top of page
Cruelty in Marriage|Supreme Court| Rakesh Raman v. Kavita (2012)
In this significant judgement, the Supreme Court observed that a marriage characterized by an increasingly bitter and acrimonious relationship, where both parties inflict cruelty upon each other, essentially degrades the institution of marriage. The Court opined that such a situation, wherein the marriage has irretrievably broken down, warrants the dissolution of the union on the grounds of cruelty. This case is particularly noteworthy as it recognizes that cruelty may be m
1 min read
Supreme Court directs IPS wife & her family members to tender apology to husband & in-laws for cases filed
In a divorce case, the Division Bench of B.R. Gavai, CJ., and Augustine George Masih*, J., deemed it fit to invoke the power under Article 142 of the Constitution and dissolved the marriage between the parties and directed the wife, an IPS Officer, and her parents to tender unconditional apology to the husband and his family members for physical and mental trauma caused to them due to cases filed by the wife, which led to the husband and his father languishing in jail for 109
1 min read
Cruelty in Marriage|Supreme Court|K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa (2013)
This case set an important precedent regarding cruelty as a ground for divorce. The wife filed false criminal complaints against the husband and his family, leading to their harassment. The Supreme Court held that filing false cases constitutes mental cruelty, sufficient for granting divorce. It underscored the misuse of legal provisions and the need for judicial intervention in such matters. This case further delineated the threshold for establishing cruelty. The Court empha
1 min read
Parveen Mehta vs Inderjit Mehta (2002)
This case further clarified the concept of cruelty, emphasising that it must be assessed based on the cumulative conduct of the parties and its impact on the petitioner. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision to grant a divorce based on the wife's behaviour, which constituted both physical and mental cruelty. This case is significant in reaffirming the broad interpretation of cruelty and its impact on individual well-being in matrimonial disputes.
1 min read
Samar Ghosh vs Jaya Ghosh (2007)
This case provided comprehensive guidelines on mental cruelty as a ground for divorce. The Supreme Court held that persistent neglect, humiliation, and creating an unbearable environment could constitute mental cruelty. The judgment emphasised that mental cruelty is a state of mind and that courts must consider the cumulative effect of the conduct and its impact on the aggrieved spouse. This case is crucial in providing a nuanced understanding of mental cruelty and its impact
1 min read
Mayadevi v. Jagdish Prasad (2007)
This judgment elaborates on what constitutes mental cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The Supreme Court noted that persistent accusations, baseless allegations, and abnormal behaviour could amount to mental cruelty. It provided clarity on assessing cruelty in divorce cases.
1 min read
Permanent Alimony Inflation Adjustments: Supreme Court Raises Alimony to ₹50,000
In a landmark 2025 judgment in the case of Rakhi Sadhukhan v. Raja Sadhukhan , the Supreme Court of India significantly increased the permanent alimony awarded to a divorced wife from ₹20,000 to ₹50,000 per month, with a 5% annual increment to account for inflation and ensure the recipient’s standard of living. While considering an appeal wherein a woman challenged the quantum of permanent alimony of Rs. 20,000 fixed by Calcutta High Court, the Division Bench of Vikram Nath*
1 min read
Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur (2017)
In this landmark ruling, the Supreme Court held that the six-month cooling-off period prescribed under Section 13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act is not mandatory and can be waived by the court. This decision aims to speed up the process of mutual consent divorce when both parties are certain about ending their marriage and have resolved all pending issues such as alimony, child custody, and property division. The Court emphasized that the provision was meant to prevent has
1 min read
Amit Kumar v. Suman Beniwal (2021)
The Supreme Court, in a judgment passed by Justices Indira Banerjee and J. K. Maheshwari on December 11, 2021, stated that it has the power to make an exception to the 6-month waiting period usually required for divorce by mutual consent under Hindu law. In the case of Amit Kumar v. Suman Beniwal, the court said that under Article 142 of the Constitution, which allows the Supreme Court to pass any order necessary to do complete justice, it can waive the 6-month "cooling off"
1 min read
bottom of page
