Wife's Criminal Complaint Not Cruelty Unless False: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court has held that a criminal complaint lodged by a wife against her husband cannot automatically be construed as mental cruelty and cannot form the basis for divorce unless it is shown to be false, while dismissing a husband's appeal seeking dissolution of marriage.

Upholding the decisions of the trial court and the first appellate court, the high court said the husband had failed to prove his allegations of cruelty and desertion against his wife, who maintained that she had approached the authorities to seek protection against alleged dowry harassment.

The bench of Justice P. Vadamalai refused to dissolve the marriage between the couple.

The husband had approached the high court after both the Additional Subordinate Court, Thanjavur, and the II Additional District and Sessions Court, Thanjavur, rejected his divorce petition.

The central question before the high court was whether a criminal complaint lodged by the wife against her husband and in-laws could, by itself, constitute mental cruelty.

What were the husband's allegations?

According to the husband, the couple married in February 2011 and later lived in Hyderabad. A son was born in December the same year.

He alleged that his wife frequently quarrelled with him, used abusive language, threatened to commit suicide, and eventually left the matrimonial home in August 2012. He further claimed that she lodged a false dowry harassment complaint against him and his family, forcing them to seek anticipatory bail.

The husband contended that these actions caused him severe mental agony and amounted to cruelty. He also argued that the parties had been living separately for over 14 years and there was no possibility of reunion.

Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Joydeep Majumdar v. Bharti Jaiswal Majumdar (2021), he submitted that false complaints damaging a spouse's reputation could constitute mental cruelty warranting dissolution of marriage.

Why did the court reject the divorce plea?

The high court found that the husband had failed to substantiate his allegations.

Justice Vadamalai noted that although the husband claimed that his wife had insulted and harassed him in the presence of neighbours, he did not examine any independent witness, including neighbours, to support the claim.

Court also recorded that the wife had consistently maintained that she approached the police because she was subjected to dowry-related harassment and physical assault.

Significantly, the wife produced medical records, police complaint receipts, information obtained through the Right to Information Act, and proceedings of the Deputy Superintendent of Police in support of her stand.

"The petitioner has not proved that the respondent has lodged a false police complaint," Court observed.

Referring to an earlier judgment of the Madras High Court, Justice Vadamalai reiterated that legal proceedings initiated by a wife to vindicate or protect her rights cannot automatically be treated as mental cruelty.

Court quoted the principle that litigation pursued for protection of rights "can never be considered to be a ground for mental cruelty".

Why was the Supreme Court ruling held inapplicable?

The high court distinguished the Supreme Court's decision cited by the husband.

It noted that in Joydeep Majumdar, the wife had made complaints to the husband's superior officers in the Army, adversely affecting his career and reputation, and the spouses had remained separated for around 25 years without children.

In contrast, the present case involved a couple with a child, and there was no evidence that the wife had sent defamatory complaints to the husband's employer or attempted to damage his professional standing.

Court further noted that the wife had expressed willingness to resume cohabitation even during the second appeal proceedings, whereas the husband had not taken steps to seek restitution of conjugal rights.

Holding that neither cruelty nor desertion had been established, the high court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decisions of the lower courts refusing divorce.

Case Title: Xxx vs. Yyy

Judgment Date: June 8, 2026

Bench: Justice P. Vadamalai