Social Torture By Spouse, Levelling False Allegations Of Extramarital Affairs Constitute Mental Cruelty In Marriage: Patna High Court
In a noteworthy judgment, the Patna High Court has declared that making baseless accusations of adultery, fornication, and coerced prostitution by a woman against her husband not only constitutes harassment and character assassination but also tarnishes the individual's public reputation in society.The division bench of Justice P B Bajathri and Justice Ramesh Chand Malviya observed,...
In a noteworthy judgment, the Patna High Court has declared that making baseless accusations of adultery, fornication, and coerced prostitution by a woman against her husband not only constitutes harassment and character assassination but also tarnishes the individual's public reputation in society.
The division bench of Justice P B Bajathri and Justice Ramesh Chand Malviya observed, “The leveling of false allegation by one spouse to the other having alleged illicit relations with different persons outside the wedlock amounted to mental cruelty. In the present case, respondent – wife alleged allegations before the employer of appellant and in the domestic violence allegations of soliciting prostitution by appellant and his mother and appellant involved in adultery and fornication etc. Respondent admitted those allegations are at the instigation of her advocate and they are not true.”
“Social torture by anyone of the spouses to the other, found to be as the mental torture and cruelty. Respondent harassing appellant in filing false cases of domestic violence and she has admitted certain allegations are false and such behaviour amounts to cruelty. It is also sufficient that if the cruelty is of such type it becomes impossible for spouses to live together. Therefore, it is a marriage irretrievably broken down during the period from 04.06.2015 to this day in the light of institution of criminal proceedings, domestic violence and complaint to the employer,” the bench added.
The above ruling came in a Miscellaneous Appeal arising out of a Matrimonial (Divorce) Case on the file of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Vaishali at Hajipur by which the appellant's petition for divorce under Section 13 1(ia) 1(ib)of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is declined.
Based on the factual background of the case, the appellant entered into matrimony with the respondent through Hindu rites and customs on November 29, 2012, resulting in the birth of a son. The couple resided together in Mumbai until June 2015, after which the woman had to relocate to her in-laws' native place in Bihar due to familial obligations.
Subsequently, domestic issues emerged, primarily revolving around the respondent's reluctance to reside in her husband's matrimonial home in Bihar. The appellant and his parents insisted on her presence in the village to care for her in-laws, leading to increasing discord in the marital relationship.
In 2016, the woman initiated legal proceedings by filing a police case, accusing her husband, in-laws, and six others of matrimonial torture and cruelty. Additionally, she pursued cases for monthly maintenance and domestic violence against her husband and his mother, alleging coercion into prostitution. However, she later admitted that these accusations were false and fabricated under the influence of her lawyer.
Against this backdrop, the appellant-husband filed a matrimonial (divorce) case. Regrettably, the Principal Judge at the Family Court rejected the appellant's petition.
The appellant's counsel Ankit Katriar argued before the Court that the appellant was acing character assassination, humiliation and embarrassment in the family circle and in his workplace and overall in society and these issues would fall under mental torture and lead to cruelty at the hands of the respondent-wife.
In its verdict, the Court expressed the view that if the respondent's wife had indeed experienced domestic violence or dowry harassment, she should have pursued appropriate remedies with care, given the precarious state of her marital life.
The Court went on to suggest that she could have initially sought resolution through methods such as Panchayat intervention or filing for the restitution of conjugal rights. However, the Court observed that instead of taking these steps, she promptly initiated criminal proceedings under Section 498 A of the IPC and related sections against the appellant, his parents, and his well-wishers.
The Court observed, “Further, taking note of complaint made by the respondent to the employer of the appellant while alleging character assassination and to see that he should be removed from service and further filing of domestic violence while alleging that appellant was in adultery, fornication and further alleging allegations against appellant and his mother that they are involved in soliciting prostitution, these are all serious allegations touching the character of respective persons and it would hurt mentally and their image in the society and family circle is tarnished.”
“That apart, each individual's dignity/human dignity is to be valued. Privacy includes at its core the preservation of personal intimacies, the sanctity of family life, marriage, procreation, the home and sexual orientation. Privacy also connotes right to be left alone,” the Court added.
The Court emphasized that privacy safeguards an individual's autonomy and acknowledges the capacity of individuals to control crucial aspects of their lives. It further asserted that personal choices governing one's way of life are inherent to the concept of privacy.
The Court emphasized, “Privacy protects heterogeneity and recognizes plurality and diversity of our culture. While the legitimate expectation of privacy may vary from the intimate zone to the private zone and from the private to the public arenas. It is important to underscore that privacy is not lost or surrendered merely because the individual is in a public place. Privacy attaches to the person since it is an essential facet of the dignity of the human being”
Drawing upon the precedent set in K.S. Puttaswamy vs. Union of India, as reported in (2017) 10 SCC 1, the Court highlighted the relevance of the observations made by the Apex Court in that case to the present matter. Specifically, the Court pointed out that the respondent-wife's actions, tarnishing the character of the appellant-husband both in the workplace and in society, amounted to cruelty, as per the principles established in the aforementioned case.
The court ruled that the allegations made by the respondent and the initiation of cases against the appellant would constitute cruelty towards the appellant.
While acknowledging that the respondent also experienced domestic issues, including alleged abuse and injuries sustained during a car journey, the court noted that the appellant had filed a legal complaint claiming to be a victim of cruelty. It is worth mentioning that the respondent, along with her son, reportedly faced harm when the mother of the appellant purportedly pushed them from the car.
The Court held, “The Family Court has failed to appreciate the aforementioned issues of initiation of criminal proceedings, domestic violence and giving complaint to appellant's employer which has tarnished the image of the appellant at his working place. Character assassination of adultery, fornication and alleging that appellant and his mother are involved in soliciting prostitution. These are the elements of cruelty and it has hurt mentally to the appellant.”
“The Family Court has not taken note of the fact that respondent's intention was not to join her husband in the light of three cases initiated against her husband and she has admitted certain allegations made in the litigations were at the instigation of her Advocate. If it is so, she should have immediately shown concern in withdrawing those allegations,” the Court added.
As of the present day, the Court has emphasized that the respondent's wife has not taken any steps to retract her previous allegations and continues to employ a confrontational approach instead of seeking an amicable resolution. The Court observed that the couple has been living separately since June 4, 2015, and considering it is now December 2023. Despite the respondent's readiness to withdraw her accusations, the appellant remained unwilling to forgive the lapses or allegations made against them.
"Gist of allegations in all the three petitions, it is evident that they amount to cruelty. Therefore, the Family Court has committed error in dismissing the appellant's Matrimonial Divorce Case No. 105 of 2019. Thus, the appellant has made out a prima facie case so as to grant a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty," the Court said while allowing the appeal and ordering the dissolution of the marriage between the appellant and respondent.
Considering the appellant, who is the husband, held the position of Deputy Executive Engineer at Maharashtra State Power Generation Corporation Limited, a role indicative of a Class I Officer with a presumably substantial income, and recognizing the respondent's responsibility to cover their son's educational expenses while also maintaining herself, the Court directed the husband to provide an interim alimony amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs) to the respondent, with the provision for adjustment in the event of ongoing maintenance proceedings before the relevant jurisdictional Court.
LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Pat) 154