Filing of false criminal complaints under Section 498A, IPC constitutes matrimonial cruelty, which can be grounds for dissolution of marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act.

Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J.

1. The instant miscellaneous appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 6.8.2014 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Munger in Matrimonial Case No. 1030 of 2013/177 of 2012 in the matter of Sanjay Chaudhary @ Sanjay Jaiswal v. Anjali Devi whereby and where under the suit was dismissed ex-parte. The petitioner is the appellant and the opposite party is the respondent herein.

2. The appellant-petitioner had filed the matrimonial case before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Munger under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of his marriage with the respondent–opposite party by decree of divorce.

3. Briefly stated, the case of the appellant was that he was married with the respondent on 22.6.1998 at village Pupari and subsequent to marriage the opposite party joined the matrimonial home of the petitioner at Raj Guru Tarapur, District Munger. Out of the wedlock a baby girl was born on 21.2.2002 but since the beginning of 2003 the behaviour of respondent changed and she started misbehaving and abusing the petitioner and his family members as a result of which the petitioner's brother started living separately in a rented house, petitioner also somehow managed a rented house to live along with the respondent and minor daughter. Father and brother of respondent came to Tarapur and suddenly the respondent with all her belongings including ornaments and the daughter left the house of the petitioner on 30.6.2003 and since thereafter, whenever the petitioner went to meet her he was not allowed by the respondent and her relatives and even he was not allowed to enter the house of the respondent and was abused and threatened to be killed. The respondent filed Criminal case bearing No. 198C of 2003 on 4th July, 2003 under Section 498A, IPC against all the family members of the petitioner. She also filed Misc. Case No. 21 of 2003 for maintenance and Misc. Case No. 25 of 2005 for interim maintenance. Again she filed Complaint Case No. 85C of 2005 against same set of accused and cognizance in this case was also taken under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and that Complaint Case 85C of 2005 was quashed by this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 17101 of 2009 and in Complaint Case No. 198C of 2003 compromise was filed on 22.1.2005 but thereafter, the respondent was not prepared to accompany the petitioner because she was pregnant and gave birth to a male child after seven months of compromise and since 30.6.2003 respondent never lived with the appellant and this goes to show that the respondent is living in adultery. The respondent has deserted for more than two years since 30.6.2003 and further denial of sex and causing mental and physical agony to the petitioner amounts to cruelty. On notice, respondent appeared. However, at the stage of reconciliation she stopped attending the case hence, the case proceeded ex-parte. The petitioner examined two witnesses. PW 1 is the petitioner himself and PW 2 Uma Shankar Jaiswal. Besides the oral evidence the petitioner also exhibited following documents:

(i) Ext. 1 is the certified copy of order dated 25.9.2012 passed by this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 17101 of 2009 whereby Complaint Case No. 85C of 2005 was quashed.

(ii) Ext. 2 is the certified copy of petition of Complaint Case No. 85C of 2005.

(iii) Ext. 3 is the certified copy of bail order dated 07.1.2005 passed in Complaint Case No. 198C of 2003 by learned S.D.J.M, Sitamarhi whereby the petitioner and his family members were granted bail on the basis of compromise.

(iv) Ext. 4 is the certified copy of compromise petition filed in the court of learned S.D.J.M., Sitamarhi in Complaint Case No. 198C of 2003.

4. The learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Munger after considering the evidences available on record dismissed the matrimonial case ex-parte holding that the respondent has not deserted the petitioner, the petitioner has failed to prove the ground of adultery as there is no pleading in the