Wife Merely Filing Dowry Demand Complaint Against Husband Not Cruelty Unless Shown That It Is False: Madras High Court
While denying relief to a husband seeking divorce on the grounds of cruelty, the Madras High Court has observed that a wife merely filing a complaint in the police station would not amount to cruelty, unless the husband proves that the complaint was a false dowry demand complaint. Justice R Subramanian and Justice R Sakthivel thus observed that they could not find fault with...
While denying relief to a husband seeking divorce on the grounds of cruelty, the Madras High Court has observed that a wife merely filing a complaint in the police station would not amount to cruelty, unless the husband proves that the complaint was a false dowry demand complaint.
Justice R Subramanian and Justice R Sakthivel thus observed that they could not find fault with the conduct of the wife, filing a police complaint with the intention of living together with her husband.
“This Court is of the view that in the absence of proof that the respondent [wife] filed false dowry demand complaint, merely filing a complaint before All Women Police Station would not amount to cruelty. The petitioner [husband] has not proved that the respondent has filed a complaint under Dowry Prohibition Act. The respondent in her evidence has deposed that only with an intention to live together with the petitioner, she filed a complaint before All Women Police Station. Hence, this Court does not find any fault with the act of the respondent,” the court observed.
The husband had preferred an appeal against the order of the Principal District Judge, Chengalpattu refusing to grant him divorce. The husband argued that he was forcefully converted to Christianity by his wife's family. He contended that his wife did not even inform him about the birth of their child and after the birth of their child, his wife refused to live with him.
The husband further argued that his wife had filed a police complaint against him. He added that their marriage was irretrievably broken and it was more serious that ordinary wear and tear of marriage. He thus argued that the trial court had not appreciated the evidence and wrongly concluded that the case was not proved.
On the other hand, the wife claimed that she had not compelled the husband to convert to Christianity. Denying the allegations of desertion, she added that she had always tried to live with her husband, but it was he, who refused to live together. She added that she was ready and willing to live with the husband , but he had deserted her for almost 20 years without any reason. Thus, she submitted that the order of the trial court did not warrant any interference.
The court noted that the wife had filed the police complaint in an attempt to reconcile with her husband and while the husband had assured the police to take his wife and child back with him, he did not keep up with his words.
The court further noted that there was no evidence available on record to show that the wife had committed cruelty. The court held that the husband had failed to establish “animus deserendi” of wife and thus, finding no fault with the order of the trial court, dismissed the appeal.
Counsel for the Appellant: Mr.S.Shanmuganandam
Counsel for the respondent: Ms.N.Subha
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 232
Case Title: ABC v XYZ
Case No: CMA NO.710 OF 2014