Case Note

Headnote

Delhi High Court – Matrimonial Appeals – Maintenance pendente lite – Ownership of jointly purchased property – Divorce on grounds of cruelty and desertion – Irretrievable breakdown of marriage.

Held:

1. Maintenance of ₹2,00,000 per month awarded under Section 125 Cr.P.C. to the wife upheld; no enhancement or reduction warranted.

2. Wife entitled to 50% share in the sale proceeds of the jointly held property, despite husband having paid the entire purchase consideration. Registration in joint names creates equal ownership; husband’s plea of sole ownership barred by Section 4 of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988.

3. Divorce petition rightly dismissed: cruelty not proved; desertion not established, as husband himself withdrew from cohabitation.

4. Long separation (since 2006) amounts to irretrievable breakdown of marriage, but only the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution may dissolve a marriage on that ground.

Case Details

Case: Sanjeev Gera v. Sangeeta Gera
Court: High Court of Delhi
Coram: Justice Anil Kshetarpal & Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar
Date of Judgment: 22 September 2025

Facts

• Parties married in 1999; no children from the wedlock.

• Separated since January 2006; husband filed for divorce alleging cruelty and desertion.

• Parallel proceedings initiated for maintenance under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, Section 125 Cr.P.C., and Section 24 HMA.

• Dispute also arose over ₹1.09 crore surplus lying in joint bank account after sale of a flat jointly purchased in Mumbai.

Issues

1. Whether maintenance awarded to the wife required modification?

2. Whether the wife was entitled to 50% share in the proceeds of the jointly held property?

3. Whether the dismissal of the husband’s divorce petition was justified?

Holding & Reasoning

On Maintenance:

• Section 24 HMA allows interim maintenance where a spouse lacks independent means.

• The Family Court had already considered income and lifestyle of parties.

• Wife was already receiving ₹2,00,000 per month under Section 125 Cr.P.C.; Court upheld continuation of this arrangement.

On Property Rights:

• Flat was registered jointly, though husband paid EMIs.

• Court held property could not be treated as stridhan but was a joint acquisition.

• Under Section 4, Benami Act, husband cannot claim exclusive ownership. Wife entitled to 50% share of proceeds.

On Divorce:

• Allegations of cruelty (false dowry complaints, disrespect to parents, unfounded charges of adultery) not proved to be “grave and weighty.”

• Evidence suggested husband deserted wife, not vice versa.

• Though marriage had irretrievably broken down after nearly 20 years of separation, High Court lacked jurisdiction to dissolve marriage on that ground—power lies only with the Supreme Court under Article 142.

Outcome

• Appeals regarding maintenance dismissed.

• Wife awarded 50% share in property proceeds.

• Divorce petition dismissed; marriage continues.

End Notes – Case Law Relied Upon

1. Manish Jain v. Akanksha Jain, (2017) 15 SCC 801 – scope of Section 24 HMA.

2. Rashmi Kumari v. Mahesh Kumar Bhada, (1997) 2 SCC 397 – woman’s absolute ownership of stridhan.

3. Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar, (1985) 2 SCC 370 – definition of stridhan.

4. Krishna Bhatacharjee v. Sarathi Choudhary, 2015 XII AD (SC) 101 – rights over stridhan in domestic violence proceedings.

5. N.G. Dastane v. S. Dastane, (1975) 2 SCC 326 – standard of proof in matrimonial cruelty; condonation.

6. V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat, (1994) 1 SCC 337 – cruelty in matrimonial law.

7. Parveen Mehta v. Inderjeet Mehta, (2002) 5 SCC 706 – mental cruelty principles.

8. A. Jayachandra v. Aneel Kaur, (2005) 2 SCC 22 – cruelty explained.

9. Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh, (2007) 4 SCC 511 – broad parameters of cruelty.

10. Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan, 299 (2023) DLT 458 (SC) – dissolution of marriage on irretrievable breakdown by Supreme Court.

11. Chetan Dass v. Kamla Devi, (2001) 4 SCC 250 – spouse cannot take advantage of own wrong.

12. Savitri Pandey v. Prem Chandra Pandey, (2002) 2 SCC 73 – ingredients of desertion.

Download PDF of Sanjeev Gera v. Sangeeta Gera Sanjeev Gera v. Sangeeta Gera (Delhi High Court)