Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

The Bombay High Court held that lodging a false complaint under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) with the intent to “correct” a spouse’s behaviour constitutes cruelty under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

A division bench comprising Justice G.S. Kulkarni and Justice Advait M. Sethna, delivered the verdict, while upholding a decree of divorce granted by the Family Court in favour of the husband.

The appeal was filed by the wife (appellant) challenging the Family Court's decree dated March 5, 2018, that had dissolved her marriage. The marriage, solemnized in 2006, had broken down irretrievably, with both parties separated since shortly after their marriage. The husband’s petition for divorce was primarily based on allegations of cruelty, particularly the wife’s initiation of criminal proceedings under Section 498A of the IPC, accusing him and his family of harassment. The Family Court concluded that the allegations made by the wife were false, and she also admitted during cross-examination that her intention in filing the case was not to punish her husband but to reform his behaviour.

The appellant argued that the Family Court erred in interpreting her intentions and that she had challenged the acquittal of her husband in the criminal case before the High Court. It was contended that the observations regarding her filing a false complaint were unfair and that the evidence provided did not substantiate claims of cruelty.

The respondent-husband claimed that the false allegations caused him immense mental agony and strained his familial and social relationships. It was argued that such actions constituted a severe breach of trust, destroying the very foundation of their marital relationship.

The court noted: “once there is a dent to such essential values, on the foundation of which a marriage rests, by a false and draconian action of a criminal prosecution being resorted by either spouse, it is in the realm of cruelty which would be a ground for divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Thus, such actions on the part of the appellant of resorting to a false prosecution, was certainly a sufficient ground, entitling the respondent for a divorce on the ground of cruelty.”

The court found merit in the Family Court’s findings that the wife’s actions were tantamount to cruelty. Referencing her admission that the criminal complaint was intended as a behavioural correction tool, the court observed: “the appellant never realized the effect of the husband and his relatives being dragged into a false prosecution of such serious offences. Further, the social stigma and unwarranted harassment caused to the respondent and his family members is another significant aspect of the sufferings of the respondent and his family members. The learned Judge of the Family Court is, therefore, correct in his observations that a strong case for divorce on the ground of cruelty was made out by the respondent so as to decree the Marriage Petition filed by the respondent.”

Conclusively, affirming the Family Court's decree of divorce, the court dismissed the wife’s appeal.

 

Cause Title: Vaibhavi Rajendra Chalke v Rajendra Ganpat Chalke [FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO. 155 OF 2018]