The Chhattisgarh High Court ruled that insulting a husband for being unemployed and making unfair demands during financial crisis amounts to mental cruelty. The Court granted divorce in favour of the husband after the wife failed to contest the case.
In the tragic Worli hit-and-run case, Pradeep Nakhawa has petitioned the Bombay High Court to add a murder charge under Section 103 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita against Mihir Shah, son of Shiv Sena leader Rajesh Shah, and his driver. The incident, involving a BMW dragging his wife Kaveri to her death, has sparked outrage over alleged investigative bias and the accused’s reckless actions.
The Bombay High Court ruled that a wife’s false 498A complaint against her husband to “correct his behavior” constitutes cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Upholding the family court’s divorce decision, the Court emphasized that such actions erode trust and harmony, making the marriage unsustainable. The wife admitted to misusing legal proceedings, which led to the marriage’s dissolution.
The Bombay High Court quashed an FIR against the extended family in a marital dispute, stating that a husband’s sexual incapacity is private. It allowed the case against the husband and immediate family to proceed due to serious allegations. The judgment focused on the liability of extended relatives and the court’s role in marital disputes.
The Allahabad High Court rejected a husband’s claim that his wife’s refusal to observe ‘parda’ and her independent behavior constituted mental cruelty warranting divorce. The court emphasized that such actions do not qualify as cruelty under the law, particularly as both parties are educated professionals. While allegations of immoral relations lacked evidence, the court acknowledged the wife’s prolonged desertion and refusal to revive the marriage as valid grounds for divorce, ultimately granting the husband’s plea without requiring provisions for alimony, given their financial independence and adult child.
The Supreme Court quashed an FIR under Section 498A of the IPC against a brother-in-law while observing that a Court should consider whether the implication is an “over implication” to pressurise the family of the husband to yield to the wife’s demands. The Court observed that the allegations in the FIR against the brother-in-law were nothing but an exaggerated version invariably suggesting “over implication.” The Bench dismissed the complainant’s appeal challenging the quashing of proceedings against the brother-in-law by the Punjab and Haryana High Court.