Rita @ Ritu v. Madho Singh Chauhan

order dated 10.04.2007;

Page 15

(vi) that she had also filed an application under Section 12 of the PWDV Act and had failed to lead any evidence in the matter and the same was also dismissed by the Court of Ms Veena Rani, learned MM, Patiala House Courts, South, New Delhi vide judgment dated 20.01.2010.

¶17After recording these proved facts, the learned Family Court Judge held as under:- "21. At the cost of sounding repetitive, although the respondent wife had every legal right in the book to seek protection order including residence order for herself, the fact that criminal complaint was instituted after 18 years of marriage u/s 498A/406 IPC and under the PWDV Act, which lacked any substance, and it clearly smacks a kind of vendetta unleashed by her upon the petitioner husband in order to not only harass and teach a lesson to him but also to defame him in the society. A bare perusal of the contents of her complaint and the order of discharge dated

10.04.2007 would demonstrate that the respondent wife chose to level false allegations of cruelty by the husband for and on account of dowry after 18 years of marriage.

¶25In view of the said aspect of the law on subject of "mental cruelty", the sum result of the foregoing discussion is that though the petitioner husband was failing in his moral and legal duty to maintain the respondent wife and their children, the respondent wife had instead of seeking appropriate legal remedies to claim maintenance for herself and her children from the petitioner husband, did not choose to do so, and instead involved the petitioner husband in a frivolous criminal proceedings, that resulted in the petitioner husband facing the ignominy of remaining in jail for almost three days. The act of filing a criminal complaint by the respondent wife based on reckless and concocted

Page 16

allegations after 18 years of marriage was nothing but an abuse of the process of law so as to harass and torment the petitioner husband."

¶18Making such observations, the learned Family Court Judge dissolved the marriage of the parties under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on the ground of cruelty. Learned counsel for the appellant has failed to point out that these findings of fact on which the learned Family Court Judge has rested its conclusion are incorrect. Even in appeal, the appellant has not stated that in FIR No.767/2000, the appellant was not discharged or that her complaint under Section 12 of PWDV Act was not dismissed. It only states that there were no material facts before the learned Family Court Judge to reach to such conclusion.

¶19The respondent in his petition for divorce, which remains uncontroverted and is duly supported by his evidence, which has not been controverted by the appellant, despite the fact that she was given an opportunity for the purpose, has clearly stated that he suffered loss of reputation and standing in the society due to the false complaints filed by the appellant.

¶20In the case of G.V.N. Kameswara Rao vs. G. Jabilli reported as

(2002) 2 SCC 296, the Supreme Court has held that false police complaints

Page 17

filed by one of the spouses against the other amounts to mental cruelty as it leads to a loss of reputation and standing in the society.

¶21The Supreme Court in a recent judgment in Raj Talreja vs. Kavita Talreja reported as AIR 2017 SC 2138, has held as under:- "10. Cruelty can never be defined with exactitude. What is cruelty will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. In the present case, from the facts narrated above, it is apparent that the wife made reckless, defamatory and false accusations against her husband, his family members and colleagues, which would definitely have the effect of lowering his reputation in the eyes of his peers. Mere filing of complaints is not cruelty, if there are justifiable reasons to file the complaints. Merely because no action is taken on the complaint or after trial the Accused is acquitted may not be a ground to treat such accusations of the wife as cruelty within the meaning of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 (for short 'the Act'). However, if it is found that the allegations are patently false, then there can be no manner of doubt that the said conduct of a spouse levelling false accusations against the other spouse would be an act of cruelty. In the present case, all the allegations were found to be false. Later, she filed another complaint alleging that her husband along with some other persons had trespassed into her house and assaulted her. The police found, on investigation, that not only was the complaint false but also the injuries were self inflicted by the wife. Thereafter, proceedings were launched against the wife Under Section 182 of Indian Penal Code.

¶22The proved facts on record clearly show that the appellant/wife had filed a case of demand of dowry and cruelty under Section 498A IPC after about 18 years of marriage. The uncontradicted facts proved on record

Page 18

clearly show that the appellant had subjected the respondent to cruelty. Learned counsel for the appellant has failed to point out any illegality, infirmity in the impugned judgment. In view of the above discussion, we find no reason to interfere with the findings of the learned Family Court Judge which is accordingly upheld. As a result, the appeal has no merit and the same is dismissed in limini along with the pending applications. No orders as to costs.

DEEPA SHARMA (JUDGE)

SIDDHARTH MRIDUL

(JUDGE) MAY 04, 2018 bg

Page 1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Decided on: 04.05.2018 + MAT.APP.(F.C.) 74/2018, CM APPL. 13974/2018 (Stay) and CM APPL. 13975/2018 (exemption) R @ R ..... Appellant Through: Mr K. Sunil, Adv. versus M.S.C. ..... Respondent Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA 1. The appellant/wife has assailed the order dated 05.03.2018 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court Central District, Tis Hazari, Delhi whereby the divorce petition of the respondent/husband on the ground of cruelty was allowed and the marriage between the appellant and the respondent was dissolved. In the petition for divorce, the respondent/husband had also sought the dissolution of marriage on the ground of desertion which was rejected. Page 2 2. The admitted facts of the case are that the marriage between them was solemnized on 22.11.1982 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. They were blessed with four children and all have attained the age of majority. 3. The appellant failed to file any written statement to the divorce petition filed by the respondent/husband within the period granted to her from time to time. Her defence was struck off vide order dated 03.12.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in CM No.910/2015. On a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, filed by the respondent/husband as he was apparently aggrieved by the act of the appellant/wife of not filing her written statement. Against the said order, the appellant filed a Special Leave Petition (Civil) before the Hon"ble Supreme Court of India. It was also dismissed vide order dated 16.08.2016 as a result there is no challenge to the averments made by the respondent/husband in his divorce petition. 4. In the said petition, the respondent/husband had disclosed the acts of cruelty committed by his wife/appellant. Following were his allegations:- (i) that she was in the habit of quarrelling on trivial matters and without any rhyme and reasons and also levelled the allegations that the appellant Page 3 used to demand money for rendering financial help to her parents and other family members; (ii) that he had also contributed Rs.6000/- in the marriage of her younger sister; (iii) that in 1990, he developed asthma, but she did not take care of him and even neglected him during his illness. On the advice of the doctor, he along with his wife and children, shifted to Panchkula, Haryana in the year 1997 and stayed in a rented accommodation, but the behaviour of the wife became more harsh, rude and indifferent; (iv) that he had purchased a property bearing No. J-77, Saket, New Delhi measuring about 125 square yards (hereinafter referred to as "the said property") from DDA and the same was rented out when they had moved to Panchkula, Haryana. His wife started pressurizing him to transfer the said property in her name and even refused to part with the original lease deed and the other documents which he had entrusted with her with the sole purpose to grab the said property. She along with her brothers, namely, Sunil Sethi and Raj Kumar Sethi (now deceased) along with Naresh Kumar Gupta tried to coerce him to transfer the said property in the name of his wife and when he resisted, he was beaten up and forced out of the house and Page 4 consequently, he reported the matter to the police. In these circumstances, he returned to Delhi and started living at the Barsati floor of the said property and then shifted to ground floor on a portion which was vacated by the tenant. She also wrote a letter to DDA, wherein she alleged that her husband had become "a person of unsound mind" and called the DDA not to issue any duplicate paper in respect of the said property to him. When he learnt about the said letter, he issued a public notice in the newspaper "The Hindustan Times" in its edition dated 29.09.1999 declaring to the general public that the property belonged to him and none shou