1

REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL No. 1213

OF 2006

K.SRINIVAS

... APPELLANT
vs

K. SUNITA

.. RESPONDENT
J U D G M E N T

VIKRAMAJIT SEN,J.
1

In this Appeal, counsel for the Appellant has sought to

draw

our

attention

to

all

the

arguments

that

had

been

addressed before the High Court on behalf of the AppellantHusband in support of his claim for dissolution of his
marriage to the Respondent by a decree of divorce under
Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
have,

however,

restricted

him

to

the

ground

of

We

alleged

cruelty on account of the filing of a criminal complaint by

the Respondent against the Appellant and several members of
his family under Sections 498A and 307 of the Indian Penal

Page1

2
Code (IPC).

We did this for the reason that if this ground

is successfully substantiated by the Petitioner, we need not

delve any further i.e. whether a marriage can be dissolved
by the Trial Court or the High Court on the premise that the
marriage has irretrievably broken down.

This nature of

cruelty, in the wake of filing of a false criminal case by

either of the spouses, has been agitated frequently before
this Court, and has been discussed so comprehensively and
thoroughly that yet another Judgment on this well-settled
question of law, would be merely a waste of time.

complete discourse and analysis on this issue is available

in a well-reasoned judgment in K. Srinivas Rao vs. D.A.
Deepa, 2013(5) SCC 226, in which numerous decisions have
been cited and discussed.

It is now beyond cavil that if a

false criminal complaint is preferred by either spouse it

would

invariably

and

indubitably

constitute

matrimonial

cruelty, such as would entitle the other spouse to claim a

divorce.
2

The marriage of the parties was celebrated according to

Hindu rites at Hyderabad on 11th February, 1989.

A male

child was born to the parties on 8th May, 1991, after which
the Respondent-Wife, as per her pleadings, started suffering
from Sheehans syndrome.

On the night of 29th/30th June,

Page2

3
1995, the Respondent left the matrimonial house and ever
since then she has been living with her brother, who is a
On 14th July, 1995, the Appellant

senior IAS officer.

filed an original petition praying for divorce on the ground

of cruelty as well as of the irretrievable breakdown of
their marriage.

The Respondent-Wife retorted by filing a

criminal complaint against the Appellant as well as seven

members of his family for offences under Section 307 read
with Sections 34, 148A, 384, 324 of the IPC, and Sections 4
and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

It is pursuant

to this complaint that the Appellant-Husband and seven of

his family members were arrested and incarcerated.

The

Respondent-Wife also filed a petition under Section 9 of the

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights.
On 30th June, 2000, the Learned Vth Additional Metropolitan
Sessions

Judge,

Appellant

and

Mahila

his

attained finality.

Court,

family

Hyderabad,

members,

and

acquitted

this

Order

the
has

Meanwhile, by its Judgment dated 30th

December, 1999, the Family Court at Hyderabad, granted a

divorce to the Appellant on the ground of cruelty as also
irretrievable

breakdown

of

marriage;

it

rejected

the

Respondents petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage

Act.

The Respondent-Wife successfully appealed against

Page3

4
the said Judgment in the High Court, and it is this Order
dated 7th November, 2005 that is impugned before us.
3

Irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a ground for

divorce has not found statutory acceptance till date.

Article

142

of

the

Constitution,

the

Supreme

Under

Court

has

plenary powers to pass such decree or make such order as is

necessary for doing complete justice in any case or order
pending before it.

This power, however, has not been

bestowed by our Constitution on any other Court.

It is

for these reasons that we have confined arguments only to

the

aspect

of

whether

the

filing

of

false

criminal

complaint sufficiently proves matrimonial cruelty as would

entitle the injured party to claim dissolution of marriage.
It will be relevant to mention that the Law Commission of
India

in

its

Reports

in

1978

as

well

as

in

2009

has

recommended the introduction of irretrievable breakdown of

marriage

as

ground

for

dissolution

of

marriage;

the

Marriage Laws (Amendment) Bill of 2013 incorporating the

ground has even received the assent of the Rajya Sabha.
is,

however,

highly

debatable

whether,

in

the

It

Indian

situation, where there is rampant oppression of women, such

a ground would at all be expedient.

But that controversy

will be considered by the Lok Sabha.

Page4

4.

In

the

case

Respondent-Wife

in

has

hand,

learned

vehemently

counsel

contended

that

for
it

is

the
not

possible to label the wifes criminal complaint detailed

above as a false or a vindictive action.

In other words,

the acquittal of the Appellant and his family members in the

criminal complaint does not by itself, automatically and
justifiably, lead to the conclusion that the complaint was
false;

that

only

Respondent-Wife,

one

complaint

whereas,

in

was

preferred

by

the

contradistinction,

in

K.Srinivas Rao a series of complaints by the wife had been

preferred.

The argument was premised on the averment that

the investigation may have been faulty or the prosecution

may have been so careless as to lead to the acquittal, but
the acquittal would not always indicate that the Complainant
had intentionally filed a false case.

What should be kept

in

argued,

perspective,

Complainant

is

it
not

is

reasonably

the

controlling

conductor

that
in

the
this

Orchestra, but only one of the musicians who must deliver

her rendition as and when and how she is called upon to do.
Secondly, according to the learned counsel, the position
would have been appreciably different if a specific finding
regarding

the

falsity

of

the

criminal

complaint

was

returned, or if the Complainant or a witness on her behalf

Page5

6
had committed perjury or had recorded a contradictory or
incredible testimony.

Learned counsel for the Respondent-

Wife states that neither possibility has manifested itself

here and, therefore, it would be unfair to the RespondentWife to conclude that she had exhibited such cruelty towards
the

Appellant

and

her

in-laws

that

would

justify

the

dissolution of her marriage.

5

The

Respondent-Wife

has

admitted

in

her

cross-

examination that she did not mention all the incidents on

which her Complaint is predicated, in her statement under
Section 161 of the Cr.P.C.
actually

narrated

all

It is not her case that she had

these

facts

to

the

Investigating

Officer, but that he had neglected to mention them.

This,

it seems to us, is clearly indicative of the fact that the

criminal complaint was a contrived afterthought.
affirm

the

view

of

the

High

Court

that

the

We
criminal

complaint was ill advised. Adding thereto is the factor

that the High Court had been informed of the acquittal of
the Appellant-Husband and members of his family.

In these

circumstances, the High Court ought to have concluded that

the

Respondent-Wife

knowingly

and

intentionally

filed

false complaint, calculated to embarrass and incarcerate the

Appellant and seven members of his family and that such

Page6

7
conduct unquestionably constitutes cruelty as postulated in
Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act.
6

Another argument which has been articulated on behalf

of the learned counsel for the Respondent is that the filing

of

the

criminal

petition itself.

complaint

has

not

been

pleaded

in

the

As we see it, the criminal complaint was

filed by the wife after filing of the husbands divorce

petition, and being subsequent events could have been looked
into by the Court.

In any event, both the parties were

fully aware of this facet of cruelty which was allegedly

suffered by the husband.

When evidence was lead, as also

when arguments were addressed, objection had not been raised

on behalf of the Respondent-Wife that this aspect of cruelty
was beyond the pleadings.

We are, therefore, not impressed

by this argument raised on her behalf.

7

In these circumstances, we find that the Appeal is well

founded and deserves to be allowed.

that

the

Respondent-Wife

had

We unequivocally find

filed

false

criminal

complaint, and even one such complaint is sufficient to

constitute matrimonial cruelty.

Page7

8
8

We, accordingly, dissolve the marriage of the parties

under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

The

parties shall bear their respective costs.

...............................J.
[VIKRAMAJIT SEN]

...............................J.
[PRAFULLA C. PANT]
New Delhi;
19th November, 2014.

Page8

Page9