The evidence of repeated filing of false criminal cases by one spouse against the other can amount to cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act, justifying the dissolution of the marriage.

JUDGMENT

VISHWAJITH SHETTY J. - This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed by the wife challenging the judgment and decree dtd. 5/9/2017 passed by the IV Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, in M.C.No.3854/2013, wherein the petition filed by the husband under Sec. 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, 'the Act') was allowed.

2. Brief facts of the case that would be relevant for the purpose of disposal of this appeal are, the marriage of the appellant-wife with the respondent-husband was solemnized on 27/11/1986 at Bengaluru and from the said wedlock, two children by name Eshwar Prasad and Vishal were born to the couple. The husband and wife were both employed. They lived as husband and wife till the year 2000 and for the last more than 20 years, they have been residing separately.

3. The husband filed petition under Sec. 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Act, with a prayer to dissolve the marriage solemnized on 27/11/1986, contending that ever since the marriage, his wife was always quarrelling with him and his family members and was insisting him to set up a separate residence and stay away from his parents. Therefore, he was compelled to purchase a house in the year 1991 and only for a short period the couple lived in the said house along with their children. The wife allegedly left the company of the petitioner-husband abruptly on 3/12/2020 along with her household articles. It is also averred that thereafter, she filed a false criminal case against the petitioner and his family members for the offence under Sec. 498-A IPC and the petitioner and his family members were tried for the alleged offence in C.C.No.20040/2003 before the jurisdictional Magistrate and ultimately, they were acquitted. It is also averred that thereafter she filed a false criminal complaint alleging that the petitioner-husband had forged her signature in her cheque leaves and even the said case was subsequently dismissed. The respondent-wife had also filed O.S.No.87/2001 seeking maintenance from the petitioner though she was working as a Headmistress in a Government Aided School and the maintenance awarded in the said suit was being paid by him regularly. Subsequently, the respondent-wife who had voluntarily deserted the petitioner also had filed a petition under Sec. 9 of the Act, seeking restitution of conjugal rights and the said petition was dismissed after contest on 3/4/2013.

4. The respondent-wife had entered appearance before the Family Court and filed her statement of objections admitting the relationship, but had denied the rest of the allegations made against her by her husband. She had contended that inspite of there being a decree for maintenance, the husband was not regular in paying the maintenance amount. She also contended that since she intended to join his company, she had filed the petition for restitution of conjugal rights and she had given hostile evidence in the criminal cases filed by her. Though the petitioner had assured that he would join her company after disposal of the criminal cases, he has not taken her back. She has also stated that the children are in need of love and affection of the parents and accordingly, prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. In order to substantiate the case of the petitioner, he had examined himself as PW-1 and got marked 18 documents as Exs.P-1 to P-18. The respondent-wife got herself examined as RW-1. However, no documents were marked in support of her defence. The Family Court, thereafter, heard the arguments on both the sides and vide the impugned judgment, allowed the petition dissolving the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent. Being aggrieved by the same, the respondent-wife has preferred this appeal.

6. Learned Counsel for the appellant has contended that the Family Court erred in allowing the petition and granting a decree of divorce. He submits that the wife had earlier filed petition under Sec. 9 of the Act, which would go to show that she was alway