Select a page

Useful Judgements

  • Dr. Satheesh N.V. and Ors. Vs. State of Kerala and Ors.

    Court:KERALA HIGH COURT
    Cognizance of offence – Lack of territorial jurisdiction- Petition to quash proceedings.

    0
  • Eshan Joshi Vs. Suman

    Court:PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
    Petitioner challenged that the complaint is without jurisdiction. High Court thus with its vast inherent powers would be able to entertain the petition for quashing to ensure there is no abuse of process of law.

    0
  • RITA BANDOPADHYAY Vs. ABHIK BANDOPADHYAY

    Court:CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
    Unfounded allegations against husband not proved by wife — Holy relationship of brother and sister maligned by wife that it pricks to conscience of Court to accept that wife is guilty of treating Husband with mental cruelty.

    0
  • Mukesh vs Smt Sangeeta

    Court: Rajasthan High Court
    Wife willingly left Husband and living with some other person alleged to be her new husband. Material made available by husband enough to rebut claim of maintenance.

    0
  • Jagvati vs State Of Haryana

    Court:PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
    Rape -Acquittal- Allegation that she was put under fear of terror and forced her to engage in sexual intercourse is not acceptable in view of the fact that there is no evidence at all to prove this allegation, except the bald statement of the prosecutrix.

    0
  • MADHU KUKSAL Vs. ANUP KUKSAL

    Court:UTTARANCHAL HIGH COURT>
    Husband successfully proved he was treated with cruelty by his wife, by her acts of hurling abuses at him and beating members of his family : Alleged acts of violence on part of wife, committed by her, get corroborated from medical injury report : Allegations made by wife as to harassment on account of dowry, not established on record. Divorce granted.

    0
  • HEM RAJ Vs. URMILA DEVI & ORS.

    Court: HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT
    Contested proceedings in Civil Court for restitution of conjugal rights — Court coming to a conclusion that wife had no just or reasonable cause to withdraw her society from husband — No subsequent event justifying her staying away — Not entitled to maintenance u/Section 125, Cr. P.C.

    0
  • Poonam Tanwar Vs. Sube Singh Tanwar

    Court:DELHI HIGH COURT
    A house which is owned by Mother in Law or Father in Law is not the matrimonial house and the right to residence is available against Husband.

    0
  • MANISHA SANDEEP GADE Vs. SANDEEP VINAYAK GADE

    Court: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
    Allegations made by wife baseless and false and constituted cruelty : Learned Judge right in granting decree of divorce on that ground and rejecting her petition for maintenance under Section 18 of Hindu Marriage Act.

    0
  • SHARIF AHMED Vs. IMAMAN BI

    Court:MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
    Wife has no excuse that her salary was not sufficient for her expenses. Maintenance denied to wife.

    0
  • SWAPNIL AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF M.P.

    Court:SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
    Allegations are vague and bereft of details as to place and time of incident — Second respondent-wife living separately since April, 2011 — No question of any beating by appellants as alleged by her.

    1
  • CHRISTINE LAZARUS MENEZES Vs. LAZARUS PETER MENEZES

    Court:BOMBAY HIGH COURT
    Marriage between parties irretrievably broken down — Parties cannot be reasonably expected to live together — Wife has made wild unsubstantiated allegations against husband — Applicant-husband subjected to mental cruelty at the hands of respondent-wife — Family Court rightly allowed petition of husband for dissolution of marriage under Section 10(1)(x) of Act on ground of cruelty.

    0
  • K. SIVARAMA KRISHNA PRASAD Vs. K. BHARATH AND ANOTHER

    Court:ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
    Section 125(1) and Explanation (b) — Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Sections 11, 12 and 16 — At wife’s insistence a decree of annulment of marriage was passed u/s 12 of Hindu Marriage Act — Such wife whether entitled to maintenance u/s, 125 Cr.P.C. ? (No).

    0
  • KALA AGGARWAL Vs. SURAJ PRAKASH AGGARWAL AND OTHERS

    Court:DELHI HIGH COURT
    Petition filed under Art. 32 before Supreme Court—Transferred—Petitioner divorced from Resp. 1 by decree passed by Court of U.S.A.—Being appointed managing conservator of children—Resp. as possessory conservator—Res. brought children to India—Petition for custody––Children not wanted to live with petitioner mother—Custody granted to Father.

    0
  • RAM SARAN VARSHNEY AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

    Court:SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
    No clear allegations have been leveled by Wife against any of her sister in laws. Visits by sister in laws cannot be treated as occasions where they harassed the wife.

    0
  • SMT. SUNITA SINGH Vs. RAJ BAHADUR SINGH & ANR.

    Court:ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
    Letters written by wife showed her deep love for other man. She ran away and FIR was lodged. In matrimonial matters direct evidence of adultery is not possible, circumstantial evidence is sufficient to prove conduct of wife. The wife is guilty of cruelty to her husband.

    0
  • MUNNA KURAISHI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR & ANR.

    Court:PATNA HIGH COURT
    Financial condition and income of petitioner also required to be properly assessed.

    0
  • SHERISH HARDENIA & ORS., AMRISH HARDENIA Vs. STATE OF M.P. & ANR.

    Court:SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
    Offence of cruelty – Pleas founded on limitation have to be viewed with great circumspection.

    0
  • NARENDRA Vs. K. MEENA

    Court:SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
    Constant persuasion by wife for getting separated from family members of husband — Wife wanted husband to leave his parents — Persistent effort of respondent-wife to constrain the appellant-husband to be separated from family would be torturous for husband.

    0
  • RAM PRASAD Vs. GEETA MEHRA

    Court: MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
    Maintenance — Non-entitlement — Perverse orders passed in favour of respondent-wife — Respondent left matrimonial home without any justifiable ground and she refused to come back — Orders passed by Courts below reversed and set aside — Applicant not entitled to get maintenance amount back already paid to respondent in compliance of orders passed by Court below.

    0
  • GIRDHAR SHANKAR TAWADE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

    Court:Supreme Court of India
    Maintainability of Charge under Section 498-A, by Reason of Order of Acquittal under Section 306, IPC i.e. Abetment of Suicide : Acquittal of Charge under Section 306, Though not by itself Ground for Acquittal under Section 498-A, IPC but some Cogent Evidence Required to Bring Home Charge under Section 498-A, IPC as well without which Charge cannot be Maintained : Absence of Evidence on Record : Conviction Recorded by Trial Court and High Court Unsustainable, Set aside — Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 498-A, 306.

    1
  • NARENDRA KUMAR GUPTA Vs. MRS. MAMTA GUPTA

    Court: MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
    Cruelty, Adultery : Wife made scandalous statement against appellant/husband about his illicit relation with his elder brother’s wife : Trial Court wrongly held that allegations made by respondent/wife in her written statement and her deposition on oath cannot be taken into consideration while deciding this petition : Trial Court erred in directing husband to file separate petition for getting required relief on basis of allegations made by wife : Approach of Court contrary to settled principles of law which lay down Court’s power to take into consideration events subsequent to filing of petition.

    0
  • JEEVAN SINGH Vs. SANGEETA BAI

    Court: MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
    Applicant was neither valid wife of non-applicant, nor she had any reason to live away from her husband, to get any maintenance from her husband — She was not ousted but she herself left house of her husband — ACJM rightly held that applicant was not entitled to get any maintenance, without living with non-applicant — ASJ committed an error in considering overt act of appellant when she was residing with her husband — Order passed by revisionary Court for maintenance set aside.

    0
  • MOHAN KUMAR RAYANA Vs. KOMAL MOHAN RAYANA

    Court:SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
    Challenge against interim order passed by High Court, denying visitation right to appellant-father — This Court met appellant, respondent and also minor child separately, to ascertain what each had to say regarding interim arrangements to allow appellant to have access to his minor child — Considering views of parties and minor girl, this Court is of view that appellant should not be denied complete access to his minor child even if there is default in complying with directions of High Court — Pending disposal of appeals appellant allowed to have access to his minor child to some extent.

    0
  • BASANT KAUR & ORS. Vs. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

    Court:Delhi High Court
    Section 498A — Cruelty : Manifest Abuse and Misuse of Provisions of Section 498A, IPC : Woman Lived with Her Husband for about 24 Years and had Grown Up Children and Tolerated Cruelty from Hands of Her Husband : Though Offence of Matrimonial Cruelty Viewed as Continuing Offence but by no Stretch of Imagination such Acts Committed for 25 Years can be Treated as Continuing Acts : Charges against Petitioners Framed by MM and Affirmed by ASJ Wholly Mis-conceived and Result of Non-appreciation of facts : Both Orders Set Aside.

    0
  • JAGWATI Vs. GAJENDER KUMAR

    Court:DELHI HIGH COURT
    Mental Cruelty — Desertion — Restitution of Conjugal Rights — Cruelty committed on respondent-husband and his family by appellant-wife — Animus deserendi proved by respondent-husband to seek divorce on ground of desertion — Appellant-wife is breathing hot and cold in same breath — On the one hand she is projecting herself to be victim of harassment on account of dowry demand, being treated with cruelty by her husband and in-laws on account of dowry demands not fulfilled, on the other hand, even today she claims she is ready to join her husband and she never had any intention to bring an end to cohabitation or waiting for her husband to take her back — No ground to interfere with impugned order dissolving the marriage.

    0
  • MANDEEP Vs. KAVITA

    Court:PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
    As sufficient evidence regarding income of petitioner not produced, maintenance reduced.

    0
  • HARKANWALPREET SINGH Vs. HARSHPREET KAUR

    Court:PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
    Void Marriage — Bigamy — Declaration — Respondent had spouse living at the time of her marriage with appellant — Contravention of Section 5(i) of Act — Merely because they have been married for considerable time, it cannot be per se said that they are acting in collusion with each other — Marriage between parties declared void as it contravenes Section 5(i) of Act.

    0
  • JAIDEEP SHAH Vs. RASHMI SHAH

    Court: MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
    Adultery — Addition of party — In a petition seeking dissolution of marriage on ground of adultery, the date and place of the adultery and the name and address of the person with whom the adultery was committed by the respondent is required to be stated — Duty of Court to issue notice to respondent and co-respondent is in consonance with the principles of natural justice as the finding recorded in suit would adversely affect the reputation of concerned person and such a person should have an opportunity to defend his reputation before such a finding is recorded.

    0
  • NARINDER KAUR Vs. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.

    Court: Delhi High Court
    Sections 498A, 406 — Bail — Cruelty, Criminal Breach of Trust — Grant of bail subject to condition of payment of Rs. 50,000/- by petitioner mother-in-law — Setting aside of condition in interest of justice — Court cannot view exercise of such powers in isolation of all attendant facts — It is unclear as to when complainant picked up quarrel with petitioner and did not receive articles, when offered to her.

    0
  • VITTHAL HIRAJI JADHAV Vs. HARNABAI VITTHAL JADHAV & ANR.

    Court:BOMBAY HIGH COURT
    Section 125(4) — Maintenance : Husband and wife living separately by mutual consent : Wife loses right to claim alimony from such husband.

    0
  • SONAL SHARMA & ANR., ARUN SHARMA, POOJA SHARMA Vs. STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.

    Court:DELHI HIGH COURT
    Section 406 — Criminal Breach of Trust — Criminal intent on part of accused to retain entrusted property — Mere one line at the end of complaint that Istridhan articles are lying with in-laws would not by itself be sufficient to frame charge for offence under Section 406, IPC.

    0
  • RAJENDER KUMAR Vs. NANDINI & ANR.

    Court: DELHI HIGH COURT
    Mental Cruelty — Illicit relationship — Threat to commit suicide — Appellant-husband suggested divorce by mutual consent in the backdrop of respondent-wife’s illicit relationship, but she preferred not to even respond to that suggestion — Their daughter is being brought up by her father and grandmother for last 4 years — Version of appellant-husband that telephonically respondent-wife communicated her intention to live with her lover only — Accusations against wife specific as well the efforts made by husband to find peaceful solution to problem — Appellant-husband knows if wife attempts to commit suicide or commit suicide he and his entire family would be entangled in criminal case — Legal consequences that may ensue on threat being extended by wife to commit suicide or attempted suicide, impact on his life is to the extent that his entire family starts living under shadow of fear of being implicated in case under Sections 498A, 306, 304B, IPC — Threat to commit suicide constitutes Cruelty for purpose of Section 13(1)(ia) of Act — Decree of divorce granted in favour of appellant-husband.

    0
  • PENDIYALA SURESH KUMAR RAMARAO Vs. SOMPALLY ARUNBINDU & ANR.

    Court: GUJARAT HIGH COURT
    Petitioner should be given an opportunity to prove his say in the written reply submitted before the learned JMFC and parties should be relegated to the Trial Court for the purpose.

    1
  • JITENDER ARORA & ORS. Vs. SUKRITI ARORA & ORS.

    Court:SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
    Child ‘V’ is mature girl of 15 years of age — At this age, she can fully understand what is in her best interest — She is competent to take a decision for herself — She has unequivocally and without any reservations expressed her desire to be with her father — She has developed her personality and formed her opinion after considering all the attendant circumstances — Her intellectual characteristics are adequately developed — She is able to solve problems, think about her future and understands long term effects of decision which she has taken — In spite of giving ample chances to Mother by giving temporary custody of child to her, she has not been able to win confidence of child — Custody of child needs to be with father — She is already 15 years of age and within 3 years, she would be major and all this custody battle between her parents would come to an end — She would have complete freedom to decide course of action she would like to adopt in her life.

    0
  • KANTILAL MARTAJI PANDOR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

    Court:SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
    Section 498A Explanations (a), (b) — Cruelty — Scope and ambit of provision — Clause (b) is not attracted as there was no harassment by husband with a view to coercing her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or on account of failure by her to meet such demand — Appellant cannot be held guilty of any wilful conduct which was of such a nature as is likely to drive deceased to commit suicide — First limb of Clause (a) to Explanation under Section 498A not attracted — Permitting first wife to enter house of deceased with new born child does not amount to cruelty within meaning of second limb of Clause (a) to Explanation of Section 498A, IPC.

    0
  • SATYAWAN Vs. REKHA

    Court:PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
    Lodging false criminal case — Contracting second marriage — Respondent-wife lodged false criminal case against appellant-husband and his family — No material to frame charges against appellant and his family members — They were acquitted — Respondent-wife married one and living happily with him — Contracting second marriage during subsistence of first marriage would also amount to cruelty — Appellant-husband established that respondent wife is guilty of cruelty and entitled to get decree of divorce.

    0
  • MANIK CHOPRA Vs. PRIYANKA CHOPRA

    Court:DELHI HIGH COURT
    Sections 125, 482 — Interim Maintenance — Quantum — Court to take prima facie view and not conduct roving inquiry.

    0
  • JAGRAJ SINGH Vs. BIRPAL KAUR

    Court: Supreme Court of India
    Once Court holds it has no jurisdiction in matter, it should not consider merits of matter — Though issue of jurisdiction of Court decided against wife, without following procedure under Section 23(2), Hindu Marriage Act, Court dismissed petition on merits which could not have been done.

    1
  • SHAKUNTALA Vs. STATE OF DELHI

    Court:Delhi High Court
    Complainant Wife thought of using Sections 406 and 498A, IPC against family members to teach lesson to every body — Court cannot be swayed by feelings of hatred of complainant. Fair and just investigation is hallmark of any investigation — It is not duty of Investigating Officer to strengthen case of prosecution by withholding evidence collected by him — Fair investigation is right of accused and this right can be exercised by accused at time of charge — Accused can insist upon Court to consider evidence collected by Investigating Officer but not made part of charge-sheet.

    0
  • BALARAM DASH Vs. SMT. GIJANJALI DASH & ANR.

    Court: ORISSA HIGH COURT
    Wife Refusing to Comply with Decree to Restitution of Conjugal Rights, Will Amount to Refusal on Part of Wife to Live with Husband Without Sufficient Cause: Wife not Entitled to Interim Maintenance.

    0
  • KOPPISETTI SUBBHARAO @ SUBRAMANIAM Vs. STATE OF A.P.

    Court: Supreme Court of India
    Complainant not a legally wedded wife of appellant, Section 498A, IPC has no application.

    0
  • RUBI & ORS. Vs. STATE OF U.P. & ANR.

    Court:ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
    Cruelty, Dowry Demand — Summoning of younger members of family, unjustified. At stage of summoning it is not law that even younger members of family be also summoned to stand trial along with elders even though no specific allegation made against them and their complicity in crime prima facie mala fide and purposive — Levelling general allegations against all family members including unmarried younger girls and boys without specification is practice to be curbed because it will amount to great injustice to ask unmarried younger daughters and brothers to stand trial only because of their relationship with husband.

    0
  • PRAVEENA TANK Vs. ARVIND KUMAR TANK

    Court: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
    Cruelty — Character assassination — According to husband, wife was having illicit relations with a distant relative before marriage and that persisted thereafter — Parties living separately for more than 14 years — Wild allegations made by wife against husband in reply to petition were sufficient to cause mental agony to husband — It is nothing than to injure reputation which amounts to mental cruelty — There is irretrievable breakdown of marriage of parties considering serious allegations made by wife throwing mud on the character of husband that her real sister has walked into life of her husband, which was not even prima facie established — It is difficult for both of them to live together as a happily married couple —Divorce granted.

    0
  • AJAY BHARDWAJ Vs. JYOTSNA & ORS.

    Court:PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
    Maintenance — Live-in relationship — No valid marriage between parties. Children born out of this relationship entitled to receive maintenance.

    0
  • HAZARILAL Vs. STATE OF M.P.

    Court:Supreme Court of India
    Conviction based merely on surmises and conjectures. There is no other material to show how deceased was being harassed or subjected to cruelty, conclusion of High Court that because deceased committed suicide there must be some harassment and cruelty is insupportable and indefensible — There is vast difference between “could have been”, “must have been” and “has been” — In absence of any material, case falls to first category — Conviction impermissible in such case.

    0
  • AMARENDRA NATH BAGUI Vs. GOURI RANI BAGUI AND ANOTHER

    Court:CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
    When a wife lives separately by mutual consent can she still claim maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. ? (No).

    0
  • B.T. JAYARAM Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

    Court: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
    Prayer made to reduce sentence to period already undergone under Section 498A. Sentence of appellant reduced to period already undergone — Impugned judgment of High Court modified.

    0
  • SANTOSH Vs. HORI LAL

    Court:DELHI HIGH COURT
    Appellant wife failed to substantiate allegations leveled against respondent-husband even on yardstick of preponderance of evidence — Allegations of such a nature that would have lowered image of respondent in eyes of his superiors, subordinates and peers — This act would certainly constitute cruelty.

    0
  • MURLIDHAR CHINTAMAN WAGHMARE Vs. PRATIBHA MURLIDHAR WAGHMARE AND ANOTHER

    Court:BOMBAY HIGH COURT
    Wife’s suit for maintenance under Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act was dismissed on merits. Her subsequent application under Section 125 Cr.PC liable to be dismissed.

    0
  • VIKAS AGARWAL Vs. GEETI MATHUR

    Court:DELHI HIGH COURT
    Within six months of custody being with mother, attitude of child turned not only cold but positively hostile towards her father — An attempt ought to have been made to unravel truth whether mother poisoned mind of child — Observations made and directions issued by Court.

    0
  • RAM PRASANNA DASH Vs. BHABANI DEVI

    Court: ORISSA HIGH COURT
    Wife not entitled to maintenance under section 125 of Crpc when Civil Court has granted a decree declaring the marriage to be null and void.

    0
  • SURENDER TOKAS Vs. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

    Court:DELHI HIGH COURT
    No acceptable material or legal evidence in support of prosecution story about cruelty or cruel acts of such nature meted out by petitioner, resulting in death of deceased — Charge framed under Section 498A, IPC againsit petitioner quashed.

    0
  • SANGHAMITRA GHOSH Vs. KAJAL KUMAR GHOSH

    Court:Supreme Court of India
    Obligation of Court that marriage status should, as far as possible, as long as possible and whenever possible, be maintained — However when marriage is totally dead, in that event, nothing gained by trying to keep parties tied for ever to marriage which in fact has ceased to exist.

    0
  • HARI GOPAL WADHWA & ANR. Vs. STATE

    Court:Delhi High Court
    Entire extended family of in-laws of deceased implicated — It is unfortunate police continues to encourage naming of all and sundry while recording statements — Job of SDM was to record statement voluntarily made and not to lead maker of statement into giving pre-determined and designed statements.

    0
  • S. MAHENDER Vs. SHALINI

    Court: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
    Suppression of an item of information cannot be treated as ground under Section 12(1)(c) of Act — Section 12(1)(c) gets attracted only when consent obtained by fraud or through force — Respondent has not made out case under Section 12(1)(c) of Act.

    0
  • SAROJ BALA @ GEETA Vs. ASHOK KUMAR KALYAN

    Court:PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
    Divorce by mutual consent — Wife residing separately by mutual consent and accepted lump sum amount of maintenance as full and final settlement as paid — Wife not entitled to maintenance.

    0
  • SONI KASHYAP @ LALLI KASHYAP Vs. PAWAN KASHYAP @ SONI KRISHNA KUMAR KASHYAP & ORS.

    Court: CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT
    Welfare and proper custody of children is paramount issue for consideration — Mother having no source of income. Custody of children be given to Father.

    0
  • SMT. SUMANGALA Vs. LAXMINARAYAN ANANT HEGDE & ANR.

    Court:KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
    Father of minor taking away his child from custody of mother even without informing her and who is legally entitled for custody of child : That act does not amount to cruelty to her under Section 498-A I.P.C.

    1
  • ANITA Vs. RATI RAM CHAUHAN

    Court:Delhi High Court
    Maintenance — Marriage dissolved on ground of cruelty — Finding of civil Court in matrimonial proceeding is binding on criminal Court — Criminal Court is not entitled to question the correctness or validity of civil Court decision — From statements of witnesses, it is clear that claim of petitioner that respondents failed to maintain her and wilfully neglected is not substantiated — Respondent bore the expenses of petitioner’s treatment in hospital and he was not negligent in his responsibilities towards petitioner — Petitioner is paying Rs. 3,000/- p.m. regularly as per directions of civil Court — No infirmity in judgment.

    1
  • NISHI Vs. JAGDISH RAM

    Court: DELHI HIGH COURT
    False accusation by wife — Acts of cruelty included constant threat by wife to have the husband arrested which caused stress to the husband and his family with the result that it was not possible for him to continue with the marriage — False accusations had adversely affected mind and health of husband causing great embarrassment to him and his family leading them to be looked down upon by relatives, friends and neighbours. Family Court fully justified in dissolving the marriage of parties by decree of divorce.

    0
  • MRINAL KANTI ROY BARMAN & ANR. Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

    Court: GAUHATI HIGH COURT
    Section 498a – Insufficient evidence to prove cruelty and demand of dowry — Conviction unsustainable. Mere allegation not enough to prove guilt in criminal case.

    1
  • KAMLA Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ANR.

    Court: UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
    Applicant failed to prove she is legally wedded wife. She might be living with him as man and woman, her status is that of concubine or having a live-in relationship. Not granted maintenance.

    0
  • AVIRAL MITTAL Vs. STATE & ANR.

    Court: Delhi High Court
    In matters relating to matrimony and custody, law of place which has closest connection with well-being of spouses and welfare of offspring of marriage must govern said disputes.

    0
  • CHINNAMMAL & ORS. Vs. ELUMALAI & ORS.

    Court:MADRAS HIGH COURT
    Second Marriage During Subsistence of First Marriage Totally Void, Illegal and Opposed to Public Policy .

    0
  • MANOJ KISKU Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS.

    Court: JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
    Article 226 — Extraordinary jurisdiction — Exercise of — Quashing of FIR — Justified if allegations made in FIR do not constitute any offence.

    0
  • V.K.V. SARMA Vs. INDRA SARMA

    Court: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
    ‘Relationship in nature of marriage’ and ‘Domestic relationship’ defined. Maintenance not allowed.

    0
  • SHEELU Vs. AMAR SINGH & ANR.

    Court:RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
    Cruelty — Desertion — Adultery — Grounds well established by Husband — Divorce decree sustained. Not fit case of making efforts through mediation for restoration of matrimonial home.

    0
  • AMARENDRA NATH BAGUI Vs. GOURI RANI BAGUI AND ANOTHER

    Court: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
    When a wife lives separately by mutual consent she cannot claim maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.

    0
  • SANDEEP SINGH BAIS @ ANSHU & ORS. Vs. STATE OF M.P. & ANR.

    Court:MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
    General, vague and omnibus allegations cannot be treated as sufficient material to send other relatives of husband who otherwise, do not have anything to do with family affairs of complainant — Complainant has not only made vague allegations against Applicants, but she went to extent of assassinating character.

    0
  • STATE Vs. SRIKANTH & ORS.

    Court: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
    Charges Against Accused not Established : Acquittal Justified : In Many Cases where Matrimonial Offences Alleged, Police Indiscriminately Roping in whole of Family Including Brothers, Sisters, In-Laws : Unless there is Specific Material against these Persons it is Wrong on Part of Investigating Officers to Include Whole of Family as Accused Persons : Steps would be Taken to Ensure this does not Happen.

    0
  • L. SRINIVASULU REDDY Vs. L. RAMALAKSHUMMA & ANR.

    Court: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
    Determination of quantum of maintenance.

    0
  • K.V. PRABAKARAN Vs. MAHESWARAN

    Court: MADRAS HIGH COURT
    Art. 226 — Habeas Corpus — Custody — Girl aged 17 years — Kidnapped by the second respondent from the school — Denied by the girl — Marriage — Husband, natural guardian of minor married girl u/Sec. 6. Hindu (Minority and Guardianship) Act — Whether the Court would be right in taking away the girl from the custody of the second respondent ? — (No).

    0
  • RAM KISHORE & ANR. Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR.

    Court: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
    Maintenance : Perjury : False affidavit by wife : Cognizance of offence : Scope of Sections 195 and 340, Cr.P.C. : Magistrate before whom claim filed himself took cognizance of perjury : Order unsustainable : Order suffers from basic infirmity, illegality : Matter old one : Not proper to direct Magistrate to file complaint as per provisions of law : Impugned order quashed, set aside.

    0
  • GEETA MEHROTRA & ANR. Vs. STATE OF U.P. & ANR.

    Court:SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
    Quashing of Cognizance Order — General allegation of physical and mental torture in FIR — Mere casual reference of names of appellants in FIR without allegation of active involvement in matrimonial dispute would not justify taking cognizance against them.

    0
  • MANOJ KUMAR Vs. PINKI RANI

    Court:DELHI HIGH COURT
    Respondent-wife failed to establish charge of illegal relationship of appellant-husband with lady concerned. Marriage irretrievably broken, cruelty established.

    0
  • BINDA DEVI Vs. DABBOO YADAV @ SANJEEV YADAV

    Court: DELHI HIGH COURT
    Section 125 — Maintenance — Relationship between parties.

    0
  • GULAB KHAN Vs. NAIRUN NISHA

    Court: JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
    Grant of maintenance without considering paying capacity of Husband — Impugned order is erroneous.

    0
  • SARABJIT SINGH Vs. GURPAL KAUR

    Court: Delhi High Court
    Section 151 – Courts have unlimited and unrestricted inherent powers – Explained.

    0
  • SHARMISHTHA Vs. SUJOY MITRA

    Court: Delhi High Court
    Foreign Divorce Decree — Not required to be confirmed by Court of this country — However, decree obtained from foreign country must satisfy requirements of Section 13, CPC .

    0
  • SUBODH S. SALASKAR Vs. JAYPRAKASH M. SHAH & ANR.

    Court: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
    Amendment of complaint – Jurisdiction – Court had no jurisdiction to allow amendment of complaint petition at a later stage.

    0
  • ANJUM Vs. YUNUS SALEEM

    Court: DELHI HIGH COURT
    Wife is having sufficient means to maintain herself and availing all facilities at the house of husband. She has sufficient means to lead her life as per social status of husband.

    2
  • MANAS ACHARYA Vs. STATE & ANR.

    Court:DELHI HIGH COURT
    Section 498A — Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 482 — Cruelty — Quashing of FIR — Both parties resolved all their disputes and differences by way an agreement before Mediation Centre — Marriage between petitioner and respondent was also dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent — However, respondent has opposed quashing of FIR on ground that her entire jewellery/Stridhan has not been returned — Stand taken by respondent is contrary to facts and is neither fair nor just —Agreement executed before Mediation Centre clearly stipulated that settlement amount was a total lump sum amount towards Stridhan, maintenance as well as dowry articles and permanent alimony — Settlement agreement executed between parties is a comprehensive legal, valid and binding document and respondent cannot be allowed to wriggle out of it — FIR as well as any other proceedings arising therefrom quashed.

    0
  • RISHIKESH SHARMA Vs. SAROJ SHARMA

    Court:Supreme Court of India
    Wife living separately and filing cases against Husband which cannot be substantiated. Divorce Decreed.

    0
  • Kalapatapu Lakshmi Bharati Vs. Sai Kumar

    Court: Andhra High Court
    Irretrievable breakdown of marriage. Husband and Wife living separately for a long period of time.

    0
  • Shyamrao Maroti Korwate Vs. Deepak Kisanrao

    Court:Supreme Court of India
    Custody of Child given to Grandfather.

    0
  • PURSHOTAM GUPTA & ORS. Vs. STATE & ANR

    Court:DELHI HIGH COURT
    Petition under Section 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib) of Hindu Marriage Act is converted into petition under Section 13B of Hindu Marriage Act for grant of decree of divorce by mutual consent. Sections 406, 498A quashed.

    0
  • AHALYA BARIHA @ BARIHANI Vs. CHHELIA PADHAN

    Court: ORISSA HIGH COURT
    Maintenance — Petitioner’s application for maintenance for the illegitimate child from the opp. party — Trial Courts Order, reversed by Additional Session Judge — Ground — Credible evidence, corroborating the assertions of paternity of the child — Whether correct ? (Yes).

    0
  • GRACY Vs. CLEETUS

    Court: KERALA HIGH COURT
    Dissolution of Marriage on Mutual Consent : Petitioner and Respondent Residing Separately for more than 2 Years : No Possibility of Reproachment : Waiting Period of 6 Months can be Waived.

    2
  • RAMESH KHULLAR & ANR. Vs. ALKA @ DIMPLE

    Court:PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
    Section 406 — Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 482 — Misappropriation of Dowry Articles : Complaint Absurd : Quashed — Complaint against husband, his sister and brother-in-law after three years of marriage — To say that dowry articles are still with petitioners — Something absurd — When petitioner has gone out of State — Complaint quashed.

    0
  • ANGREJ SINGH @ ARJAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

    Court:PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
    Magistrate Cannot Impose Imprisonment of More Than One Month for non-payment of maintenance — Power of Magistrate cannot be enlarged.

    0
  • CHANDER BHAN & ANR. Vs. STATE

    Court:Delhi High Court
    Sections 406, 498A — Cruelty, Criminal breach of trust — Scope and object of enactment of Section 498A, IPC — Invocation of provisions of Sections 406 and 498A, IPC by parties to do incalculable harm in breaking matrimony of couples — This Court finds it essential to issue broad guidelines and to give directions in such matters in order to salvage and save institution of marriage and matrimonial homes of couples — Broad guidelines issued to social workers/NGOs, Police Authorities, Lawyers, Courts in this regard — Discussed.

    0
  • Aarti Manchanda Vs. Chander Shekhar Manchanda

    Court:DELHI HIGH COURT
    Conduct of wife of leaving her matrimonial home and never returning back or even making enquiry of her children was enough to lead to irresistible conclusion that she left to bring co-habitation to an end. Husband granted decree of divorce.

    1
  • AJAY KANT & ORS. Vs. ALKA SHARMA

    Court: MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
    Section 482 — Inherent Powers — Exercise of — Availability of alternative remedy — Effect of — Alternative appropriate remedy of appeal available under Section 29 of Act against order of Magistrate — Taking recourse under Section 482, Cr.P.C. not required.

    0
  • KUTTAPPAN Vs. VIJAYAMMA & ORS.

    Court:KERALA HIGH COURT
    Maintenance : Non-payment : Application has to be Filed within one Year of Amount Becoming Due.

    0
  • BANSI LAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

    Court: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
    Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 498A — Cruelty — Proof of offence — Discussed.

    0
  • Ranjana Rani Panda and Ors. Vs. Sanjay Kumar Panda

    Court:HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
    Husband and Wife not interested to live with each other – It would be in interest of parties to sever matrimonial ties since marriage has broken down irretrievably.

    0
  • MANGILAL Vs. RATNAPRABHA & ANR.

    Court: MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
    Wife had no ground to leave the matrimonial house. Maintenance not allowed.

    0
  • KESHAV KUMAR Vs. STATE

    Court: DELHI HIGH COURT
    Marriage between deceased and appellant not established and they had not been cohabiting as husband and wife or living as husband and wife — Question of convicting appellant for offence under Section 498A, IPC does not arise.

    0
  • KOLA EMMANUEL Vs. NALLIPOGU SUNANDA

    Court:ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
    The word ‘impotence’ is not related to a particular gender like male only. It relates to either gender. The criterion is the practical impossibility of consummation of marriage on account of impotency of either the husband or the wife. Incapability of copulation on the part of either of the spouses either due to structural defects in the organs of generation or due to some other cause resulting in non-consummation of marriage is impotence and the said word is equally applicable to both husband and wife.

    0
  • SHIVAJI Vs. ALKA & ANR.

    Court: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
    Minor son not be entitled for maintenance under Section 125, Cr.P.C. from the date on which he attained majority.

    0
  • RANGANATH PARMESHWAR PANDITRAO MALI & ANR. Vs. EKNATH GAJANAN KULKARNI & ANR.

    Court: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
    Factum of marriage — Not established — Legality of a presumption, of living together.

    0
  • SHIKHA Vs. JASVINDER SINGH & ANR.

    Court:PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
    Charge can be established by circumstantial evidence — It is not always possible that witnesses would see one of the spouses with paramour in objectionable posture to prove charge of adultery.

    0
  • HAMIDAN KHATOON & ORS. Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND & ANR.

    Court: JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
    FIR lodged with ulterior motive by way of causing harassment : Its continuance will be abuse of process of Court : Criminal proceedings quashed.

    1
  • KUMARI SALON Vs. SURJIT KUMAR RATTI

    Court:PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
    Both father as well as mother in service. Equally liable to support and maintain minor. Bear expenses in equal shares.

    0
  • VAIDEHI Vs. I. GOPINATH

    Court: MADRAS HIGH COURT
    Writ of Habeas Corpus — Jurisdiction — Marriage of parties dissolved — Husband brought the minor children with him and children are in safe custody to their father. Nothing to show that their morale of health is affected or their lives are in imminent danger so as to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court.

    0
  • Suman Kaushik Vs. N.P. Kaushik

    Court:HIGH COURT OF DELHI
    Divorce on the ground of desertion and cruelty – Parties lived together for 7 months and litigating for 25 years – Husband employed as judicial officer and wife working under government – Wife making various complaints in respect of her husband – An article also published in the newspaper on the basis of interview of wife – Such conduct caused mental agony to the husband – Decree of divorce affirmed.

    0
  • V.P. DHANESH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

    Court: JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
    Cognizance and proceedings under Section 498-A, IPC, legal and cannot be interfered with : Proceeding in respect of offences under Sections 3 and 4, Dowry Prohibition Act quashed.

    0
  • MUHAMMED Vs. KUNHAYISHA

    Court: KERALA HIGH COURT
    Major unmarried daughter not entitled to claim maintenance from her parents unless her inability to maintain herself attributable to her physical or mental abnormality or injury : Her mere status as unmarried daughter, whatever be her religion, does not entitle her to claim maintenance under Section 125, Cr.P.C.

    0
  • SHARDA Vs. DHARMPAL

    Court:Supreme Court of India
    Power of Court to direct medical examination of party to matrimonial litigation not violative of Article 21 of Constitution : Court should exercise such power if applicant has strong prima facie case and there is sufficient material before Court : If despite order of Court, respondent refuses to submit himself to medical examination, Court will be entitled to draw adverse inference against him.

    0
  • Pushpa Devi vs. Om Parkash

    Court: HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT
    Filing of false complaints and threatening the Husband amount to acts of cruelty. Wife used to leave the matrimonial home at her own will, which amounts to desertion. Decree of divorce granted to Husband.

    1
  • HARMANPREET SINGH AHLUWALIA & ORS. Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

    Court:SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
    Allegations contained in FIR made with an ulterior motive to harass appellants. Continuance of criminal proceedings against them would amount to abuse of process of Court.

    4
  • NITHA RANJAN CHAKRABORTY Vs. SMT. KALPANA CHAKRABORTY

    Court:CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
    Major Son not entitled to maintenance.

    0
  • Smt. Sulekha vs Ashok Kumar

    Court:Allahabad High Court
    Annulment of marriage on the grounds of impotency of wife and fraud.

    5
  • HUSSAN LAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.

    Court:PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
    Section 406, 498-A — Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 469 — Criminal Breach of Trust, Cruelty : Limitation for Offence is 3 Years : Limitation shall Commence on Date of Offence.

    0
  • ABDUL MALIK Vs. NASHIM AKHTAR

    Court: GAUHATI HIGH COURT
    Intention and element of permanence construed to be determining factors to identify place to be one of residence of person for purpose of Section 126 CPC.

    0
  • Saraswati Devi Vs. State of Jharkhand

    Court: JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
    Power under Section 311 of the Code can only be exercised, if the Court while hearing the case deems fit and proper to examine some witnesses for the ends of the Justice, to appreciate the prosecution case and to clarify any doubt in his mind. Therefore, it is clear that it is discretion of the trial Court to exercise such power but of course it has to be exercised judicially and not arbitrarily.

    0
  • K. VEMBADURAI Vs. PADMAVATHY

    Court: MADRAS HIGH COURT
    Divorce can be granted where marriage is totally unworkable, emotionally dead beyond salvage and broken down irretrievably, even if facts of case do not provide ground in law. Both Husband and Wife living separately for more than thirty years. Marriage has become dead and no useful purpose would be achieved in keeping marriage alive Husband entitled to divorce on ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage.

    0
  • Jagjit Singh And Anr. vs Ravinder Kour

    Court: Jammu & Kashmir High Court
    Complaint against the petitioner and taking of cognizance by the learned Magistrate under Section 406 RPC and issuance of process being time-barred by law, are quashed because the continuance of the proceedings against the petitioners in the case will amount to abuse of process of law. Therefore, taking of cognizance against the petitioners and issuance of process against them by the learned Magistrate, are hereby quashed.

    0
  • AMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

    Court:ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
    Grant of maintenance to daughters after attaining majority not permissible since their inability to maintain themselves cannot be attributed to any physical or mental abnormality or injury within meaning of Section 125(1)(c), Cr.P.C.

    0
  • Mrs. Manju Sharma vs Dr. J.C. Mehta

    Court:PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
    Daughter in Law does not have a right to stay in property in dispute and cause a nuisance to old couple (FIL and MIL). Ordered to vacate the premises.

    1
  • KEWAL KUMAR Vs. PAWNA DEVI

    Court: HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT
    Dissolution of marriage by mutual consent according to customary law — Under Section 29(2) of Hindu Marriage Act, divorce by custom is saved — Under ancient Hindu Law there was no right of divorce but dissolution of marriage was recognized under various customary laws — Trial Court held that custom does exist and is valid and saved by Section 29(2) of Act — It was held that there was no marriage subsisting between parties.

    0
  • SHAKSON BELTHISSOR Vs. STATE OF KERALA & ANR.

    Court: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
    To constitute cruelty under Section 498A there has to be harassment of the woman with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or a case is to be made out to the effect that there is a failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand — Neither in FIR nor in charge sheet there is any ingredient to prima facie constitute case of cruelty under Section 498A, IPC .

    0
  • VINITA DEVANGAN Vs. RAKESH KUMAR DEVANGAN

    Court: CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT
    It is for wife to plead and prove that she was unable to maintain her for grant of maintenance in Section 125.

    0
  • YERRAM VINOD Vs. STATE OF A.P. & ORS.

    Court: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
    Major children who through some mental or corporal defect or injury are unable to maintain themselves are entitled to maintenance under Section 125(1)(c).

    0
  • SMT. CHHAYA Vs. DR. KASTOOR CHAND JAIN & ANR.

    Court: MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
    Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Sec. 96 — Appeal from original decree — Gift made to bride — Her Stridhana property — Once a gift is made and accepted by doner — Same cannot be revoked subsequently by donor — Right of a widow to recover property given to her Stridhana in marriage — Not defeated by her re-marriage — Respondents liable to return ornaments to the appellant.

    0
  • SANJAY Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

    Court: Supreme Court of India
    Three different dying declarations. Prosecution not proved appellant’s guilt under Section 306, IPC of abetting suicide beyond reasonable doubt. Judgments of High Court and Trial Court U/S 306 and 498A quashed.

    0
  • PRAFULLA KUMAR TONGYA Vs. SMT. SARLA

    Court: MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
    Wife taken away marriage gifts. Proved by husband that respondent deserted him for continuous period of more than two years. Decree of divorce granted.

    0
  • Dr.Rakesh Kapoor vs Mrs.Sapna Kapoor

    Court:Delhi High Court
    Visitation rights granted for twice a month to estranged father of three year old child of parties for a period of one hour on each visitation. Order revised and visitation granted for thrice a month and for 2 hours.

    0
  • KAMLESH Vs. SITARAM

    Court: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
    Wife not able to maintain herself : Word “maintain” used under Section 125, Criminal Procedure Code to be taken in broader sense that petitioner should be able to maintain herself decently to live comfortable life, not necessary luxurious life : Maintenance cannot be denied to wife on ground that she is able to maintain herself.

    0
  • AZAD SINGH & ORS. Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

    Court:PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
    Quashing of FIR : Case registered under Sections 304-B and 498-A, I.P.C. after death of bride after gap of about 2 years : May be out of sheer frustration and to get revenge for death of her daughter, FIR recorded against petitioners : After death of wife, husband entitled to retain her property : No offence under Section 406, I.P.C. made out against petitioner.

    1
  • RAMA KANTA Vs. MOHINDER LAXMIDAS BHANDULA

    Court: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
    Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Sec. 13(1)(ia) — Cruelty — Meaning of Cruelty — Conduct of appellant in matrimonial home — Her threats and attempts to commit suicide — Act of lodging false complaint against her husband — Relations u/Secs. 498-A/34, I.P.C., resulting in acquittal — Are incidents of appellant’s cruel behaviour towards respondent — Making it impossible for respondent to live peacefully with her in conjugal home — Trial Court not fallen into error in holding appellant guilty of offence of cruelty & granting decree of divorce in favour of respondent — Whether correct ? — (Yes).

    0
  • SHANTI DEVI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

    Court:PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
    Allegations appear to be totally vague. Not clear from complaint as to when alleged articles or money demanded or misappropriated or given to bride or bridegroom during marriage. Nothing to show prima facie that those articles dishonestly kept by other family members or they declined to return same. Criminal case prima facie baseless, false and frivolous against mother-in-law, brother-in-law and his wife. Complaint qua quashed.

    0
  • SHEILA B. DAS Vs. P.R. SUGASREE

    Court:SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
    Father not neglected minor or to look after her needs. Father financially stable and not disqualified in any manner from being guardian of minor child. Allegation of apathy not borne out from materials before this Court and not sufficient to make respondent ineligible to act as guardian of minor.

    0
  • ABDUL RAZAK HAJI GULAMBHAI QURESHI Vs. JOHRABIBI HAJI KALUBHAI QURESHI & ANR.

    Court:PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
    Maintenance to Daughter unjustified. Child born during period of wedlock but without father having access to wife at relevant time. Daughter could not, in the eye of law, have status of even an illegitimate child of husband. Impugned order granting maintenance unsustainable, set aside.

    0
  • PRAMOD BIJALWAN Vs. SATENDRA DUTT

    Court:UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
    Cruelty, Desertion — Both grounds proved by respondent — False allegation of adultery against husband or wife is mental cruelty and is ground for divorce — Vague allegations made to defame by petitioner amounts to cruelty — Respondent wife failed to implead as party and prove her allegation of adultery against petitioner — Non-compliance of Rule 13 of Divorce Rules — From statement of appellant it is clear there was no relationship between parties as husband and wife even when they were not resided under single roof since April 2001 — Appellant deserted respondent and did not cohabit with him — Respondent proved both grounds for divorce, i.e., cruelty and desertion — Petition rightly allowed by Trial Court for decree of divorce.

    0
  • Munish Bhasin & Ors vs State

    Court:Supreme Court of India
    Section 438–Anticipatory bail–Offences under Sections 498A and 406 r/w Section 34, I.P.C.–Whether in proceeding under Section 438, Court would be justified in awarding maintenance to wife and child?–Held, “no”–Maintenance can be claimed under Section 125, Cr. P.C.–Hence, condition imposed by High Court while granting anticipatory bail–Directing appellant to pay Rs. 12,500 p.m. as maintenance to his wife and child–Is onerous, unwarranted and set aside.

    1
  • Smt. Kavita vs Shri Rakesh Raman

    Court:Delhi High Court
    While adjudicating matrimonial cases, courts to be cautious and conscious of fact that the holy bond of matrimony involves delicate human emotions and complex situations and often there gets created a chasm which if fortified by court can lead to irredeemable destruction.

    0
  • Falguni @ Anirudh Pradhan and Ors. vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)

    Court: JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
    The complainant had sexual intercourse with the Appellant even before marriage, proved that she had not been induced into marriage.More over,lack of material proof as regards the marriage,rendered the prosecutions story regarding mock marriage baseless & so the offence under Section 498A could not be sustained.

    3
  • PAUL TUSHAR BISWAS Vs. ADDL. DIST. JUDGE, EAST KHASI HILLS DISTRICT & ANR.

    Court: GAUHATI HIGH COURT
    No logic or rationale in permitting parallel proceedings before Court. Illogical to continue proceedings.

    0
  • IN RE : MD. JAHANGIR

    Court:CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
    Maintenance : Magistrate not permitted to impose sentence for more than one month : Impugned order of Magistrate refusing to release husband /petitioner illegal and same set aside.

    0
  • R. LAKSHMI NARAYAN Vs. SANTHI

    Court:SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
    One of the parties incapable of giving consent. Marriage null and void.

    1
  • PRADEEP SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

    Court:PATNA HIGH COURT
    Sections 302/34, 498-A and 201 — Murder, common Intention, Cruelty, Disappearance of Evidence : No eye-witness to occurrence : Defence denied marriage with deceased : Evident from evidence of prosecution witnesses that prosecution failed to establish even marriage of deceased with appellant : Prosecution miserably failed to establish its case against appellant.

    0
  • MERUBHAI MANDANBHAI ODEDARA & ANR. Vs. RANIBEN MERUBHAI ODEDARA

    Court: GUJARAT HIGH COURT
    Maintenance-Quantum Fixation according to income.

    0
  • PINKI JAIN Vs. SANJAY JAIN

    Court:Delhi High Court
    Act of Wife in filing false complaint case and getting her Husband and other in-laws arrested clearly amounts to cruelty. Decree of divorce passed.

    3
  • Vikas Aggarwal vs Anubha

    Court:Supreme Court of India
    Divorce petition in H.C. on original side. Direction to appear- Non Appearance-Defence rightly struck off.

    2
  • Palaniammal vs K. Chinnusamy

    Court: Madras High Court
    Lump-sum payment evidenced by a deed. Husband’s obligation to maintain discharged.

    0
  • MALAKALA RAMU @ RAMAM Vs. MAMMIDI GOPALMURTHY

    Court: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
    Custody of Child : Welfare of Minor : Paramount Consideration — No material to hold that interests of minor children would be jeopardised, if custody granted to their natural father — Respondent gainfully employed in Vijayawada — If children given in his custody, he would admit them in good school and able to provide reasonable requirements for their upbringing.

    0
  • SAJU SASIDHARAN Vs. DHANYA & ANR.

    Court:KERALA HIGH COURT
    Maintenance pendente lite — Oral request for such relief cannot be entertained by Family Court — Order passed by Family Court granting interim maintenance set aside.

    3
  • KAILASH JUNEJA Vs. PREETI JUNEJA

    Court:DELHI HIGH COURT
    Husband has the right to cross examine Wife.

    0
  • PENCHALA SADAIAH & ORS. Vs. STATE OF A.P.

    Court: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
    Prosecution failed to prove cruelty or harassment for not fulfilling demand for additional dowry and failed to prove offence under Section 498A, IPC. Husband not found guilty of offences under Sections 304-B and 498-A, IPC and entitled for acquittal.

    2
  • ARTI PANDEY Vs. VISHNU KANT TIWARI

    Court: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
    Appellant-wife has treated respondent with mental cruelty and permanently deserted respondent-husband in terms of Section 13(1)(ia), (ib) of Act. Lodging of FIR and spate of complaints with all sorts of allegations by wife against husband is indicative of fact that there was no desire on part of wife to continue marital relation with husband. Divorce granted.

    0
  • ALORA SUNDARAN Vs. MAMMALI SUMATHI & ANR.

    Court:KERALA HIGH COURT
    Magistrate has power to sentence Husband for not more than 1 month if there is default in payment of maintenance.

    1
  • Harjinder Kaur vs Narinder Singh Mangat

    Court:PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
    Mere presumption or apprehension is not sufficient for a case to be transferred. A transfer should not readily be granted for any fancied notion of a litigant. The yardstick is “in the interest of justice”. The applicants should repose confidence in judicial process.

    0
  • RAJKISHORE MISHRA & ANR. Vs. STATE & ANR.

    Court: ORISSA HIGH COURT
    Parties have agreed for dissolution of their marriage. Continuance of criminal case under Section 498-A, I.P.C. against husband and mother-in-law of wife not in interest of justice.

    0
  • GANGI DEVI Vs. ALAM CHAND

    Court: HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT
    Wife not entitled to maintenance; if living separately without reasonable cause — Petitioner living separately without any reasonable cause — Not entitled to maintenance.

    1
  • SANGEETA S. CHUGH Vs. RAM NARAYAN V. & OTHERS

    Court: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
    Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Sec. 24 — Transfer petition — Allegations against Presiding Officer — Held that it cannot be expected that Judges should be silent without expressing any opinion — Spinex like attitude not expected from Presiding Officer especially when trying a matrimonial case or litigation between very near relations.

    0
  • MOHD. HOSHAN, A.P. & ANR. Vs. STATE OF A.P.

    Court:Supreme Court of India
    Appellants in Imprisonment for about two Months : Appellant No. 2 is Mother of Appellant No. 1 and Aged 60 Years : Both Appellants on Bail and not Appropriate to Send them to Jail again : Just and Proper to Modify Sentence of Imprisonment for Period Already Undergone — Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 306, 498-A.

    0
  • SHIV INDERSEN MIRCHANDANI & ORS. Vs. NATASHA HARISH ADVANI & ORS.

    Court: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
    Foreign Judgment shall not be recognised if not Pronounced by Court of Competent Jurisdiction : General and Well Established Rule of Private International Law is that Wife’s Domicile Follows Domicile of Husband — Competency of Court to be decided with reference to question of jurisdiction — If Court has no jurisdiction it is not competent Court to pass decree.

    1
  • PHOOL CHANDRA JAIN & ORS. Vs. STATE OF M.P.

    Court: MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
    Complainant wife lodged report against her husband, accused — Who alleged to demand dowry and maltreat her — During course of arguments, complainant and her husband mutually settled their differences amicably — Decided to live together — Petition for grant of anticipatory bail allowed.

    0
  • MALAYAIAH Vs. G.S. VASANTHA LAKSHMI & ORS.

    Court:KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
    No maintenance if separation by mutual consent. Wife living separately from her husband by consent–– Cannot enforce her right and ask for maintenance.

    0
  • SMT. KAMALSHRI @ PRIYA JAIN Vs. PRAMOD KUMAR

    Court: MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
    Statements of witnesses prove behaviour of appellant/wife due to her mental illness was so apprehensive/reprehensive that it was torture for respondent-husband to live with her : Mental agony and affliction caused to respondent/husband by hazardous act and conduct of appellant/wife establishes mental disorder of appellant/wife was of such kind and so extensive that it was not possible for respondent/husband to live normal peaceful life with his wife : Trial Court rightly dissolved marriage by decree of divorce on ground mentioned under Section 13(1)(iii) of Act.

    1
  • MIRAPALA VENKATARAMANA Vs. MIRAPALA PEDDIRAJU

    Court: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
    Adulterer necessary party and ought to be made second respondent.

    0
  • KISHAN SINGH & ANR. Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

    Court:Supreme Court of India
    Acquittal of Husband in 498A on the ground that the He was not staying with the Wife regularly and used to come only for a few days as he was working in the Army.

    0
  • SONU & ORS. Vs. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.

    Court:DELHI HIGH COURT
    Territorial Jurisdiction — Criminal Breach of Trust, Cruelty — Transfer of FIR — Writ of mandamus — No allegation in FIR that part of crime committed in Delhi — Parties never lived in Delhi — Marriage took place in U.P. — Matrimonial home was in Patiala and alleged crime of dowry allegedly committed in Patiala (Punjab) — There is no illegality in registration of FIR in Delhi, but retaining of FIR with PS, Malviya Nagar raises doubt about bona fides of SHO — SHO, PS Malviya Nagar directed to transfer FIR in question to concerned PS at Patiala (Punjab) where offence committed.

    1
  • SONU KUMAR & ORS. Vs. STATE OF DELHI

    Court:DELHI HIGH COURT
    No specific instance of harassment has been alleged by relatives of Wife. Prosecution has not led any evidence to establish alleged harassment of Wife by Husband.

    0
  • VITTHAL HIRAJI JADHAV Vs. HARNABAI VITTHAL JADHAV & ANR.

    Court:BOMBAY HIGH COURT
    Husband and Wife living separately by mutual consent. Wife loses right to claim alimony from such husband.

    0
  • ROHIT SHEKHAR Vs. NARAYAN DUTT TIWARI & ANR.

    Court:DELHI HIGH COURT
    Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 39 Rules 1, 2, Order 12 Rule 8, Order 11, Order 16, Section 36 — Evidence Act, 1872 — Sections 112, 114 — Constitution of India, 1950 — Art. 21 — Perpetual Injunction —Restraining respondent No. 1 from denying in public or otherwise paternity of appellant and to submit himself for DNA test — Once Supreme Court has held civil Court entitled to issue such a direction, law in other jurisdiction pales into insignificance — Order directing respondent No. 1 to undergo DNA testing was an order in exercise of powers by Court under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC and not in exercise of powers as under Order 12 Rule 8 or Order 11 or Order 16, CPC, for non-compliance whereof adverse inference is permitted to be drawn — A Court of law cannot sit still with folded hands and countenance its injunction being treated with indifference or scant courtesy by party against whom it is directed and who is bound to obey its terms — This is particularly so when such injunction has been confirmed in appeal and stay rejected by Supreme Court — Impugned…

    0
  • GANGA SHARAN DHAWAN Vs. STATE OF DELHI

    Court:DELHI HIGH COURT
    Since all the disputes have been resolved between the Husband and the Wife , and the terms and conditions have been implemented, no useful purpose will be served to award substantive sentence to the Husband under Section 498A IPC.

    0
  • SHANKAR CHAKRAVARTY Vs. PUSPITA CHAKRAVARTY

    Court: JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
    Parties living separate from each other. No chance of their living together. Better that both parties be permanently allowed to live separate from each other. Decree of divorce allowed.

    1
  • SMT. SURBHI AGRAWAL Vs. SANJAY AGRAWAL

    Court: MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
    Cruelty in the Act not envisaged to acts of physical violence and may extend to behaviour causing pain and injury to mind and to render continuance in matrimonial home an ordeal making it impossible for them to live together without mental agony, torture or distress — Acts and conducts amounting to mental cruelty have some times more devastating effect than acts of physical violence.

    1
  • VINEETA DEVI Vs. BABLU THAKUR & ANR.

    Court: JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
    Statutory provision by which “Wife” has been defined cannot be liberalized in terms of Section 125, Cr.PC — Statute sanctions an illegitimate child from father is entitled for maintenance but such sanction of maintenance not provided under law in respect of woman not lawfully married with a person.

    0
  • Chandraprakash Vs. Pushpa Bai Kushwah

    Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
    Bail granted to Husband in connection to a case registered under Section 31 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act.

    0
  • BRIJ MOHAN Vs. STATE

    Court:DELHI HIGH COURT
    No allegation of cruelty is borne out against appellant. No grievance about ill-treatment meted out to the deceased much less any demand of dowry. No prior complaint or any contemporaneous document has been placed on record to elucid the demand of dowry and harassment by appellant. Version of witness is full of improvements and embellishment which cannot be relied upon. Appellant is acquitted of charge punishable under Section 498A, IPC for which he has been convicted.

    1
  • Smt. Kanchan Upadhyay Vs. State Of U.P.

    Court:Allahabad High Court
    Wife cannot claim restoration of possession.

    0
  • MANJU RAM KALITA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

    Court:Supreme Court of India
    Section 498A — Cruelty — Determination of — Factor to be considered, discussed — Petty quarrels cannot be termed as cruelty to attract provisions of Section 498A — Causing mental torture to the extent that it becomes unbearable may be termed as cruelty.

    3
  • NINAD Vs. SANJAY

    Court:BOMBAY HIGH COURT
    Divorced Wife has enough means to maintain herself, grant of maintenance only to Son.

    0
  • ANITA DEVI Vs. PRADYUMAN PRASAD YADAV

    Court:PATNA HIGH COURT
    In retaliation to divorce case criminal case filed by Wife Conduct of appellant negates her claim. Husband able to prove grounds of cruelty.

    0
  • Vishnu & Ors vs Jaya

    Court:Supreme Court of India
    If the children are forcibly taken away from their father and handed over to the mother, it will only traumatize them and it will not do any good to anybody. Custody of children to remain with Father.

    0
  • RAJBABU & ANR. Vs. STATE OF M.P.

    Court:Supreme Court of India
    Nothing on record against Mother-in-Law for cruel act towards Wife. No statement of Father of Wife regarding cruelty being committed on his daughter in her in-laws’ house.

    0
  • SANGITABEN RASIKLAL JAISWAL Vs. SANJAY KUMAR RATILAL JAISWAL, MEHSANA

    Court:GUJARAT HIGH COURT
    Merely because the husband is possessing valuable movable and immovable properties it is hardly of any relevance in the matter for grant of temporary maintenance.

    0
  • NEELAM BISHT Vs. NARENDRA SINGH BISHT

    Court:UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
    Merely for the reason that wife is suffering from illness, no justification on part of wife for deserting her husband and live in adultery. Divorce on ground of desertion.

    0
  • SUSMITA MOHANTY Vs. RABINDRA NATH SAHU

    Court: ORISSA HIGH COURT
    Where order silent about date then maintenance shall be payable from date of order.

    1
  • SUDHANSHU MAULI TRIPATHI Vs. MEENA KUMARI & ANR.

    Court:PATNA HIGH COURT
    Act of Wife in neither willing to return to matrimonial home nor allowing peaceful divorce to petitioner, proves beyond any doubt that there is no chance of marriage being retrieved and continuance of such marriage would itself amount to cruelty.

    0
  • C. MEENA Vs. C. SURESH KUMAR

    Court:ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
    The grounds on which a decree for Judicial separation can be passed are the same as that of a decree for divorce. So unless a case for divorce is made out, the question of granting judicial separation does not arise.

    0
  • RINA SARKAR Vs. PARITOSH SARKAR AND ANOTHER

    Court:CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
    Alleged mal treatment/torture not proved by Wife. Maintenance denied.

    3
  • A. SREENIVASA RAO & ORS. Vs. STATE OF A.P.

    Court:ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
    Marriage is already dissolved. Domestic Violence Act will not apply.

    2
  • Rajinder Kumar vs State (Delhi Admn.)

    Court:Delhi High Court
    After having a finding that there is no allegation for demand of dowry, there is no scope for trial.

    0
  • NIRAJ TRIVEDI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.

    Court:DELHI HIGH COURT
    FIR to be registered at place of crime.

    1
  • KIRAN BALA ASTHANA AND ANOTHER Vs. BHAIRO PRASAD SRIVASTAVA

    Court:ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
    Wife was suffering from Mental Illness.This material fact concealed hence Annulment.

    0
  • Dimple Jatin Khanna @ Dimple Vs. Anita Advani And Anr

    Court:Bombay High Court
    For DV, Relationship in the nature of marriage is a must. Relatives who did not share household cant be made respondents.

    1
  • G. Ramanathan vs Revathy

    Court:Madras High Court
    Wife cannot seek the same relief from JM court when matter is pending in Civil Court.

    2
  • SAVITRI DEVI Vs. MANOJ KUMAR & ANR.

    Court:DELHI HIGH COURT
    Property neither belongs to Husband nor taken on rent by him nor joint family property of which Husband is a member. Said property cannot be regarded as “shared household” as defined under Section 2(s) of Domestic Violence Act.

    2
  • MANJU DUTTA Vs. STATE & ORS.

    Court: Delhi High Court
    Return of charge-sheet on ground of lack of jurisdiction.

    0
  • DILIP KUMAR Vs. FAMILY COURT, GORAKHPUR

    Court: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
    Confinement can be only for Period of One Month Even if Default of Maintenance is of More than One Month. Warrant for Recovery of Unpaid Maintenance to be Executed Like Warrant of Recovery of Fine.

    0
  • Kumaresan vs Aswathi

    Court:Madras High Court
    Condition required for grant of maintenance pendente lite is the party should not have sufficient independent income for her/his support. Maintenance denied to working wife.

    3
  • MAYA RAM Vs. KAMLA DEVI

    Court: HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT
    Child born during subsistence of marriage or during 280 days after its delivery shall be conclusive proof that it is legitimate child. Unless proved by clear and strong evidence that husband and wife did not and could not have any access at time when child could have been begotten.

    0
  • VARDHI Vs. NARAYAN LAL & ORS.

    Court: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
    Ex parte decree upon application filed by respondent-husband under Section 9 of Act, was passed against appellant-wife, before she filed application under Section 13 of Act — Appellant did not attend Court even after service of notice — She did not comply with decree and living separately in spite of fact that decree under Section 9 has already been passed by Family Court Judge — Trial Court rightly concluded that respondent husband has not deserted appellant — There is no question to accept application under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act for grant of divorce on ground of desertion — With regard to allegation of cruelty, appellant admitted that before filing divorce petition, FIR under Sections 498-A and 406, IPC filed against respondent and he was acquitted from charges levelled against him — Appellant-wife pleaded that she had no knowledge of acquittal — Family Court committed no error rejecting application filed by appellant for granting divorce under Section 13 of Act in view of decree granted in favour of respondent under Section 9 of Act.

    0
  • Desh Deepak Kapoor Vs. The State (Delhi Administration)

    Court:Delhi High Court
    In order to substantiate a charge under Section 498A IPC, prosecution to prove that there was a demand for dowry, failure whereof renders conviction there-under unsustainable.

    0
  • Gurbinder Singh vs Manjit Kaur

    Court:Delhi High Court
    Wife guilty of contempt of court. Maintenance denied with cost.

    0