Judgment:
FAO No.280 of 1988 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (480) FAO No.280 of 1988 Date of decision: 05.10.2013.
Anil Kumar Singh ......Appellant Versus Reena Rani @ Reena Singh .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE K.
KANNAN Present: Mr.Anil Bansal, Advocate for the appellant.
None for the respondent.
**** K.
KANNAN, J.
(ORAL) The appeal is against the order dismissing an application for dissolution of marriage filed under the Indian Divorce Act, 1865 on the ground of cruelty.
The Court observed that cruelty without adultery cannot be a ground for dissolution as per the unamended provisions of the Indian Divorce Act and examined the case of whether a ground for judicial separation had been made.
The petitioners claim of cruelty was that the wife was falsely implicating her in a criminal case and prosecuting a case under Section 498-A IPC.
The trial court examined this ground and held that a wife who was complaining of harassment on demands for Sandeep Sethi 2013.10.08 10:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO No.280 of 1988 -2- dowry has several options left to her and if she had filed a complaint under Section 498-A IPC, it ought not to be taken as a ground of establishing cruelty.
What was merely a complaint filed and pending before the trial court has, subsequent to the disposal of the case, appears to have been disposed of by the Criminal Court.
The Criminal Court judgment rendered in 2001 finding that the complaint under Section 498-A IPC was not established is relied on by the appellant as proof of cruelty and relies on the judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court in AIR2003MP271that a false report against a husband on the basis of which the husband was arrested and prosecuted would afford proof of cruelty.
I have gone through the Criminal Court judgment rendered on a complaint of offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Divorce Act.
The Court has held that a singular instance of cruel act by the husband ought not to be taken as making out a case under Section 498-A IPC.
The Court was not finding anywhere that a false complaint had been given or that the husband was being needlessly harassed by a complaint without proof.
On the other hand, the Court was finding the ingredients of Section 498-A IPC as requiring persistent acts of cruelty for a criminal offence had not been established.
If the judgment itself does not find the act of wife as a deliberate false conduct, I cannot find the acquittal as making possible an inference that the wife was guilty of cruel act against the husband.
Sandeep Sethi 2013.10.08 10:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO No.280 of 1988 -3- I do not find any error in the order of the Court below for interference in appeal.
There have been some attempts for bringing about a conciliation at the High Court but it has also not yielded fruit.
Only time can tell how the parties will reconcile themselves in a situation where they have not lived together nor have they been able to secure a legal separation.
I will leave it to the parties' own ingenuity to make a meaning out of this separation in the evening years of their life.
A hands-off approach is all that is possible in this case and I will consign the matter to where it ended before the Court below dismissing the petition for divorce.
Appeal is dismissed.
(K.
KANNAN) JUDGE October 05, 2013.
sandeep sethi Sandeep Sethi 2013.10.08 10:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document