Skip to main content

Husband entitled to seek divorce from a wife who files false cases against him in which he gets acquitted; Bombay HC

Bombay High Court has held that if a wife files false criminal case against the husband and his family members in which the husband and his family members ultimately gets acquitted, it amounts to cruelty. Justice R.D Dhanuka said that on this very ground, the Husband is entitled to seek divorce from the wife. Background In this case, the wife filed a complaint against Husband and his family under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code. The Husband filed petition for divorce. After conducting trial, the case lodged by the wife resulted in acquittal in 2007. Meanwhile Husband got his Divorce petition allowed in 2008. The state preferred appeal against the acquittal and the wife preferred appeal against grant of Divorce. The former was dismissed and the latter was allowed and Divorce decree was set aside by the appellate court. The acquittals were not further challenged. Husband preferred appeal against the setting aside of Divorce decree by the Lower appellate court. Issue The Substantial question of law in this Second appeal filed by the Husband before the High Court was whether the appellate Court was right in reversing the decree passed by the trial Court for divorce on the ground of cruelty particularly when the proceedings under Section 498A against the appellant-husband has culminated into acquittal up to the last stage? False cases filed by wife is cruelty Referring to Apex Court ruling in K.Srinivas vs. K.Sunita, (2014) 16 SCC 34 the Court said that it is settled that if a false criminal complaint is preferred by either spouse it would invariably and indubitably constitute matrimonial cruelty and would entitle the other spouse to claim a divorce. Discussing various judgments of the Apex Court and High Courts, the court said that, if the complaint filed by the wife against the husband under section 498- A of IPC and other related provisions is dismissed on merits and the husband and his family members are acquitted, then it is clear that the complaint filed by the wife against the husband was a false complaint. Acquittal of Husband in criminal cases relevant Patna High Court ruling in Bhola Kumar vs. Seema Devi (2015) DMC 437 (DB) (Patna) that the institution of criminal case by the wife per se would not constitute cruelty for seeking divorce was heavily relied on by the counsel for the wife. The court distinguished the said case holding that in that case, the criminal case was still pending adjudication before the Criminal Court of competent jurisdiction when the marriage petition for divorce was heard by the Family Court, but in this case it has resulted in acquittal. DV Act and Section 498A IPC different Reliance was also placed on Mrs.Deeplakshmi Sachin Zingade vs. Sachin Rameshrao Zingade, AIR 2010 Bombay 16 wherein it was held that mere filing of wife filing complaints under Domestic Violence Act could not be called a ‘Cruelty’ against Husband. The Court rejected this contention also, holding that in this case the complaints were filed under Section 498A and they are totally different than the provisions of Domestic Violence Act.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

MACT - Permanent disability - calculate - compensation - Supreme Court - Part 2

1) C. K. Subramonia Iyer vs. T. Kunhikuttan Nair - AIR 1970 SC 376 2) R. D. Hattangadi vs. Pest Control (India) Ltd. - 1995 (1) SCC 551 3) Baker vs. Willoughby - 1970 AC 467 4) Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co.Ltd. - 2010(10) SCALE 298 5) Yadava Kumar v. D.M., National Insurance Co. Ltd. - 2010 (8) SCALE 567) 5. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following : Pecuniary damages (Special Damages) (i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure. (ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising : (a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment; (b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability. (iii) Future medical expenses. Non-pecuniary damages (General Damages) (iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries. (v) Loss of amen

Distinction between “Loss to the Estate” and “Loss of Estate”

A subtle but fundamental distinction between “Loss of Estate” and “Loss to the Estate” was discussed in Omana P.K. and others v. Francis Edwin and others (2011 (4) KLT 952). This Judgment was challenged before the Apex Court, which has now dismissed the Appeal. The question raised in this case, was whether a certain sum which the dependants received as compensation for untimely death of Judgment debtor in a motor accident is attachable in Execution Proceedings. In this case, Justice Thomas P. Joseph speaking for the Kerala High Court had held the following (relying on The Chairman, A.P.S.R.T.C, Hyderabad vs. Smt. Shafiya Khatoon and Others) Capitalized value of the income spent on the dependents, subject to relevant deductions, is the pecuniary loss sustained by the members of his family through his death. The capitalized value of his income, subject to relevant deductions, would be the loss caused to the estate by his death. In other words, what amount the dependents would have got le

Full & Final payment - No dues certificate - end of contract

Whether after the contract comes to an end by completion of the contract work and acceptance of the final bill in full and final satisfaction and after issuance a `No Due Certificate' by the contractor Supreme Court of India Supreme Court of India R.L. Kalathia & Co. vs State Of Gujarat on 14 January, 2011 Author: P Sathasivam Bench: P. Sathasivam, B.S. Chauhan IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3245 OF 2003 R.L. Kalathia & Co Appellant(s) Versus State of Gujarat .... Respondent(s) JUDGMENT P. Sathasivam, J. 1) This appeal is directed against the judgment and final order dated 07.10.2002 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat whereby the High Court set aside the judgment and decree dated 14.12.1982 passed by the Civil Judge, (S.D.), Jamnagar directing the State Government to pay a sum of Rs.2,27,758/- with costs and interest and dismissed the Civil Suit as well as cross objections filed by the a