Skip to content

ADVOCATETANMOY LAW LIBRARY

Research & Library Database

Primary Menu
  • News
  • Opinion
  • Countries198
    • National Constitutions: History, Purpose, and Key Aspects
  • Judgment
  • Book
  • Legal Brief
    • Legal Eagal
  • LearnToday
  • HLJ
    • Supreme Court Case Notes
    • Daily Digest
  • Sarvarthapedia
    • Sarvarthapedia (Core Areas)
    • Systemic-and-systematic
    • Volume One
05/04/2026
  • Indian Supreme Court Judgments

Geeta v. Ajay: Expense for daughter`s marriage allowed in favour of the wife

The Supreme Court of India upheld a divorce decree between Geeta @ Reeta Mishra and Ajay Kumar Mishra, originally granted in 2019, following claims of cruelty from both parties. The court noted the couple's prolonged separation since 2009 and the wife’s repeated complaints of domestic violence, which led to financial penalties against the husband. The wife sought Rs.10,00,000 for their daughter's marriage expenses, which the court deemed a reasonable obligation for the father despite the ongoing disputes. The court ultimately directed the husband to pay this amount by October 2025, affirming the divorce and resolving the appeals.
advtanmoy 05/10/2025 5 minutes read

© Advocatetanmoy Law Library

  • Share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window) WhatsApp
  • Share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Share on Telegram (Opens in new window) Telegram
Supreme Court Of India

Home » Law Library Updates » Court Orders » Indian Supreme Court Judgments » Geeta v. Ajay: Expense for daughter`s marriage allowed in favour of the wife

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

[2025] 9 S.C.R. 640: 2025 INSC 1102

Read Next

  • Naresh vs Aarti: Cheque Bouncing Complaint Filed by POA (02/01/2025)
  • Ram v. Sukhram: Tribal women’s right in ancestral property [2025] 8 SCR 272
  • David Vs. Kuruppampady: SLP against rejecting review by HC (2020)

Geeta @ Reeta Mishra v. Ajay Kumar Mishra

(Civil Appeal No(s). 11787-11792 of 2025)

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – s.13(1)(ia)

12 September 2025

[Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.]

Read Next

  • Naresh vs Aarti: Cheque Bouncing Complaint Filed by POA (02/01/2025)
  • Ram v. Sukhram: Tribal women’s right in ancestral property [2025] 8 SCR 272
  • David Vs. Kuruppampady: SLP against rejecting review by HC (2020)

Judgment

Vikram Nath, J.

1.Leave granted.

Read Next

  • Naresh vs Aarti: Cheque Bouncing Complaint Filed by POA (02/01/2025)
  • Ram v. Sukhram: Tribal women’s right in ancestral property [2025] 8 SCR 272
  • David Vs. Kuruppampady: SLP against rejecting review by HC (2020)

2.The present appeals arise from the judgment and order dated 18th December 2023 passed by the High Court of Delhi in MAT.APP.(F.C.) No.20 of 2020, whereby the High Court affirmed the decree of divorce granted by the Family Court vide order dated 20th September 2019.

3.The relevant facts, in brief, are as follows:

3.1.The parties were married on 6th May 1996 and have two children from the marriage: a daughter born in 1997 and a son born in 1999.

3.2.In March 2009, the respondent-husband filed a divorce petition being HMA No.135/2009 under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, on the ground of cruelty. The husband alleged various instances of mental cruelty by the wife, whereas the wife contended that she herself had been subjected to mental and physical cruelty.

3.3.The appellant-wife thereafter filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against the respondent-husband and his family members.

3.4.In the DV Act proceedings, the Mahila Court directed the husband to pay maintenance of Rs.6,300/- per month, later enhanced to Rs.7,500/- per month.

3.5.In 2013, the respondent-husband moved an application in the DV Act proceedings seeking DNA testing of both children, claiming they were not his. Eventually, the main complaint under the DV Act was dismissed. On appeal, the appellate Court, by order dated 31st July 2019, held the respondent-husband guilty of domestic violence and directed him to pay Rs.2,00,000/- to the appellant-wife. This was enhanced to Rs.7,00,000/- by the High Court on 9th November 2022 in a revision filed by the appellant-wife. The Special Leave Petition filed by the respondent-husband challenging the said order was dismissed by this Court on 27th March 2023.

3.6.Meanwhile, the Family Court, vide order dated 20th September 2019 in HMA No.299 of 2019, granted divorce on the ground of cruelty. The appellant-wife challenged this before the High Court of Delhi in MAT.APP.(F.C.) No.20 of 2020.

3.7.The High Court, by the impugned judgment, affirmed the decree of divorce. It observed that the parties had been in constant acrimony since the inception of their marriage, leading the wife to make repeated complaints to the police. The High Court held that lodging false complaints amounted to cruelty. It also noted that the parties have lived separately since around 2009, with no attempt at reconciliation.

3.8.Aggrieved, the appellant-wife has preferred these appeals.

4.We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent appearing in person.

5.Before this Court, the appellant-wife has confined her claim to seeking an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) towards the marriage expenses of their daughter.

6.The appellant-wife submits that the respondent-husband earns from running an aquarium shop, rental income from his properties, and contributions from his father. The respondent denies these claims and states that he has no earnings whatsoever.

7.It is evident that the marital relationship between the parties has ceased to exist in substance. Even an attempt at mediation before us proved unsuccessful. Since the appeals are pressed only to the limited extent of payment of a certain amount, and in view of the long separation and irretrievable breakdown of the marriage, we find no reason to interfere with the decree of divorce granted by the Family Court and affirmed by the High Court.

8.As regards the issue of contribution for the daughter’s marriage, the parties have taken conflicting stands on the respondent’s income. Nevertheless, on our consideration of the record and submissions, we are satisfied that the respondent is capable of making provision for his daughter’s marriage.

9.It is clear that the litigation between the parties has been prolonged and acrimonious. Yet, the appellant-wife has been reasonable in limiting her claim before us. She has raised and supported both children largely on her own. It is a father’s duty to provide for his children, and meeting the marriage expenses of his daughter is a modest obligation. We are of the considered view that the respondent can and should contribute Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) for this purpose as meeting the reasonable expenses of his daughter’s marriage is a natural extension of his duty as a parent, irrespective of differences with the spouse.

10.Accordingly, the respondent-husband is directed to pay an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) to the appellant-wife towards the marriage expenses of their daughter on or before 15th October 2025. In case of default, the Registry shall revive these appeals for further consideration and appropriate orders.

11.The appellant-wife shall provide her bank account details to the respondent-husband to facilitate payment.

12.The decree of divorce granted by the Trial Court and affirmed by the High Court stands affirmed subject to the direction contained in paragraph 10 above.

13.In view of the above directions, the appeals stand disposed of.

14.Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

Result of the case: Appeals disposed of.

Tags: CRUELTY Divorce SC-25

Post navigation

Previous: Statement of Prabowo Subianto of Indonesia (80th Session UNGA) Debate
Next: DNA profiling: Statutory foundation and evidentiary significance
Arrest
Sarvarthapedia

Latin Maxims in Criminal Law: Meaning, Usage, and Courtroom Application

Sarvarthapedia
Sarvarthapedia

Research Methodology and Investigation: Concepts, Frameworks, and Emerging Trends

Rule of Law vs Rule by Law and Rule for Law: History, Meaning, and Global Evolution

IPS Cadre Strength 2025: State-wise Authorised Strength

Uric Acid: From 18th Century Discovery to Modern Medical Science

Christian Approaches to Interfaith Dialogue: Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant, and Pentecostal Views

Origin of Central Banking in India: From Hastings to RBI and the History of Preparatory Years (1773–1934)

Howrah District Environment Plan: Waste Management, Water Quality & Wetland Conservation

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023: Sections (1-358), Punishments, and Legal Framework

Bengali Food Culture: History, Traditions, and Class Influences

West Bengal Court-Fees Act, 1970: Fees, Schedules, and Procedures

WB Land Reforms Tribunal Act 1997: History, Features, Provisions, Structure, Powers and Functions

Civil Procedure Law of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (1976)

Knowledge Management in the Modern Era: From History to Digital Transformation

  • Sarvarthapedia

  • Delhi Law Digest

  • Howrah Law Journal

  • Amit Arya vs Kamlesh Kumari: Doctrine of merger
  • David Vs. Kuruppampady: SLP against rejecting review by HC (2020)
  • Nazim & Ors. v. State of Uttarakhand (2025 INSC 1184)
  • Geeta v. Ajay: Expense for daughter`s marriage allowed in favour of the wife
  • Ram v. Sukhram: Tribal women’s right in ancestral property [2025] 8 SCR 272
  • Naresh vs Aarti: Cheque Bouncing Complaint Filed by POA (02/01/2025)
  • Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 (BNSS)
  • Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023 (BSA): Indian Rules for Evidence
  • Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023
  • The Code of Civil Procedure (CPC)
  • Supreme Court Daily Digest
  • U.S. Supreme Court Orders
  • U.k. Supreme Court Orders
Sarvarthapedia, Law and Legal Materials

Rule of Law vs Rule by Law and Rule for Law: History, Meaning, and Global Evolution

Indian Government

IPS Cadre Strength 2025: State-wise Authorised Strength

Sarvarthapedia

Uric Acid: From 18th Century Discovery to Modern Medical Science

Christian Education

Christian Approaches to Interfaith Dialogue: Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant, and Pentecostal Views

2026 © Advocatetanmoy Law Library

  • About
  • Global Index
  • Judicial Examinations
  • Indian Statutes
  • Glossary
  • Legal Eagle
  • Subject Guide
  • Journal
  • SCCN
  • Constitutions
  • Legal Brief (SC)
  • MCQs (Indian Laws)
  • Sarvarthapedia (Articles)
  • Contact Us
  • Privacy Policy
  • FAQs
  • Library Updates