The Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, upheld a Family Court’s decision granting divorce to a husband on grounds of cruelty and desertion, stating that the acquittal in a criminal case under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) does not negate the mental harassment suffered by the husband. The division bench, comprising Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Om Prakash Shukla, dismissed the wife’s appeal challenging the divorce decree granted by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow.
Background of the Case
The case involved an appeal filed by the wife under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, read with Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, challenging the Family Court’s judgment dated October 14, 2022. The husband had filed for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, citing cruelty and desertion.
According to the husband’s allegations, his wife displayed indifferent behavior towards him and his mother from the very beginning of the marriage. He claimed to have discovered inappropriate messages on her phone, revealing an alleged extramarital relationship with a colleague. Despite attempts at reconciliation, the situation worsened, leading to police complaints and criminal proceedings.
The wife, on the other hand, denied the allegations and counterclaimed that she faced domestic violence and harassment from her in-laws. She lodged an FIR under Sections 307, 354, 323, 504, and 506 IPC. However, the court found these charges baseless and dismissed them.
Key Legal Issues
- Applicability of Res Judicata – Whether the divorce petition was barred by the principle of res judicata, given that the husband had previously filed suits for divorce in 2017 and 2018, which were dismissed.
- Cruelty as Grounds for Divorce – Whether the wife’s actions, including the filing of false criminal cases, constituted mental cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act.
- Desertion by Wife – Whether the wife had abandoned the husband without reasonable cause for a continuous period of at least two years, justifying divorce under Section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act.
Court’s Observations and Decision
1. On the Issue of Res Judicata
The wife argued that the divorce suit should have been dismissed under the doctrine of res judicata. However, the court held:
“For res judicata to apply, the matter directly and substantially in issue in the subsequent suit must have been conclusively settled in a previous suit on its merits. In the present case, both the earlier divorce suits were dismissed on procedural grounds and not on merits.”
The court referred to Prem Kishore & Ors. v. Brahm Prakash & Ors. (2023 SCC OnLine SC 356), stating:
“Where a former suit is dismissed for want of jurisdiction, procedural defects, or technical grounds, it does not operate as res judicata in a subsequent suit.”
Thus, it concluded that the doctrine of res judicata did not apply in the present case.
2. On the Issue of Cruelty
The court found that the wife had filed false criminal cases against the husband and his family members, which were later quashed. It relied on K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa (2013) and Raj Talreja v. Kavita Talreja (2017), observing:
“Making false allegations and initiating criminal proceedings with the intent to harass and defame the spouse amounts to mental cruelty. The husband, despite being acquitted, suffered humiliation and mental agony due to these false accusations.”
The court further referred to Narasimha Sastry v. Suneela Rani (2020), stating:
“When a person undergoes trial in a case where they are later acquitted, the suffering endured during that period amounts to cruelty inflicted by the accuser.”
3. On the Issue of Desertion
The court noted that the wife had voluntarily left her matrimonial home in 2016 and had not made any attempts at reconciliation. It cited Lachman Utamchand Kirpalani v. Meena (1964), which defines desertion as:
“The intentional, permanent forsaking and abandonment of one spouse by the other without reasonable cause and without the consent of the deserted spouse.”
The court observed:
“The wife’s prolonged separation of over eight years, coupled with her unwillingness to reconcile, fulfills the essential conditions of desertion under Section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act.”
Final Decision
Dismissing the wife’s appeal, the High Court upheld the Family Court’s judgment granting divorce to the husband. The court concluded:
“This is a clear case of irretrievable breakdown of marriage. The wife’s actions have caused such mental and emotional strain that it is impossible for the parties to cohabit. Thus, the decree of divorce granted by the Family Court stands affirmed.”
