Sec.13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act –Divorce O.P. filed after wife filed criminal complaint – objections not raised that no evidence and no amount arguments can be considered etc., at the time of the evidence & at the time of arguments that without pleadings that the wife filed false criminal case and subjected him and his family members for mental cruelty – it is settled law that if a false criminal complaint is preferred by either spouse it would invariably and indubitably constitute matrimonial cruelty, such as would entitle the other spouse to claim a divorce.

Sec.13(1)(ia)  of  the  Hindu Marriage Act –Divorce O.P. filed after wife filed criminal complaint – objections not raised that no evidence and no amount arguments can be considered etc., at the time of the evidence  & at the time of arguments that without pleadings that the wife filed false criminal case and subjected him and his family members for mental cruelty – it is settled law that if a false criminal complaint is preferred by  either  spouse  it would invariably and indubitably constitute  matrimonial  cruelty,  such  as would entitle the other spouse to claim a divorce. 

    It is  now  beyond
cavil that if a false criminal complaint is preferred by  either  spouse  it
would invariably and indubitably constitute  matrimonial  cruelty,  such  as
would entitle the other spouse to claim a divorce.
 When  evidence  was
lead, as also when arguments were addressed, objection had not  been  raised
on behalf of the Respondent-Wife that this aspect of cruelty was beyond  the
pleadings.   We are, therefore, not impressed by  this  argument  raised  on
her behalf.
The Respondent-Wife has admitted in  her  cross-examination  that  she
did not mention all the incidents on which her Complaint is  predicated,  in
her statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C.   
It is  not  her  case  that
she had actually narrated all these facts to the Investigating Officer,  but
that he had neglected to mention them.   
This, it seems to  us,  is  clearly
indicative  of  the  fact  that  the  criminal  complaint  was  a  contrived
afterthought.    
We affirm the view of the  High  Court  that  the  criminal
complaint was “ill advised”. Adding thereto is  the  factor  that  the  High
Court had been informed  of  the  acquittal  of  the  Appellant-Husband  and
members of his family.  
In these circumstances,  the  High  Court  ought  to
have concluded that the Respondent-Wife knowingly and intentionally filed  a
false complaint, calculated to embarrass and incarcerate the  Appellant  and
seven  members  of  his  family  and  that   such   conduct   unquestionably
constitutes  cruelty  as  postulated  in  Section  13(1)(ia)  of  the  Hindu
Marriage Act.

We unequivocally find that the Respondent-Wife  had
filed a false criminal complaint, and even one such complaint is  sufficient
to constitute matrimonial cruelty.
We, accordingly, dissolve the marriage of the  parties  under  Section
13(1)(ia) of  the  Hindu  Marriage  Act


Popular posts from this blog

Sec.20 of C.P.C - Territorial Jurisdiction - suit for recovery of money based on Contract - As per the admitted plaint averments, the office of the defendants is located in Pargi, the offer made by the petitioner was accepted at Pargi, the contract was entered between the petitioner and the respondents at Pargi and the same was executed within the jurisdiction of the Court at Pargi.- Plaint returned with objection - as an after thought added the acceptance of contract was received at Malkajgiri - Trail court returned the plaint to file in proper court - Revision - Their Lordships held that if filing of suit is based on making of a contract, the cause of action arises at the place where the offer is accepted and if the suit is based on termination of a contract, the cause of action arises at the place where such termination order is received. Admittedly, the suit is based on making of a contract and not on termination of the contract.- dismissed the revision - 2015 Telangana & A.P. msklawreports

Sec.482 Cr.P.C. - Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 - Part B question Paper was missed ( said to be distributed to A1 along with other students by A2 an invigilator ) - Charge - she was negligent in performing the invigilation duties. - Their Lordships held that Mere negligence in performing invigilation duties, does not attract the offence set-forth in the Act. Therefore, in absence of any allegation that the petitioner herein has committed the offence set out in Section 5 of the Act, she cannot be subjected to prosecution for which the penalty has been provided under Section 8 of the Act.- Quashed the criminal proceedings - 2015 Telganga & A.P. msklawreports

Section 5 of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 read with Rule 9(1)(a)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the Rules of 1989. - Powers of Revenue Court - Petitioners are the legal heirs of Late Sri A. Penta Reddy and respondents 1 to 3 are the brothers of Penta Reddy - Petitioners claimed as Separate Property - Brothers/Respondents claimed as Joint family Property - MRO held summary enquiry and held that it is Joint family Property - No Appeal to RDO - after the lapse of 12 years filed Revision directly to Joint Collector - JC. dismissed the revision - this Writ - Their Lordships held that in the absence of any suit for Declaration of title after receiving Rule 9 notice with in 3 months, the MRO can decide the dispute summarily - since no appeal is filed nor any suit is filed in any court - the orders of MRO can not be challanged after the lapse of 12 years - dismissed the revision - -2015 Telangana & A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS