Filing of false cases by a spouse amounts to cruelty and can be a ground for divorce. Irretrievable breakdown of marriage, though not a ground under the statute, has been recognized by the Supreme Court as a weighty circumstance necessitating divorce.

Headnote:
Cruelty - Hindu Marriage Act,1955 - Section 13-A - 125 CRPC - 498-A IPC - 120-B IPC - 406 IPC
Fact of the Case:

The appellant-husband filed a petition for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce under Section 13-A of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955, alleging cruelty and desertion by the respondent-wife. The respondent-wife countered with allegations of ill-treatment and false dowry case against the appellant and his family.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the respondent-wife's filing of false cases against the appellant and his family amounted to cruelty, and the marriage had irretrievably broken down, justifying the grant of divorce.
Issues: (i) Whether the respondent treated the petitioner with cruelty after marriage? (ii) Whether the respondent deserted the petitioner for more than two years? (iii) Whether the petitioner suppressed material facts? (iv) Whether the petitioner is entitled to dissolution of marriage?
Ratio Decidendi: Filing of false cases by a spouse amounts to cruelty and can be a ground for divorce. Irretrievable breakdown of marriage, though not a ground under the statute, has been recognized by the Supreme Court as a weighty circumstance necessitating divorce.
Final Decision: The court decreed the petition for divorce, dissolved the marriage, and directed the husband to pay a one-time permanent alimony to the wife.

JUDGMENT

Nidhi Gupta, J. - This appeal has been filed by the appellant-husband against the order dated 1.10.2016 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Tarn Taran whereby the appellant's petition under section 13-A of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955 for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce has been dismissed.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the marriage between the parties was solemnized in the year 2009-2010. It is stated to be a simple marriage with no exchange of gifts or dowry articles. No child was born out of their wedlock. It is the appellant's case that since the very beginning the respondent did not want to live in the matrimonial house along with his parents and wished to live separately. The respondent also did not perform her matrimonial duties and would pick up quarrels on trifle matters and would insult the parents of the appellant. It is further alleged that the respondent has a 'venom-oozing tongue'. She even threatened to involve the appellant and his family members in false dowry case. It is stated that on 13.10.2013 the father of the respondent took her away and the respondent took all her belongings and gold ornaments with her and never came back thereafter. The appellant even convened a Panchayat; and on 10.11.2013, he along with his parents and other respectables went to the house of the parents of the respondent for reconciliation, but to no avail.

3. On the other hand, the respondent before the Family Court, has stated that the appellant's petition under Section 13 was a counter blast to her petition under Section 125 Cr.PC; and the FIR No. 33 dated 25.3.2014 under Sections 406, 498-A, 120-B IPC, PS Patti, that she had got registered against the appellant and his family. She stated that all the demands of the appellant and his family members were met and generous items of jewelry and other dowry articles were gifted to them, however, the appellant and his family members mis-appropriated the same and ill-treated her and beat her and their greed for more dowry articles was endless, whereupon she was left with no alternative but to register the abovesaid FIR against them. She further stated that she was thrown out of the matrimonial home on 13.10.2013 with nothing except the clothes she was wearing. Respondent also stated that her parents and other relatives and other respectables had approached the appellant and his parents for rehabilitation of the respondent in her matrimonial house, however, the appellant had refused to take her back.

4. The following issues were framed by the learned Family Court:

(i) Whether the respondent has treated the petitioner with cruelty after solemnization of their marriage? OPP

(ii) Whether the respondent has deserted the petitioner for a continuous period of more than two years preceding the filing of the present petition? OPP

(iii) Whether the petitioner has suppressed any material facts from the court, if so, its effect? OPR

(iv) Whether the petitioner is entitled to the dissolution of the marriage as prayed for? OPP

(v) Relief.

5. The appellant led evidence and produced attested copy of order dated 8.9.2014 passed in police challan case as Ex. PX ; attested copy of complaint filed by Baldev Singh (father of the appellant) against Manjit Singh and others as Ex. PY; copy of agreement dated 31.10.2013 Mark-A; and copy of application of Baldev Singh given to SHO PS Valtoha as Mark-B.

6. The respondent appeared in the witness box as RW-1 and further examined her father Darshan Singh as RW-2 and resident of her village Darshan Singh son of Prem Singh as RW-3. The respondent further produced attested copy of order dated 21.5.2016 passed in complaint case titled as 'Baldev Singh v Manjit Singh and others' as Ex. R-1; attested copy of complaint dated 27.3.2016 titled as 'Rajwinder Kaur v Joginder Singh and others' as Ex. R-2; attested copy of order dated 17.5.2016 as Ex. R-3; attested copy of application filed under Order 33 CPC as Ex. R-4; attested copy of the