Mental cruelty in divorce cases is often difficult to prove due to the absence of physical evidence. This post analyses a Telangana High Court decision where authenticated, certified documentary evidence played a decisive role in establishing cruelty under matrimonial law.

The Supreme Court quashed criminal proceedings under Section 498A IPC, holding that allegations of a husband sending money to his family, compelling expense tracking through Excel sheets, and exercising financial dominance though reflective of common social patterns do not amount to “cruelty” in the absence of tangible mental or physical harm.

After more than a decade of acrimonious matrimonial litigation marked by criminal complaints, arrests, and failed mediation, the Telangana High Court upheld a decree of divorce on grounds of cruelty. While denying maintenance and permanent alimony to an employed wife, the Court significantly enhanced the minor daughter’s settlement from ₹10 lakhs to INR 80 lakhs - sending a clear message on prolonged litigation, cruelty, and parental responsibility.

A 45-day marriage followed by 12 years of separation led the Telangana High Court to grant divorce, examining concealment of mental illness, non-consummation, and irretrievable breakdown of marriage.

The Telangana High Court upheld a divorce after two decades of separation, denied maintenance and permanent alimony to a working wife, and awarded ₹25 lakh to the daughter as full and final settlement.

After a mother spent INR 26 lakh raising her child alone for 16 years, the Telangana High Court took a firm view of the husband’s minimal contribution and directed him to pay INR 30 lakh before visitation could begin. This case highlights financial manipulation patterns often seen in family disputes.

In a significant ruling on cross-border child custody, the Andhra Pradesh High Court held the mother in contempt for wilfully failing to produce the child in an ongoing US–India dispute. The judgment clarifies the enforceability of domestic court orders despite foreign jurisdiction claims, applies the principles of wilful disobedience, and sets an important precedent for international custody enforcement in India.

The Telangana High Court ruled that a wife cannot claim maintenance solely on the ground of “mental depression” without credible evidence. Emphasising her B.Tech qualification, the Court held she cannot be expected to remain idle. This decision highlights the importance of proof in maintenance claims and judicial scrutiny in matrimonial disputes.

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has upheld the creation of a charge over the husband’s share in family properties, ruling that it ‘benefits the interest of the wife and minor son.’ This case clarifies when courts can secure maintenance using property, how desertion must be proven, and why interest rates must comply with Section 34 CPC.