Table of Contents
Allahabad High Court Rules No Spouse Should Stay in Marriage Amid Risk of False Criminal Charges
The Allahabad High Court recently observed that no spouse, whether male or female, is expected to continue in a matrimonial relationship under the threat of malicious criminal prosecution.
The Division Bench of Justices Donadi Ramesh and Saumitra Dayal Singh made the observation while dealing with a case where a man (appellant) sought divorce from his estranged wife on the grounds of desertion and cruelty.
Among other submissions, the appellant argued that the wife had filed a false criminal case against him, accusing him of cruelty and dowry harassment. However, the wife’s brother testified that no dowry demand was ever made.
The Court observed that the woman’s decision to recklessly make such allegations against her husband as well as his family, including minor siblings, was extremely cruel.
It proceeded to grant the appellant a divorce while observing,
“Legally, no spouse whether male or female may be expected to continue in a matrimonial relationship at the risk of malicious criminal prosecution. Criminal prosecution certainly leads to loss of dignity and reputation, besides other consequences that may arise, if a person is arrested or tried for the offence alleged.”
Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Donadi Ramesh
The Court made these observations while hearing appeals moved by the man against two orders passed by a family court.
In one order, the trial court rejected his divorce plea and in the second order, the trial court ordered the restitution of conjugal rights in favour of his estranged wife.
The couple had got married in 1992. After around two years of acrimonious cohabitation, the wife left the husband’s company in 1995 and moved in with her parents.
The Court was told that the couple was unable to reconcile despite the appellant’s (husband) efforts. Therefore, he filed a suit for divorce in 1999.
After the divorce proceedings were initiated, the wife filed a criminal case accusing her husband of offences under Sections 498A (cruelty) and 406 (criminal breach of trust) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Dowry Prohibition Act.
In 2010, the man moved the High Court seeking a divorce, after the family court dismissed his plea.
The High Court took note of the long years of separation between the spouses and observed that a complete denial of companionship to one’s spouse, without any justifiable reason, can itself constitute cruelty.
It clarified that cruelty is not solely defined by the lack of cohabitation or physical intimacy and that such a test may be regressive and outdated.
“At the same time, any person who enters into matrimonial relationship, does undertake a social and personal obligation to enjoy and share his / her company with their chosen spouse,” the Court added.
The Court remarked that a Hindu marriage is a sacrament and not just a social contract. When one partner abandons the other without reason or cause, the sacrament loses its soul and spirit, the Court said.
“That death of the spirit and soul of a Hindu marriage may constitute cruelty to the spouse who may be thus left alone, devoid not only of physical company but also completely deprived of company of their spouse, at all planes of human existence,” the Court noted.
The Court proceeded to observe that it has been 29 years since the appellant’s wife deserted him.
The wife’s (respondent) extremely cruel behavior towards the husband and his family also created a reasonable apprehension that continuing to live with her could be harmful, the Court said.
The High Court added that these aspects had not been taken note of by the trial court when it rejected the husband’s divorce plea.
Therefore, the High Court set aside the trial court’s orders and dissolved the marriage between the parties.
Advocates Samiran Chatterjee and S Chatterjee appeared for the appellant.
Advocate Kumar Sambhav appeared for the respondent.
