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.
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