1) you have been acquitted in 498A case by court

2) you can file for divorce on grounds of mental cruelty .

3) filing of false 498A case amounts to mental cruelty and is ground for divorce .

4) contested divorce cases take 5 years

5) mutual consent divorce take s 6 months

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO. 66 OF   2006

Ajay Ashok Khedkar .... ..... ..... ..... Appellant. 

V/s

Sou. Laleeta Ajay Khedkar..... .... ..... ....Respondent. 

Mr.Hitesh Vyas, Adv. For the appellant.

Mr.Sachin S. Pande, Adv. For the respondent. 

CORAM: A.P.DESHPANDE

AND

SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA,  JJ.

Date:12th  April, 2010. 

ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per Deshpande, J.)

This is family court appeal filed by the unsuccessful husband

whose petition for divorce has been dismissed by the Family Court.

The appellant and the respondent’s marriage was solemnized as per

Hindu rites and customs at Pune on 8.3.2001.  The marriage was

an arranged marriage and after the marriage the respondent  came

to reside with the appellant.  The appellant’s mother resides along

with   the   appellant.     The   petition   for   divorce   was   filed   on   the

ground of mental cruelty under section 13(1)(i­a) of the Hindu

Marriage Act, 1955.  

2. According to the petitioner on the wedding night itself the

respondent alleged that she was deceived in regard to income of

the appellant.   The respondent allegedly stated that the salary of

the appellant as informed to her was much more than what he was

actually receiving.   It is also alleged that with reference to the

number of spectacle the respondent taunted the appellant by saying

that   she   was   made   to   perform   marriage   with   a   blind   person.

Touching those issues the respondent allegedly started quarreling

with the petitioner and insulting the petitioner.  It is the case of the

appellant that since beginning the behaviour of the respondent was

arrogant   and   rude   and   immediately   after   the   marriage   the

respondent was insisting that the petitioner should stay separately

from his mother in one of the two flats owned by the appellant’s

family  situated at Raviwar Peth, Pune.  According to the appellant

he tried to convince the respondent that his mother is old and there

is no one else to look after her and hence refused to stay separately.

It is also the case of the appellant that the respondent gave threats

that   she   would   commit   suicide   if   the   appellant   fails   to   reside

separately.     The   respondent   also   denied   conjugal   rights   to   the

appellant so as to coerce him to stay separate from his mother.  On

the above referred allegations touching mental agony and torture

divorce petition was filed. 

3. Sometime   in   December   2002   the   respondent   went   to   the

house of her parents for delivery.   She delivered a girl child on

26.2.03.   Despite passage of enough time the respondent did not

join the company of the appellant.   According to the appellant

because   of   the   insistence   on   the   part   of   respondent   to   stay

separately the marital life was disturbed and peace and harmony

was lost. 

On   3.5.03   the   father   of   the   respondent   brought   the

respondent to the house of the appellant but without meeting the

appellant or his mother respondent's father went away.  On 6.5.03

the respondent called her parents and brother at the house of the

appellant.  The near relations of the respondent quarreled with the

petitioner and his mother and after creating a scene threatened the

appellant that they would implicate the appellant and members of

his family in false criminal cases. So threatening the appellant,

father and brother of the respondent took her away along with

them.  While leaving the appellant’s residence they said that only if

he   resides   separately   the   respondent   will   be   sent   back.     The

appellant   immediately   sent   a   notice   on   9.5.03   asking   the

respondent to join the company and cohabit with the appellant but

instead of joining the company of the appellant the respondent

initiated criminal case under section 498A of IPC not only against

the appellant and his mother but three other near relations who

were staying separately including the uncle, aunt and husband of

the aunt.  All the persons accused of having committed the offence

under section 498A of IPC were arrested by the police and they

were detained in custody.  This is the main circumstance which is

relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant to contend that

lodging  of  false case  which  resulted in  arrest and detention  of

family members of the appellant is singularly sufficient enough to

hold that the respondent is guilty of causing mental cruelty and

agony to the appellant and thus pressed for grant of decree of

divorce.  According to the learned counsel for the appellant arrest

and detention of the family members and near relations of the

appellant   in   false   case   has   caused   him   utmost   mental   torture.

During pendnecy of divorce petition the said criminal case came to

be decided by a judgment dated 13.5.05 by Judicial Magistrate,

First   Class,   Pune   acquitting   the   appellant   and   all   his   family

members from the charge under section 498A of IPC.  

4. Perusal of the judgment clearly reveals that the prosecution

utterly failed to prove the case put forth by the complainant.  The

Judicial   Magistrate   has   recorded   categoric   finding   that   the

complainant’s own testimony falsifies  the prosecution case that the

complainant was treated cruely and was harassed by the accused

persons with a view to coerce her and her parents to meet their

unlawful   demand   of   Rs.50,000/­.     The   Magistrate   has   totally

disbelieved the version of the complainant/wife and has acquitted

the   accused   persons.     On   a   careful   reading   of   the   judgment

rendered in the case of prosecution under section 498A of IPC one

thing is crystal clear and it can be safely assumed that the wife had

filed a false case not only against her husband and mother­in­law

but had unnecessarily roped in other near relations.  It is obvious

that on account of arrest and detention of the husband and his

family members respondent has treated the appellant with utmost

mental cruelty and the appellant has suffered agony.  It will not be

out of place to mention that the complaint filed by the wife was

calculatedly designed in as much as it was a sort of counter blast to

the divorce petition filed by the husband.  The appellant had filed

divorce petition on 16.6.03 whereas the complaint was lodged by

the respondent­wife on 11.7.03.  

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant

and his family members including ladies who did not stay along

with   the   appellant   were   arrested   and   detained   causing   utmost

humiliation and embarrassment and agony to the appellant.  This

solitary   incidence   would   itself   constitute   mental   cruelty   even   if

other circumstances are not taken into account and thus the trial

court has erred in law in dismissing the divorce petition.  Para 29 of

the judgment of family court deals with this aspect of the matter by

observing :

“There can not be absolutely two opinions regarding

legal proposition that if the wife filed false criminal cases

against the husband, her conduct does amount to causing

mental cruelty and torture to him, therefore, the husband

becomes   entitled   for   a   decree   of   divorce.     The   necessary

condition for constituting such legal cruelty is that the wife

has   indulged   into   making   false   and   reckless   allegation   by

filing false complaint to the police.  A singular complaint filed

by wife under section 498A of IPC against the husband and

his family members can not indicate the tendency of wife to

indulge into making such false allegation.”

We fail to understand the logic behind the reasoning adopted by

the family court to hold that a singular complaint of this nature

under section 498A of IPC resulting in arrest and detention of the

family   members   and   relatives   thereby   causing   utmost

embarrassment,   humiliation   and   suffering   does   not   constitute

mental cruelty. It is illogical that more than  one complaint are

necessary to be filed to constitute mental cruelty.     In our view,

embarrassment, humiliation and suffering that is caused on account

of  arrest and detention of appellant and his family members and

relatives in a false case does constitute mental cruelty to enable the

husband to seek decree of divorce on this sole ground.   In our

considered opinion,   the approach of the family court is wholly

perverse and the reasoning cannot be sustained in law.  In regard to

other circumstances the family court has observed :

“At   the   most   one   can   infer   that   this   conduct   of   the

respondent may have caused some disharmony between the

couple but in no way it can be said that it was sufficient to

constitute a mental cruelty to petitioner or his mother.”

Without deliberating on all the circumstances in detail we are of

the clear view that cumulative effect of the behaviour and conduct

of   the   respondent   is   good   enough   to   draw   an   inference   that

respondent has caused utmost mental pain and suffering which

constitute mental cruelty to the appellant and hence the appellant

is entitled for decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty.  

6. This brings us to the consideration of question of granting

maintenance to the girl child who is aged about 8 years.   The

family court in exercise of powers under section 24 had granted

interim maintenance of Rs.700/­ p.m. whereas this Court by an

interim order has raised it to Rs.1000/­ p.m. The appellant so also

the respondent are both gainfully employed.  They are earning in

the range of Rs.5000 to 7000 per month each.   The child is in

custody   of   the   respondent­mother.     Learned   counsel   for   the

appellant on instructions from his client who is present in the court

submitted   that   the   appellant   would   pay   a   sum   of   Rs.1.5   lacs

towards permanent alimony for the maintenance of child.  Having

found the said amount insufficient we persuaded the counsel for

the appellant  to raise the amount so that monthly interest on the

said amount works out in the range of Rs.2000 per month.   The

mother of the appellant has come forward to contribute further

sum of Rs.1.5 lacs towards maintenance of the child.  In our view if

the appellant pays sum of Rs.3 lacs by way of permanent alimony

for   the   maintenance   of   child   the   said   amount   if   kept   in   fixed

deposit can fetch interest of Rs.2000/­ per month and the same

could be utilized by the respondent for upbringing of the daughter.

In the result we pass the following order: 

(i) The marriage of the appellant and respondent stands

dissolved by a decree of divorce under section 13(1)(i­a) ;

(ii) The  appellant  shall   pay  sum  of  Rs.3  lacs  by   way  of

permanent alimony for the maintenance of the girl child.  The

said amount of Rs.3 lacs shall be invested in fixed deposit in a

nationalized   bank   and   the   respondent   is   permitted   to

withdraw the interest accrued thereon quarterly. The amount

of Rs.3 lacs shall be invested in the fixed deposit within two

months from today in the name of the minor child and the

respondent would be shown as her guardian;

(iii) The said sum of Rs.3 lacs shall be kept invested in fixed

deposit till the child attains majority.  

(iv) Appeal is allowed with no order as to costs. 

8.4.2010.

At this stage the learned counsel for the respondent seeks stay

of this order.  Having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances

we do not find any reason to stay the impugned order.  Hence the

prayer is rejected

1. Mutual divorce will come through in 6 months.

2. If you unilaterally file for divorce and your wife opposes it then it will take longer. The exact time frame cannot be predicted by any of us as it depends on local factors such as backlog of cases in the concerned court, etc.

3. Your wife will be given sufficient opportunity to oppose the divorce proceedings as and when you initiate it.

1. For getting mutual consent divorce, both you and your wife must mutually agree to have the divorce decree on mutually agreed terms,

2. So, negotiate with her for MCD against paying her a lump sum amount,

3. MCD will be decided just within 6 & 1/2 months from the date of its filing.

1.Divorce by Mutual consent takes minimum time, that is 6 months.

2.Convince your wife for MCD so that both of you would be independent after the decree of MCD and can take own decision about remarriage and about the prospects of starting the life afresh.

3.Inspite of your efforts if she does not come and live with you, get an order from the court for Restitution of Conjugal Rights and even if she does not come and live with you, you can apply for divorce based on this point itself.

4.Collect evidence of her harassment on you.

Hi, for getting divorce under mutual consent 5 years will not required normally it will complete with in 8 to 10 months better you contact any advocate who knows the family law.

1) there are no short cuts in litigation

2) contested divorce cases take 5 years to be disposed of

3) best go in for divorce by mutual consent by paying her lump sum amount as alimony

Hi, if she denies the divorce by mutual consent then you have a good case on merits if you files a case divorce by way of cruelty.

2. As far as latest Supreme Court Judgement filling a false case to husband it also amount to cruelty so you can file a divorce petition on the ground of cruelty.

1. MCD is the shortest way to get the decree of divorce,

2. If that is not possible, the only other way left is by filing contested divorce suit,

3. Negotiate with her for MCD.

As said earlier by me, the path to divorce will begin by filing a case for divorce on the basis of cruelty. She will be given an opportunity to contest your case.

Since you are acquitted in 498A case which was falsely hoisted on you by your wife, on the same ground you can go for contested divorce, if she does not agree for mutual consent divorce.