The Allahabad High Court has said that if a woman files a false criminal case against the husband and his family members, it amounts to cruelty to the husband.
The Division Bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Donadi Ramesh heard an appeal filed by Smt Tripti Singh.
The appeal has been filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, arising from the order dated 22.02.2013 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Kanpur Nagar, in Original Suit, whereby the trial court has dissolved the marriage between the parties without making any provision for permanent alimony etc.
The marriage between the parties was solemnised on 17.04.2002. A son was born to the parties and attained the age of majority. According to the respondent, the appellant deserted his company on 12.02.2006. In any case, the parties have not revived the relationship since then. The divorce suit was instituted by the appellant in 2006. The plaint was amended vide order dated 02.07.2011.
By means of the amendment made, the respondent alleged cruelty arising from false criminal case lodged by the appellant against the respondent and his family members being Case at PS Mahila Thana, District Kanpur Nagar, under Sections 498A, 323, 504 and 506 IPC read with Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act making allegation of demand of dowry against the respondent and his parents.
It is a fact that the appellant’s parents were arrested and later on enlarged on bail arising from that criminal prosecution lodged by the appellant. Here it may also be noted, the appellant has done her Ph.D. and was earning Rs 10,000/- per month by giving tuition classes while the respondent has completed his MBA as also certificate in Microsoft Certified Solutions Developer and was working in Delhi as Senior Manager.
In the first place, the FIR was lodged six years after the marriage and second it was lodged almost two months after the divorce suit had been instituted by the appellant. Critically, it is an admitted fact that the respondent and his parents have been acquitted in the criminal case. At the stage of evidence, the appellant could not support the FIR allegations and she turned hostile. Seen in that light, a specific pleading of cruelty did exist. The act of cruelty of causing arrest of the parents of the respondent on false allegation of criminal offence, was proven.
Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant was forced to lodge the criminal case arising from cruelty and indifferent/rude behaviour faced by her in her matrimonial life. At the same time, it could not be disputed by him that allegations levelled in the FIR were never proven. Rather, on the own testimony of the appellant not supporting the FIR allegations and for reason of her turning hostile at the criminal trial, the respondent and his parents came to be acquitted by the trial court, but not before suffering arrest at the stage of investigation arising from (false) accusations made in the FIR as may have been supported through oral statements made during investigation. That judgement dated 26.11.2013 in Case, has attained finality.
At the same time, counsel for the appellant further submitted that the appellant had turned hostile only to allow for a chance of her marriage to survive. In that, he would submit that a compromise has been entered between the parties whereunder the respondent agreed to revive the marriage between the parties subject to the appellant withdrawing from the criminal case and also withdrawing from proceeding instituted by her seeking maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. However, the respondent developed dishonest intent and did not revive the matrimonial relationship between the parties after the criminal prosecution had been dropped.
The Court observed,
In view of the above, we are not impressed with the submission being advanced that the allegation of demand of dowry giving rise to the criminal prosecution lodged by the appellant arose only by way of a bona fide counter blast to the divorce case proceeding instituted by the respondent and that it was never intended to lead to such harsh consequence of dissolution of marriage between the parties.
In the context of a Hindu marriage, one may continue to describe the parents of the spouse as parents in-laws, at the same time for the act of cruelty committed, once arrest of parents of a spouse is caused on false allegations or allegations found to be false in the course of a criminal trial, no further or strict proof of cruelty may be prescribed or applied by Courts. Those who were arrested were not strangers or third parties.
The victims of the reckless and false accusation made by the appellant were the closest family members of the respondent i.e his parents. Once that cruel act was committed, in the context of the educational and social background of the parties, it could never be resisted that the respondent meted out the most cruel behaviour in which he may have reasonably felt unsafe to cohabit with the appellant. It would be completely another case where an allegation of demand of dowry is found true.
However, divorce sought to be a civil proceeding, everything apart, its institution may never have offered the respondent spouse (in that proceeding) motivation to get even with her spouse-by lodging a false criminal case. That act committed by the appellant led to loss of reputation and standing of the respondent and his family, in his society. Having suffered that, the respondent cannot be expected to cope with that and revive his matrimonial relations.
“As noted above, both parties being well educated, the respondent holding MBA and the appellant holding Ph.D, loss of reputation suffered by the respondent on the false prosecution pressed by the appellant is seen to have caused cruelty to the extent that it may create a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the respondent that it may not be safe for him and his family to live in a matrimonial discord relationship with the appellant as that occurrence would always remain exposed to the risk of similar false prosecution etc.
Thus, the act of cruelty alleged by the respondent is found to be proven. To that extent, the decree of the trial court calls for no interference,” the Court further observed while allowing the appeal.
As to the permanent alimony, in the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, keeping in mind the fact that the appellant is herself gainfully employed being a part of teaching faculty at a respectable institute having monthly income about Rs 60,0000, and further keeping in mind the fact that the son born to the parties has attained the age of majority, the Court provided a lump sum alimony Rs 10,00,000 to be paid to the appellant within a period of three months from today i.e not later than 31.12.2024. Failing that, the same shall attract interest @ 8% from today till the date of its actual payment.