In Absence Of Proof That Wife Filed False Dowry Demand Complaint, Merely Filing Complaint Won’t Amount To Cruelty Against Husband: Madras HC
The Madras High Court held that in the absence of proof that the wife filed false dowry demand complaint, merely filing a complaint before the police will not amount to cruelty against the husband.
The Court held thus in a civil miscellaneous appeal filed by the husband under Section 55 of The Divorce Act, 1869, praying to set aside the order of the Principal District Judge by which his original petition was dismissed substantially on the ground of cruelty and desertion.
A Division Bench of Justice R. Subramanian and Justice R. Sakthivel observed, “This Court is of the view that in the absence of proof that the respondent filed false dowry demand complaint, merely filing a complaint before All Women Police Station would not amount to cruelty. The petitioner has not proved that the respondent has filed a complaint under Dowry Prohibition Act. The respondent in her evidence has deposed that only with an intention to live together with the petitioner, she filed a complaint before All Women Police Station. Hence, this Court does not find any fault with the act of the respondent.”
Advocate S. Shanmuganandam appeared on behalf of the appellant while Advocate N. Subha appeared on behalf of the respondent.
Brief Facts -
The parties got married in 1993 as per the Christian rites and customs, though the husband/appellant was originally a Hindu. It was the appellant’s claim that under the compulsion of his wife, he converted to Christianity. A male child was born out of their wedlock in 1994 but the delivery of the child was not intimated to him. According to the husband, after the birth of child, the wife refused to join him when he went to his in-laws’ house and called her home. Her family members insisted him on setting up a separate living with his wife but he refused to set up a separate house since he was the elder son having age old parents. In the meantime, the wife/respondent lodged a complaint before the All Women Police Station and after enquiry, the Police compromised and suggested re-union. Subsequently, the parties lived together for quite sometime and since his wife repeatedly insisted him on setting up a separate house for their living, differences of opinion arose between them.
Thereafter, the wife filed a maintenance case before the Family Court, praying for maintenance for the child and the same was ordered and hence, the husband was complying with the same. As per the husband, due to such cruel act of the wife, he lost his peace of mind rendering him unable to continue his job and consequently, the parties started living separately. Therefore, the husband filed a petition for divorce. However, it was contended by the wife that she regularly and periodically contacted her husband, urging him to take her back but he did not agree. She was starving without food and suffered for want of basic needs. She then managed to get employed in the company where her husband was working but even after requesting him daily, all her efforts proved futile. The divorce petition was dismissed on the ground that he did not make a case for divorce and that he deserted his wife without any valid reasons. Being aggrieved, he was before the High Court.
The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case noted, “The petitioner has deposed that the respondent gave a false complaint as if the petitioner demanded dowry. The said act of the respondent amounts to cruelty. However, the petitioner has neither produced the copy of the complaint nor has taken any steps to send for the complaint from All Women Police Station. On the other hand, the respondent in her evidence has deposed that in the month of May, 1995 she went to the petitioner's house along with her minor child. But the petitioner's family members refused to take them back and also did not allow her meet the petitioner.”
The Court added that in the month of May, 1996, the respondent approached the All Women Police Station, Kancheepuram and submitted a petition stating all her sufferings and the police officials summoned the appellant and he also came to the police station and agreed and assured to take the respondent and her minor child back with him within a short span of time, however, he did not keep up his words.
“Further, the respondent/R.W.1 in her examination has deposed that the petitioner is ready and willing to live with the petitioner. The evidence of R.W.1 and R.W.2 would show that the respondent has tried to reconcile and live with the petitioner, however, the petitioner did not accept the respondent for the reasons best known to him”, it said.
The Court observed that there is no sufficient evidence available on record to show that the respondent caused cruelty to the appellant and to prove the version that the respondent insisted him to set up a separate living for them. It also noted that while the appellant stated that the respondent and her family members threatened him that they will give a complaint in dowry cell, there is no piece of evidence available on record to prove the said alleged incident.
“Further, in view of the evidence of the respondent, the petitioner miserably failed to establish 'animus deserendi' of the respondent. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the case laws submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant would not applicable to the case on hand. Hence, this Court is of the view that the petitioner failed to prove that the respondent caused cruelty to him and that she alone deserted him. The learned Principal District Judge after considering the oral evidence and the pleadings, has come to the conclusion that the petitioner has not made out a case under Sections 10(1)(ix) and 10(1)(x) of the Divorce Act, 1869 and dismissed the original petition, in which, this Court does not find any illegality or irregularity. Therefore, there is no warrant to interfere with the order passed by the Trial Court”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the civil miscellaneous appeal.
Cause Title- ABC v. XYZ (Neutral Citation: 2024:MHC:1943)
