Karnataka High Court uphold the principles of justice and fairness over abusive marriage.


Case no: Misc. Appeal no. 4677 of 2016 (FC)

Order on: April 19, 2024


Fact of the case:

The appeal was filed against the judgment of the III Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru by Mrs. L.S. Jyothi Priya who is the appellant. The late Mr. K.L. Saravana, the appellant’s husband, initiated matrimonial case M.C. No. 831/2010 and seeking dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1) (i-a) (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. It is alleged that Mrs. Jyothi Priya abused Mr. Saravana’s mother and assaulted his mother and sister. These incidents allegedly led to the breakdown of the marriage. Mrs. Jyothi Priya left the matrimonial home, purportedly due to mistreatment and harassment by Mr. Saravana and his family. She denies refusing to rejoin her husband and claims to have valid reasons for leaving. Mr. Saravana’s representatives contend that Mrs. Jyothi Priya refused to reconcile with her husband, contributing to the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage. Mr. Saravana initiated legal proceedings, including issuing a legal notice requesting consent for mutual divorce, which was allegedly not replied to by Mrs. Jyothi Priya. Consequently, he filed a petition for divorce. A previous petition for divorce before the II Additional Family Court, Bengaluru, was dismissed. Mrs. Jyothi Priya filed a suit for maintenance before the Principal Family Court, Bengaluru, which was decreed in her Favor. However, Mr. Saravana allegedly failed to pay the maintenance as ordered by the court.

Issues framed by court:

Whether the grounds presented by Late Mr. K.L. Saravana for seeking dissolution of the marriage under Section 13(1) (i-a) (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, are substantiated and valid.

Legal provisions:

Section 13(1) (i-a) (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: Deals with grounds for divorce involving cruelty.

Section 28 Hindu marriage act 1955: Deals with the power of the court to issue orders for payment of expenses during proceedings.

Section 24 Hindu Marriage act 1955: Deals with maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceedings.

Section 25 Hindu Marriage act 1955: Addresses the provision for permanent alimony and maintenance.

 Contentions of Appellant:

Mrs. Jyothi Priya denies the allegations of abusing her husband’s mother and assaulting his mother and sister. She contends that these accusations are false and fabricated. She asserts that she left the matrimonial home due to mistreatment and harassment by her husband and his family. She claims that she had valid reasons for leaving and that she did not refuse to rejoin her husband. Mrs. Jyothi Priya denies refusing consent for a mutual divorce. She states that she was willing to resume her life with her husband but did not agree to a mutual divorce due to the false allegations made against her

Contentions of Respondents:

The respondents argued that Mrs. Jyothi Priya abused her husband’s mother and assaulted his mother and sister. They claim that these incidents led to the breakdown of the marriage. Mr. Saravana’s representatives contend that Mrs. Jyothi Priya refused to reconcile with her husband and left the matrimonial home without any valid reason. They assert that her refusal to rejoin her husband contributed to the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage. The respondents highlight that Mrs. Jyothi Priya filed a suit for maintenance, which was decreed in her Favor. However, they argue that Late Mr. Saravana failed to comply with the court’s order to pay maintenance for Mrs. Jyothi Priya and their son.

 Court analysis:

The court, after careful consideration of the evidence and arguments presented by both parties, finds that the marriage between Appellant and Respondent has irretrievably broken down due to various issues, including allegations of abuse and assault, refusal of reconciliation, and non-payment of maintenance. The court grants the dissolution of the marriage between Mrs. L.S. Jyothi Priya and the late Mr. K.L. Saravana. It orders Mr. Saravana’s representatives to fulfil their obligations regarding maintenance payments as per the provisions of Sec. 24 and Sec. 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Reviewed By- Antara Ghosh

Click here to read the judgement


Parole Denied: Delhi High Court Rejects Petitioner’s Plea Due to Existing Marriage and Co-habitation with Live-In Partners

 Case Name:  Sonu Sonkar v. The Lt. Governor, Delhi & Ors 

Case No.: W.P.(CRL) 889/2024 & CRL.M.A. 13860/2024 

Dated: May 08, 2024 

Quorum: Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma 



The petitioner, who is currently being held in Jail No. 8/9, Tihar Jail, Delhi, was found guilty under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (the “IPC”) by the learned Trial Court in a judgement dated November 15, 2011. The petitioner was also fined Rs. 5,000 and sentenced to life in rigorous prison. On March 23, 2012, this Court dismissed the Criminal Appeal No. 1590/2011 that was submitted in opposition to the aforementioned judgement. According to the nominal roll, the petitioner in this case has not filed an SLP in the Hon’ble Apex Court to contest the judgement of this Court on 23.03.2012.  

Including a period of about 02 years and 09 months of remission, the petitioner’s case states that he has been in judicial custody for approximately 16 years and 10 months. He also claims that he has been married for three years, having tied the knot with Ms. T on January 10, 2021. The petitioner has allegedly been in judicial custody since then, which has prevented him from fully consummating his marriage to Ms. T. According to the record, which is annexed to the main writ petition, Ms. T applied to the correctional authorities on January 2, 2024, asking for the present petitioner to be released on parole solely on this basis.  

In addition, it is mentioned that Ms. T, the petitioner’s Pairokar, has filed the main writ petition, her Aadhaar card, and the rent agreement dated April 7, 2022, at which address she currently resides, along with the petitioner’s commitment to stay with her at the same address.  



  • Whether the petitioner is guilty of concealment of facts and not approaching the Courts with clean hands? 
  • Whether a ‘live-in partner’ will be covered under the definition of ‘family’ as provided under Rule 1201 of Delhi Prison Rules, 2018 for the purpose of grant of parole? 
  • Whether a convict is entitled to grant of parole on the ground of maintaining conjugal rights and procreation with his ‘live-in partner’, when he already has a legally wedded wife? 



  • Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Saving of inherent powers of High CourtNothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. 
  • Section 302 of IPC- Punishment for Murder. Those who commit murder will be punished with life in prison or the death penalty, as well as a fine. 



The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that Ms. T, the petitioner’s wife, has stated her desire to begin a family with the petitioner, Ms. T, has been denied the opportunity to bear children despite the fact that she has never broken the law. It is further maintained that denying his wife a conjugal contact will have a negative impact on her rights. It is further claimed that the petitioner’s capacity to uphold social connections will suffer if parole is denied.  

Additionally, it is said that the petitioner was freed from judicial custody on September 11, 2019 on the Honourable Lieutenant Governor’s advice, although he was taken into custody again in a new case, as a result of advice from the Honourable Lieutenant Governor. It says that the petitioner was granted bail in the said case. 

The petitioner further claims that he has previously been granted parole and furlough on multiple occasions, that he has never abused the freedoms bestowed upon him, and that he has always turned himself in on time to the jail authorities. According to the statement, on July 20, 2023, the petitioner was granted parole for ten days. The court noted that the petitioner’s wife is the pairokar in this case, and that the parole was given to him in order to care for her as she has no other carers.  

The petitioner further argues that in cases similar to this one, where the accused who have been granted parole and furlough have not abused the privileges, the courts have repeatedly granted parole on the grounds of upholding social ties and preserving marriage and family relationships. Thus, it is declared that the petitioner shall be allowed parole for a term of four weeks in order to consummate his marriage to his wife and to continue his social connections.  

It is also specified that the petitioner must provide care for his wife, Ms. T, and get funding for her medical needs. It is noted that the petitioner has filed two more writ petitions, with the numbers 2931/2023 and 1661/2023, asking for different remedy. These petitions are currently pending before this court and are scheduled to be listed on July 15, 2024.  



The respondent’s counsel argues that as Ms. T is not the petitioner’s wife, the learned ASC for the State opposes the current writ petition and claims it was filed on frivolous and false grounds. It is further indicated that the petitioner has not been formally separated from his first wife, Ms. A, as of yet, and that the petitioner is already married to this woman (name withheld from the judgement), according to the Status Report. This Court should thus not permit the petitioner to be granted parole on the grounds that he must consummate his relationship with his putative wife, Ms. T. 

Additionally, the petitioner argues that the allegations made in the application for the petitioner’s release on interim parole while the current writ petition is pending should be immediately rejected for the same reason: Ms. T, the petitioner’s purported second wife, is not the petitioner’s legally wedded wife, and during the investigation, she was unable to provide any documentation proving her marital status. As a result, it is urged that the current petition and the temporary application be denied. 



The petitioner has repeatedly requested parole or furlough from this court until the year 2019, among other reasons, including medical ones related to his wife’s illness, medical treatment, or surgery (Ms. A.). The court carefully noted this. which the parole had been sought by him. 

It is important to note that Ms. A. was the wife’s name as stated in both the petition and the medical treatment documents that were annexed to the petitions. This is relevant information because the petitioner in the aforementioned writ petitions had requested parole due to his wife’s illness.  

The petitioner was freed from jail on September 11, 2019, at the recommendation of the Sentence Review Board. This is also noted by the Court at this point. 

But on March 1, 2023, he was arrested once more because the Hon. Lt. Governor of the GNCTD had revoked his sentence through order, dated September 24, 2022. This was due to the petitioner’s alleged offence, for which a FIR with the number 539/2021 had been filed at Subzi Mandi Police Station in Delhi. The petitioner was accused of committing another crime, for which Section 307/34 of the Indian Penalties Code, and for which he had breached the terms and conditions of his early release. The petitioner has been under court supervision ever since. 

It’s interesting to note that while the petitioner had previously requested release in order to treat or have surgery for his wife Ms. A, the petitioner’s wife’s name was listed as Ms. T in this petition. By order dated July 20, 2023, 19 he was granted parole in the aforementioned petition for a term of 10 days. The petitioner also identifies Ms. T as his spouse, whom he wed on January 10, 2021, in this current plea. Nonetheless, the petitioner states that Ms. T is his second wife and live-in partner in the application for the issuance of temporary parole while the main petition is being considered.  

The petitioner, Mr. Sonkar, was the subject of a detailed discussion of his conduct in the preceding paragraph, the court decided. Through his pleadings in many writ petitions, he has misled and misled the courts by failing to disclose that Ms. T is his live-in partner rather than his lawfully wedded wife. Furthermore, the record shows that the petitioner is actually married to Ms. A, with whom he has three children. It is also not the petitioner’s case that he is divorced from Ms. A. Furthermore, the petitioner has not disclosed any of these facts to this Court through Mr. Sonkar.  

The court, finally, decided that given he already has a lawfully married wife and three children born outside of that union, the court determined that Mr. Sonkar is not eligible for parole due to his desire to procreate or continue a marital relationship with his second wife or live-in partner.  


“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.” 

Judgment reviewed by Riddhi S Bhora. 

Click to view judgment.


SC Affirms Summoning of Wife in ‘Cheating’ Complaint by Husband: Prima Facie Case Established

Case title: Aniruddha Khanwalkar v. Sharmila Das and Ors.

Case no: Criminal appeal no of 2024 (arising out of SLP. (CRL.) No. 10746 of 2023)

Dated on: April 26th ,2024

Quorum: Justice Rajesh Bhindal

Facts of the case:
The appellant’s marriage was officiated with the respondent no.1 on 28.04.2018 in the presence of the respondents no.2 and no.3. The appellant on that date realized that the respondent was already married and had not obtained divorce from her first husband. The appellant then filed a petition under Section 11 of the 1955 Act (The Hindu Marriage Act), to seek nullification of marriage between the appellant and the respondent no.1. The appellant then filed a case against the respondents no. 1,2, and 3 to the magistrate. The magistrate then booked the respondent no.1 under Section 494 and 420 and, against the respondents no.2 and 3 under Section 420 read with section 120-B , IPC. The above order was then challenged by the respondents no.1 to 3 by filing a revision petition. On 16.06.2018, when Respondent no.1 visited the doctor for a checkup, she was found to be pregnant and wanted to undergo an abortion, but when confronted by the appellant, the Respondent informed that she has not yet obtained divorce from her previous marriage. It was revealed then the document shown to the Appellant was forged which revealed that the consent for marriage was obtained dishonestly. The Appellant felt cheated and then filed a written complaint to the Superintendent of Police on 07.07.2018 and then to the Station in-Charge, on 08.07.2018. However, as no action was taken, a complaint was filed in the court before the Magistrate on 20.07.2018. The Trial Court after recording the preliminary evidence summoned the Respondent no.1 to face trial under Sections 494 and 420 read with Section 120-B, IPC and the respondent nos.2 and 3 to face trial under Section 420 read with Section 120-B, IPC. The aforesaid order was challenged by the respondents before the Additional Sessions Judge. The Sessions Court held that no offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 120-B, IPC was made out as the factum of earlier marriage of the Respondent no.1 was clearly disclosed to the Appellant. The said Order was challenged by the Appellant before the High Court, which was in turn dismissed by the High Court without assigning any reasons.
Contentions of the appellant:
The appellant contended that the Court failed to appreciate the facts of the case. A prima facie case has been made out which shows that the Appellant has been dishonestly induced by Respondents number 1, 2 and 3 in believing that the Respondent no. 1 had obtained divorce, by showing a forged order, knowing very well that the marriage had not yet been dissolved as on the date of marriage with the Appellant and therefore the Order is liable to be set aside. The Respondents are therefore liable to face trial under Section 420 read with Section 120-B, IPC for the reason that they had conspired with each other and dishonestly induced the Appellant into marrying Respondent no.1 and parting with huge expenses towards fare for travel from Vishakapatanam to Gwalior and vice versa along with expenditure to be incurred for the marriage.

Contentions of the respondent:
On the basis of the pleaded facts and the material produced by the Appellant before the Magistrate, no offence under Section 420, IPC could be made out. The Appellant could not make any case of criminal conspiracy and offence of cheating against the Respondents. There is no error in the orders passed by the Sessions Court or the High Court. There was no concealment or cheating as the Respondents had clearly disclosed all the facts to the Appellant before marriage and hence the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

Whether the High court and the trial court was right in setting aside the summoning order passed by the trial court?

Legal provisions:
Sections 494 IPC- Punishment for bigamy.

Section 420 IPC-Punishment for cheating.

Section 120-B, IPC-Punishment for criminal conspiracy.

Courts judgement and analysis:
The Sessions Judge failed to appreciate the fact that certain events had taken place such as apprising the appellant about the decree of divorce having been passed and showing the forged copy of the same on mobile. The Learned Sessions Court has considered the revision against the summoning order as if, after trial, the findings of conviction/ acquittal was to be recorded. The matter was only at a preliminary stage of summoning and for summoning an accused, prima facie case needs to be made out on the basis of allegations and the pre-summoning evidence given by the Complainant. The High Court, further, has dismissed the petition without recording any reasons. The Learned Sessions Court and the High Court Order in setting aside the summoning order against the accused persons is not legally sustainable. On the basis of the facts pleaded and evidence adduced by the Appellant, prima facie case is made out for issuing process against the respondents to face trial for the offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 120-B, IPC, for which they were summoned. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The impugned orders passed by the High Court and the Sessions Court are thus set aside and that of the Magistrate is restored.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a national award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer”.

Judgement reviewed by- Parvathy P.V.

Click here to read the judgement


“Supporting Such Relationships Will Bring Chaos To Society”: Allahabad High Court Denies Live-In Couple’s Request For Protection Involving Married Adults

Case Title:- Raksha And Another Versus State Of Up And 4 Others

Case No :- WRIT – C No. – 1546 of 2024

Quorum: Hon’ble Justice Mrs. Renu Agarwal

Facts of the case:

Renu Agarwal, J. stated that petitioner 1 is living with petitioner 2 in a live-in relationship after having a legally wedded husband without filing for divorce from a court of competent jurisdiction. This was stated in a writ petition filed to direct the police authorities to provide police protection to petitioners against the husband and parents of petitioner 1. Petitioners stated that petitioner 1’s parents had married her off while she was a minor, 13 years old. Because petitioner 1’s marriage is null and void, she freely chooses to live in union with petitioner 2 against her will. The state has argued that petitioner 1 is already married, that her marriage has not been ruled unlawful by a court of competent jurisdiction, and that the court cannot accept a live-in relationship between her and petitioner 2.


The petitioners sought police protection against interference in their live-in relationship and from the family of one petitioner. They also requested direction for the family not to interfere in their relationship. The petitioners argued that one petitioner was married at a young age, but the marriage was invalid, and she was voluntarily in a live-in relationship with the other petitioner

The respondent argued that one of the petitioners was already legally married and living in a live-in relationship with the other petitioner, which the court cannot support. The respondent cited a previous court decision disapproving of such relationships and emphasized that protecting illegal relationships would disrupt societal norms. The court dismissed the petition, stating that endorsing illicit relations through protection would be detrimental to societal values and clarified its stance against illegal relationships while not opposing live-in relationships in general.

Court Analysis and Judgement:

The court dismissed the writ petition seeking police protection for a couple in a live-in relationship, if they protect illegal relationships then it will create chaos in the society .If court grant permission for protection it indirectly supports illegal relationships. The court does not deem it proper to permit the parties to such illegality as tomorrow petitioners may convey that this court sanctified their illicit relations. Living in live in relationship cannot be at the cost of social fabric of this country. It is clarified that this court has not been against live in relationship but us it is against illegal relations. Granting protection might indirectly approve of unlawful relationships, which the court cannot be done. The court clarified its sentence against illegal relationships while not being opposed to live-in relationships in general. The petitioners, one of whom was legally married, had not sought a divorce, making their live-in arrangement unlawful under Hindu Law, highlighting the importance of upholding legal relationships and the sanctity of marriage.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 Years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category Of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, Best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer”.

Judgement Analysis Written by – K. Immey Grace

Click here to view the judgement




1 2 3