Husband Suffered Loss Of Reputation On False Prosecution By Wife: Allahabad HC Upholds Divorce Decree
The Allahabad High Court upheld a divorce decree in favour of a husband observing that he suffered loss of reputation suffered due to the false prosecution by the wife.
The Division Bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Donadi Ramesh held, “both parties being well educated, the respondent holding Master in Business Administration (M.B.A.) and the appellant holding Doctorate of Philosophy (Ph.D.), loss of reputation suffered by the respondent on the false prosecution pressed by the appellant is seen to have caused cruelty to the extent that it may create a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the respondent that it may not be safe for him and his family to live in a matrimonial discord relationship with the present appellant as that occurrence would always remain exposed to the risk of similar false prosecution etc…Thus, the act of cruelty alleged by the respondent is found to be proven. To that extent, the decree of the learned trial court calls for no interference.”
Advocate Deepak Kumar Srivastava appeared for the Appellant, whereas Advocate Manish Tandon appeared for the Respondent.
An appeal was filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, arising from the judgement passed by the Family Court whereby the trial court had dissolved the marriage between the parties without making any provision for permanent alimony, etc.
According to the Respondent-husband, the Appellant-wife deserted his company, and therefore, a divorce suit was instituted by the Appellant-wife. Thereafter, the Respondent-husband alleged cruelty arising from a false criminal case lodged by the Appellant-wife against the Respondent-husband and his family members under Sections 498A, 323, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act making the allegation of demand of dowry against the respondent and his parents.
The Court noted that the first FIR was lodged six years after the marriage, and the second was lodged almost two months after the divorce suit had been instituted by the appellant-wife. It was an admitted fact that the respondent-husband and his parents had been acquitted in the criminal case. At the stage of evidence, the appellant-wife could not support the FIR allegations, and she turned hostile.
“Seen in that light, a specific pleading of cruelty did exist. The act of cruelty of causing the arrest of the parents of the respondent on false allegation of criminal offence, was proven.”
The Court said that one may continue to describe the parents of the spouse as parents-in-law, at the same time for the act of cruelty committed, once the arrest of parents of a spouse is caused on false allegations or allegations found to be false in the course of a criminal trial, no further or strict proof of cruelty may be prescribed or applied by Courts. Those who were arrested were not strangers or third parties. The victims of the reckless and false accusation made by the appellant were the closest family members of the respondent, i.e. his parents, the Court remarked.
It observed, “Once that cruel act was committed, in the context of the educational and social background of the parties, it could never be resisted that the respondent was meted out most cruel behaviour in which he may have reasonably felt unsafe to cohabit with the appellant. It would be completely another case where allegation of demand of dowry is found true. However, divorce sought being a civil proceeding, everything apart; its institution may never have offered the respondent spouse (in that proceeding) motivation to get even with her spouse-by lodging a false criminal case. That act committed by the appellant led to loss of reputation and standing of the respondent and his family, in his society. Having suffered that, the respondent cannot be expected to cope with that and revive his matrimonial relations.”
Accordingly, the Court partly allowed the Appeal and directed the Husband to provide a lump sum alimony of Rs. 10,00,000/- to the wife.
Cause Title: XXXX v. YYYY (Neutral Citation: 2024:AHC:151200-DB)
Appearances:
Appellant: Advocates Deepak Kumar Srivastava and Chandra Shekher Singh
Respondent: Advocates Manish Tandon, Jitendra Kumar Singh and Jitendra Kumar Srivastava
