Mere Lodging Of Cruelty FIR Against Husband Doesn't Itself Amount To Cruelty, Not Ground For Divorce: Telangana High Court
The Telangana High Court has held that mere lodging of a complaint against a husband and his family under Section 498A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act does not amount to cruelty and cannot, by itself, constitute a ground for divorce.
The Court further held that neither the Family Court nor the High Court can dissolve a marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown. A spouse seeking divorce on the statutory ground of cruelty must plead and prove the alleged conduct through cogent evidence.
A Division Bench of Justice K. Lakshman and Justice K. Sujana observed:
“It is the respondent/husband, who filed the aforesaid OP seeking dissolution of marriage against the appellant/wife on the ground of cruelty. Therefore, he has to plead and prove the same by producing cogent evidence. In the present case, except examining himself, he has not examined any other witness... Mere lodging of complaint against husband and his family members for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act does not amount to cruelty. Therefore, on the said ground, respondent/husband cannot seek dissolution of marriage.”
The parties married in February 2009 and had a daughter in November that year. They had been living separately since August 2010.
The husband instituted proceedings under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking dissolution of the marriage on the ground of cruelty. The wife subsequently filed a petition under Section 9 of the Act seeking restitution of conjugal rights.
The Family Court allowed the husband's petition and granted a decree of divorce. It dismissed the wife's petition for restitution of conjugal rights. The wife challenged both findings before the High Court.
The husband alleged that the wife harassed and ill-treated him, repeatedly left for her parental home, insisted upon residing separately from his parents and assaulted him and his mother. He further alleged that she suffered from psychological disorders and hysteria and threatened to implicate his family in false criminal cases.
He also relied upon the criminal complaint lodged against him and his family under Section 498A IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act. The proceedings had ended in acquittal.
The wife denied the allegations and contended that the husband had defamed her by describing her as a “psycho” and “hysteria patient”. She alleged that she was treated like a slave, prevented from speaking to her parents, denied food and eventually driven out of the matrimonial home with her child.
Appearing for the wife, Seshadri Goalla submitted that she and her daughter were willing to reside with the husband.
The issue before the High Court was whether the husband had proved cruelty through cogent evidence and whether the divorce decree could otherwise be sustained on the ground that the marriage had irretrievably broken down due to the parties' prolonged separation.
The Court noted that although the husband alleged that the wife suffered from psychological disorders and that this fact had been concealed before marriage, he neither produced any document nor examined any witness to prove the allegation.
The burden of proving this allegation rested upon the husband. Nothing supporting it had been elicited during the cross-examination of the wife or her father. The Court consequently found the allegation to be false.
The Bench further noted that the husband had made several other allegations against the wife but had not examined his parents, the panchayat elders or any other supporting witness. Apart from examining himself, he produced no witness to establish the alleged cruelty.
The Court observed that cruelty is not defined by statute and must be determined from the entire evidence and conduct of the parties. It may be physical or mental, intentional or unintentional, and depends upon the parties' circumstances, upbringing, sensitivity and social and cultural backgrounds.
“What is cruelty in one case may not amount to cruelty in other case,” the Bench observed.
The Court held that the wife's lodging of the criminal complaint did not, in itself, establish cruelty merely because the proceedings subsequently ended in acquittal.
It further found that the Family Court had granted divorce principally because the parties had lived separately since August 2010 and the marriage had irretrievably broken down, with no possibility of reunion.
The High Court held that irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not a ground on which either the Family Court or the High Court could grant divorce.
“Neither the learned Family Court nor this Court can dissolve the marriage of the parties by granting decree of divorce on the ground of 'irretrievable breakdown of marriage',” it said.
Since the husband had failed to prove the alleged cruelty and the Family Court had relied upon a legally unavailable ground, the High Court held that the common order was unreasoned and liable to be set aside.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the wife's appeal and set aside the decree of divorce.
Her appeal concerning restitution of conjugal rights was disposed of, considering that the original petition had been filed in 2013 and the parties had remained separated since 2010. The Court granted her liberty to institute a fresh petition seeking restitution of conjugal rights.
Case Title: XXXX v. XXXX
Case Nos.: Family Court Appeal Nos. 202 and 229 of 2017
Appearance: Seshadri Goalla for the appellant-wife.