• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • About
  • Contact
    • Contact Us
    • Format of case
  • Charges/Payment
  • Book Appointment
  • Judgments
    • SC Judgments

Man to Man Solutions

You are here: Home » Divorce » SC grants divorce due to acquittal of husband in IPC 498A case deeming it as Cruelty

SC grants divorce due to acquittal of husband in IPC 498A case deeming it as Cruelty

In a first of its kind decision the Supreme Court has granted divorce to husband on grounds of cruelty by wife due to acquittal in IPC 498A case – when the same had been rejected both by Trial Court and High Court.

Use of IPC 498A cases as leverage

Filing of IPC 498A cases by women on husbands is very common in context of overall matrimonial proceedings.  People are aware of their misuse as a legal weapon and a tool of harassment, though many are unaware that it is also used as a tool for leverage.

Though in last few years the fear of immediate arrest has been reduced a lot, IPC 498A cases are filed and kept pending to keep a sword hanging on  head of husband, and also used as a leverage for getting decisions in other cases.  E.g. a common logic in another case filed by wife will be that she has filed FIR under IPC 498A (and other sections if applicable) and charge-sheet has been filed.  The fact that charge-sheet has been filed by police is used to lend credence to the allegations made in other cases, too – thereby hoping for a higher interim maintenance and other reliefs like child custody, denial of interim custody/visitation of children to father etc.

So far filing IPC 498A was a one way benefit, with no risk to wife

Usually, many husbands settle cases before seeing their final end, and they don’t get to use full benefit of the acquittal in IPC 498A case had it run through full trial.  In this particular case, the husband waited patiently and used the fact of acquittal in magistrate court in IPC 498A case to get decree of divorce on ground of cruelty.  However the timing of cases was such that his divorce case was disposed before IPC 498A was over, and hence the Trial Court rejected his ground of cruelty citing pending adjudication of IPC 498A case.  He appealed to High Court by when he had been acquitted in IPC 498A, but High Court rejected his appeal giving the reasoning that mere filing of IPC 498A case cannot be deemed as mental cruelty.

Acquittal in IPC 498A case a new paradigm for judging cruelty on husband

There are many judgments where false allegations by wife on husband, dragging him to police station multiple times, sending frivolous complaints to his office etc have been deemed as cruelty for grant of divorce to husband.  However, so far a precedent was not there that acquittal of husband from IPC 498A case could open the possibility of taking those allegations as cruelty on husband.  Hence, this judgment by Supreme Court is a first of its kind where the the fact that a husband had to go through trial in IPC 498A where serious allegations were made against him by wife, and he got acquitted of these allegations, can be deemed as mental cruelty on him for a decree of divorce.  Though the judgment mentions seriousness of allegations as an important factor, the fact that it does not mention the types of allegations made in IPC 498A case makes it easier for husbands to strengthen their divorce case (if already filed) once they get acquitted in IPC 498A trial.

For more such judgments on cruelty with details on when to use a particular judgment, refer to this book: Guide for Men on Divorce, Cruelty, Desertion, Annulment (readable in browser or Kindle app on mobile or PC/laptop)

Full judgment text is given below:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

 

CIVIL APPEAL NO.8871 OF 2019
(Arising out of SLP(Civil) No.1981 of 2019)

 

RANI NARASIMHA SASTRY                                    APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

RANI SUNEELA RANI                           RESPONDENT(S)

 

O R D E R

 

Leave granted.

Appellant   appeared   in-person.   The   respondent,

despite service did not appear. This Court, vide order

dated 16.09.2019, appointed Mr. Rana Mukherjee, learned

senior   counsel,   as   amicus   curiae   on   behalf   of   the

respondent.

 

We have heard the appellant appearing in-person as

well as Mr. Rana Mukherjee, learned amicus curiae on

behalf of the respondent.

The   marriage   between   the   appellant   and   the

respondent was solemnized on 14.08.2005 at Annavaram Sri

Veera Venkata Sathyanarayana Swamy Temple of East Godavari

District of Andhra Pradesh. After marriage appellant and

respondent lived together until 17.01.2007 and thereafter

they have been living separately for more than 10 years.

This   appeal   has   been   filed   by   the   appellant

challenging the judgment of the High Court of Judicature

at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of

Andhra Pradesh dated 05.01.2017 in Civil Miscellaneous

Appeal   No.1279/2011.   The   appellant   has   filed   O.P.

No.109/2007 in the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge,

R.R. District, L.B. Nagar under Section 13(1)(I-a) and

(iii) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to

as the “Act”) praying for dissolution of the marriage with

the respondent. The petition was filed basically on two

grounds, namely, cruelty as well as mental illness of the

respondent. In the petition the appellant appeared as PW-1

and one Upadhyayula Viswanadna Sarma has appeared as PW-2.

Documents Ext.P1 to P.29 were filed. The respondent was

examined as RW-1, one D. Nagabhushan Rao was also examined

as   RW-2.   Documents   Ext.R1   to   R3   were   filed   by   the

respondent. The Trial Court framed following points for

determination:

“12.   Now   the   points   that   arises   for
determination are:

 

1)     Whether   the   petitioner   established   and
proved   that   the   respondent   treated   the

 

2

petitioner with cruelty?

2)     Whether   the   petitioner   established   and
proved that the respondent has been incurable
unsound mind or has been suffering continuously
or intermediately from mental disorder?

3)     Whether there are sufficient grounds to
grant decree  of divorce  as prayed  by the
petitioner?

4)     To what relief?”

 

The Trial Court decided both point no.1 and point

no.2 against the appellant and held that appellant failed

to prove that he was treated with cruelty by respondent.

With regard to second point Trial Court also held that

evidence   adduced   by   the   appellant   was   not   at   all

sufficient to come to conclusion that the appellant has

established the alleged mental disorder of respondent.

Resultantly, petition was dismissed on 05.09.2011 against

which the appeal has been filed in the High Court. The

appeal too has been dismissed by the High Court on

05.01.2017 against which this appeal has been filed.

 

The appellant appearing in-person submitted that he

has made out a case for grant of dissolution of marriage

on the ground of cruelty but the Court below erred in law

in rejecting the application. He submitted that apart from

various other instances, as mentioned in the application

as well as in evidence, a case was set up by the appellant

that false complaints have been filed by the respondent

against the appellant and his family members and criminal

3

cases have also been initiated which fully prove the

cruelty on the part of the respondent. He submitted that

FIR Criminal No.148/2007 in which charge-sheet No.672 of

2007 was submitted against the appellant and his sister-

in-law on the basis of which charge under Section 498-A of

Indian Penal Code (IPC) was framed and the appellant was

tried by the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad.

It is submitted that the Court held the appellant not

guilty of offence under Section 498-A IPC and he was

acquitted   which   clearly   establishes   cruelty   at   the

instance of the respondent.

 

Mr.   Rana   Mukherjee,   learned   senior   counsel,

submitted   that   Court   below   had   rightly   rejected   the

petition of the appellant as he having failed to prove

cruelty as well as mental illness of the respondent.

Mr. Rana Mukherjee further submitted that there is a

daughter born to appellant with regard to whom an order of

maintenance has also been passed under Section 125 of Code

of Criminal Procedure.

 

We have considered the submissions of appellant-in-

person as well as learned senior counsel appearing for the

respondent.

The petition filed by appellant for dissolution of

marriage on the ground of cruelty and mental illness has

4

been rejected by the Court below. With regard to second

ground I.e. mental illness of the respondent, no serious

efforts have been made to question the findings of the

Court below which ground has rightly rejected by the Court

below. The Court below has also observed that respondent

is working as Sanskrit Lecturer, hence, there is no merit

in the submission of the appellant that respondent is

suffering from mental illness.

 

The ground which was pressed by the appellant before

the Trial Court and the High Court was ground of cruelty.

We need to only consider as to whether the ground for

divorce under Section 13(1)(I-a) of the Act has been made

out or not. Before the Trial Court, the appellant has

relied several incidents of cruelty allegedly meted out by

the respondent towards him and his family members. In

paragraph 25 of the judgment criminal case filed by the

wife under Section 498-A of IPC was referred to and

relied. The Trial Court has noted the ground of cruelty on

the basis of filing criminal case but Trial Court refused

to rely on the said allegation on the ground that criminal

case filed by the respondent in C.C. No.672/2007 is

pending for adjudication. The Trial Court’s judgment was

delivered on 05.09.2011, which was questioned by the

appellant before the High Court by filing an appeal

no.1279/2011. During pendency of the appeal before the

5

High Court, the judgment in C.C. No.672/2007-The State of

AP through PS L.B. Nagar Vs. Rani Narasimha Sastry and

another was decided. Learned Metropolitan Magistrate held

that prosecution has failed to prove charge under Section

498-A of IPC. Paragraphs 32 and 34 of the judgment are as

follows:

“32. Having   regard   to   the   facts   and
circumstances of the case and after careful
scrutiny   of   entire   oral   and   documentary
evidence on record, it is the considered view
of   this   court   that   both   the   defacto-
complaint/PW1 and the accused seems as coming
from respectable families from a respectable
community, both are well educated, well brought
up has developed hat-redness towards each other
and the relationship between them is already
estranged and it is in irretrievable breakage
of marriage perhaps and probably due to some
egoistic problems and their hat-redness went to
the extent of throwing mud on each other before
the courts as PW1 alleged in her complaint that
the accused is trying marry one Valli the
sisters daughter of the accused, and as per the
suggestion given by the accused to PW1 during
her cross examination the accused is alleging
illicit relationship between PW1 and PW3 and
egoistic problem turned into pervertism against
each other adding bitterness further to see the
bad   of   each   other.   However,   though   Ex.P1
complaint given by PW1 against accused as A1
and his sister as A2 Smt. A. Surya Kumari, the
proceedings against A2 were already quashed by
the Hon’ble High Court of AP in vide Criminal
Petition No.5628/2008 dated 07-12.2011 issued
by the Hon’ble High Court of A.P. Hyderabad and
now in the present case against A1 also the
prosecution has failed to prove the same beyond
all reasonable doubt against A1 for the offence
punishable u/s. 498A IPC.

33.    xxx    xxx    xxx

34.    In the result, accused is found not guilty
of the offence punishable u/s.498A IPC and thus
I acquit him u/s.248(1) Cr.P.C. the bail bonds
of the accused and that of his sureties if any
shall stands cancel after expiry of appeal

6

time.”

This Court has laid down that averments, accusations

and character assassination of the wife by the appellant

husband   in   the   written   statement   constitutes   mental

cruelty for sustaining the claim for divorce under Section

13(1)(I-a) of the Act. This Court in Vijaykumar Ramchandra

Bhate Vs. Neela Vijaykumar Bhate(1) has laid down following
in paragraph 7:

“7.    The question that requires to be answered
first   is   as   to   whether   the   averments,
accusations and character assassination of the
wife by the appellant husband in the written
statement   constitutes   mental   cruelty   for
sustaining the claim for divorce under Section
13(1)(I-a) of the Act. The position of law in
this regard has come to be well settled and
declared that leveling disgusting accusations
of unchastity and indecent familiarity with a
person outside wedlock and allegations of extra
marital relationship is a grave assault on the
character, honour, reputation, status as well
as the health of the wife. Such aspersions of
perfidiousness attributed to the wife, viewed
in the context of an educated Indian wife and
judged by Indian conditions and standards would
amount to worst form of insult and cruelty,
sufficient by itself to substantiate cruelty in
law, warranting the claim of the wife being
allowed. That such allegations made in the
written statement or suggested in the course of
examination and by way of cross- examination
satisfy the requirement of law has also come to
be firmly laid down by this Court. On going
through   the   relevant   portions   of   such
allegations, we find that no exception could be
taken to the findings recorded by the Family
Court as well as the High Court. We find that
they   are   of   such   quality,   magnitude   and
consequence as to cause mental pain, agony and
suffering amounting to the reformulated concept
of cruelty in matrimonial law causing profound
and lasting disruption and driving the wife to

1. (2003) 6 SCC 334

7

feel deeply hurt and reasonably apprehend that
it would be dangerous for her to live with a
husband who was taunting her like that and
rendered the maintenance of matrimonial home
impossible.”

In the present case the prosecution is launched by

the respondent against the appellant under Section 498-A

of IPC making serious allegations in which the appellant

had to undergo trial which ultimately resulted in his

acquittal. In the prosecution under Section 498-A of IPC

not only acquittal has been recorded but observations have

been made that allegations of serious nature are levelled

against each other. The case set up by the appellant

seeking decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty has

been established. With regard to proceeding initiated by

respondent under Section 498-A of IPC, the High Court made

following observation in paragraph 14:

 

14…..Merely because the respondent has sought
for   maintenance   or   has   filed   a   complaint
against   the   petitioner   for   the   offence
punishable under Section 498-A of IPC, they
cannot be said to be valid grounds for holding
that such a recourse adopted by the respondent
amounts to cruelty.”

 

The above observation of the High Court cannot be

approved. It is true that it is open for anyone to file

complaint or lodge prosecution for redressal for his or

her grievances and lodge a first information report for an

offence also and mere lodging of complaint or FIR cannot

8

ipso facto        be treated as cruelty. But when a person

undergoes   a   trial   in   which   he   is   acquitted   of   the

allegation of offence under Section 498-A of IPC, levelled

by the wife against the husband, it cannot be accepted

that no cruelty has meted on the husband. As per pleadings

before   us,   after   parties   having   been   married   on

14.08.2005,   they   lived   together   only   18   months   and

thereafter they are separately living for more than a

decade now.

In view of forgoing discussion, we conclude that

appellant has made a ground for grant of decree of

dissolution of marriage on the ground as mentioned in

Section 13(1)(I-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

We allow the appeal of the appellant and grant

decree of divorce. The learned amicus curiae appearing for

the respondent has lastly submitted that appellant be

directed to make payment of maintenance to the daughter

who is a minor. Appellant has willingly agreed that he

shall   pay   Rs.2000/-   per   month   to   the   daughter   as

maintenance. We direct the appellant to make payment of

maintenance for daughter of Rs.2000/- per month. Appellant

shall make the payment of Rs.2000/- per month in the bank

account of respondent with whom the minor daughter is

living as on date. The payment shall start from next month

I.e. December 2019. We, however, grant liberty to the

9

minor daughter to seek enhancement of the compensation in

accordance with law by filing appropriate application

before the Magistrate, if so advised.

The appeal is allowed to the above extent.

 

……………….J.
(ASHOK BHUSHAN)

 

……………….J.
(NAVIN SINHA)

New Delhi;
November 19, 2019

10

ITEM NO.12               COURT NO.9               SECTION XII-A

S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F  I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).1981/2019

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 05-01-2017
in CMA No.1279/2011 passed by the High Court Of Judicature At
Hyderabad For The State Of Telangana And The State Of Andhra
Pradesh)

RANI NARASIMHA SASTRY                        Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

RANI SUNEELA RANI                           Respondent(s)

(IA No. 72697/2018 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)

Date : 19-11-2019 This matter was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHUSHAN
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA

For Petitioner(s)
Petitioner-in-person

For Respondent(s)
Mr. Rana Mukherjee, Sr. Adv. (A.C.)
Mrs. Neha Sharma, AOR
Ms. Surabhi Guleria, Adv.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R

Leave granted.

The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.

Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.

 

 

(ARJUN BISHT)                                   (RENU KAPOOR)
COURT MASTER (SH)                               BRANCH OFFICER
(signed order is placed on the file)

 

11

« How to deal with police at Complaint stage, CAW stage, and after FIR is filed under IPC 498A/406 etc? CrPC 41A Notice Acknowledgment
Shared Parenting recommended in Child Custody Cases – Savitha Seetharam vs Rajiv Vijayasarathy Rathnam – Karnataka High Court judgment »

Reader Interactions

Primary Sidebar

Books

How-to-Fight-and-Reduce-Maintenance-Under-CrPC-125-and-DV-act


Book: Guide for men on Divorce, Cruelty, Desertion, Annulment


Book: Alimony and Maintenance under Hindu Law

FREE eBooks

Download Free eBook PDF:
Surviving-the-Legal-Jungle-Cover-Image


Book on Child Custody
Read FREE eBook written by fathers involved in child custody issues (Read Online) (Download in PDF format)

Resources

Download FREE PDF

Top 5 problem behaviours of Nice Guys which get them into relationship issues

Testimonials

"Your pdf on nice guys is bang on. Incredible. I guess human affairs and interactions aren't that unique after all :). "

- A Reader from Delhi
COPYRIGHT © 2015-20 · Vivek Deveshwar · Privacy Policy