Wife Lodging FIR Against Husband Leading To His Conviction Is 'Mental Cruelty', Doesn't Deserve Alimony: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has said that wife's action of lodging FIR against the husband in which he is convicted amounts to mental cruelty inflicted on husband. It thus dissolved the marriage of a couple upon the convicted husband's plea.

Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Sudeepti Sharma said,

"...wife lodged an FIR against the appellant/husband, resulting in the appellant's conviction. This action of respondent/wife constitutes cruelty, as it is practically impossible for the party against whom FIR is lodged or case is registered to live together under one roof. Consequently, this situation amounts to mental cruelty inflicted on the appellant/husband by the respondent/wife."

The Court also held that the wife does not deserve any permanent alimony. "As per record and overall conduct of the respondent/wife, this Court observes that she does not deserve any permanent alimony. The harm which is caused by her to the appellant/husband by lodging the FIR which led to his conviction leaves a stigma of being convicted on the appellant/husband which amounts to mental cruelty," it observed.

These observations were made an appeal preferred by the husband against Family Court's order whereby his plea for divorce was rejected in 2018. The dissolution of marriage was sought by the husband on the ground of cruelty and desertion.

The husband submitted that he and his wife have been living separately for the past 19 years and due to his conviction in the cruelty case, it would not be possible for him to stay with his wife.

Opposing the plea, the wife argued that she was still ready and willing to stay with him. 

After hearing the submissions, the Court noted that, "Learned Court below has dismissed the divorce petition on the ground that since the appellant instituted a petition for Restitution of Conjugal Rights in the year 2007, therefore, the acts of cruelty of respondent wife were condoned by the appellant/petitioner. Further that allegations of cruelty levelled by the appellant/petitioner against the wife remained unproved, whereas the Court did not observe that in fact it would amount to cruelty on the part of the respondent/wife."

"The parties should try to adjust and overlook certain faults of each other. However, husband and wife are not mere properties that Courts can mandate them to live together. It is undoubtedly the responsibility of the Court and the parties involved to save the marriage as far as possible. But when there is no scope and it appears that there is no benefit in trying to keep the parties bound to it indefinitely, it is for the benefit of both the parties and the children that they should part their ways," the bench observed.

It further added that, "in the present case, the emotional foundation of the marriage has completely vanished. The course which has been adopted by the Family Court below would encourage continuous bickering, perpetual bitterness and may lead to immorality. If the Courts find that there is practically no possibility of their staying together and the marriage has been irretrievably broken as seen in the present case, then a decree of divorce should be granted."

The bench noted that, "the records show that parties have been living apart for approximately 19 years, with no attempt of reconciliation or cohabitation by either party. This conclusively establishes that the marriage has irrevocably broken down."

In the light of the above, the Court set aside the order of the family court and dissolved the marriage between the parties.

Observing that, "after marriage of the daughter, both the parents shall be duty bound to look into the needs of the daughter and to give love and affection to her,” the Court directed the husband to pay a monthly amount of Rs. 10,000 to their daughter.

Senior Advocate GS Punia and advocate Harveen Kaur appeared for the husband.

Advocate Sarabjit Singh appeared for the wife.

 Title: XXX v. XXX

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 191