IMPORTANT POINT
Making of unfounded allegations of criminal conduct against husband and his parents constitutes acts of cruelty.

ORDER

C.M. No. 39488/2021

1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. The application stands disposed of.

C.M. No. 39489/2021

3. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

4. The application stands disposed of.

MAT.APP.(F.C.) 106/2021

5. The present appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act is directed against the judgment & decree dated 27.05.2019 passed in H.M.A. No.246/2017. The said petition had been preferred by the respondent/ husband against the appellant/ wife to seek a decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on the ground that he has been subjected to cruelty.

6. The brief facts are that the parties were married according to the Hindu rites & ceremonies on 02.12.2007. Out of the said wedlock, one male child was born on 15.11.2009. The said child is in the custody of the appellant. Disputes arose between the parties which led to the appellant filing the complaint to the CAW Cell, which resulted in registration of the FIR No.15/2013 under Section 498A/ 406/ 323/ 34 IPC at Women Police Station, Sonepat. The named accused in the said FIR were the respondent and his parents. The respondent and his parents were all taken into custody in the said case. Whereas the respondent remained in custody for three days, his parents were in custody for one day. Eventually, the accused, including the respondent, were acquitted on 10.08.2015. The appeal against the acquittal was filed by the appellant, which too was dismissed on 29.01.2016. Thus, the serious allegations of criminal conduct made against the respondent and his parents were not proved by the appellant. Premised on the said conduct of the appellant, the Family Court has returned a finding that the respondent was subjected to mental cruelty. Consequently, the decree of divorce has been passed in favour of the respondent and against the appellant.

7. The submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that when the respondent and his parents applied for bail, the same was not opposed by the appellant. The appellant had also filed a petition to seek restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the HMA.

8. In our view, merely because the appellant may not have opposed the bail application moved by the respondent and his parents, is not sufficient to efface the irresponsible conduct of the appellant. The mere fact that she made serious allegations of criminal conduct against the respondent and his parents – which she could not establish before the Court, was sufficient to constitute acts of cruelty against the respondent. How can the respondent be expected to allow the appellant into his life in these circumstances? The faith and trust – which is the foundation of a matrimonial bond stood completely demolished by the aforesaid conduct of the appellant. For a man to see his parents to be taken into custody and being incarcerated even for a single day would have caused immense and untold pain and agony to him. Admittedly, the appellant perused her allegations against the respondent and his parents in appeal as well. Did she not know that their conviction would have led to their being sentenced to imprisonment? Therefore, her conduct of not opposing the bail application is neither here, nor there.

9. The Family Court in the impugned judgment has observed as follows:

“17. I found force in the aforesaid submission of Ld. Counsel for the petitioner to the effect that due to the filing of the false case bearing FIR No. 15/2013 U/s 498A/403/323/34 IPC, PS Women Police Station, Sonepat against the petitioner and his both parents by the respondent, the petitioner remained in jail for 03 days and his both parents remained in jail for 01 days before grant of bail and they have been duly acquitted by Ld. JMFC, Sonepat vide judgment dated 10.08.2015, certified copy of which is Ex. PW-1/2 and even Appeal as filed by the respondent herein against the said Judgment of