The Supreme Court ruled that a person cannot be denied the right to travel abroad simply because they are accused in a 498A IPC complaint. The judgment protects personal liberty and requires substantial evidence for imposing restrictions.
The Supreme Court criticized the misuse of Section 498A IPC, stating that general allegations in matrimonial disputes can lead to legal abuse. The judgment highlights the need for responsible application of the law.
The Chhattisgarh High Court ruled that the denial of physical intimacy by a spouse constitutes cruelty, granting a husband’s plea for divorce. The case also highlights mental harassment and desertion as factors in divorce proceedings.
The Delhi High Court ruled that false complaints filed against a spouse constitute an act of cruelty, upholding the husband’s divorce petition. The court noted that the wife’s malicious actions, including false allegations and withdrawal from mutual settlements, caused mental cruelty.
The Bombay High Court ruled that Section 498A of IPC, which deals with cruelty to wives, cannot be made a compoundable offense, emphasizing that this issue is for the legislature to address.
The Delhi High Court raised concerns over the growing misuse of Section 498A in matrimonial disputes, where all relatives of the husband are often implicated. The Court granted relief to a man whose police appointment was delayed due to being named in a dowry harassment case.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court ruled that minor differences between a husband and wife do not amount to cruelty. Overturning a Family Court’s divorce decree, the court emphasized that marriages need time to grow, and couples cannot expect immediate change.
The Allahabad High Court has introduced a two-month no-arrest period after filing FIRs in 498A cases to prevent misuse. This measure aims to protect traditional family values and ensure fair handling of matrimonial disputes.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court ruled that even one false complaint can constitute matrimonial cruelty, justifying divorce. This landmark decision impacts future matrimonial disputes.
The High Court has decided that a daughter-in-law’s right to residence under Section 19 of the Domestic Violence (DV) Act is not absolute in a shared household. While upholding the eviction order against the daughter-in-law, the court granted a two-week stay to allow her time to find alternative housing.
