Making false complaints against the spouse amounts to cruelty, and even one false complaint can be considered as cruelty, as established by previous judgments and applied in the present case.

JUDGMENT

Ritu Bahri, J. - CM-26362-CII-2018

1. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and the delay of 19 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

FAO-7215-2018 (O&M)

2. The appellant, Manju has come up in the appeal against the judgment and decree dated 04.10.2018 passed by the Family Court, Ambala whereby a petition filed by respondent-Narinder Kumar under Section 13(1)(i-a) and (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1955) was allowed and the respondent was granted divorce on the grounds of cruelty under Section 13(1)(i-a) and desertion under Section 13(1)(i-b) of the Act, 1955.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the marriage of the appellant was solemnized with the respondent on 24.04.2012 at Delhi according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. However, no child was born out of their wedlock.

The reasons for recording the finding of cruelty are as under:-

1. A large number of complaints were lodged by the parties against each other which are evident from the documents Mark A to Mark M. The appellant-Manju while appearing as RW1 admitted regarding settlement Mark 'C' (Ex.R2) arrived at between the parties in Police Station Ambala Cantt.

2. A complaint dated 06.09.2015 Mark 'F' (Ex.R3) at Police Station Ambala Cantt in which compromise Mark 'G' (Ex.R4) was arrived.

3. The appellant-Manju also admitted Kalandara under Section 107/150 Cr.P.C. Mark 'H' (Ex.R1) was registered against her at Police Station Ambala Cantt on the complaint made by her husband.

4. A complaint dated 03.06.2016 Mark 'M' before the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Dwarka (New Delhi) was registered against the husband and his family members.

5. A petition under the Domestic Violence Act and

6. A complaint under Section 498-A IPC in the Court at Delhi against the husband and his family members.

7. She raised allegations against father-in-law with regard to molestation. During her cross-examination, she admitted that no complaint was lodged by her against her father-in-law regarding molestation. She also did not get herself medically examined. She levelled allegations against the husband that she got her raped from his friend Bablu. She admitted that she neither get herself medically examined nor lodged any complaint against her husband or his friend Bablu.

4. All the above said facts have been made ground to grant divorce on the ground of cruelty.

Ground of desertion

5. With the above said allegations made against the husband and his family members, she had left matrimonial home on 29.11.2015 regarding which DDR entry No. 16 dated 29.11.2015 was recorded at Police Station, Ambala Cantt. Since the wife had herself left the matrimonial home, which amounted to desertion. She never made any attempt to seek restitution of conjugal rights. The marriage was beyond repair because of the bitterness between husband and wife. The marriage was dead for all purpose.

6. On the above said grounds, the divorce was granted.

7. During pendency of the appeal, the matter was referred for mediation. However, the medication also failed as it is evident from order dated 13.08.2019. Thereafter, vide order dated 08.02.2022 (Annexure A-1) copy of the judgment dated 21.09.2021 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (SFTC) Dwaka, New Delhi was placed on record. This was the judgment whereby respondent-husband, his family members and his friend Bablu after facing trial, have been acquitted. In the present case, an FIR No. 767 was registered in the year 2016 and they were acquitted on 21.09.2021 after facing trial for the period of 5 years. The parties do not have any child and in this backdrop, the only intention of the appellantManju is to drag the respondent-husband and his family members in litigation.

8. At this juncture, it is important to make reference to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj Talreja vs. Kavita Talreja, Civil Appeal No.10719 of 2013, decided on 24.04.2017, wherein, it was observed that a false complai