITA SHARMA AND ANOTHER Vs. MEGH RAJ AND ANOTHER

    Court:Punjab-Haryana High Court
    Wife did not come forward for joint petition- Whether wife has committed an offence of cheating ?