Sec.13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act –Divorce O.P. filed after wife filed criminal complaint – objections not raised that no evidence and no amount arguments can be considered etc., at the time of the evidence & at the time of arguments that without pleadings that the wife filed false criminal case and subjected him and his family members for mental cruelty – it is settled law that if a false criminal complaint is preferred by either spouse it would invariably and indubitably constitute matrimonial cruelty, such as would entitle the other spouse to claim a divorce.

Sec.13(1)(ia)  of  the  Hindu Marriage Act –Divorce O.P. filed after wife filed criminal complaint – objections not raised that no evidence and no amount arguments can be considered etc., at the time of the evidence  & at the time of arguments that without pleadings that the wife filed false criminal case and subjected him and his family members for mental cruelty – it is settled law that if a false criminal complaint is preferred by  either  spouse  it would invariably and indubitably constitute  matrimonial  cruelty,  such  as would entitle the other spouse to claim a divorce. 

    It is  now  beyond
cavil that if a false criminal complaint is preferred by  either  spouse  it
would invariably and indubitably constitute  matrimonial  cruelty,  such  as
would entitle the other spouse to claim a divorce.
 When  evidence  was
lead, as also when arguments were addressed, objection had not  been  raised
on behalf of the Respondent-Wife that this aspect of cruelty was beyond  the
pleadings.   We are, therefore, not impressed by  this  argument  raised  on
her behalf.
The Respondent-Wife has admitted in  her  cross-examination  that  she
did not mention all the incidents on which her Complaint is  predicated,  in
her statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C.   
It is  not  her  case  that
she had actually narrated all these facts to the Investigating Officer,  but
that he had neglected to mention them.   
This, it seems to  us,  is  clearly
indicative  of  the  fact  that  the  criminal  complaint  was  a  contrived
afterthought.    
We affirm the view of the  High  Court  that  the  criminal
complaint was “ill advised”. Adding thereto is  the  factor  that  the  High
Court had been informed  of  the  acquittal  of  the  Appellant-Husband  and
members of his family.  
In these circumstances,  the  High  Court  ought  to
have concluded that the Respondent-Wife knowingly and intentionally filed  a
false complaint, calculated to embarrass and incarcerate the  Appellant  and
seven  members  of  his  family  and  that   such   conduct   unquestionably
constitutes  cruelty  as  postulated  in  Section  13(1)(ia)  of  the  Hindu
Marriage Act.

We unequivocally find that the Respondent-Wife  had
filed a false criminal complaint, and even one such complaint is  sufficient
to constitute matrimonial cruelty.
We, accordingly, dissolve the marriage of the  parties  under  Section
13(1)(ia) of  the  Hindu  Marriage  Act


Popular posts from this blog

Court fee - Sec.34 of A.P.C.F & S.V.Act - partition of Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties, in the manner pleaded by her, and for grant of future profits. Plaint-A Schedule comprised of, four items of immovable properties, and Plaint-B Schedule comprised of, nine items of jewellery. Pleading that the parties are in joint possession of the said properties, the petitioner paid Court-fee of Rs. 200/- under Sub-section (2) of Section 34 of the A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'). The trial Court returned the plaint, through its order dated 23-6-2006, directing the petitioner herein, to pay Court fee on movable properties, on her shares, as per the Act, within the time stipulated by it.= In the instant case, the petitioner asserted that, herself and the respondents are in joint possession of the Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties. In a way, the trial Court was satisfied, that the immovable properties mentioned in Plaint-A schedule are in joint possession, and in that view of the matter, it did not insist on payment of ad-valorem Court-fee, on such items. It, however, took a different view, as regards the movable properties. Neither from the plaint, nor from the endorsement made by the trial Court, it is found that there is any distinction, as to the nature of rights claimed, in respect of Plaint-A Schedule properties, on the one hand, and Plaint-B schedule properties, on the other hand. In fact, the nature and incidence of possession, of an immovable property, gives rise to, relatively greater consequences of law, than the possession of an item of movable property. The possession of an item of immovable property can be said to be more assertive, firm and lasting, than the one, of movable property. The endorsement made by the trial Court cannot be sustained, either on law, or on facts. 2015 A.P.(2006)MSKLAWREPORTS

Order 38 Rule 5, only the properties of the defendant can be attached and not the properties in the hands of garnishee has no statutory support nor the support of any precedent.-2015 A.P.(2004) MSKLAWREPORTS

Sec.482 Cr.P.C. - Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 - Part B question Paper was missed ( said to be distributed to A1 along with other students by A2 an invigilator ) - Charge - she was negligent in performing the invigilation duties. - Their Lordships held that Mere negligence in performing invigilation duties, does not attract the offence set-forth in the Act. Therefore, in absence of any allegation that the petitioner herein has committed the offence set out in Section 5 of the Act, she cannot be subjected to prosecution for which the penalty has been provided under Section 8 of the Act.- Quashed the criminal proceedings - 2015 Telganga & A.P. msklawreports