False Allegations Against Father-in-Law and Threats of Suicide Amount to Cruelty: Bombay High Court Refuses to Interfere with Divorce Decree

Attempt to Suppress Suicide Evidence by Applying Mehandi on Hands—Such Conduct Crosses the Threshold of Matrimonial Cruelty - Bombay High Court dismissed a wife’s challenge to a decree of divorce granted in favour of her husband, reaffirming the concurrent findings of two courts below that her conduct amounted to cruelty under matrimonial law.
Justice R.M. Joshi, refusing to frame any substantial question of law, upheld the findings of both the Trial Court and First Appellate Court, and emphasized: “Husband has not only made allegation that wife used to threaten him and his family to send them to jail by committing suicide but in fact that attempt was made. Such an act on the part of spouse would amount to such a cruelty that it becomes a ground for decree of divorce.”
“Unsubstantiated Accusation of Outraging Modesty by Father-in-Law—No Complaint Made, No Evidence Led”
The couple was married on 15 April 2009, and had a daughter from the marriage. The divorce petition (HMP No. 458/2016) was filed by the husband alleging cruelty by the wife. Amongst other contentions, he asserted that the wife made a false accusation against his father, alleging that he had outraged her modesty, but without filing any police complaint or presenting any evidence to support such a grave claim.
The Court noted: “It was open for the wife to lead evidence to indicate that in order to save marital life she did not lodge any complaint to that effect. However, there is no such evidence led by the wife.”
The wife, the Court observed, not only failed to prove her allegations but also failed to explain why such a serious accusation was made without any substantiation, thereby supporting the husband's claim of cruelty.
“Conduct Before Court Reveals Conscious Suppression of Evidence—Wife Appeared with Mehandi to Avoid Cross on Suicide Attempt”
The Trial Court had taken into account that when cross-examination on the suicide attempt was scheduled, the wife sought adjournment, and thereafter appeared before the Court with Mehandi on her hands, effectively avoiding cross-examination on the crucial issue.
Justice Joshi termed this behaviour as reflective of a deliberate effort to suppress material facts, adding: “This is more than sufficient to indicate that the Trial Court has rightly taken into consideration the evidence on record so also the conduct of the wife to pass the decree of divorce.”
“Scope Under Section 100 CPC Is Limited—No Perversity in Findings, No Substantial Question of Law Arises”
The Court reiterated that under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it is not permissible for the High Court to re-appreciate evidence or disturb findings of fact unless those findings are perverse or contrary to law.
Justice Joshi found that: “Perusal of evidence of husband, his father and one more witness i.e., friend of the father more than sufficiently demonstrates that the contention of the husband is duly proved by leading cogent evidence.”
He concluded that: “For want of any perversity or involvement of substantial question of law in this appeal, appeal stands dismissed.”
This judgment reaffirms that false accusations of a criminal nature, threats of suicide, and manipulative conduct to obstruct the judicial process, cumulatively constitute matrimonial cruelty, and justify a decree of divorce. The Bombay High Court, declining interference in second appeal, has sent a clear message that courts will not rescue a party whose own conduct reveals a pattern of intimidation and falsehood.
In the words of the Court: “Cruelty is not merely about abuse—it includes sustained behaviour that undermines the integrity of marital life and uses the legal process as a tool of manipulation.”

Date of Decision: 20 February 2025