The main legal point established is that lodging false complaints and causing adverse impact on the spouse's reputation can amount to mental cruelty justifying divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

JUDGMENT

Ritu Bahri, J. - The appellant, Geeta Rani has come up in this appeal against the judgment and decree dated 14.12.2018 passed by the Family Court, Faridabad whereby a petition filed by respondent-Amardeep 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 he was granted divorce on the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Act, 1955.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the marriage of the parties was solemnized on 09.11.2008 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. However, no child was born out of their wedlock. The respondent-husband was in the private job and was transferred to Gwalior. He requested the appellant-wife to accompany him but she denied and remained at Faridabad. In Faridabad, she did not adjust with the parents of the respondents and never took any interest in household work.

3. In the year 2012, the respondent-husband returned back to Faridabad as he became jobless. The appellant left the matrimonial home in January 2011 and since then she had been residing separately. Pursuant to petition under Section 9 of the Act, 1955, the appellant-Geeta Rani promised to come back but she never returned back.

A decree of divorce has been granted on the ground of cruelty on the following grounds:-

1. The parties have been staying separately since January 2011. As per the statement given by the appellant-wife (Ex.P-2) that she would come back to the respondent but she never came back.

2. The appellant lodged a complaint under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

3. Petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

4. An FIR under Section 498A IPC against the respondenthusband.

5. However, the respondent-husband has been acquitted and even the appeal preferred by the appellant stood dismissed.

4. On account of the acquittal, the agony faced by the respondenthusband and his family members amounted to cruelty.

5. In the present case, when the notice was issued the matter was referred for mediation. As per the report of the Mediator, no mediation could be carried out as the respondent-husband did not come for mediation. Thereafter, this case was taken up for hearing on 19.05.2022. Learned counsel for the appellant informed that the appellant was not interested to pursue the appeal and she was only seeking permanent alimony. Both the parties were again called on 26.05.2022. The respondent offered Rs.1 lac as permanent alimony to the appellant-wife who was present in the Court alongwith her father and her father refused to accept this amount. The appellant Geeta Rani is an educated lady and has done B.Ed. Finally, no amicable settlement could be arrived at between the parties.

6. 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 complaint was registered against the husband by the wife, after wife herself inflicted injuries on her body. In criminal proceedings, the husband had been acquitted and thereafter, proceedings against the wife were launched. On this account, the husband was held entitled to decree of divorce, on the ground of cruelty. It was further observed as herein given:-

'9. This Court in Para 16 of K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa,2013 (2) RCR (Civil) 232 has held as follows:

'16. Thus, to the instances illustrative of mental cruelty noted in Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh, 2007 (4) SCC 511, we could add a few more. Making unfounded indecent defamatory allegations against the spouse or his or her relatives in the pleadings, filing of complaints or issuing notices or news items which may have adverse impact on the business prospect or the job of the spouse and filing repeated false complaints and cases in the court against the spouse would, in the facts of a case, amount to causing mental cruelty to the other spouse.'

In Ravi Kumar v. Julmidevi, 2010 (2) RC