The Andhra Pradesh High Court has upheld a divorce decree granted by a family court, ruling that filing a false criminal case under Section 498-A IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act against the husband and his family, which ended in acquittal, constituted mental cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Background
The appeal was filed challenging a decree of divorce granted by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Guntur. The marriage in question was solemnised in August 1994. Shortly after the marriage, the wife allegedly informed the husband that the marriage was against her will and behaved in a way that caused mental agony. The couple lived together for brief periods and had been living separately for nearly 29 years at the time of the appeal.
The husband alleged that the wife filed a criminal complaint under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, resulting in his and his parents’ arrest and eventual acquittal. He claimed this act constituted mental cruelty.
The wife denied allegations of cruelty and desertion, claiming she had performed her matrimonial duties and was willing to continue the marriage. She contested the divorce and filed a counter-pleading.
Trial Court Decision
The Trial Court found that the relationship between the parties had deteriorated irretrievably. Although it noted that the allegations of an extramarital affair were not proved, it held that the filing of the criminal case, leading to arrest and subsequent acquittal, amounted to mental cruelty. The divorce was accordingly granted.
Submissions on Appeal
For the Appellant:
Counsel argued that the sole basis for the divorce was the filing of a criminal case which resulted in acquittal, and mere acquittal could not establish cruelty. Reliance was placed on S.C. Nuna vs. Anita Nuna and other decisions where it was held that acquittal alone should not form the ground for divorce.
For the Respondent:
It was submitted that the filing of false criminal allegations and the resultant trauma suffered by the husband and his family amounted to mental cruelty. Multiple judicial precedents were cited, including K. Srinivas vs. K. Sunita, Naveen Kohli vs. Neelu Kohli, and K. Srinivas Rao vs. D.A. Deepa.
High Court’s Analysis
The Division Bench comprising Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Challa Gunaranjan held that the filing of false criminal proceedings and the resulting acquittal caused mental trauma, social humiliation, and hardship, which constituted cruelty.
Referring to K. Srinivas Rao vs. D.A. Deepa, the Court noted:
“Spouse can cause mental cruelty by his or her conduct even while he or she is not staying under the same roof… by initiating a number of judicial proceedings making the other spouse’s life miserable.”
The Court emphasized that mental cruelty does not require physical proximity and can arise from sustained abusive or humiliating actions. It added that the couple’s prolonged separation of 29 years and the absence of prospects for reconciliation further supported the case for divorce.
The bench rejected reliance on S.C. Nuna, distinguishing the facts and clarifying that acquittal in that case followed rejection of divorce, unlike the present case.
Decision
The High Court concluded:
“The act and conduct of the wife in filing the criminal complaint… amounted to mental cruelty and furnished a ground for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the H.M. Act.”
Observing that the relationship was irreparably broken and the marriage had become a legal fiction, the Court affirmed the decree of divorce and dismissed the appeal.
