Dr. Pranav Jain vs Dr. Divya Jain

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided May 20, 2026

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1271753

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1271753
Court: Delhi High Court
Judge: Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Vivek Chaudhary ,Hon'Ble Ms. Justice Renu Bhatnagar
Decided On: May 20, 2026
Case Number: MAT.APP.(F.C.)/366/2025
Subject: Service Tax

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Service Tax

Key legal issue: Service Tax

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Dr. Pranav Jain

Advocate Mr. Jitendra Mohan Sharma, Mr. Akshat Sharma, Mr. Shrey Bhardwaj, Mr. Amrit K.N. Pradhan

Respondent

Dr. Divya Jain

Advocate Mr. Gaurav Sarin, Mr. Sanjay Vashishtha, Mr. Siddhartha Goswami, Mr. Krish Bhatia, Mr. Harish Kumar

Excerpt

.....gaurav sarin, sr. adv. with mr. sanjay vashishtha, mr. siddhartha goswami, mr. krish bhatia and mr. harish kumar, advs.coram:hon'ble mr. justice vivek chaudharyhon'ble ms. justice renu bhatnagarorder% 20.05.20261. the present appeal under section 19(3) of the family courts act, 1984assails the judgment and decree dated 30.08.2025 passed by the learned judge, family court-02 (west), tis hazari courts, delhi in hma no. a decree of divorce in favor of the respondent/wife.2. the learned senior counsel for the appellant/husband submits that thedivorce is granted, primarily, on the following three grounds: i. substance abuse by the appellant; ii. extra marital relationship of the appellant; and iii. false and defamatory allegations made by the appellant against the respondent/wife, in the divorce proceedings, with regard to her conduct, specifically excessive consumption of alcohol by the respondent, which were held to constitute mental cruelty.3. at the very opening of hearing, learned senior counsel for the appellantsubmits that although the appellant has a good case with respect to ground nos. 1 and 2 i.e. addiction and extra-marital relationship of the appellant, he is not in a position to effectively assail the grounds no. 3 which relate to the allegations concerning consumption of alcohol by the respondent/wife, which has been held to have adversely affected the dignity and mental well-being of the respondent and, consequently, to constitute cruelty.4. in view of the aforesaid fair concession made on behalf of the appellantthat the decree of divorce would be sustainable on the ground no. 3, this court does not consider it necessary to examine the merits of findings of aforesaid ground nos. 1 and 2 as returned by the learned family court.5. accordingly, the present appeal stands disposed of and the decree ofdivorce is affirmed solely on ground no. 3 i.e. the false allegations relating to consumption of alcohol and its impact upon the dignity and mental.....

Full Judgment

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ MAT.APP.(F.C.) 366/2025&CM APPL. 63901/2025 DR. PRANAV JAIN .....Appellant Through: Mr. Jitendra Mohan Sharma, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Akshat Sharma, Mr. Shrey Bhardwaj, Mr. Amrit K.N. Pradhan, Advs.
versus
DR. DIVYA JAIN .....Respondent Through: Mr. Gaurav Sarin, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Sanjay Vashishtha, Mr. Siddhartha Goswami, Mr. Krish Bhatia and Mr. Harish Kumar, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIVEK CHAUDHARY
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RENU BHATNAGAR

ORDER

% 20.05.2026

1. The present appeal under Section 19(3) of the Family Courts Act, 1984

assails the judgment and decree dated 30.08.2025 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court-02 (West), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in HMA No. a decree of divorce in favor of the respondent/wife.

2. The learned senior counsel for the appellant/husband submits that the

divorce is granted, primarily, on the following three grounds: i. Substance abuse by the appellant; ii. Extra marital relationship of the appellant; and iii. False and defamatory allegations made by the appellant against the respondent/wife, in the divorce proceedings, with regard to her conduct, specifically excessive consumption of alcohol by the respondent, which were held to constitute mental cruelty.

3. At the very opening of hearing, learned senior counsel for the appellant

submits that although the appellant has a good case with respect to ground nos. 1 and 2 i.e. addiction and extra-marital relationship of the appellant, he is not in a position to effectively assail the grounds no. 3 which relate to the allegations concerning consumption of alcohol by the respondent/wife, which has been held to have adversely affected the dignity and mental well-being of the respondent and, consequently, to constitute cruelty.

4. In view of the aforesaid fair concession made on behalf of the appellant

that the decree of divorce would be sustainable on the ground no. 3, this Court does not consider it necessary to examine the merits of findings of aforesaid ground nos. 1 and 2 as returned by the learned Family Court.

5. Accordingly, the present appeal stands disposed of and the decree of

divorce is affirmed solely on ground no. 3 i.e. the false allegations relating to consumption of alcohol and its impact upon the dignity and mental well-being of the respondent constituting cruelty. The impugned judgment and decree shall stand modified to the limited extent that the dissolution of marriage between the parties is granted on the aforesaid ground no. 3.

6. At this stage, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant

submits that the appellant has made the entire payment towards the fee of the Local Commissioner appointed by the learned Family Court for recording of evidence. In response thereto, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent, on instructions, undertakes that the respondent shall pay a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- to the appellant towards his share of the said expenses within a period of 10 days from today. Let the needful be done accordingly.

7. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. VIVEK CHAUDHARY, J RENU BHATNAGAR, J MAY 20, 2026/r/kp

Same Court & Year Delhi · 2026 Same Parties Dr. Pranav Jain vs Dr. Divya Jain Same Subject Service Tax Same Judge Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Vivek Chaudhary ,Hon'Ble Ms. Justice Renu...

Service Tax Dissolution of Marriage With respect to Senior counsel mental cruelty On behalf of family court