False complaints leading to prosecution and subsequent acquittal can constitute 'cruelty' under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, and the conduct of the parties in other litigations can impact the dissolution of marriage proceedings.

1. This appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 impugns the judgment [dated 13th October, 2010 in HMA No. R 176/2006 of the Court of Additional District Judge-01 (West), Delhi] of dismissal of a petition for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Act filed by the appellant/husband.

2. The appeal came up first before this Court on 4th March, 2011 when notice thereof was ordered to be issued. The counsel for the respondent/wife has been appearing. On the last date of hearing i.e. 16th May, 2018, parties were referred to Mediation Cell of this Court. Mediation has been unsuccessful. The counsels for the parties have been heard.

3. The counsel for the appellant/husband argues, that one of the grounds pleaded by the appellant/husband as an instance of cruelty meted out by the respondent/wife to the appellant/husband was the filing of complaints by the respondent/wife against the appellant/husband of the offence of criminal breach of trust under Section 406 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and of the offence under Section 498A of the IPC. It is argued, that on the basis of the said complaint, an FIR was registered against the appellant/husband as well as his family members and they were prosecuted; while the appellant/husband and his family members have been acquitted of the offence under Section 406 IPC, the family members of the appellant/husband were also discharged of offence under Section 498A of the IPC but the appellant/husband during the pendency of this appeal has been acquitted in the FIR insofar as under Section 498A of the IPC and no appeal, has been preferred by the respondent/wife against the said discharge or acquittal of the appellant/husband. Attention is drawn to para no.7 of the judgment dated 19th December, 2012 of the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate-02, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi as under:

“7. In the absence of even a single allegation of demand of dowry or any entrustment of istridhan or refusal to return the same (however the charge was framed u/s 498A IPC only against the accused) or documentary proof, the accused cannot be convicted for the alleged offence. In the absence of any cogent evidence against the accused, he is acquitted of the offence U/s 498A IPC.”

4. On enquiry as to how the action of false prosecution constitutes ‘cruelty’ within the meaning of Section 13(1)(ia), attention is invited to Vishwanath Agrawal Vs. Sarla Vishwanath Agrawal (2012) 7 SCC 288, relying on Shobha Rani Vs. Madhukar Reddi 1988 (1) SCC 105, holding that if the wife lodges complaint against the husband and other relatives under Section 498A of the IPC and they are acquitted in the case and no appeal is filed by the wife against the said acquittal, it means that the allegations made were incorrect and untruthful and such act of the wife creates mental trauma in the mind of the husband as no one would like to face a criminal proceeding of this nature on baseless and untruthful allegations and such act constitutes ‘cruelty’ within the meaning of Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

5. The counsel for the respondent/wife, per contra relies on Durga Bai Vs. Narayan Sinha 2017 SCC OnLine Chh 1246 (DB) wherein a Division Bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court, relying on Raj Talreja Vs. Kavita Talreja 2017 SCC OnLine SC 462, held that mere filing of complaints is no cruelty if there are justifiable reasons to file the complaints and merely because no action is taken on the complaint or after trial the accused is acquitted, may not be a ground to treat such accusations of the wife as ‘cruelty’ within the meaning of Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act; however, if it is found that the allegations are patently false, then there can be no manner of doubt that the said conduct of the spouse levelling false accusations against the other spouse would be an act of cruelty. In the facts of that case, it was held that since the acquittal in that case was on the ground of delay