A wife's act of filing criminal complaints against her husband and in-laws would not amount to cruelty, the Madras High Court recently held [A Rajendra Babu vs C Ramba]..A division bench of Justices R Suresh Kumar and K Kumaresh Babu said that it is cruelty only when the criminal complaint culminates in acquittal. The bench noted that the criminal complaints filed by the wife in the instant case, had culminated in calendar cases on a charge sheet by the concerned police after due investigation."In such view of the matter, we cannot at present presume that such filing of criminal cases itself would amount to mental cruelty by the wife. Only on completion of a criminal case trial, wherein, the appellant and his family members are acquitted, it would lead to a conclusion that there had been cruelty on the part of the wife, which would enable the husband to rely upon such facts to file the application," the Court held in its March 28 judgment.It further noted that the wife did not dispute the filing of the criminal cases against her husband and in-laws."In fact she draws support from that to claim that it was the husband who had harassed her," the bench opined..As per the facts of the case, the marriage between the parties was solemnised on August 21, 2008 as per the Hindu rights and customs. However, the relationship turned sour after various disputes arose between them. The husband accused his wife of subjecting him to mental cruelty and harassing him as she insisted him to leave his family and even kept threatening him that she will die by suicide.On the other hand, the wife claimed that her husband tortured her mentally and physically because of which she filed several complaints with the local police in Chennai.Amid the disputes, the husband deserted the wife and refused to return to her despite her plea for restitution of conjugal rights. This was in response to the husband's plea for dissolution of their marriage.A family court in Chennai, however, rejected the husband's plea for dissolution of marriage on grounds of cruelty for want of evidence. It also allowed the wife's plea for restitution of conjugal rights.The Court, however, noted that the husband had filed his divorce plea in 2012 while the wife filed her plea for restitution of conjugal rights only in 2016."Thereafter, much water had flown under the bridge, where various criminal cases had been filed by the wife against the husband and his family members which had all culminated under Calendar Cases and the trial is on the way. Firstly, had she really wanted to have matrimonial relationship to be restored, at the earliest, she should have filed an application for restitution immediately when the husband had filed petition for divorce," the Court said.It further opined that the family court failed to appreciate the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act to decide whether there was reasonable cause on the part of the husband to withdraw from the matrimonial life. "His withdrawal from matrimonial life was firstly by issuance of an Advocate notice for dissolution of marriage followed by a petition filed by him as early as in the year 2012. Further, various criminal cases have also been launched by her against the husband and his family members. These factors would itself be a reasonable cause for him to be away from the matrimonial relationship with her," the bench pointed out.This aspect, the Court held, was completely over looked by the family court while automatically granting a decree of restitution of conjugal rights.It, therefore, set aside and quashed the order of the family court allowing the wife's plea for restitution of conjugal rights.However, it also upheld the decision of the family court to deny divorce to the husband on grounds of cruelty..Advocate C Shankar appeared for the husband.The wife appeared as a party-in-person..[Read Order]
A wife's act of filing criminal complaints against her husband and in-laws would not amount to cruelty, the Madras High Court recently held [A Rajendra Babu vs C Ramba]..A division bench of Justices R Suresh Kumar and K Kumaresh Babu said that it is cruelty only when the criminal complaint culminates in acquittal. The bench noted that the criminal complaints filed by the wife in the instant case, had culminated in calendar cases on a charge sheet by the concerned police after due investigation."In such view of the matter, we cannot at present presume that such filing of criminal cases itself would amount to mental cruelty by the wife. Only on completion of a criminal case trial, wherein, the appellant and his family members are acquitted, it would lead to a conclusion that there had been cruelty on the part of the wife, which would enable the husband to rely upon such facts to file the application," the Court held in its March 28 judgment.It further noted that the wife did not dispute the filing of the criminal cases against her husband and in-laws."In fact she draws support from that to claim that it was the husband who had harassed her," the bench opined..As per the facts of the case, the marriage between the parties was solemnised on August 21, 2008 as per the Hindu rights and customs. However, the relationship turned sour after various disputes arose between them. The husband accused his wife of subjecting him to mental cruelty and harassing him as she insisted him to leave his family and even kept threatening him that she will die by suicide.On the other hand, the wife claimed that her husband tortured her mentally and physically because of which she filed several complaints with the local police in Chennai.Amid the disputes, the husband deserted the wife and refused to return to her despite her plea for restitution of conjugal rights. This was in response to the husband's plea for dissolution of their marriage.A family court in Chennai, however, rejected the husband's plea for dissolution of marriage on grounds of cruelty for want of evidence. It also allowed the wife's plea for restitution of conjugal rights.The Court, however, noted that the husband had filed his divorce plea in 2012 while the wife filed her plea for restitution of conjugal rights only in 2016."Thereafter, much water had flown under the bridge, where various criminal cases had been filed by the wife against the husband and his family members which had all culminated under Calendar Cases and the trial is on the way. Firstly, had she really wanted to have matrimonial relationship to be restored, at the earliest, she should have filed an application for restitution immediately when the husband had filed petition for divorce," the Court said.It further opined that the family court failed to appreciate the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act to decide whether there was reasonable cause on the part of the husband to withdraw from the matrimonial life. "His withdrawal from matrimonial life was firstly by issuance of an Advocate notice for dissolution of marriage followed by a petition filed by him as early as in the year 2012. Further, various criminal cases have also been launched by her against the husband and his family members. These factors would itself be a reasonable cause for him to be away from the matrimonial relationship with her," the bench pointed out.This aspect, the Court held, was completely over looked by the family court while automatically granting a decree of restitution of conjugal rights.It, therefore, set aside and quashed the order of the family court allowing the wife's plea for restitution of conjugal rights.However, it also upheld the decision of the family court to deny divorce to the husband on grounds of cruelty..Advocate C Shankar appeared for the husband.The wife appeared as a party-in-person..[Read Order]
