IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that filing false complaints and initiating civil and criminal litigation against the spouse can constitute cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, justifying the grant of divorce.

JUDGMENT

Neena Bansal Krishna, J. - An Appeal under Section 19 of Family Court Act, 1984 read with Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, (hereinafter referred to as "HMA, 1955") has been filed on behalf of the appellant/wife (Respondent in the Divorce Petition) against the Judgment dated 08.12.2021 of the learned Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, granting divorce on the ground of cruelty in a petition filed by the respondent/husband (Petitioner in the Divorce Petition) under Sections 13(1)(ia) of HMA, 1955.

2. The facts in brief as narrated in the pleadings before the learned Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court are that the parties had a dowry less marriage on 08.03.2007, according to Hindu customs and rites. One daughter was born from their wedlock on 12.11.2007.

3. The respondent had asserted that barely after four months of the marriage, in July, 2007 the appellant deserted the matrimonial home. She filed a false criminal complaint alleging not only that a huge dowry was given but also that exorbitant demands were being made by the parents of the respondent. However, she subsequently went to the Police Station and gave a statement in favour of the respondent. Her uncle Shri Rakesh Pankaj also filed a false criminal case under Section 379 IPC for theft of the car in which the respondent had to seek anticipatory bail.

4. The appellant/ wife thereafter filed a petition under Section 11 of HMA bearing No.1468/2007, wherein serious allegations were levelled against the respondent that he was already married at the time of his marriage to the appellant and sought annulment of their marriage. Subsequently, the matter was compromised and the Petition was withdrawn by the appellant vide her statement dated 17.08.2009 whereby she submitted that she had filed the petition for nullity of marriage on the misinformation she got against the respondent/husband. After the withdrawal of the petition, the parties cohabited in their matrimonial home at WZ-82-A, Krishna Park, Delhi from 17.08.2009. Pursuant to the compromise the complaint filed by her before the CAW Cell, was also withdrawn on 30.10.2009.

5. The parties thereafter continued to reside together upto 02.12.2009. According to the respondent/husband during her stay at the matrimonial home, she refused to change her past conduct and continued to indulge in the acts of cruelty. In the circumstances, the parties decided to live in rented accommodation and shifted to C-111/1, Krishna Park on 02.12.2009.

6. The respondent claimed that on 05.12.2009 appellant tried to commit suicide by consuming Allout liquid mosquito repellent in the noon time, while he was at his place of work. The Police as well as respondent was informed by a neighbour residing on the Second Floor of the same property. The respondent rushed and took the unconscious appellant to Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital, where she was given stomach wash. The Police reached and recorded the statement of the appellant who absolved the respondent and his family members of all the responsibility for her suicidal act.

7. In order to change the environment and to sooth the appellant, they immediately thereafter along with their daughter went to Nainital on 08.12.2009, where they stayed at the house of respondent's sister. However, there too the conduct of the appellant remained stubborn and she refused to mend her ways. They returned back to Delhi on 15.12.2009 and on the same day she left the house to stay with her step father/uncle Mr. Rakesh Pankaj. She thereafter, refused to join the company of the respondent, despite his repeated efforts. The respondent immediately reported her leaving of the matrimonial home to the Police on 15.12.2009. The respondent claimed that he has been subjected to cruelty and thereby sought divorce.

8. The petition was contested by the appellant who took a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the divorce petition on the grounds that he was taking advantage of his own wrong. He has concealed t