The Bombay High Court recently ruled that a wife filing a false complaint against her husband merely to correct his behavior constitutes cruelty and undermines normal marital harmony. In the instant case, the wife admitted that the case was false and was filed just to correct the behavior of the husband, which in other words can mean that to make husband dance to her tunes.
A division bench of Justices Girish Kulkarni and Advait Sethna upheld a Family Court’s divorce decree, noting that the wife’s false case against her husband and his family amounted to mental cruelty.
“Subjecting the husband and family to false criminal proceedings, merely to correct the husband’s behavior, has no place in harmonious marital relations built on trust and respect. When a spouse resorts to false prosecution, they’ve lost all rationality to maintain the marriage’s sanctity,” the bench stated on January 3.
The judges emphasized that filing false criminal cases constitutes cruelty under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
In this case, the court observed that the wife failed to recognize the impact of dragging her husband and relatives into false prosecution. The social stigma and harassment caused to them was significant.
Finding no fault with the Family Court’s judgment granting divorce on grounds of cruelty, the bench dismissed the wife’s appeal.
Facts of the Case
- The appellant, V C, and the respondent, R C, were married on March 2, 2006.
- Their relationship deteriorated, leading to separation shortly thereafter and the wife filed a false 498A case.
- The respondent-husband filed for divorce on the grounds of cruelty under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
- Main claim of cruelty was the appellant-wife’s initiation of a criminal complaint under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code against the respondent and his family, which was ultimately dismissed by the criminal courts.
- The Family Court granted the respondent a decree of divorce on March 5, 2018, which the appellant challenged in this appeal.
Arguments
Appellant (Wife) Main Arguments against the family court appeal were:
- The criminal complaint under Section 498A was filed to address the respondent’s behavior, not with malicious intent and thus it is not mental cruelty. Whereas the family court had also held the same against her and this argument was rejected.
15. There is glaring admission of respondent that she had filed complaint u/sec. 498-A of IPC not with intention to punish the petitioner but he should change his behaviour. She has admitted that her appeal has been dismissed and she has not moved to Hon’ble High Court against that acquittal.
27. In the case at hand, the respondent herself unequivocally admitted that she had filed criminal case not to punish petitioner, but to change his behaviour. It could not be understand who advised such therapy, by abusing process of law. This has adverse effect more to the respondent than changing behaviour of the petitioner. The admission of the respondent herself is sufficient to say that her case under Section 498-A of IPC was false. In my opinion, the ratio is clearly applicable to the petitioner.
Respondent (Husband) Main arguments in the Appeal to Support her case:
- Argued that the criminal case was initiated with the sole intention of harassment and lacked merit.
- Emphasized the social stigma and mental agony caused by the false complaint, asserting that it amounted to cruelty.
High Court’s Observations
- The appellant admitted in court that the Section 498A complaint was not intended for punishment but to correct the respondent’s behavior. This admission was deemed sufficient to infer that the case was baseless and amounted to abuse of the legal process.
- Referring to precedents (e.g., K. Srinivas vs. K. Sunita), the court reiterated that filing false criminal complaints constitutes cruelty under Section 13(1)(i-a).
- The social stigma, emotional trauma, and prolonged legal battles faced by the respondent due to the appellant’s actions justified the decree of divorce.
- The court upheld the Family Court’s decision, finding no legal or factual error.
Comments from the Author of this Website
- This judgment though understand the misuse of Section 498A as a tool for harassment rather than justice, causing undue suffering to men and their families. It still refused to pass any guidelines. 18 – 19 precious years of the Husband is lost in a false 498A
- There is an urgent need of stringent measures to prevent false allegations, as they can damage reputations, lead to social stigma, and undermine trust in genuine cases.
Read the Complete Judgment Here