Delhi High Court Rules on Long-Running Matrimonial Dispute Between Sanjeev and Sangeeta Gera
New Delhi, September 22, 2025 — The Delhi High Court has delivered a significant judgment resolving multiple appeals in the long-standing matrimonial battle between Mr. Sanjeev Gera and Mrs. Sangeeta Gera. The case, which spanned nearly two decades, involved disputes over divorce, maintenance, and property rights.
Background of the Case
- Marriage: The couple married in July 1999 in Amritsar, Punjab, but began living separately in January 2006.
- Litigation History: Divorce proceedings were initiated in 2006, later transferred to Delhi from Mumbai. Over the years, both parties pursued multiple legal claims, including maintenance under different laws and ownership of a jointly purchased flat in Mumbai.
- Key Issues Before the Court:
- The quantum of interim maintenance payable to Mrs. Gera.
- Entitlement to the ₹1.09 crore balance from the sale of their jointly-owned Mumbai apartment.
- Whether Mr. Gera was entitled to divorce on grounds of cruelty and desertion.
Court’s Findings
1. Maintenance
The Court upheld the existing arrangement, directing Mr. Gera to continue paying ₹2,00,000 per month as interim maintenance to Mrs. Gera under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It rejected both Mr. Gera’s plea to reduce maintenance and Mrs. Gera’s plea to enhance it further, noting that the amount was adequate considering their circumstances.
2. Property Rights
The Court ruled that the proceeds of the jointly-owned property in Mumbai must be equally divided between the husband and wife, despite Mr. Gera having paid the entire purchase consideration. Referring to the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, the judges held that once property is registered in both names, neither spouse can later deny the other’s ownership. Mrs. Gera is therefore entitled to 50% of the ₹1.09 crore lying in the joint bank account.
3. Divorce Petition
Mr. Gera’s appeal for divorce was dismissed. The Court found that he had failed to prove cruelty or desertion as defined under the Hindu Marriage Act. It noted that while the couple had been living separately since 2006, evidence showed that Mr. Gera himself withdrew from the relationship and could not take advantage of his own conduct to claim desertion.
The Court also observed that although the marriage had irretrievably broken down, only the Supreme Court has the authority to grant divorce on that ground under Article 142 of the Constitution.
Key Takeaways
- Maintenance Protection: Courts will ensure that a spouse without independent income receives reasonable financial support, but will also guard against excessive or duplicative claims.
- Joint Property Rights: Even if one spouse pays for a property, registration in joint names gives both an equal share unless proven otherwise.
- Divorce Grounds: Allegations of cruelty and desertion must be supported by strong, consistent evidence. Long separation alone is not sufficient for divorce unless the Supreme Court exercises its extraordinary powers.
Conclusion
This judgment brings closure to a long, contentious case that saw multiple forums, appeals, and cross-litigation. While the marriage continues legally, Mrs. Gera has secured her right to maintenance and half of the joint property proceeds, while Mr. Gera’s plea for divorce has been rejected.