498A Misuse: Gurugram Court Allows Husband to Sue Wife for Damages Over False Case
A Gurugram court has cleared the way for a husband to pursue his civil claim for damages against his wife, after finding that his plaint disclosed a valid cause of action in malicious prosecution. The ruling came on August 13, 2025, when Civil Judge (Senior Division) Manish Kumar dismissed an application filed by the wife, Defendant No. 2, which had sought rejection of the plaint at the threshold.
The plaintiff, Gursaranlal Awasthi, had instituted a civil suit seeking compensation on account of what he described as a baseless and malicious criminal case lodged against him. The dispute traces back to FIR No. 72 dated 18 May 2009, filed by his wife under Sections 498A, 406, and 506 of the IPC, alleging cruelty, misappropriation of dowry articles, and threats. Awasthi was acquitted by the trial court after the prosecution failed to establish the charges beyond reasonable doubt. Although a criminal revision petition against his acquittal (CRR No. 729/2018) remains pending before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, the acquittal stands as of now.
Arguing before the civil court, Awasthi maintained that the criminal case had caused him substantial harm — both personal and reputational. He alleged that the prosecution was pursued with malice and without any reasonable or probable cause. Such malicious prosecution, he said, inflicted serious mental agony, social stigma, financial burden, and disruption to his life. On that basis, he demanded damages from his wife, contending that his exoneration in the criminal trial provided a clear foundation for the claim.
His wife, appearing as Defendant No. 2, resisted the suit and moved an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. She asked the court to reject the plaint outright, contending that Awasthi had concealed material facts, had not approached the court with clean hands, and had failed to establish any cause of action. She also argued that since he had claimed recovery of damages, he was liable to pay ad valorem court fee on the entire amount, failing which the suit must be dismissed.
Judge Manish Kumar, however, sided with the plaintiff at this preliminary stage. The order recorded that to succeed in a claim of malicious prosecution, a plaintiff must establish five key ingredients: (1) that the defendant instituted criminal proceedings; (2) that the proceedings terminated in the plaintiff’s favour; (3) that there was no reasonable or probable cause; (4) that the prosecution was driven by malice; and (5) that the plaintiff suffered damage. On a plain reading of Awasthi’s plaint, the court found that all these elements were alleged, and that they constituted a valid cause of action.
The court further clarified that the pendency of the criminal revision did not negate the fact of the trial court’s acquittal, which forms the basis of Awasthi’s claim for damages. Whether or not he can ultimately substantiate his assertions, the judge said, is a matter for trial, not for summary rejection at the filing stage.
On the question of court fee, the judge ruled that in suits for unliquidated damages such as malicious prosecution, it is permissible for plaintiffs to assign a notional value at the outset. Ad valorem court fee becomes payable only if and when the court awards a specific amount in damages. The order cites Amandeep Sidhu v. Ultratech Cement Ltd. as precedent. Accordingly, the objection raised by the wife was held to be unsustainable.
With the defendant’s application dismissed as “without merit,” the civil suit will now proceed to trial. The case has been adjourned to 20 November 2025 for filing of the written statement by Defendant No. 1, with fresh notices directed to be issued to the remaining defendants. The court also directed its staff to properly arrange the case file, which it noted was currently in a haphazard condition.
Case Title: Gursaranlal Awasthi versus Secretary Home Department & others
Order Date: August 13, 2025
Judge: Civil Judge (Senior Division) Manish Kumar