1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL No. 1213
OF 2006
K.SRINIVAS
... APPELLANT
vs
K. SUNITA
.. RESPONDENT
J U D G M E N T
VIKRAMAJIT SEN,J.
1
In this Appeal, counsel for the Appellant has sought to
draw
our
attention
to
all
the
arguments
that
had
been
addressed before the High Court on behalf of the AppellantHusband in support of his claim for dissolution of his
marriage to the Respondent by a decree of divorce under
Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
have,
however,
restricted
him
to
the
ground
of
We
alleged
cruelty on account of the filing of a criminal complaint by
the Respondent against the Appellant and several members of
his family under Sections 498A and 307 of the Indian Penal
Page1
2
Code (IPC).
We did this for the reason that if this ground
is successfully substantiated by the Petitioner, we need not
delve any further i.e. whether a marriage can be dissolved
by the Trial Court or the High Court on the premise that the
marriage has irretrievably broken down.
This nature of
cruelty, in the wake of filing of a false criminal case by
either of the spouses, has been agitated frequently before
this Court, and has been discussed so comprehensively and
thoroughly that yet another Judgment on this well-settled
question of law, would be merely a waste of time.
complete discourse and analysis on this issue is available
in a well-reasoned judgment in K. Srinivas Rao vs. D.A.
Deepa, 2013(5) SCC 226, in which numerous decisions have
been cited and discussed.
It is now beyond cavil that if a
false criminal complaint is preferred by either spouse it
would
invariably
and
indubitably
constitute
matrimonial
cruelty, such as would entitle the other spouse to claim a
divorce.
2
The marriage of the parties was celebrated according to
Hindu rites at Hyderabad on 11th February, 1989.
A male
child was born to the parties on 8th May, 1991, after which
the Respondent-Wife, as per her pleadings, started suffering
from Sheehans syndrome.
On the night of 29th/30th June,
Page2
3
1995, the Respondent left the matrimonial house and ever
since then she has been living with her brother, who is a
On 14th July, 1995, the Appellant
senior IAS officer.
filed an original petition praying for divorce on the ground
of cruelty as well as of the irretrievable breakdown of
their marriage.
The Respondent-Wife retorted by filing a
criminal complaint against the Appellant as well as seven
members of his family for offences under Section 307 read
with Sections 34, 148A, 384, 324 of the IPC, and Sections 4
and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
It is pursuant
to this complaint that the Appellant-Husband and seven of
his family members were arrested and incarcerated.
The
Respondent-Wife also filed a petition under Section 9 of the
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights.
On 30th June, 2000, the Learned Vth Additional Metropolitan
Sessions
Judge,
Appellant
and
Mahila
his
attained finality.
Court,
family
Hyderabad,
members,
and
acquitted
this
Order
the
has
Meanwhile, by its Judgment dated 30th
December, 1999, the Family Court at Hyderabad, granted a
divorce to the Appellant on the ground of cruelty as also
irretrievable
breakdown
of
marriage;
it
rejected
the
Respondents petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage
Act.
The Respondent-Wife successfully appealed against
Page3
4
the said Judgment in the High Court, and it is this Order
dated 7th November, 2005 that is impugned before us.
3
Irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a ground for
divorce has not found statutory acceptance till date.
Article
142
of
the
Constitution,
the
Supreme
Under
Court
has
plenary powers to pass such decree or make such order as is
necessary for doing complete justice in any case or order
pending before it.
This power, however, has not been
bestowed by our Constitution on any other Court.
It is
for these reasons that we have confined arguments only to
the
aspect
of
whether
the
filing
of
false
criminal
complaint sufficiently proves matrimonial cruelty as would
entitle the injured party to claim dissolution of marriage.
It will be relevant to mention that the Law Commission of
India
in
its
Reports
in
1978
as
well
as
in
2009
has
recommended the introduction of irretrievable breakdown of
marriage
as
ground
for
dissolution
of
marriage;
the
Marriage Laws (Amendment) Bill of 2013 incorporating the
ground has even received the assent of the Rajya Sabha.
is,
however,
highly
debatable
whether,
in
the
It
Indian
situation, where there is rampant oppression of women, such
a ground would at all be expedient.
But that controversy
will be considered by the Lok Sabha.
Page4
4.
In
the
case
Respondent-Wife
in
has
hand,
learned
vehemently
counsel
contended
that
for
it
is
the
not
possible to label the wifes criminal complaint detailed
above as a false or a vindictive action.
In other words,
the acquittal of the Appellant and his family members in the
criminal complaint does not by itself, automatically and
justifiably, lead to the conclusion that the complaint was
false;
that
only
Respondent-Wife,
one
complaint
whereas,
in
was
preferred
by
the
contradistinction,
in
K.Srinivas Rao a series of complaints by the wife had been
preferred.
The argument was premised on the averment that
the investigation may have been faulty or the prosecution
may have been so careless as to lead to the acquittal, but
the acquittal would not always indicate that the Complainant
had intentionally filed a false case.
What should be kept
in
argued,
perspective,
Complainant
is
it
not
is
reasonably
the
controlling
conductor
that
in
the
this
Orchestra, but only one of the musicians who must deliver
her rendition as and when and how she is called upon to do.
Secondly, according to the learned counsel, the position
would have been appreciably different if a specific finding
regarding
the
falsity
of
the
criminal
complaint
was
returned, or if the Complainant or a witness on her behalf
Page5
6
had committed perjury or had recorded a contradictory or
incredible testimony.
Learned counsel for the Respondent-
Wife states that neither possibility has manifested itself
here and, therefore, it would be unfair to the RespondentWife to conclude that she had exhibited such cruelty towards
the
Appellant
and
her
in-laws
that
would
justify
the
dissolution of her marriage.
5
The
Respondent-Wife
has
admitted
in
her
cross-
examination that she did not mention all the incidents on
which her Complaint is predicated, in her statement under
Section 161 of the Cr.P.C.
actually
narrated
all
It is not her case that she had
these
facts
to
the
Investigating
Officer, but that he had neglected to mention them.
This,
it seems to us, is clearly indicative of the fact that the
criminal complaint was a contrived afterthought.
affirm
the
view
of
the
High
Court
that
the
We
criminal
complaint was ill advised. Adding thereto is the factor
that the High Court had been informed of the acquittal of
the Appellant-Husband and members of his family.
In these
circumstances, the High Court ought to have concluded that
the
Respondent-Wife
knowingly
and
intentionally
filed
false complaint, calculated to embarrass and incarcerate the
Appellant and seven members of his family and that such
Page6
7
conduct unquestionably constitutes cruelty as postulated in
Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act.
6
Another argument which has been articulated on behalf
of the learned counsel for the Respondent is that the filing
of
the
criminal
petition itself.
complaint
has
not
been
pleaded
in
the
As we see it, the criminal complaint was
filed by the wife after filing of the husbands divorce
petition, and being subsequent events could have been looked
into by the Court.
In any event, both the parties were
fully aware of this facet of cruelty which was allegedly
suffered by the husband.
When evidence was lead, as also
when arguments were addressed, objection had not been raised
on behalf of the Respondent-Wife that this aspect of cruelty
was beyond the pleadings.
We are, therefore, not impressed
by this argument raised on her behalf.
7
In these circumstances, we find that the Appeal is well
founded and deserves to be allowed.
that
the
Respondent-Wife
had
We unequivocally find
filed
false
criminal
complaint, and even one such complaint is sufficient to
constitute matrimonial cruelty.
Page7
8
8
We, accordingly, dissolve the marriage of the parties
under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act.
The
parties shall bear their respective costs.
...............................J.
[VIKRAMAJIT SEN]
...............................J.
[PRAFULLA C. PANT]
New Delhi;
19th November, 2014.
Page8
Page9
