The Madras High Court held that a wife’s police complaint against husband or matrimonial family cannot alone amount to mental cruelty unless proven false or malicious. The Court dismissed husband’s divorce plea, protecting a spouse’s right to seek legal remedies.
The Madras High Court has ruled that a wife approaching the police against her husband or matrimonial family members cannot by itself be considered an act of mental cruelty for the purpose of granting divorce, unless it is established that the complaint was false or malicious.
Justice P. Vadamalai of the Madurai Bench delivered the ruling while dismissing a husband’s appeal seeking dissolution of marriage on grounds of alleged cruelty and desertion. The Court held that a spouse exercising legal remedies to protect her rights cannot automatically be treated as having committed cruelty.
While rejecting the husband’s claims, the Court relied upon an earlier decision which recognised that legal proceedings initiated by a wife for safeguarding her interests would not constitute cruelty.
The Court observed:
“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,”
Background of the Dispute and Arguments
The case arose from a matrimonial dispute between a husband and wife who married on February 13, 2011. The couple had a son born on December 21, 2011.
According to the husband, the relationship between the parties deteriorated soon after marriage. He alleged that his wife was frequently argumentative, used abusive language, threatened self-harm and subjected him to mental harassment.
The husband claimed that his wife left the matrimonial home in Hyderabad in August 2012 and thereafter lodged false complaints against him and his family members. He argued that these complaints caused him severe mental distress and amounted to cruelty under matrimonial law.
He further submitted that the couple had been living separately for more than 14 years and that the prolonged separation demonstrated that there was no possibility of reconciliation or restoration of the marital relationship.
The wife disputed the allegations and denied that she had deserted the husband without justification. She contended that she was compelled to approach the authorities because she had allegedly faced dowry harassment and physical abuse.
According to her, the police complaints were genuine attempts to seek protection and legal relief rather than efforts to harass her husband. The wife also informed the Court that she was still willing to resume matrimonial life and continue the marriage.
Court’s Evidence Examination and Observations
While considering the matter, the High Court noted that the husband failed to support his allegations with independent evidence. The Court pointed out that he had not examined any independent witnesses, including neighbours, who could have supported his claim that the wife had subjected him to cruelty.
On the other hand, the wife placed several documents before the Court, including medical records, copies of police complaints, information obtained from the Social Welfare Office, Thanjavur under the Right to Information Act, and proceedings initiated by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thanjavur.
The Court observed that the husband did not specifically deny these documents or take effective steps to disprove their contents.
The husband relied upon the Supreme Court judgment in Joydeep Majumdar v Bharti Jaiswal Majumdar (2021), arguing that false complaints made by a spouse that damage the other’s reputation and career can amount to mental cruelty. However, the Madras High Court held that the facts of that case were different and the principle could not be applied mechanically in the present matter. The Court noted that in the Joydeep Majumdar case, the wife had allegedly sent complaints to the husband’s senior officers in the Army, which affected his professional reputation and career prospects.
In the present case, however, there was no evidence showing that the wife had forwarded complaints to the husband’s superiors or attempted to harm his professional standing. Therefore, the Court concluded that the circumstances were materially different.
The High Court also took note of the fact that the wife had expressed willingness to continue the marriage, whereas the husband had not taken steps such as seeking restitution of conjugal rights to bring the relationship back on track.
The Court held that mere separation for a long period, without establishing legal grounds such as cruelty or desertion, could not automatically justify granting divorce.
Finding that the husband failed to prove that the wife had committed cruelty or intentionally deserted him, the Court dismissed his appeal and upheld the orders passed by the lower courts rejecting his divorce petition.
The husband was represented by Advocate S. Ramasamy and the wife was represented by Advocate A. Arun Prasad.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE