View full Judgement of this case below
Apr 17, 2010
MUMBAI: Filing a false criminal case against the husband and in-laws for harassment amounts to cruelty and is ground for divorce, the Bombay high court. "Humiliation... that is caused on account of arrest and detention of appellant and his family members and relatives in a false case does constitute mental cruelty to enable the husband to seek decree of divorce on this sole ground," said a division bench of Justices A P Deshpande and R P Sondurbaldota while granting divorce to a Pune resident.
Dyanesh Soparkar and Lata (names changed) had an arranged marriage in March 2001 as per Hindu rites and they have a daughter. According to Soparkar, on the wedding night itself Lata called him blind for wearing spectacles and complained that she was given to understand that he earned a higher salary than what he actually got. The couple had frequent quarrels, according to Soparkar, over his wife's insistence that they stay separately.
Dyanesh filed for divorce in June 2003 and a month later Lata filed a case for dowry harassment (Section 498 A of the IPC). She named Dyanesh, his mother and three other relatives. They were arrested and sent to custody. Two years later, a magistrate's court acquitted them, saying there was no evidence that Lata's family were coerced to pay Rs 50,000 as dowry.
The family court dismissed Dyanesh's plea for divorce saying that a single complaint filed by the wife could constitute cruelty. Dyanesh moved the HC in appeal. His lawyers claimed that the arrest and detention of the family members and Dyanesh's near relations in a false case "has caused him agony".
The HC agreed with Dyanesh's contention. "One thing is crystal clear and it can be safely assumed that the wife had filed a false case not only against her husband and mother-in-law but had unnecessarily roped in other near relations," said the judges, adding, "It is obvious that on account of arrest and detention of the husband and his family members, Lata has treated Dyanesh with utmost mental cruelty and he has suffered agony."
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO. 66 OF 2006
Ajay Ashok Khedkar .... ..... ..... ..... Appellant.
V/s
Sou. Laleeta Ajay Khedkar..... .... ..... ....Respondent.
Mr.Hitesh Vyas, Adv. For the appellant.
Mr.Sachin S. Pande, Adv. For the respondent.
CORAM: A.P.DESHPANDE AND SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, JJ.
Date:12th April, 2010.
4. Perusal of the judgment clearly reveals that the prosecution
utterly failed to prove the case put forth by the complainant. The
Judicial Magistrate has recorded categoric finding that the
complainant’s own testimony falsifies the prosecution case that the
complainant was treated cruely and was harassed by the accused
persons with a view to coerce her and her parents to meet their
unlawful demand of Rs.50,000/. The Magistrate has totally
disbelieved the version of the complainant/wife and has acquitted
the accused persons. On a careful reading of the judgment
rendered in the case of prosecution under section 498A of IPC one
thing is crystal clear and it can be safely assumed that the wife had
filed a false case not only against her husband and motherinlaw
but had unnecessarily roped in other near relations. It is obvious
that on account of arrest and detention of the husband and his
family members respondent has treated the appellant with utmost
mental cruelty and the appellant has suffered agony. It will not be
out of place to mention that the complaint filed by the wife was
calculatedly designed in as much as it was a sort of counter blast to
the divorce petition filed by the husband. The appellant had filed
divorce petition on 16.6.03 whereas the complaint was lodged by
the respondentwife on 11.7.03.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant
and his family members including ladies who did not stay along
with the appellant were arrested and detained causing utmost
humiliation and embarrassment and agony to the appellant. This
solitary incidence would itself constitute mental cruelty even if
other circumstances are not taken into account and thus the trial
court has erred in law in dismissing the divorce petition.
Without deliberating on all the circumstances in detail we are of
the clear view that cumulative effect of the behaviour and conduct
of the respondent is good enough to draw an inference that
respondent has caused utmost mental pain and suffering which
constitute mental cruelty to the appellant and hence the appellant
is entitled for decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty.
View Full Judgement here: http://bombayhighcourt.nic.in/data/judgements/2010/CFCA816006.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment