Wife Filing False Criminal Case To Embarrass, Incarcerate Husband Is Cruelty And Ground For Divorce Under HMA: AP High Court

Applying this principle to a case where the wife's allegations resulted in the husband and his parents facing prosecution and eventual acquittal, a Division Bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tihari and Justice Challa Gunaranjan held,

"Mental cruelty cause much serious injury than physical harm. The criminal cases filed by wife to embarrass and incarcerate the husband and his family members cause persistent trauma, humiliation in social circle which amount to mental cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of H.M.Act, and particularly when in reality they are not guilty and so acquitted. Such can only be imagined by others. Its difficult to prove mental cruelty and therefore the normal rule which governs the criminal proceedings is that it is proved by a preponderance of probabilities and not beyond reasonable doubt"

“We are of the considered view that the act and conduct of the wife in filing the criminal complaint in C.C.No.228 of 2003 under Section 498-A IPC against the husband and his parents in which they had to obtain bail and were finally acquitted as the allegations were not proved was a conduct causing mental cruelty, and agony to the husband. It amounted to mental cruelty and furnished a ground for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the H.M.Act,” it added. 

Facts:

The Court was dealing with an appeal challenging a decree of divorce dated 08.05.2006 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Guntur (Trial Court) under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Act.

Initially, the respondent husband had filed for divorce plea, claiming that the appellant wife had caused mental agony and cruelty to him and his family. In response, the appellant wife denied the claims and instead alleged that she was subjected to harassment and ill-treatment by the husband, further asserting that dowry had also been given to him.

Noting that the relationship between the parties, who were living apart for about 29 years, was beyond the 'melting point', the Trial Court held that directing them to live together would cause them embarrassment, and hence, the divorce was granted. Additionally, it was held that, in light of the acquittal of the husband and his parents in the criminal proceedings u/s Section 498-A IPC by the wife, which entailed their arrest, judicial remand, and subsequent grant of bail, the failure of the wife to prove the charges alleged against him amounted to mental cruelty–as it had caused harassement. Aggrieved, the wife challenged the order before the High Court.

It was the case of the appellant wife that the decree of divorce cannot be sustained as the grounds on which the divorce petition was filed, i.e. cruelty and desertion, were not proved. She further argued that failure to prove charges u/s 498-A cannot be construed as mental cruelty, and further, cannot be used as a sole ground to pass a decree of divorce.

On the contrary, the respondent husband alleged that the act of concocting false allegations and implicating him by filing a false criminal case, which later resulted in acquittal, constituted mental cruelty.

Findings:

While the word 'cruelty' is not defined in the Act, the Court explained,

“It is the conduct in relation to or in respect of matrimonial duties and obligations. It is a course of conduct and one which is adversely affecting the other. The cruelty may be mental or physical, intentional or unintentional. There may be cases where the conduct complained of itself is bad enough and per se unlawful or illegal. Then the impact or the injurious effect on the other spouse need not be enquired or considered. In such cases, cruelty will be established if the conduct itself is proved or admitted.”

In order to determine whether filing of a criminal case against the husband and his parents would amount to mental cruelty, the Court referred to a host of judgments, including Gajjala Shankar v Anuradha (2006)  wherein it was held that while filing of a case u/s 498-A may not be a sufficient ground to constitute cruelty, implicating the husband and his family, who suffered imprisonment for sometime, not only has a bearing upon their social status but also causes trauma and diffidence, and the same amounts to mental cruelty.

With respect to the question whether the parties can live in matrimony, especially after 29 years of long separation, the Court held,

“The parties are living separately for last 29 years and there is no chance for reunion. In his evidence also as P.W.1, the husband deposed to that effect that in view of false implication in criminal case, reunion is not possible. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the period of long separation coupled with the affidavit of the husband. We are in agreement with the view taken by the learned trial court that now it is not possible for the parties to lead a matrimonial life together.”

The Court concluded by adding that the relationship is beyond repair and the marriage had become a “fiction”. Accordingly, it upheld the trial court's  judgment and dismissed the wife'sappeal.

Case Title: X v. Y

Click Here To Read/Download Order