The Madras High Court has held that a wife's act of lodging a police complaint against her husband and his family members cannot, by itself, constitute mental cruelty for the purpose of seeking divorce unless it is established that the complaint was false or malicious.
Justice P. Vadamalai of the Madurai Bench made the observation while dismissing a husband's appeal seeking dissolution of marriage on the grounds of cruelty and desertion.
The Court observed that the husband had failed to prove that the complaints lodged by the wife were false. Relying on an earlier decision of the High Court, the Court reiterated that legal proceedings initiated by a wife to safeguard her rights cannot be treated as acts of cruelty.
"On perusal of the records, it is clear that the petitioner has not proved that the respondent has lodged a false police complaint. The learned brother Judge of this Court, in his judgment dated 12.07.2023, held that the litigation initiated by the wife to protect her right will not amount to cruelty," the Court noted.
The parties married on February 13, 2011, and a son was born to them on December 21, 2011. The husband alleged that his wife was quarrelsome, used abusive language, threatened self-harm, and left the matrimonial home in Hyderabad in August 2012. He further claimed that she filed false complaints against him and his family members, causing him mental agony and amounting to cruelty.
The husband also contended that the parties had been living separately for over fourteen years and that there was no possibility of reconciliation.
The wife, however, denied the allegations and maintained that she approached the police only after being subjected to dowry harassment and physical assault. She informed the Court that she remained willing to resume matrimonial life with her husband.
The High Court found that the husband had failed to substantiate his allegations of cruelty. Notably, he did not examine any independent witnesses, including neighbours or other persons who could support his claims regarding the wife's conduct.
On the other hand, the wife produced several documents, including medical records, receipts relating to police complaints, information obtained under the Right to Information Act from the Social Welfare Office, Thanjavur, and proceedings initiated by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thanjavur. The Court noted that the husband neither specifically denied these documents nor took steps to discredit them.
The husband relied upon the Supreme Court's judgment in Joydeep Majumdar v. Bharti Jaiswal Majumdar (2021), where defamatory complaints made by a spouse that adversely affected the other spouse's career and reputation were held to constitute mental cruelty.
However, the High Court distinguished the decision, observing that in Joydeep Majumdar, the wife had addressed complaints to the husband's superior officers in the Army, thereby damaging his professional reputation and career prospects. In the present case, there was no evidence to show that the wife had sent complaints to the husband's superiors or had otherwise attempted to defame him.
The Court also took note of the wife's willingness to continue the matrimonial relationship and observed that the husband had not taken any steps to seek restitution of conjugal rights.
Concluding that the husband had failed to establish either cruelty or desertion, the High Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the concurrent findings of the lower courts refusing to grant a decree of divorce.
The husband was represented by Advocate S. Ramasamy, while the wife was represented by Advocate A. Arun Prasad.
Website designed, developed and maintained by webexy