The Bombay High Court has ruled that filing a false criminal complaint under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) with the intent of “correcting” a spouse’s behavior amounts to cruelty under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
A Bench of Justice G.S. Kulkarni and Justice Advait M. Sethna emphasized that such actions erode the foundational values of a marriage, making its continuation impossible.
“The respondent [husband] and his family members being subjected to false criminal proceedings and the ordeal of such serious charges being faced by them that too for the reason that the appellant-wife wanted to correct the behaviour of the husband, would find no place in the harmonious relations of mutual trust, respect and affection, a married couple would normally maintain,” the Court stated.
The Court further observed that once a spouse resorts to false criminal charges, it signifies a breakdown in rationality and mutual respect necessary for a marital relationship.
“Also, once the mind of a spouse is corrupted to resort to a false prosecution against a spouse, it is certain that the spouse has lost all reasonableness and rationality to maintain solemnity of the marriage. Once there is a dent to such essential values, on the foundation of which a marriage rests, by a false and draconian action of a criminal prosecution being resorted by either spouse, it is in the realm of cruelty which would be a ground for divorce,” the judgment read.
Case Background
The couple married in March 2006 but separated within months. The wife later filed a complaint under Section 498A, alleging cruelty by the husband. However, the trial and appellate courts dismissed the case.
Despite the acquittal, the wife pursued the matter before the High Court but failed to notify the husband about the appeal or provide its case details. The family court, upon review, concluded that the wife’s continued litigation and lack of interest in the marriage justified granting divorce.
In March 2018, the family court dissolved the marriage, citing the wife’s false prosecution as cruelty and a misuse of legal proceedings.
The Bombay High Court upheld the family court’s judgment, stating, “We are in agreement with the findings recorded and the view taken by the Family Court in the impugned judgment. As clearly seen, the appellant had lodged a false prosecution against the respondent, which has been concurrently affirmed by the Criminal Court. This would certainly amount to cruelty in terms of Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.”
The High Court further noted that there was no “perversity and illegality” in the family court’s order.
