The Bombay High Court held that a delayed Section 498A FIR filed 11 months after separation was intended to pressurize the husband, constituting cruelty. The Court set aside the decree of restitution of conjugal rights and remanded the maintenance issue for fresh consideration.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) has quashed a Family Court order granting restitution of conjugal rights and maintenance to a wife, observing that the criminal complaint under Section 498A IPC was filed after an unexplained delay of 11 months merely to pressurize the husband and his family members.
The Division Bench of Justice M.S. Jawalkar and Justice M.W. Chandwani partly allowed the appeals filed by the husband against the common judgment dated 30 August 2024 passed by the Family Court, Yavatmal.
The parties were married on 24 May 2021 at Yavatmal. The wife left the matrimonial home on 16 August 2021, claiming that she had gone to prepare for her Master of Engineering examination.
Nearly 11 months later, she lodged an FIR under Section 498A read with Section 34 IPC alleging cruelty by the husband and his relatives.
She also filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act and two maintenance petitions under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act and Section 125 CrPC
The Family Court allowed all petitions and directed the husband to pay ₹20,000 per month as maintenance.
After examining the evidence, the High Court noted that no pleading or evidence showed that the wife made any genuine attempt to resume cohabitation after her examination. Also, the FIR was filed 11 months after separation, with allegations not supported by contemporaneous material.
The Court relied on WhatsApp messages exchanged between the parties, observing that the wife had expressed regret for her own behaviour, and not alleged cruelty at that stage.
Importantly, the wife admitted in cross-examination that:
“If the husband would have shown willingness to cohabit, there was no reason to lodge a criminal complaint.”
The Bench held that this admission clearly showed the FIR was filed only to exert pressure, amounting to matrimonial cruelty.
Relying on Anil Yashwant Karande v. Mangal Karande and K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa, the Court reiterated that false or motivated criminal complaints against a spouse and in-laws constitute mental cruelty.
Accordingly, the decree of restitution of conjugal rights was set aside.
On the issue of maintenance, the High Court found that the Family Court failed to properly consider evidence indicating that the wife had an independent source of income.
The husband produced material showing that the wife was allegedly running a coaching institute named “Joy Engineering Classes”, including advertisements carrying a mobile number admitted by the wife to be hers.
The Court also noted that the wife:
- Failed to disclose a State Bank of India account
- Did not fully disclose her assets and liabilities
The Bench held that the maintenance of ₹20,000 per month was granted on insufficient and suppressed financial disclosures.
While setting aside the maintenance orders, the High Court remanded the matter back to the Family Court with directions to:
- Call for fresh affidavits of assets and liabilities from both parties
- Permit parties to lead additional evidence
- Reconsider maintenance strictly in accordance with the law
The Court clarified that maintenance already paid shall not be recovered from the wife.
Accordingly, the High Court set aside the decree of restitution of conjugal rights granted by the Family Court. The orders granting maintenance under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act and Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were also quashed.
However, the issue of maintenance was remanded to the Family Court, Yavatmal, for fresh consideration after calling for updated affidavits of assets and liabilities from both parties. The Court clarified that the maintenance amounts already paid by the husband shall not be recoverable from the wife.
Case Title:
Sahil Sanjay Rathod vs. Swati Sahil Rathod
Family Court Appeal No. 57/2024, Family Court Appeal No. 58/2024, Criminal Revision Application (Revn)) No. 194/2024
READ JUDGMENT
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Conjugal Rights