It is definitely of paramount significance to note that while ruling on a very significant legal point pertaining to filing of false case, the Bombay High Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest oral judgment titled Vaibhavi Rajendra Chalke vs Rajendra Ganpat Chalke in Family Court Appeal No. 155 of 2018 and cited in Neutral Citation No.: 2025:BHC-AS:1231-DB that was pronounced as recently as on January 3, 2025 in the exercise of its civil appellate jurisdiction has minced absolutely just no words to hold unequivocally that a wife filing a false complaint against her husband just for correcting his behaviour would not find place in harmonious relations a married couple would maintain normally and the same will amount to cruelty. To put it differently, we see that the Bombay High Court ruled explicitly that a wife filing a false complaint against her husband simply for attempting to correct his behaviour constitutes cruelty and undermines the harmonious relationship that a married couple should ideally maintain. Very rightly so!
Simply put, the Bombay High Court made these most straightforward and sagacious observations while upholding the decision of a Family Court that had granted a divorce to a couple based on the grounds of cruelty. We thus see that the Division Bench of Hon'ble Mr Justice Girish Kulkarni and Hon'ble Mr Justice Advait Sethna refused to interfere with the judgment delivered by a Family Court which while granting divorce to a couple noted the glaring fact that the wife had lodged a false case against the husband and his family members which caused them mental cruelty. The wife's appeal was thus very rightly dismissed by the Bombay High Court.
At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced oral judgment authored by Hon'ble Mr Justice GS Kulkarni authored by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court comprising of himself and Hon'ble Mr Justice Advait Sethna sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that, "This Family Court Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 5 March, 2018 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Thane in Petition No. A-22/2012 whereby the decree of divorce filed by the respondent-husband on the ground of cruelty came to be allowed in terms of the following order:
"O R D E R
"1. The petition is allowed.
2. The marriage between Rajendra (petitioner/husband) and Vaibhavi (respondent/wife) which was solemnized on 02.03.2006, is hereby dissolved by decree of divorce w.e.f. the date of decree.
3. The respondent shall bear her own costs and shall pay the costs of petitioner.
4. Copy of judgment be given free of costs to both the parties as per Sec.23(4) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 5. Decree be drawn accordingly.""
To put things in perspective, the Division Bench envisages in para 2 that, "At the outset, we may observe that the present appeal which today is listed for admission, although was filed on 1 August, 2018. There was no stay to the impugned judgment and decree by which the marriage between the parties have been annulled. It is informed by learned counsel for the appellant that in the meantime, the respondent has remarried. The appellant is also aware and conscious of the respondent having remarried. The scope of the present proceedings does not exceed the challenge, to the impugned judgment and decree which would have nothing to do with the second marriage of the respondent. In the facts and circumstances of the case, learned counsel for the parties would not dispute that even assuming the appeal is to be admitted and heard finally, adjudication of this appeal would be academic, as the second marriage of the respondent cannot be disturbed in the present proceedings. In fact this is not even the case of the appellant. The proceedings needs to end at this."
Do note, the Division Bench notes in para 3 that, "Be that as it may, for the sake of completeness, in the context of the challenge as raised in the appeal we may observe that the only objection as urged on behalf of the appellant in assailing the impugned judgment and order passed by the Family Court is to the observations made by the Family Court in paragraph 34 of the impugned judgment. The respondent's case for a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty against the appellant, was to the effect that the appellant had lodged a false prosecution against the respondent, under the provisions of Section 498A of Indian Penal Code. The observations of the Family Court in paragraph 34 of the impugned judgment reads thus:
"34. Admittedly, the parties separated in the year 2006. Till today, the respondent has persuaded her criminal case. The evidence shows that respondent was unsuccessful before Trial Court and First Appellate Court. It is necessary to note here that the learned advocate for petitioner made statement at the bar that he had not received any notice from the Hon'ble High Court about any appeal filed by the respondent against acquittal of petitioner in criminal case. The respondent only mentioned that she has filed appeal before the Hon'ble High Court. She has not mentioned the case number or given any details. In such circumstances, it can be said that the respondent was never interested to continue relation, therefore, the evidence on record is sufficient to prove about ingredients of matrimonial offence namely 'desertion'. Hence, I answer this issue in affirmative.""
Most significantly, most forthrightly and most remarkably, the Division Bench encapsulates in para 6 what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment postulating that, "We are in agreement with the findings recorded and the view taken by the Family Court in the impugned judgment. As clearly seen, the appellant had lodged a false prosecution against the respondent, which has been concurrently affirmed by the Criminal Court. This would certainly amount to cruelty in terms of Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. We may observe that the respondent and his family members being subjected to false criminal proceedings and the ordeal of such serious charges being faced by them that too for the reason that the appellant-wife wanted to correct the behaviour of the husband, would find no place in the harmonious relations of mutual trust, respect and affection, a married couple would normally maintain. Also, once the mind of a spouse is corrupted to resort to a false prosecution against a spouse, it is certain that the spouse has lost all reasonableness and rationality to maintain solemnity of the marriage. Also once there is a dent to such essential values, on the foundation of which a marriage rests, by a false and draconian action of a criminal prosecution being resorted by either spouse, it is in the realm of cruelty which would be a ground for divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Thus, such actions on the part of the appellant of resorting to a false prosecution, was certainly a sufficient ground, entitling the respondent for a divorce on the ground of cruelty. The principles of law in this regard are well settled."
While citing the relevant case laws, the Division Bench hastens to add in para 7 enunciating that, "In K. Srinivas vs. K. Sunita (2014) 16 SCC 34, the Supreme Court was considering the appellant/husband's case for dissolution of marriage to the respondent by decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The cruelty as alleged was on the account of filing of a criminal complaint by the respondent-wife against the appellant and several members of his family under Sections 498-A and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. In this context, the Court observed that such cruelty in the wake of filing of a false criminal case by either of the spouses has been agitated frequently before Courts and has been discussed in several decisions. Referring to the principles of law in this regard in K. Srinivas Rao vs. D.A. Deepa (2013) 5 SCC 226, which refers to several decisions on the subject, the Court observed that 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. The Court observed that in the said case, the wife intentionally had filed a false complaint, calculated to embarrass and incarcerate the appellant and the members of his family and that such conduct unquestionably constitutes cruelty as postulated in Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The Supreme Court set aside the order of the High Court and allowed the marriage petition filed by the husband by accepting his case of cruelty meted out to him by the respondent-wife being proved by such conduct of the wife and hence annulled the marriage under the provisions of Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act."
While citing yet another recent and relevant case law, the Division Bench observes in para 8 that, "In Rani Narasimha Sastry vs. Rani Suneela Rani (2020) 18 SCC 247, the facts of the case before the Supreme Court were similar to the case in hand. In the said case, the prosecution was launched by the respondent against the appellant under Section 498-A of the IPC making serious allegations in which the appellant had to undergo trial which ultimately resulted in his acquittal. The appellant had accordingly set up a case seeking decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty which was established. The Supreme Court in accepting the case of the appellant concluded that the appellant had made out a ground for grant of decree of dissolution of marriage on the ground that cruelty under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The following observations of the Court are required to be noted, which reads thus:
"13. …. The above observation of the High Court cannot be approved. It is true that it is open for anyone to file complaint or lodge prosecution for redressal for his or her grievances and lodge a first information report for an offence also and mere lodging of complaint or FIR cannot ipso facto be treated as cruelty. But when a person undergoes a trial in which he is acquitted of the allegation of offence under Section 498-A of IPC, levelled by the wife against the husband, it cannot be accepted that no cruelty has meted on the husband…..
14. In view of forgoing discussion, we conclude that appellant has made a ground for grant of decree of dissolution of marriage on the ground as mentioned in Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.""
While citing recent, relevant and remarkable case laws, the Division Bench lays bare in para 9 stating that, "In a recent decision of the Supreme Court in Amutha vs. A.R. Subramanian 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3822, the Court dealing with a challenge to an order passed by the High Court wherein the High Court allowing the respondent-husband's appeal which set aside the judgments of the two lower Courts thereby granting a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty. The primary ground for dissolution of marriage was the conduct of the appellant amounting to mental cruelty under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, inasmuch as the appellant had filed false and baseless criminal complaints against the respondent-husband, which not only strained their relationship but also caused significant damage to his reputation and peace of mind. In such context, the Court referring to the decision in N.G. Dastane vs. S. Dastane (1975) 2 SCC 326 observed that the said decision laid down the principle, that cruelty is not confined to physical violence but also encompasses actions that inflict actions that inflict mental pain and suffering that creates a reasonable apprehension of harm or injury to the aggrieved spouse from the conduct of the other spouse so as to make it impossible for them to stay together. The Court observed that in the case in hand, the appellant's conduct, including the initiation of frivolous legal proceedings, fell squarely within the definition of mental cruelty. The Supreme Court referring to the decision in Samar Ghosh vs. Jaya Ghosh (2007) 4 SCC 511 held that wherein it was recognized that actions causing sustained emotional torment and loss of trust in the marital relationship constitutes cruelty, as such actions of the spouse make the cohabitation impossible. Also, referring to the decision in V. Bhagat vs. D. Bhagat (1994) 1 SCC 337, the Court observed that sustained and deliberate acts of cruelty make it unreasonable to expect one spouse to continue living with the other. The aforesaid settled principles of law is squarely applicable in the facts of the present case."
It is worth noting that the Division Bench notes in para 10 that, "In the present case, the appellant never realized the effect of the husband and his relatives being dragged into a false prosecution of such serious offences. Further, the social stigma and unwarranted harassment caused to the respondent and his family members is another significant aspect of the sufferings of the respondent and his family members. The learned Judge of the Family Court is, therefore, correct in his observations that a strong case for divorce on the ground of cruelty was made out by the respondent so as to decree the Marriage Petition filed by the respondent."
Finally and most rationally, the Division Bench then draws the curtains of this progressive and pragmatic judgment by holding in para 11 that, "We do not find any perversity much less any illegality in the observations as made by the learned Judge of the Family Court in passing the impugned judgment and order. The petitioner has failed to make out a case for interference in this appeal. Resultantly, the appeal fails. It is accordingly rejected. No costs."
In a nutshell, we thus see that the Bombay High Court very rightly finding no perversity in the judgment of the Family Court that granted divorce to a couple based primarily on the ground of cruelty and deemed it fit to dismiss the appeal that was filed by the wife in this leading case. The Division Bench was most forthright in pointing out that a wife filing a false complaint against her husband, simply for attempting to correct his behaviour constitutes cruelty and undermines the harmonious relationship that a married couple should ideally maintain. Frankly speaking, it is high time now and all those women who file false cases against her husband or in-laws or his other relatives must be sent to jail for a minimum term of two years if not five years. This is all the more necessitated because we see that in last couple of years, there has been a sharp increase in filing of false cases which even Supreme Court apart from High Courts have been pointing out time and again yet they are just not punished at all which is just not done because men also has right to life and right to breathe in fresh air without being falsely implicated in any case most maliciously as we keep seeing time and again in so many cases! Of course, this insertion of mandatory punishment clause for women along with heavy fine will definitely go a long way in most strongly deterring women and her relatives and parents from filing repeated false cases every now and then! No denying or disputing it!
