Delhi High Court: In an appeal filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 against the judgment dated 10-02-2020, whereby the Principal Judge, Family Court (‘Family Court’) had dismissed the divorce petition, the Division Bench of Suresh Kumar Kait and Neena Bansal Krishna*, JJ., opined that the Family Court had erred in ignoring the overwhelming evidence of false and defamatory accusations made by the respondent-wife and also, the multifarious litigations initiated by the wife against the appellant-husband and his family members, clearly established the cruelty by the wife and thus, the Court set aside the impugned judgment and granted divorce on the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 2005.
Background
In the instant case, the parties got married on 19-04-1998 and two sons from their wedlock was born on 26-05-2002 and 17-11-2003, respectively. The husband alleged that the wife’s behaviour was rude and abnormal towards him, and she regularly picked quarrels with him on petty matters. The wife used to insult the husband, his family members, friends and also, refused to discharge her matrimonial obligations. In 1999, on the occasion of Diwali, the wife left the matrimonial home and returned after eleven months. Thereafter, in 2001, she came to Delhi and made a false complaint to the police alleging sexual harassment by her father-in-law and attempt to rape against the brother-in-law.
Subsequently, in 2006, the wife attempted to commit suicide by pouring kerosene over herself with the sole objective of falsely implicating the wife and his family members and since October 2006, the parties had been living separately.
Thereafter, the husband sought divorce on the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (‘the Act’). The Family Court vide impugned judgment dated 10-02-2020 observed that all the allegations of misconduct against the wife were general, vague and non-specific. Further, there was contradiction in the husband’s testimony as to whether the allegations of attempt to rape and sexual harassment was made against his father or brother and concluded that the husband had failed to prove the acts of cruelty by the wife and accordingly, the divorce petition was dismissed.
Thus, the husband filed the present appeal.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court observed that the husband’s testimony showed that the parties marriage was on the rocks since beginning as the wife was rude, insulting and derogatory towards his family members. The Court also observed that the wife had relied on a complaint dated 12-04-2009, wherein she claimed that the husband was living with another woman for the last four years. She made serious allegations of the husband being in an illicit relationship with a woman, but the Court opined that the wife had not been able to substantiate her allegations of such illicit relationship by any evidence.
The Court noted that the parties entered into settlement agreement dated 26-11-2010, whereby they agreed to amicably resolve the disputes and withdraw the cases filed by them. However, the mediation settlement failed because the wife refused to withdraw the complaint, whereby she alleged that the husband got her to fraudulently quash the FIR registered under Section 31 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (‘DV Act’). The wife also made complaint dated 27-04-2012 under Section 156 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 against the husband and his family members making serious allegations of committing offences punishable under Sections 307, 498-A, 406, 503, 506, 509, 120-B and 34 of the Penal Code, 1860. However, this application was dismissed on 05-03-2018 as it was without any merit. Thereafter, other complaints filed by her including the complaint filed under Section 12 of the DV Act was also dismissed.
The Court opined that these complaints and litigations clearly indicated that the wife had made allegations of dowry harassment, scandalous allegations against the husband regarding his involvement with a third woman and also, alleged her sexual exploitation by the husband’s brother. However, none of these allegations were substantiated by any cogent evidence and several complaints filed by her were also dismissed.
The Court opined that every aggrieved person had the absolute right to initiate appropriate legal action and right to approach the state machinery. However, it was for the wife to establish that she was subjected to cruelty by placing forth cogent evidence, in support of her allegations. The Court opined that though filing of a criminal complaint could not amount to cruelty, but such grave and incident allegations of cruelty should be substantiated during divorce proceedings and in the present case, the wife had neither substantiated her allegations, nor justified her conduct.
The Court relied on K. Srinivas v. K. Sunita, (2014) 16 SCC 34; Raj Talreja v. Kavita Talreja, (2017) 14 SCC 194; Mangayakarasi v. M.M. Yuvaraj, (2020) 3 SCC 786; Ravi Kumar v. Julmidevi (2010) 4 SCC 476, and opined that making such serious and unsubstantiated allegations and waging legal war against the husband by implicating him and his family members clearly showed the vindictive nature of the wife and amounts to extreme cruelty towards the husband. Further, the attempted mediation settlement was also violated by the wife, as she only wanted to enjoy the monetary benefits arising out of settlement and never wanted to fulfil her end of the bargain. The Court opined that the wife’s conduct of resorting to filing other vexatious complaints against the husband and his family only reflected her keenness in not attempting to amicably resolve her differences.
Thus, the Court opined that Family Court had erred in ignoring the overwhelming evidence of false and defamatory accusations made by the wife and also, the multifarious litigations initiated by the wife against the husband and his family members, clearly established the cruelty by the wife and accordingly, set aside the judgment dated 10-02-2020 and granted divorce on the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act.
[Shiv Nath Thakur v. Nutan Thakur, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 7083, decided on 02-11-2023]
*Judgment authored by- Justice Neena Bansal Krishna
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Appellant: Amit Chadha, Atin Chadha, Munisha Chadha, Swati Chawla, Smriti Shrivastava and Aeshana Singh, Advocates;
For the Respondent: Indu Kaul and Mehak Sharma, Advocates
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
