- Home
- /
- High Courts
- /
- Delhi High Court
- /
- Delhi High Court Annual Family Law...
Delhi High Court Annual Family Law Digest 2023
Nupur Thapliyal
8 Jan 2024 9:11 AM GMT
LiveLaw brings to you Delhi High Court Digest on Family law cases from the year 2023.Law Doesn't Permit Husband To Take Away Wife's Household Articles, Jewellery Without Her Consent And Knowledge: Delhi High Court Title: AKSHAY DHINGRA v. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 3 The Delhi High Court has observed that the law does not permit a husband to take...
LiveLaw brings to you Delhi High Court Digest on Family law cases from the year 2023.
Title: AKSHAY DHINGRA v. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI)
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 3
The Delhi High Court has observed that the law does not permit a husband to take away the wife's household articles including jewellery without her consent and knowledge.
Observing that no person can be allowed to take law in his own hands with an excuse that the parties are litigating, Justice Amit Mahajan observed:
“Only because a complaint of wife in relation to istridhan is pending, does not mean that the husband can be allowed to surreptitiously throw the wife out of the matrimonial house and take away the articles.”
Title: NT v. VT
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 107
Expressing a prima facie view, the Delhi High Court has said that the protection under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is not available to a husband or male member of the family, in view of sections 2(a) of the statute.
Section 2(a) defines an “aggrieved person” as any woman who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the 'respondent' and alleges to have been subjected to any act of domestic violence.
Justice Jasmeet Singh was hearing a plea moved by a wife challenging the proceedings initiated by her husband under section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act.
Title: DB v. RB
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 153
While upholding dissolution of a couple's marriage on the ground of cruelty, the Delhi High Court has observed that repeated use of derogatory and humiliating words by the wife against husband and his family amounts to cruelty.
The court said every person is entitled to live with dignity and honour, and no one can be expected to live with constant abuse being hurled upon him.
Title: RKY v. MD
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 207
The Delhi High Court has observed that an individual marrying a person who has a child cannot be allowed to argue later that the child is not his or her responsibility.
“When a person solemnizes a marriage with a person who already has a child, said person shall be presumed to have undertaken the responsibility of the child and also cannot later be permitted to contend that the child is not his/her responsibility,” a division bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Vikas Mahajan observed.
Right To Residence In Matrimonial Home Includes Right To Safe And Healthy Living: Delhi High Court
Title: NG v. SG & ANR
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 285
The Delhi High Court has observed that the right to residence in a matrimonial home under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, also includes the right to safe and healthy living.
While issuing notice on a wife's plea challenging the order passed by the First Appellate Court in a civil case relating to matrimonial dispute, Justice Tushar Rao Gedela said:
“…. it goes without saying that the right to residence in a matrimonial home, under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, also would subsume within itself, the definition of “right to safe and healthy living” too. Hence, requiring interference by this Court.”
Title: SD v. RKB
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 331
The Delhi High Court has held that either party to a marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, can marry again if no appeal is filed against an ex-parte decree of divorce within the period of limitation.
A division bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Vikas Mahajan said that section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act enables the parties to marry again only after the decree of divorce has become final.
“Therefore, in case of an ex parte decree of divorce also it shall be lawful for either party to the marriage to marry again if no appeal is filed against such decree within the period of limitation,” the court said.
Title: SA v. MA
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 390
The Delhi High Court has observed that a wife can seek production of evidence or documents to prove the charge of adultery levelled by her against the husband in a divorce petition before family court and same will be in consonance with section 14 of Family Courts Act.
“….when a wife seeks the help of the Court for procuring evidence which would go a long way to prove adultery on the part of her husband, the Court must step in; this would be in consonance with Section 14 of the Family Courts Act which gives a leeway to the Court to consider evidence which may be not admissible or relevant under the Indian Evidence Act,” Justice Rekha Palli said.
Title: X & Y v. Z
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 391
The Delhi High Court has directed preservation of guest register, booking invoices, CCTV footage of a hotel based in Goa and phone records of a husband, whose wife has sought divorce on the ground that he was living in adultery with another woman.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma clarified that the records will not be handed over to any of the parties but will be preserved by the concerned third persons and produced before the trial court only in case they are directed to do so at the appropriate stage of trial.
Title: SMT. CHETNA RATHEE v. CHAHIT KUNDU
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 426
The Delhi High Court has observed that the family courts are expected to not adopt a “hyper-technical approach” and close the right of cross examination of a party in a hurried manner while dealing with matrimonial cases.
Justice Rekha Palli made the observation while setting aside an order passed by the family court rejecting a wife's application for restoration of her right to cross examine the husband, who had appeared as a prosecution witness.
Title: RITU CHERNALIA v. AMAR CHERNALIA & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 440
The Delhi High Court has ruled that a daughter in law does not have an indefeasible right in a “shared household” and that the in-laws cannot be excluded from the same.
“Thus, the concept of 'shared household' clearly provides that the right of the daughter-in-law in a shared household is not an indefeasible right and cannot be to the exclusion of the in-laws,” Justice Prathiba M Singh said in an order passed on May 22.
Title: VK & ANR versus STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 441
The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR against a husband, who was accused of cruelty by his wife after the couple settled their differences. Besides dissolving the marriage by a decree of divorce under mutual consent, the wife also paid her husband an amount of Rs.12 Lakh towards all his claims.
"Out of the said amount, an amount of Rs.6 lacs was paid by the respondent no.2 [wife] to the petitioner no.1 [husband] at the time of recording of the statement of the first motion on 06.01.2023 and the remaining amount of Rs. 6 lacs was paid at the time of recording of the statement of the second motion, the receipt of which is acknowledged by the petitioner no.1," the court recorded in the order.
Title: XXX vs. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 461
Terming it a case with an unusual prayer, the Delhi High Court has dismissed a woman's plea seeking directions for her husband and father-in-law to submit their DNA Samples before a DNA profiling agency in Rohini. The woman along with her two children had approached the court after the father-in-law allegedly "cast doubt" on their identity by claiming that "they are not Mehtas* but Aroras*".
Case Title: Vikram Ruhal v. Delhi Police & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 478
Observing that merely naming in the FIR does not lead to an inference that the employer can keep in abeyance the employment of an applicant for an indefinite period, the Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Police to appoint a candidate to the Sub Inspector post, whose employment was kept pending till the disposal of the FIR pending against him.
Title: RS v. MB
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 510
The Delhi High Court has observed that a revisional court, while considering the grant of stay of the interim maintenance order passed under section 125 of CrPC, cannot put a general direction of depositing the entire maintenance amount by ignoring the facts of circumstances of the case.
“While exercising the revisional scrutiny of an interim maintenance order passed in proceedings under Section 125 CrPC, the revisional court for yet another reason cannot impose as a pre-condition to grant of stay on operation of the assailed interim maintenance order, such general rider of deposit of the entire amount of awarded maintenance ignoring the overall circumstances of the case,” a vacation bench of Justice Girish Kathpalia observed.
Title: KD v. VS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 579
The Delhi High Court has sentenced a business tycoon's son to three months in prison for failing to pay maintenance to a woman — who previously alleged that he performed a sham marriage ceremony with her, despite a judicial order recording his undertaking to pay the same.
Maintenance Case: Delhi High Court Sets Aside Arrest Warrant Against Man With Bipolar Disorder
Case Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 599
Ruling that the provision under Section 105 of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 is mandatory in nature, the Delhi High Court has set aside an arrest warrant against a man, who said he is suffering from Bipolar Disorder, Generalized Anxiety Disorder and Depression.
The warrant had been issued by the court below in an execution petition filed by the man's wife in relation to an order directing him to pay a maintenance of over Rs.1 lakh per month to her and their minor daughter under Domestic Violence Act.
Title: NJ v. AJ
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 630
The Delhi High Court has observed that the act of an estranged wife taking recourse to law by initiating legal action and filing petitions will not amount to cruelty qua the husband.
“Merely because appellant (estranged wife) had taken recourse to law by initiating legal action before a court of law, it would not amount to cruelty. Taking recourse to law, cannot be, by any stretch of imagination, labeled as an instance of cruelty,” a division bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Manoj Jain said.
Title: RAVINDER SINGH BHASIN v. KANWALJIT KAUR & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 645
The Delhi High Court has said that the family court should not give an adjournment for long period while referring the parties to a matrimonial dispute to a Court Counsellor for exploring the possibility of a settlement.
While preponing a matrimonial dispute pending before a family court which was adjourned to October 18, Justice Navin Chawla said:
“Even though the order records that there are approximately 4000 matrimonial cases of various nature pending before the learned Family Court, such a long adjournment is still not warranted. The Court has to keep a watch on the petition/counseling proceedings that take place before the Court Counselor on a regular basis, and such watch cannot happen if the Court adjourns the matter for such a long date.”
Title: ANURAG GOEL v. CHHAVI AGARWAL
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 669
The Delhi High Court has held a wife guilty of contempt of court for wilfully violating a settlement agreement with her husband and disobeying the undertaking to abide by the same given to the family court.
Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora imposed a penalty of Rs. 2,000 on the wife and also sentenced her to one month of simple imprisonment, considering that she “deliberately, wilfully, intentionally and defiantly” disobeyed the undertaking despite various opportunities were granted to her, “only with an intent to enhance her financial settlement with the husband.”
False Allegations Of Illicit Relationship Are Ultimate Kind Of Cruelty: Delhi High Court
Case Title: LK v. OPM
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 694
Upholding a family court order granting decree of divorce to a husband on the ground of mental cruelty by wife, the Delhi High Court has observed that false allegations of illicit relationship are “ultimate kind of cruelty.”
“False allegations of illicit relationship are the ultimate kind of cruelty as it reflects a complete breakdown of trust and faith amongst the spouses without which no matrimonial relationship can survive,” a division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said.
Case Title: NARENDER BHUTANI v. ANJALI BHUTANI
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 695
The Delhi High Court has directed its Registry to register a case of criminal contempt against a man for making scandalous allegations against a Principal Judge of a family court in the national capital.
“The Registry is directed to register a case of Criminal Contempt against the petitioner and subject to the orders of Hon'ble the Chief Justice, place the same before an appropriate Division Bench of this Court,” Justice Navin Chawla said.
Case Title: SAGAR v. THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT)
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 720
Observing that discovering husband's infidelity shortly after marriage can have devastating effects on the mental and emotional well-being of a woman, the Delhi High Court has denied bail to a husband accused of abetting suicide of his wife who was found dead within 13 days after marriage.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed that the emotional trauma of discovering infidelity and subsequent ill behavior of a spouse can drive a woman to take extreme steps to the extent of committing suicide.
Case Title: SMT. K.S. SUMI MOL v. SH. SURESH KUMAR E.K.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 728
The Delhi High Court has issued a slew of directions to the family courts in the national capital for speedy disposal of cases relating to marriage and family affairs within a time frame, in the absence of any specific Rules regarding the same.
A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna directed that when a suit has been duly instituted, summons may be issued to the defendant to appear and answer the claim and to file the written statement of defence within 30 days.
Case Title: SJ v. S
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 736
The Delhi High Court has held that wife's insistence to live separately from other family members of the husband without any justifiable reason can be termed as an act of 'cruelty'.
A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna added that such acrimonious atmosphere at home cannot be a conducive environment for a married couple to forge a cordial conjugal relationship.
Case Title: KSG v. P
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 737
The Delhi High Court has observed that a wife's conduct of making false allegations against the husband and his family members and a constant threat to them regarding being summoned to the police station are acts of cruelty which severely impact mental balance.
A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna allowed a husband's appeal against a family court order dismissing his petition seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion by the wife.
Case Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 747
The Delhi High Court has observed that insistence of a wife's family for her husband to abandon his parents, become a “Ghar Jamai” and live in their house amounts to cruelty.
A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna granted divorce to a couple, who got married in 2001 and started living separately after a year, on the ground of cruelty and desertion under the Hindu Marriage Act.
Husband Has No Right To Torture Wife And Beat Her Merely Because They Are Married: Delhi High Court
Case Title: RS v. AS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 759
While dissolving a decade old marriage of a couple, the Delhi High Court has observed that no law has given husband the right to subject his wife to beatings and torture merely because they got married.
“ Merely because the parties got married and the respondent was her husband, no law gave him the right to subject his wife to beatings and torture,” a division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said.
Recovery Of Drugs From Couple's Bedroom Is Attributable To Both Husband And Wife: Delhi High Court
Case Title: DIXITA GOLWALA vs NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 773
The Delhi High Court observed that recovery of drugs from the bedroom of a couple is attributable to both the husband and wife.
The court made the observation in a bail plea filed by the woman who was arrested in 2021 after drugs were recovered from the couple's bedroom at their residence and from the husband's office premises.
Title: ZAHIR ABDULLAH & ANR v. OMAR ABDULLAH and other connected matter
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 774
The Delhi High Court on Thursday directed former Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Omar Abdullah to pay interim maintenance of Rs. 1,50,000 per month to his estranged wife Payal Abdullah.
Justice Subramonium Prasad increased the amount of interim maintenance from Rs. 75,000 which was directed by the family court in April 2018.
Case Title: A v. S
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 780
The Delhi High Court has observed that making false allegations of dowry harassment or rape against the husband's family members is an act of extreme cruelty for which there can be no condonation.
A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna upheld a family court order which held a husband as entitled to divorce from his wife on the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
CaseTitle: RAJESH KUMARI v. DHIRAJ & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 789
The Delhi High Court has observed that merely because the relationship between the parents has turned acrimonious, resulting in FIRs and making serious allegations against each other, cannot be a ground to deny an attempt at re-establishing the bond between a mother and her minor child.
Case Title: Mamta v. Pradeep Kumar
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 790
The Delhi High Court has made some striking observations with respect to the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 not recognizing incompatibility of a married couple as a ground for divorce, leaving such couples to "suffer acrimonious relationship" with no exit.
" Unless the opposite party was shown to be at fault, whether it was for 'Adultery', 'Cruelty', 'Desertion' or other grounds as specified under Section 13 of the Act, 1955, no divorce can be granted. With the passage of time, experience has shown that many a times, the marriages do not work because of incompatibility and temperamental differences, for which neither party can be blamed. However, since only Fault Theory prevails, these parties end up warring with each other for years to come only because they have no way of exiting this relationship " a division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna observed.
Case Title: PREETI v. VIKAS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 791
The Delhi High Court has observed that while looking at acts of 'mental cruelty', the courts must look at the married life of a couple as a whole and not merely a few isolated incidents.
A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna also observed that mere filing of an FIR by wife is not sufficient to prove the allegations of cruelty and dowry harassment without being proved by cogent evidence.
'Mental Cruelty' Wide Enough To Include 'Financial Instability' Of Spouse: Delhi High Court
Case Title: PW v. RW
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 798
The Delhi High Court has ruled that term “mental cruelty” is wide enough to take within its ambit the “financial instability” of a spouse.
“In the present case, it is easy to decipher the mental trauma as the appellant [wife] was working and the respondent [husband] was not working. There was a huge disparity in the financial status of the appellant and the respondent. The endeavours of the respondent to be able to sustain himself had admittedly failed. Such kind of financial instability is bound to result in mental anxiety on account of husband being not settled in any business or profession which resulted in other vices, can be termed as a constant source of mental cruelty to the appellant. The term “mental cruelty” is wide enough to take within its ambit the “financial instability”” a division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said.
Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 820
The Delhi High Court has said that a wife cannot be entitled to maintenance by the husband when she is highly qualified and has been earning even after her marriage, though she does not truthfully disclose her true income.
While upholding a family court order dismissing a wife's application for maintenance under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, a division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said:
“We find that in the present case it is not only that the appellant is highly qualified and has an earning capacity, but in fact she has been earning, though has not been inclined to truthfully disclose her true income. Such a person cannot be held entitled to maintenance.”
Case Title: MALINI CHAUDHRI v. RANJIT CHAUDHRI & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 827
The Delhi High Court has observed that a divorced daughter is not a “dependent” under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, and that she is not entitled to claim maintenance from the estate of her deceased father.
“An unmarried or widowed daughter is recognized to have a claim in the estate of the deceased, but a “divorced daughter” does not feature in the category of dependents entitled to maintenance,” a division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna observed.
Case Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 831
The Delhi High Court has observed that a husband living with another woman, after long years of separation from his wife with no possibility of re-union during the pendency of the divorce petition, cannot disentitle him from seeking divorce on proven grounds of cruelty by the wife.
A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said that the allegations of cruelty made in criminal cases by the wife should be substantiated in divorce proceedings.
Title: RD v. VD
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 852
The Delhi High Court has ruled that constant rejection and non-acknowledgment of the husband in a marriage by his wife is a source of “great mental agony” for him.
A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna upheld a family court order granting divorce to a husband on the ground of cruelty by his wife. The couple got married in March 2011 and started living separated just after six months.
Title: ABC v. XYZ
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 854
Observing that a child is the worst victim where there is acrimonious relationship between the parents, the Delhi High Court has said that a minor's age and the surrounding circumstances of the period of separation from a parent are relevant while considering his or her 'intelligent preference'.
A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna made the observation while referring to Section 17(3) of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, which states that while appointing a guardian, court may consider preference of a minor in case he or she is old enough to form an “intelligent preference”
Title: D v. AK
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 855
The Delhi High Court has ruled that irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not a ground for seeking divorce and that Family Courts must strictly restrict their considerations to the statutory provisions like those under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
While discussing the theory of breakdown of marriage, a division bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Vikas Mahajan said that irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not a ground for grant of divorce under the enactment.
Case Title: J v. ND
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 866
The Delhi High Court has observed that a wife's misrepresentation about having 'sufficient means' to set up business cannot be said to be of the nature as would amount to 'fraud or concealment' of material fact entitling the husband to seek annulment of marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna made the observations while dismissing a husband's appeal challenging a family court order dismissing his petition for annulment of marriage on the ground of fraud by the wife under Section 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Case Title: KOMAL GUPTA v. AMRENDRA KUMAR GUPTA
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 875
The Delhi High Court has observed that family courts have to be a little liberal in family disputes and that the stringent test, as may be applicable to commercial disputes, cannot be applied in such cases.
Dealing with a case where a family court closed a wife's right to file her written statement in the divorce proceedings, Justice Navin Chawla said:
“It is to be remembered that closing of the right to file written statement would result in grave personal consequences to the party concerned. The approach of the learned Family Court, therefore, has to be guided by the object of the Family Court, rather than the technicality of law.”
Family Courts Can't Compel Parties To Take Divorce If Not Mutually Acceptable: Delhi High Court
Title: ABC v. XYZ
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 877
The Delhi High Court has said that family courts cannot compel the parties to take divorce if not mutually acceptable and that their approach must be reconciliatory.
A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna made the observation while dismissing a husband's appeal against a family court order rejecting his contempt petition against the wife for not having abided by the MoU whereby they had agreed to take divorce by mutual consent.
Case Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 895
The Delhi High Court has observed that making friends at workplace or otherwise when both husband and wife have been living separately due to work exigencies cannot be termed as cruelty.
A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna observed that a person who is living alone may find solace by having friends, and merely because such individual used to talk to friends can neither be held to be an act of ignoring the spouse nor a cruel act.
Title: AS v. NN
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 897
The Delhi High Court has observed that if a wife starts working to supplement daily expenditure for herself and the child due to financial crunch, it is not a ground to reduce maintenance payable to her by her husband.
A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna dismissed a husband's appeal challenging a family court order refusing to modify monthly maintenance of Rs. 8,000 to the wife and Rs. 3,000 for the minor child.
Case Title: X v. Y
Citation:2023 LiveLaw (Del) 932
The Delhi High Court has observed that for a married couple to be deprived of the conjugal relationship and of each other's company is an act of extreme cruelty.
A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna upheld a family court order granting divorce to a husband under Section 13 (1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956, on the ground of cruelty by wife.
Wife's Claim For Separate Residence Under 'Justified Circumstances' Not Cruelty: Delhi High Court
Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 948
The Delhi High Court has observed that a wife's claim for separate residence under “justified circumstances” cannot be term as an act of cruelty to the husband.
“There may be myriad situations such as differences with the in-laws, her own work commitments or difference of opinion which may make her demand for separate accommodation justified for survival of the marriage. Where there exist certain justifiable reasons, claim for a separate residence per se cannot be termed as an act of cruelty,” a division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said.
Title: MASTER ADITYA VIKRAM KANSAGRA & ANR. v. PERRY KANSAGARA
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 957
The Delhi High Court has held that the maintenance proceedings under Section 18 and 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, are not suits and the “ad valorem” court fee is not liable to be paid in such cases.
A division bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Vikas Mahajan observed that imposition of a condition on a wife or a child who have been neglected and do not have sufficient means to maintain themselves to pay the ad valorem court fees calculated on ten times the amount claimed for one year would be “discriminatory, unreasonable and onerous.”
Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 971
The Delhi High Court has observed that where both the spouses are equally qualified and earning equally, interim maintenance cannot be granted to the wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said that the object of Section 24 is to ensure that during the matrimonial proceedings under the enactment, either party should not be handicapped and suffer any financial disability to litigate only because of paucity of source of income.
Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 986
The Delhi High Court has ruled that once there is a legal bar on the performance of second marriage when either spouse of the parties are living, the consent of such parties cannot confer validity to the second marriage.
Noting that both the parties should not have a living spouse according to Section 5(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, a division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said:
“In case, there is a violation of this condition, the marriage is void in terms of Section 11 of HMA, 1955. Once there is a legal bar to the performance of the second marriage, the consent of the parties cannot confer the validity to a marriage held in violation of the condition specified in Section 5(i) of HMA, 1955.”
Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1022
The Delhi High Court has said that merely because the wife is holding a graduation degree, it cannot be presumed that she is intentionally not working solely with an intent to claim interim maintenance from the husband, particularly when she was never employed in the past.
While refusing to reduce interim maintenance granted to a wife, a division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said:
“ There is no denial that the wife is a graduate having a degree, but she has never been gainfully employed. No inference can be drawn that merely because the wife is holding a degree of graduation, she must be compelled to work. It can also not be presumed that she is intentionally not working solely with an intent to claim interim maintenance from the husband.”
Trivial Irritations, Loss Of Trust Between Married Couple Not Mental Cruelty: Delhi High Court
Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1036
The Delhi High Court has said that trivial irritations and loss of trust between a married couple cannot be confused with mental cruelty.
A division bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Manoj Jain also observed that denial of sex can be considered a form of mental cruelty where it is found to be persistent, intentional and for a considerable period of time.
Title: SATPAL SINGH v. STATE
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1048
The judicial system cannot stand by and allow the economic circumstances of a girl's parents to become death warrants and sentences for their daughters in their matrimonial homes, the Delhi High Court has observed while dealing with a dowry death case.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed that to subject a woman to a life akin to a slave merely because of her marital status is an egregious injustice.
Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1068
The Delhi High Court has said that the wife making serious and unsubstantiated allegations against the husband and waging a legal war against him by implicating him and his family members amounts to extreme cruelty towards spouse.
A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna set aside a family court order and granted divorce to a husband on the ground of cruelty by the wife under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Maintenance Provision Under Hindu Marriage Act Is Gender Neutral: Delhi High Court
Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1151
The Delhi High Court has said that the provision for grant of maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses to a spouse under the Hindu Marriage Act is gender neutral.
A division bench of Justice V Kameswar Rao and Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta said that the spouse having a reasonable capacity of earning but who chooses to remain unemployed and idle without any sufficient explanation or indicating sincere efforts to gain employment should not be permitted to saddle the other party with one sided responsibility of meeting out the expenses.
Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1219
The Delhi High Court has said that merely because the wife is earning does not automatically operate as an absolute bar for awarding maintenance by the husband.
A division bench of Justice V Kameswar Rao and Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta also observed that the obligation of the husband to provide maintenance is on a higher pedestal than the wife, since the provision for grant of maintenance or interim maintenance for women and children in various statutes is keeping in perspective the underlying principle under Article 15(3) of the Constitution of India.
Title: ANISH PRAMOD PATEL v. KIRAN JYOT MAINI
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1220
The Delhi High Court has ruled that a person cannot be summoned under Section 31 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, for non-compliance of an order for payment of maintenance.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed that the focus of the enactment is on providing immediate and effective relief to victims of domestic violence by way of maintenance or interim maintenance orders, and that the idea is ot to immediately initiate criminal proceedings against the aggressor for non-payment of maintenance and to send such person to prison.
Title: MANU GUPTA v. SUJATA SHARMA & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1247
The Delhi High Court has ruled that neither the legislature nor the traditional Hindu Law, in any way, limits the right of a woman to be a Karta of an Hindu Undivided Family (HUF).
A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna observed that “societal perceptions” cannot be a reason to deny the rights expressly conferred by the Legislature.
Delhi High Court Refuses To Grant Divorce To Omar Abdullah From Estranged Wife Payal Abdullah
Title: Omar Abdullah v. Payal Abdullah
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1276
The Delhi High Court has dismissed the plea moved by former Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Omar Abdullah seeking divorce from his estranged wife Payal Abdullah.
A division bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Vikas Mahajan rejected the petition moved by Omar Abdullah challenging a family court order passed on August 30, 2016, dismissing his plea for divorce.
Title: ABC v. XYZ
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1285
The Delhi High Court has recently said that there is an overlapping of jurisdiction to grant interim maintenance under various enactments which leads to conflicting judgments or orders at different stages between the parties.
“Such conflicting Orders, in the similar facts and without any change in circumstances, under overlapping jurisdiction of different Acts, creates a sense of judicial impropriety and forum shopping, which may not be conducive to the majesty of the Courts,” a division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna observed.
Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1289
The Delhi High Court has ordered that the children room in all District Courts in the national capital must be kept open on every Sundays and second Saturdays between 10 AM to 5 PM, so that visitation with children can also be directed on those days.
A division bench of Justice V Kameswar Rao and Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta said that it is a matter of record that District Courts in Delhi are closed on Sundays and Second Saturday and no order for visitation can be passed on those days.
Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1315
The Delhi High Court had said that the time period of filing written statement, being in the realm of procedural law, can be extended under the Family Courts Act, 1984, if the applicant spells out exceptional circumstances or disability faced by him or her in filing the same.
A division bench of Justice V Kameswar Rao and Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta however underscored that ordinarily, the time schedule for filing the written statement needs to be followed to deal with family disputes in an expeditious manner.
Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1323
While dealing with a divorce case, the Delhi High Court has ruled that having different religious beliefs and not performing certain religious duties per se would not amount to cruelty or would not be sufficient to severe a marital tie.
A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said that fasting or not fasting on “Karwachauth” may be an individual choice and if dispassionately considered, may not be termed as an act of cruelty.
Delhi High Court Order Deputing One Clinical Child Psychologist In Each Family Court Complex
Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1331
The Delhi High Court directed its Registrar General to take necessary steps for deputing at least one Clinical Child Psychologist in each Family Court Complex, who would be in a better position to provide counselling sessions to minor children as and when required or as directed in respective cases.
A division bench of Justice V Kameswar Rao and Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta said that the report submitted by the Clinical Child Psychologist on evaluation or counselling can be shared with the concerned Family Court in a sealed cover, which would enable such court to form an appropriate opinion for custody or visitation rights in custody cases.
Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1337
The Delhi High Court recently upheld divorce granted to a married couple on the ground of cruelty by the wife, observing that her act of harassing and humiliating the husband publicly and portraying him as a “womanizer” in his office is an act of extreme cruelty to him.
A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna observed that reckless, defamatory, humiliating and unsubstantiated allegations by one spouse, which has the impact of publicly tarnishing the image of the other, is nothing but acts of extreme cruelty.
