The Kerala High Court ruled that a wife seeking her husband’s employer’s help to resolve marital issues and not knowing how to cook does not constitute cruelty. The court emphasized the wife’s attempts to patch up the marriage and upheld the restitution of conjugal rights.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court imposed a ₹1 lakh fine on a woman for continuing legal action against her ex-husband and his family after a mutual divorce and a ₹50 lakh settlement, highlighting the misuse of legal processes.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court ruled that advising a daughter-in-law to improve household work is not cruelty under Section 304B IPC. The court overturned the conviction for dowry death.
The Bombay High Court quashed an FIR against a man’s girlfriend, ruling she is not a relative and can’t be charged with cruelty under IPC Section 498A. The case was filed by the man’s wife, alleging mental and physical abuse.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld a man’s divorce after his wife refused to live with his elderly mother and mentally ill sister, citing this as cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act. The court directed the husband to pay ₹5 lakh in interim alimony.
The Bombay High Court’s Aurangabad bench ruled that lodging false cases against a husband and his family constitutes cruelty. This decision upheld a lower court’s divorce decree, emphasizing the severe impact of false accusations.
The Supreme Court has dissolved the marriage of a couple who lived apart for 25 years, ruling that their prolonged separation constitutes “cruelty” under the Hindu Marriage Act. This decision highlights the court’s stance on long-term estranged relationships.
The Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court ruled that filing false criminal cases against a husband and his family constitutes cruelty under the Domestic Violence Act, affirming a divorce decree based on such claims.
The Supreme Court overturned the trial court’s decision, granting a decree of judicial separation instead of divorce. The Court held that while Vinny had proven cruelty on the part of her husband, she had not established the requisite ‘irretrievable breakdown of marriage’ needed for a divorce. Furthermore, the Court maintained that a divorce would cause undue hardship to Parmvir
