Andhra Pradesh High Court : An appeal was filed by the appellant (wife) against respondent (husband) challenging the decree of divorce dated 08-05-2006, passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Guntur, under Sections 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, on the grounds of cruelty and desertion contending that the Trial Court erred in concluding that she had treated the respondent with cruelty. A divison bench of Ravinath Tilhari and Challa Gunaranjan, JJ., upheld the divorce in view of false implication in criminal case amounted to mental cruelty and furnished a ground for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act.
The Court stated, “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 Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.”
The factual foundation of the case traces back to the marriage solemnized on 13-08-1994, in Bapatla, performed according to Hindu rites and customs. The husband was working as a lecturer in Tirupati, while the wife, a graduate, resided with her parents. The marriage was claimed to be without dowry. The husband alleged that just three days after marriage, the wife expressed unwillingness towards the marriage and began exhibiting abnormal behavior. Her frequent departures from the matrimonial home, on the pretext of employment, her non-participation in conjugal life, and conduct which caused mental distress were cited as acts of cruelty. He also mentioned failed attempts at reconciliation and mediations, which he claimed were obstructed by her demand for money. Ultimately, this led him to seek divorce.
In her counter, the wife refuted all allegations of cruelty and desertion. She counter alleged that the husband had, in fact, demanded dowry and subjected her to harassment. She asserted that they had cohabited, and she had fulfilled all her matrimonial obligations while maintaining a job. She maintained that the marriage was consummated and that the husband’s introduction of another man’s name was a deliberate attempt to malign her character. She also emphasized her continuous willingness to resume matrimonial life and highlighted her letter dated 01-01-2001 to that effect, which the husband had responded to with false allegations.
The Trial Court, while framing two primary issues—(i) whether the petitioner was entitled to divorce and (ii) the relief to be granted, held that the relationship had irretrievably broken down. While the husband could not prove the allegation of illicit relationship, the Court found the filing of a criminal complaint under Section 498-A IPC by the wife against the husband and his parents, leading to their arrest and subsequent acquittal, to be an act of mental cruelty. It also emphasized the long period of separation (29 years) and the impossibility of restoration of the matrimonial bond, thereby granting the divorce.
The Court noted that the central issue for determination was whether the filing of a criminal complaint by the wife under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, leading to arrest and judicial proceedings which culminated in acquittal, could amount to “mental cruelty” under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, so as to justify the decree of divorce granted by the trial court.
The Court observed that the Trial Court had rightly concluded that while most of the allegations raised by the husband were unsubstantiated, the solitary fact of the wife initiating criminal proceedings, wherein the husband and his family were arrested, remanded, and later acquitted was sufficient to constitute mental cruelty. The Court agreed with this approach and emphasized that the acquittal in the criminal case, when read in the context of false allegations and the trauma endured, constituted an act of cruelty.
The Court stated that the act and conduct of the wife in filing the criminal complaint in 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 was further held that such conduct amounted to mental cruelty and furnished as grounds for divorce under Section 13(1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act.
The Court relied on K. Srinivas v. K. Sunita, (2014) 16 SCC 34 to underscore that cruelty can occur even without physical proximity. The Court observed that “staying together under the same roof is not a pre-condition for mental cruelty,” and that “filing complaints containing indecent allegations or initiating judicial proceedings making the other spouse’s life miserable” can, by itself, constitute cruelty.
The Court remarked quoting from Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli, (2006) 4 SCC 558 that “mental cruelty must be of such a nature that the parties cannot reasonably be expected to live together.” It went on to explain that cruelty must be assessed contextually, and a sustained course of false litigation initiated maliciously, leading to social embarrassment and psychological distress, clearly falls within its ambit.
The Court further noted that the parties had been living separately for nearly three decades, which reinforced the finding that the matrimonial bond was beyond repair. Though the wife had, during the appellate proceedings, expressed a willingness to resume matrimonial life, the Court found it to be a belated assertion that did not reflect the ground realities. The husband had consistently maintained that reconciliation was not possible in light of past trauma and persistent litigation as the husband and his family were falsely implicated and later acquitted, with no evidence proving the allegations.
The Court held that the findings of the Trial Court did not suffer any legal infirmity and that the decree of divorce was based on a well-reasoned application of law and judicial precedent. It found no justification to interfere with the decree.
Thus, the Court held that the ground of ‘cruelty’ under Section 13(1)(ia) was established to grant divorce. There is no illegality in the decree of divorce granted by the learned Trial Court. The same calls for no interference and is affirmed.
Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the divorce decree, with no order as to costs.
[# v. $, 2025 SCC OnLine AP 1929, decided on 07-05-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Counsel for the appellant: Sri Rama Rao Kochiri
Counsel for the respondent: Sri Lakshminarayana Reddy
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
