Filing of baseless & false complaint is sufficient to constitute matrimonial cruelty: P&H HC

feature-top

Read Order: Smt.Veena vs. Shri Naveen

Tulip Kanth

Chandigarh, September 27, 2021: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed an Appeal against the judgment passed by the Family Court of Rohtak, whereby the petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, filed by the respondent-husband was allowed, on the ground of cruelty.

The Division Bench of Justice Ritu Bahri and  Justice Archana Puri opined that filing of the complaint for the initiation of criminal proceedings, which were found to be baseless and false, do cause harassment and torture to the husband and his family. One such complaint is sufficient to constitute matrimonial cruelty.

In this matter, the respondent-petitioner Naveen had filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, thereby alleging that his marriage with Veena (appellant) was solemnized as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. The marriage between the parties took place on February 23,2012 and from their wedlock, a son namely Ansh was born.

On May 5,2012, the appellant left the matrimonial home, with her brothers, which fact, she had admitted in the witness box. Thereafter, there were multiple complaints/applications made by the appellant. She made a complaint before CAW Cell, Rohtak and an FIR was registered under Sections 406, 498-A, 34 of the IPC.

Besides the same, there were allegations against appellant-wife along with her brothers having come to the house of the respondent-husband and subjected him and his father to beatings. Furthermore, in the first week of June 2013, appellant, her brothers and aunt, tried to forcibly occupy the agricultural land of father of the respondent-husband and they felt sorry, in writing, in the police station and the matter was compromised. Only thereafter, a divorce petition was filed by the respondent-husband Naveen on July 13,2017.

Noting that when closure of the complaints, so made, was ordered, seemingly, no step had been taken by the appellant to challenge the same before the higher authorities, the Bench added that it seemed that the appellant-wife, apart from causing harassment, in one mater or the other, to the respondent husband, had also attempted to exploit herself, being woman and played a card of menfolk of her in-laws side, having an evil eye on her.

The Bench made it clear that there was nothing as such coming on record, about the appellant-wife side having made an attempt to make this marriage workable. Rather, the wife had attempted to initiate criminal proceedings in one form or the other. The complaint in CAW Cell, Rohtak was filed on February 2,2013. Even, complaint under Domestic Violence Act was filed  and later, a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was filed. An FIR was also registered at police Station Sampla, Rohtak.

Besides the same, also she trespassed into the property of her father-in-law and attempt was also made to occupy his agricultural land, relating to which, FIR under Sections 427, 447, 506 and 34 IPC was lodged, wherein, compromise was thereafter effected. She had not given any breathing time to her husband and his family members, to make an attempt to rehabilitate her.

Rather, she had filed complaints, one after the other and the same, were found to be false and baseless and the police never thought it appropriate to initiate investigation on the basis thereof. Some complaints were also filed thereby making an attempt to implicate menfolk of her in-laws’ family in sexual harassment cases but in the same also, her version was disbelieved, added the Court.

The Division Bench mentioned that the appellant-wife, after leaving the matrimonial home in less than three months of the marriage, indulged in filing of the applications/complaints against her husband and his family members, while being in an agitated mood, she had made defamatory complaints against her husband and his family members and the same were found to be false and the police did not find it fit case to be tried.

Dismissing the appeal, the Bench held that the Family Court had rightly allowed the divorce petition filed by the husband and the impugned judgment called for no interference in the present appeal.

Add a Comment