Dismissal of criminal complaint of wife is no ground for divorce - if it is not pleaded in divorce petition that the husband suffered mental cruelty due to filing of false complaint; SC.
- 08:00Supreme Court of India
Justice A S Bopanna & Justice R Banumathi & Justice S Abdul Nazeer
The SC {Mangayakarasi v. M. Yuvaraj} holds that a perusal of the judgment of the High Court indicates that there is no reference whatsoever with regard to the evidence based on which the dissolution of marriage had been sought, which had been declined by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court and whether such consideration had raised any substantial question of law. But the entire consideration has been by placing reliance on the judgment which was rendered in the criminal proceedings and had granted the dissolution of the marriage. It was held that the tenor of the substantial questions of law as framed in the instant case and decision taken on that basis by HC if approved, it would lead to a situation that in every case if a criminal case is filed by one of the parties to the marriage and the acquittal therein would have to be automatically treated as a ground for granting divorce which will be against the statutory provision.
It was held that though a criminal complaint had been lodged by the wife and husband has been acquitted in the said proceedings the basis on which the husband had approached the Trial Court is not of alleging mental cruelty in that regard but with regard to her intemperate behaviour regarding which both the courts below on appreciation of the evidence had arrived at the conclusion that the same was not proved. In that background, it was held that if the judgment of the High Court is taken into consideration, the High Court was not justified in its conclusion.
Further, held the SC can in any event exercise the power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India in appropriate cases for dissolution of marriage. However, in the instant facts, it was held that the parties hail from a conservative background where divorce is considered a taboo and further they have a female child born on 03.01.2007 who is presently aged about 13 years. It was also held that in a matter where the differences between the parties are not of such magnitude and is in the nature of the usual wear and tear of marital life, the future of the child and her marital prospects are also to be kept in view, and in such circumstance the dissolution of marriage merely because they have been litigating and they have been residing separately for quite some time would not be justified in the present facts, more particularly when the restitution of conjugal rights was also considered simultaneously.
In the present case, the High Court has through the impugned judgment dated 20.07.2018 allowed the appeals, set aside the order for restitution of conjugal rights and dissolved the marriage between the parties herein. It is in that light the appellant wife is before the SC in these appeals.
The SC arrived at the conclusion that the very nature of the substantial questions of law framed by the High Court is not justified and the conclusion reached is also not sustainable, the judgment of the High Court is liable to be set aside.