Best Divorce Lawyer Contact Number 8595722509

Advocate Devashish Maharishi | Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court Delhi HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FA(MAT) No. 316 of 2023 Judgment Reserved on 01.08.2025 Judgment Delivered on 18.08.2025 The Chhattisgarh High Court recently held that taunting a husband for being unemployed and making unreasonable demands when he is going through financial hardship amounts to mental cruelty. A Bench Justice Rajani Dubey and Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad made the observation while granting divorce to a man. "It has been clearly deposed that after obtaining a Ph.D. degree and securing a high-paying job as a Principal, the respondent’s behavior towards the appellant changed significantly. She became disrespectful, frequently taunted him for being unemployed during the COVID-19 pandemic, and engaged in repeated verbal altercations over trivial matters. These acts, including insults and humiliation during a time of financial vulnerability, clearly amount to mental cruelty as r...

The Supreme Court on clarified that while Section 195 Cr.P.C. bars a magistrate from taking cognizance of offences under Sections 172–188 IPC unless the concerned public servant files a complaint, the bar also extends to other offences that are so closely connected with those provisions that they cannot be split up. After discussing precedents, the Court observed : "Thus, in view of the above, the law can be summarized to the effect that there must be a complaint by the public servant who was voluntarily obstructed in the discharge of his public functions. The complaint must be in writing. The provisions of Section 195 Cr.P.C. are mandatory. Non-compliance of it would vitiate the prosecution and all other consequential orders. The Court assume the cognizance of the case without such complaint. In the absence of such a complaint, the trial and conviction will be void ab initio being without jurisdiction. " The Court further clarified that Section 195 CrPC places a bar on cogni...

Advocate Devashish Maharishi | Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court Delhi IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 15th July, 2025 Pronounced on: 13th August, 2025 CRL.M.C. 4785/2017 GAINDA LAL v. STATE & ORS While upholding discharge of a husband and his family members in a dowry death and cruelty case, the Delhi High Court has observed merely because the deceased was seen crying cannot per se make out any case of dowry harassment. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said that the statements of the brother and sister of the deceased did not establish even prima facie that the deceased was being harassed by her in laws for meeting their alleged demands. “Statement of sister of the deceased under section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein she also stated that on the occasion of Holi, she had called her sister and found her crying. However, merely because the deceased was crying, cannot per se make out any case of dowry harassment,” the Court said. The Court r...

Advocate Devashish Maharishi | Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court Delhi +91 85957 22509 In an appeal against the judgment passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, where the High Court had ruled that recorded conversations between a husband and wife could not be the basis for deciding a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 the Division Bench of BV Nagarathna* and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ. held that spousal communications were deemed privileged under Section 122 for the purpose of protecting the sanctity of the marital relationship, and not for safeguarding individual privacy rights. As a result, the Court set aside the impugned order of the High Court and restored the Family Court’s order.  Vibhor Garg v. Neha, 2025 SC 1421 Advocate Devashish Maharishi | Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court Delhi +91 85957 22509 Advocate Devashish Maharishi | Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court Delhi +91 85957 22509 Advocate Devashish Maharishi...

Cause Title: A v. B (Neutral Citation: 2025:MPHC-IND:20801) The Madhya Pradesh High Court has rejected a man’s appeal against the dismissal of his suit seeking divorce after finding the instances cited by him to be false and concocted. The High Court also made it clear that cruelty simpliciter is now a ground for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The Appellant/husband had preferred the appeal before the Madhya Pradesh High Court under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 assailing legality of the judgment dismissing his suit filed under Section 13(1)(1-a)(1- b) of Hindu Marriage Act (HMA) with further relief of divorce. The Division Bench of Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Binod Kumar Dwivedi said“What is cruelty in one case may not amount to cruelty in another case. It is a matter to be determined in each case having regard to the facts and circumstances of that case.” Advocate Devashish Maharishi | Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court Delhi +91 85957 2...

Madhya Pradesh High Court dismisses husband's divorce plea, praises wife who stayed with in-laws despite desertion while upholding symbols of marriage and treating marriage as a sacred Samskara, not a contract. Dismissing a husband's appeal for divorce on the ground of cruelty, the Madhya Pradesh High Court recently praised the wife's conduct as an 'ideal Indian woman' who, despite being deserted for nearly two decades, remained rooted in her dharma as a wife, continued living with her in-laws, and never gave up symbols of her marriage. The Court noted that, according to the Hindu concept, marriage is "a sacred, eternal and indissoluble union” and that “an ideal Indian wife, even when deserted by her husband, continues to embody strength, dignity and virtue.” Advocate Devashish Maharishi | Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court Delhi +91 85957 22509 Advocate Devashish Maharishi | Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court Delhi +91 85957 22509 Advocat...

A friend cannot be said to be a relative as he is neither a blood relative nor does he have any relation through marriage or adoption, the Court noted. The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court recently ruled that a husband’s friend cannot be prosecuted under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, as he does not qualify as a ‘relative’ under the statutory definition. “A friend cannot be said to be a relative as he is neither a blood relative nor he was having any relation through marriage or adoption. Therefore, considering above facts and upon plain reading of Section 498A of the IPC, we come to the conclusion that a friend of husband will not fall under the definition of ‘relative’ of the husband as contemplated under Section 498A of the IPC,” a division bench of Justices Anil Pansare and MM Nerlikar observed. The case stemmed from an FIR lodged by a woman in 2022, alleging that her husband, his parents, and his friend had subjected her to cruelty. She specifically claimed that the f...

Advocate Devashish Maharishi | Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court Delhi +91 85957 22509 Kalidas Sopanrao Landge and Ors v State of Maharashtra and Anr.  The Bombay High Court at Aurangabad recently quashed a cruelty case against a matchmaker (also a family friend of the husband) who was accused of hiding the groom’s impotency before marriage.  The Court ruled that he cannot be prosecuted for the offence of cruelty to wife under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code since he is not a relative of the husband. "Section 498-A of the I.P.C. stipulates that whoever, being the husband or the relatives of the husband of a woman, subject such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment...Therefore, applicant No.5 cannot be prosecuted, as he is not a relative of the other applicants." the court said in its July 2 order. A Bench of Justice V V Kankanwadi and Justice Sanjay Deshmukh also cleared the woman’s mother-in-law, sister-in-law, and paternal aunt of similar charge...