mehnat Commonalities amongst wives who file more than 3 cases against husbands
Top of PageWe have examined two statistical patterns in the foregoing two articles. The first of the said two patterns consists of wives filing 2 cases against their husbands, and the second consists of wives filing 3 cases against their husbands. This being the third in our series of articles exploring statistical patterns in litigation, it would be normal for people to expect that the writer will concern himself with discussing situations in which wives have filed 4 cases against their husbands.
But (based upon what this writer has been able to discern from his research) it can be said that situations of such a type are not common enough to constitute a pattern. Litigations in which wives file 4 cases against husbands are rare.
It is more common to come across examples of litigations in which wives have filed more than 4 cases against their husbands. The number of cases filed by wives per instance of such situations ranges from 6 to more than a dozen.
It can therefore be said that there are three commonalities amongst wives who file more than 3 cases against their husbands—
1) They do not file 4 cases.
2) They file not less than half a dozen cases.
3) They don't know when to stop filing cases against their husbands.
2) They file not less than half a dozen cases.
3) They don't know when to stop filing cases against their husbands.
Such situations beg the question, why?
The reason why wives file such large numbers of cases
Top of Page(continued from end of previous section) Why indeed. But this is not a very difficult “why”.
There is only one possible circumstance in which such a situation can arise. Mental illness in the concerned wife.
Why is it correct to say that only mental illness explains filing of an excess of cases?
Top of Page(continued from end of previous section) This answer gives rise to a question. Why is this writer saying that mental illness is the only possible explanation for a wife's having filed an inordinately large number of cases against her husband? Well, you might recall that the writer has tried to offer explanations for the patterns of wives filing 2 cases and of wives filing 3 cases in the foregoing two articles. There was a certain logic (or two logics) which we were able to find behind both those patterns. But what wifely logic can account for a wife acting illogically? There is no identifiable logic behind such behaviour. The only explanation which remains is that their mental illnesses do not allow these wives to figure out when to stop filing cases against their husbands.
Some examples of litigations in which high numbers of cases were filed by wives against husbands
Top of PageLet us now look at a few examples of atrocities wreaked by such wives.
Vishal Shah vs Monalisha Gupta
Top of PageAn interesting case is that of Vishal Shah vs Monalisha Gupta [1] [2] (2023-2025). The wife in the said case took litigation to an absurd level, theretofore unseen (except for one example, which is detailed hereunder), and probably even unforeseen. The husband in question had twice called the local police while residing with the wife in America to complain about her physical assaults on him. She had been charged with second degree assault in that country as a result. They had then returned to India, and the husband had proceeded to fly back without his wife.
Thereafter the wife went and filed so many criminal and civil cases against her husband that Justice Vikram Nath did not bother to even try to give an exact count of the same in his judgement dated the 20th of February 2025. Her attack included a dowry case under IPC Sections 498a, 307, 323, 324, 406 and 506 against her husband and assorted family members; 3 separate DV cases against him and his family; another criminal case (against her husband and a larger list of family members than the previous case) U/s 405, 406, 407, 420, 379, 499, 500, 324 and 506 IPC; and yet another criminal case U/s 379 (Theft) of the IPC against the husband, the mother-in-law and a sister-in-law. She had also filed an RCR petition(!), probably to rub salt on her husband’s and his family’s wounds.
The married sister of the husband had thereafter filed a single itty-bitty criminal complaint case against the wife, to which the wife had gone and responded with a 4th DV case!!
The total number of cases including appeals and revisions in this litigation is not clear, but it was more than 10. The word counterblast (which was used once or twice by Justice Vikram Nath in his judgement) is insufficient to describe what the wife in the said case was described in the judgement to have done.
Naveen Kohli vs Neelu Kohli
Top of PageThe heartrending story of Naveen Kohli has been told in short but sufficient detail in Naveen Kohli vs Neelu Kohli [3] [4] (2004-2006). This case was decided by the Supreme Court on the 21st of March 2006. So vast was the web of allegations canvassed by the wife in this case that a full bench of the Supreme Court had to be constituted to deal with her husband’s appeal against a decision of the Allahabad High Court.
Not only is this a case from the days before the domestic violence law (PWDVA 2005) was legislated, but its roots are also downright ancient (from an Indian legal history point of view). They lie in a dispute from a period two generations before the concept of matrimonial litigation gained salience. It therefore shows clearly that sufficiently motivated wives have been filing multiple cases against their husbands from times long before the coming into being of PWDVA 2005; and multi-pronged inter-spousal litigation is not a phenomenon which has emerged in the current epoch of malevolent litigant wives, or even in the period slightly preceding." It also constitutes evidence which supports the conjecture that the war between the sexes has always existed.
The woman was venomous, and the reason why she wanted to remain married to Mr. Kohli is unfathomable. Her legal actions are incapable of being cogently described in any form simpler than a list, which is what Justice Dalveer Bhandari did. They are reproduced here in a paraphrased and slightly modified form—
1) The wife filed FIR No. 100 / 96 against the husband at Police Station Kohna (Kanpur), under Sections 379 / 323 IPC.
2) The wife got a case registered under Sections 323 / 324 IPC against the husband in police station Panki, Kanpur City.
3) Another FIR, No.156 of 1996 was registered in police station Panki at the behest of the wife.
4) The wife filed an FIR under Sections 420/468 IPC against the husband at Police Station Kotwali (Kanpur).
5) The wife got a case registered under Sections 420 / 467 / 468 and 471 IPC against the husband.
6) The wife filed a complaint against the husband under Sections 498A / 323 / 504 / 506 IPC at Police Station Kohna.
7) The wife had opposed the bail application of the husband in the context of her criminal case filed at police station Kotwali.
8) When police filed a final report in two criminal cases at police station Kotwali and police station Kohna, the wife filed protest petitions in these cases.
9) The wife filed complaint no. 125 of 1998 in the Women's Cell, Delhi in September 1997 against the husband's lawyer and friend (one and same man presumably) alleging criminal intimidation.
10) The wife filed a complaint against the husband under Sections 397 / 398 of the Companies Act before the Company Law Board, New Delhi.
11) The wife filed a complaint in Case No.1365 0f 1988 against the husband. (Jurisdiction not specified in judgement).
12) Again on 08/07/1999, the wife filed a complaint in Parliament Street Police Station, New Delhi and made all efforts to get the husband arrested.
13) On 31/03/1999, the wife sent a notice for breaking the nucleus of the Hindu Undivided Family.
14) The wife filed a complaint against the husband under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
15) The wife withdrew Rs. 9,50,000/= from the bank account of the husband in a clandestine manner.
16) On 22/01/01 the wife gave an affidavit before the High Court and got non-bailable warrants issued against the husband.
17) The wife got an advertisement issued in a national newspaper that the husband was only her employee.
18) She got a news item issued cautioning business associates to avoid dealing with the husband.
19) The wife filed a contempt petition in the Company Law Board in the context of its order dated 25/09/2000, in order to try and get Naveen Kohli thrown out of his little apartment; and urged that he be sent to jail.
2) The wife got a case registered under Sections 323 / 324 IPC against the husband in police station Panki, Kanpur City.
3) Another FIR, No.156 of 1996 was registered in police station Panki at the behest of the wife.
4) The wife filed an FIR under Sections 420/468 IPC against the husband at Police Station Kotwali (Kanpur).
5) The wife got a case registered under Sections 420 / 467 / 468 and 471 IPC against the husband.
6) The wife filed a complaint against the husband under Sections 498A / 323 / 504 / 506 IPC at Police Station Kohna.
7) The wife had opposed the bail application of the husband in the context of her criminal case filed at police station Kotwali.
8) When police filed a final report in two criminal cases at police station Kotwali and police station Kohna, the wife filed protest petitions in these cases.
9) The wife filed complaint no. 125 of 1998 in the Women's Cell, Delhi in September 1997 against the husband's lawyer and friend (one and same man presumably) alleging criminal intimidation.
10) The wife filed a complaint against the husband under Sections 397 / 398 of the Companies Act before the Company Law Board, New Delhi.
11) The wife filed a complaint in Case No.1365 0f 1988 against the husband. (Jurisdiction not specified in judgement).
12) Again on 08/07/1999, the wife filed a complaint in Parliament Street Police Station, New Delhi and made all efforts to get the husband arrested.
13) On 31/03/1999, the wife sent a notice for breaking the nucleus of the Hindu Undivided Family.
14) The wife filed a complaint against the husband under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
15) The wife withdrew Rs. 9,50,000/= from the bank account of the husband in a clandestine manner.
16) On 22/01/01 the wife gave an affidavit before the High Court and got non-bailable warrants issued against the husband.
17) The wife got an advertisement issued in a national newspaper that the husband was only her employee.
18) She got a news item issued cautioning business associates to avoid dealing with the husband.
19) The wife filed a contempt petition in the Company Law Board in the context of its order dated 25/09/2000, in order to try and get Naveen Kohli thrown out of his little apartment; and urged that he be sent to jail.
Justice Bhandari noted in his judgement that Naveen Kohli had also filed cases against his wife –but he did not bother to list them. Maybe the number of cases filed by Mr. Kohli was so small in comparison to the number of cases filed by Mrs. Kohli as to be insignificant. Another possible explanation for such a thing to have happened is that judges of the bench had become biased against the wife by that time. Justifiably so, if so.
Bhandariji also deemed it worth mentioning that the wife had not denied having abused her husband with choicest abuses in her reply to his allegations.
The total number of cases, appeals and revisions in the litigation between Naveen and Neelu Kohli was greater than 20. This is probably a national record, and maybe even a world record.
K. Srinivas Rao vs D.A. Deepa
Top of PageA broad outline of K. Srinivas Rao’s legal battle –or legal war if you want to call it that– can be seen in K. Srinivas Rao vs D.A. Deepa [5] [6] (2007-2013). D.A. Deepa first filed a dowry complaint against him (U/s 498a IPC and 3 / 4 Dowry Prohibition Act), then withdrew it, and then went around and decided that she had made a mistake by withdrawing it. She therefore started to pursue a complaint which had been withdrawn –and thereby reduced criminal proceedings to a farce. Not being satisfied with creation of this much drama, she filed an RCR petition to ostensibly try to bring him back to the marital bed. Then she filed another criminal complaint against him, this time U/s 324 IPC (Punishment for causing simple hurt).
Then her brother went to her husband’s house and molested her mother-in-law, as a result of which she (the mother-in-law) instituted criminal proceedings U/s 354 IPC against him. At this point the brother of the wife revealed himself to be as litigious as his sister by filing a cross-FIR against her mother-in-law under some section of the IPC which has not been identified in the SC judgement.
Surprisingly the husband (i.e. K. Srinivas Rao) got convicted by the trial court in the ding-dong dowry case filed by the wife. Hereupon she started filing complaints in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh –where her husband was employed as an Assistant Registrar– demanding that he be sacked from his job because of having been convicted in a criminal case. Her maternal uncle and her parents also filed similar complaints in the said high court.
Rao understandably filed a criminal appeal against his conviction in the dowry case in the court of the concerned Sessions judge, which she understandably contested.
But she was not satisfied with merely contesting her husband’s appeal. She apparently wanted some high court action (many litigants have such a latent desire). The blessed lady filed a criminal appeal against the acquittal of Mr. Rao’s parents in the dowry case and a criminal revision requesting enhancement of Mr. Rao’s sentence in one and the same case!
Not counting anticipatory bail applications, the total number of cases, appeals and revisions in their litigation was 11, which included a divorce case and a transfer petition, both filed by the husband.
Dhan Vati ＠ Dhanno vs. Satish Kumar
Top of PageDhanvati in Dhan Vati ＠ Dhanno vs. Satish Kumar [7] [8] [9] (2022-2025) is another example of a crazy wife, –or a wife crazed by her desire for vengeance, if you wish to be polite. Her mental condition made her file as many as 3 FIRs against her husband and in-laws. This remains the national record for the most FIRs filed by a wife against her husband!
The marriage of the couple in question was solemnised on the 3rd of March 1990. Relations between husband and wife were cordial initially, and they even had a child together, on the 3rd of October 1997.
Things appear to have started going downhill when the said child was about to reach the age of 3 years. Dhan Vati began filing criminal complaints against Mr. Kumar in the year 2000 –the first being in February of that year. She did not pursue the said complaint, but this does not imply that her husband must necessarily have continued to trust her. Although he appears to be a tolerant and maybe even a gullible person from the judgement, but even gullible persons are affected by sub-conscious mistrust. It is indeed correctly said that relationships are like glass; both are non-repairable.
The wife then sat quietly for a few years but her quarrelsome nature resurfaced in the form of series of criminal complaints which she filed against her husband and in-laws in 2008 and 2009. Her exact count was one criminal complaint in 2008 and three criminal complaints in 2009, which she filed on 21/12/2008, 30/08/2009, 15/11/2009 and 09/12/2009 respectively.
She did not bother to pursue any of these complaints except the last one, which became the basis for an FIR under IPC Sections 323 (causing simple hurt), 354 (molestation), 506 (criminal intimidation) and 34 (common intention). It was registered at Nangloi Police Station in Delhi, and was given the number 118 / 2010.
This turned out to be the first of 3(!) FIRs. She filed another criminal complaint in PS Mundka in Delhi in 2011. This was duly turned into an FIR by the said police station, and was given the identifying number 110 of 2011. Then she grew silent (like she had done before) and it began to appear that she was not going to file any more criminal complaints. But something inside her woke up and she filed a second criminal complaint in PS Mundka in 2015 –this being her third complaint overall– which predictably enough got converted into her third FIR (bearing the number 89 of 2015) against her husband and in-laws.
In addition to her 7 criminal complaints she recycled her allegations to create a DV complaint. She also preferred an appeal against a family court judgement granting divorce to her husband on the grounds of cruelty committed by her. This made for a total of 9 offensive shots fired by her. The list of cases filed by her indicates that she deemed criminal litigation to be applicable whenever it pleased her fancy.
Satish Kumar filed a suit for divorce in Tis Hazari Family Court in Delhi, being HMA Petition No. 526 / 2009 (later renumbered by the said court to 329 / 2014, and finally to 590661 / 2016). He also filed a petition for visitation rights qua their son. He succeeded in winning the right to visit the child but the child refused to meet him. This refusal was obviously a consequence of his mother poisoning his mind against his father.
In addition, Satish Kumar's father filed one case –pleading for a permanent injunction against Dhanvati forbidding her from trying to claim any right over their house.
The total number of complaints and cases in their marital litigation was one dozen. As mentioned above, this included 3 FIRs filed by Dhanvati against her husband.
References:
Top of Page1)Vishal Shah vs Monalisha Gupta, 2025 INSC 254 (Supreme Court of India, 20 February 2025), Indiankanoon.org; Delhi; Undated; Retrieved on 18th September 2025
2)Vishal Shah vs Monalisha Gupta, 2025 INSC 254 (Supreme Court of India, 20 February 2025), sci.gov.in; Delhi; Undated; Retrieved on 18th September 2025
3) Naveen Kohli vs Neelu Kohli, AIR 2006 Supreme Court 1675, 2006 (3) SCALE 252 (Supreme Court of India, 21 March 2006), Indiankanoon.org; Delhi; Undated; Retrieved on 18th September 2025
4) Naveen Kohli vs Neelu Kohli, AIR 2006 Supreme Court 1675, 2006 (3) SCALE 252 (Supreme Court of India, 21 March 2006), sci.gov.in; Delhi; Undated; Retrieved on 18th September 2025
5)K. Srinivas Rao vs D.A. Deepa, AIR 2013 Supreme Court 2176, 2013 (2) SCALE 735, 2013 (5) SCC 226 (Supreme Court of India, 22 February 2013), Indiankanoon.org; Delhi; Undated; Retrieved on 18th September 2025
6)K. Srinivas Rao vs D.A. Deepa, AIR 2013 Supreme Court 2176, 2013 (2) SCALE 735, 2013 (5) SCC 226 (Supreme Court of India, 22 February 2013), sci.gov.in; Delhi; Undated; Retrieved on 18th September 2025
7)Dhan Vati ＠ Dhanno vs Satish Kumar, Mat. App. (F.C.) 8 / 2022 & CM Appl. 4523 / 2022 (Stay) (Delhi High Court, 19 September 2025), Indiankanoon.org; Delhi; Undated; Retrieved on 25th October 2025
8)Dhan Vati ＠ Dhanno vs Satish Kumar, Mat. App. (F.C.) 8 / 2022 & CM Appl. 4523 / 2022 (Stay) (Delhi High Court, 19 September 2025), delhihighcourt.nic.in; Delhi; Undated; Retrieved on 25th October 2025
9)Dhan Vati ＠ Dhanno vs Satish Kumar, Mat. App. (F.C.) 8 / 2022 & CM Appl. 4523 / 2022 (Stay) (Delhi High Court, 19 September 2025), delhihighcourt.nic.in; Delhi; Undated; Retrieved on 25th October 2025