Wife filing police complaint against husband not marital cruelty unless proven false: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court recently held that a wife's act of filing a police complaint against her husband and in-laws does not amount to mental cruelty unless it is proven that the complaint is false.

Justice P Vadamalai of the Madurai Bench made the observation while dismissing a husband's plea for divorce.

The judge cited an earlier judgment in which it was held that litigation initiated by a wife to protect her rights would not about to cruelty.

"On perusal of the records, it is clear that the petitioner (husband) has not proved that the respondent (wife) 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 husband had claimed that his wife had subjected him to cruelty and deserted him. He alleged that she had left the matrimonial home in Hyderabad in August 2012 and filed false complaints against him and his family members. He also argued that the complaints had caused him mental agony and therefore amounted to cruelty.

The couple got married on February 13, 2011 and had a son on December 21, 2011. According to the husband, his wife was adamant, quarrelled with him, used abusive language and threatened self-harm. He further submitted that the couple had been living separately for more than 14 years and that there was no possibility of a reunion.

The wife denied the allegations and said that she had lodged police complaints only after being subjected to dowry harassment and physical assault. She also told the Court that she was willing to resume matrimonial life.

The Court noted that the husband had not examined any independent witness, including neighbours, to prove his allegations of cruelty. It also took note of documents produced by the wife, including medical records, receipts for police complaints, information received from the Social Welfare Office, Thanjavur under the Right to Information Act, and proceedings taken by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thanjavur.

The Court said that the husband had not specifically denied these documents nor had he taken steps to disprove them.

The husband had relied on the Supreme Court’s 2021 ruling in Joydeep Majumdar v Bharti Jaiswal Majumdar, where defamatory complaints affecting a spouse’s career and reputation were treated as mental cruelty. However, the High Court said that the ruling would not apply to the present case.

The Court noted that in Joydeep Majumdar, the wife had sent complaints to the husband’s higher officials in the Army, which affected his career and reputation. In the present case, there was no material to show that the wife had sent any complaint to the husband’s superiors to defame him.

The Court also noted that the wife had expressed willingness to live with the husband, while the husband had not taken any steps for the restitution of conjugal rights.

Holding that the husband had failed to prove marital cruelty or desertion, the Court dismissed the husband's appeal and confirmed the orders of lower courts rejecting his divorce plea.

The husband was represented by Advocate S Ramasamy

The wife was represented by Advocate A Arun Prasad.