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

Writ - praying to declare that explanation to Section 6 of the amendment Act of 39 of 2005, Explanation: for the purpose of this Section partition means any partition made by execution of a deed of partition duly registered under the Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908) or partition effected by a decree of a court as unconstitutional and the same is liable to be struck down and etc; -2015 KAR(2015) msklawreports

"(i) Whether  Section 6  of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as amended by the Amendment Act , 2005 is prospective or retrospective in operation? (ii) Whether  Section 6  of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by the Amendment Act , 2005 applies to daughters born prior to 17.6.1956? (iii) Whether  Section 6  of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by the Amendment Act , 2005 applies to daughters born after 17.6.1956 and prior to 9.9.2005? (iv) Whether  Section 6  of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by the Amendment Act , 2005 applies only to daughters born after 9.9.2005? (v) Whether the decision of the Division Bench in the case of Vaishali Ganorkar is per in curium of Gandori Koteshwaramma and others?"   In addressing an argument that the Explanation to  Section 6  clearly provides that partition means any partition made by execution of a deed duly registered under the  Registration Act , 1908...
Read more

Or.39, rule 7 of C.P.C - Petition for preservation of properties belongs to the petitioner - as the Govt. is going to demolish the building in road widening scheme - Or.39, rule 1 made absolute against the petitioner infavour of the respondent - Trial court allowed the Petition wrongly - their lordships held that In a suit for injunction, though the question of possession as on the date of filing of the suit is most relevant, there may be other ancillary and incidental questions as to the conduct of the parties before the Court. The concept of possession in law should take in its spectrum all rights, liabilities, immunities and claims vis-`-vis the property which is said to be in possession. When the Court recorded a prima facie finding that Gayatri bai is in possession, she was also in law entitled to take advantage of that presumption. Unless the defendant properly pleads and proves at the earliest stage regarding any such movables or immovables attached to the immovable property, no defendant can be heard of saying that his belongings were lying in the disputed property. - 2015 A.P.(2001) MSKLAWREPORTS

<CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - - Or.39 Rr.1 and 2 - - Or.39 R.7 - - Suit for possession - - Interim injuction granted was made absolute - - Later on defendant filed a petition to remove and keep in safe custody certain movables laying in the disputed premises alleging that those belong to him and may get spoiled in case of demolition of the building for road widening - - Lower Court ordered handing over such articles after preparing necessary list to the respondent/defendant.         Scope and ambit  of Or.39 R.7 and when the power thereunder to be exercised - - Laid down. >HELD:         Order 39 Rule 7 CPC empowers the Court to make an order for detention, preservation and inspection of any property which is the subject matter of the suit or as to which any question may arise in the suit.  The submission that the power under Rule 7 can be exercised only in respect of the subject matter is therefore not well founded. The...
Read more

Cancellation of Bail with out completing the investigation by police about threat on defacto complainant , is a premature one - - 2015 TELANGANA & AP.MSKLAWREPORTS

the allegation of defacto complainant is that some unknown persons on behalf of the accused,  even though they were in judicial custody, started threatening him with dire consequences if he does not come forward to compromise with them  in the case and in view of such threat he lodged report and consequently Cr.No.705 of 2014 was registered under Sections 506 and 507 IPC. Apart from it, the complainant also narrated that some of the accused were involved in other cases and rowdy sheet was opened against A1. The lower Court cancelled the bail taking the above allegations into consideration. It must be noted that the threat allegations are under investigation and the persons who allegedly threatened the defacto complainant and the connection of accused with them if any has to be found out only after through investigation by the concerned police.  However, before that exercise being completed, the lower Court came to a premature conclusion about the correctness of the...
Read more