A false criminal case filed by one of the parties cannot be the sole ground for divorce

Daniyal Qureshi | Symbiosis Law School Pune | 12th March 2020

Managayakarasi vs M. Yuvaraj Supreme Court of India Decided on 3/3/2020

Facts :

The present case is an appeal before the supreme court by the appellant being the wife. The Husband alleged that the wife was misbehaved, cruel, quarrelsome and used filthy language. The wife had gone to the college where the husband was employed and in presence of the students used bad language towards the husband which had cause him grave insult. The wife during the proceeding of the second appeal filed a false FIR claiming that the Husband was demanding dowry and the Husband had to spend 7 days in police custody. 

Whereas the wife claimed that the factual aspects with regard to the qualification of the husband at the time of the marriage and his employment were also disputed. It was contended by her that after marriage they resided together at Sathiyamangalam up to the year 2005 and thereafter at Saravanampatti till December, 2006. It was contended that the distance between the hometown of the parents of the husband and the said places referred to is more than 120 kms and travelling the said distance was difficult.it is contended that during the pregnancy, the husband told her that his parents are insisting on issuing the legal notice and the husband did not mean what had been indicated therein. Within about 25 days thereafter the wife had delivered a female child and even in respect of the earlier petition she was made to appear and submit about her readiness to live with him which she had done unsuspectingly. The said case was also stated to be instigated by his parents. 

The trail of history of litigation being that the husband initiated proceedings under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 at the first instance for the dissolution of the marriage and whereas the wife initiated proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for the restitution of Conjugal rights. These petitions being coupled by the learned subordinate judge and the petition of the husband was dismissed and the petition of the wife was allowed. Claiming to be aggrieved by the said judgement the husband filed the first appeal before the Additional District and Sessions Judge. The Additional District and Sessions Judge dismissed the petitions filed by the Husband. The husband then filed second appeal before the High Court. The High Court by impugned order allowed the appeals and set aside the decree for restitution of Conjugal Rights. 

  ISSUES.

• Whether the courts below are correct and justified in failure to dissolve the marriage of the Appellant and Respondent on the ground of mental cruelty as postulated in Section 13(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act?

• Whether the judgments of the courts below in dismissing the petition for divorce overlooking the subsequent event regarding the lodging of false criminal complaint by the Respondent-wife for dowry harassment against the Appellant and her in-laws are sustainable in law?

JUDGEMENT

The Supreme Court in allowing the appeal laid down that in passing the judgement the High Court had violated their powers Under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure and that the High Court was incapable of opening the facts of the case. The High Court erred in framing the issues of the case. At the perusal of the papers of evidence it is obvious that the question framed by the High Court are not substantial questions of law. The question framed by the High Court created room for the re-appreciation of the facts which falls outside the jurisdiction of the High Court in a second appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 

That the High Court was not entitled to frame the question of cruelty. On the date when the cause of action had arisen for the husband who initiated the proceedings seeking dissolution of the marriage, the criminal case filed against him was not the basis whereby a ground was raised of causing mental cruelty by filing such criminal complaint. The tenor of the substantial questions of law as framed in the instant case and decision taken on that basis 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.If that be the position, a situation which was not the basis for initiating the petition for dissolution of marriage and when that was also not an issue before the Trial Court so as to tender evidence and a decision be taken, the High Court was not justified in raising the same as a substantial question of law and arriving at its conclusion in that regard.