False Allegations of Dowry and Bigamy Amount to Mental Cruelty: Madras High Court Upholds Divorce

“Character assassination through unsubstantiated complaints inflicts grave mental agony, justifying dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1)(i-a)” –  In a judgment that reinforces the principle that false criminal allegations within a marriage can amount to mental cruelty, the Madras High Court on 08.12.2025 upheld a decree of divorce granted to a husband under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, holding that the wife’s false accusations of dowry harassment and bigamy, made years after marriage and without evidence, constituted cruelty.

A Division Bench comprising Justice C.V. Karthikeyan and Justice K. Kumaresh Babu dismissed C.M.A. arising from FCHMOP filed before the Family Court, Dharmapuri, affirming that the Family Court had correctly appreciated evidence and there was no perversity warranting appellate interference.

“Filing false criminal complaints with intent to jail the husband and his family amounts to cruelty” – Court notes conduct as vindictive and malicious

Imputations of dowry demand and second marriage rejected by criminal court – High Court finds such allegations deliberate and untrue

The marriage between the parties was solemnised on 10.02.2006. After several rounds of litigation, including restitution petitions, reconciliations, and the birth of two daughters, the dispute culminated in the wife lodging a criminal complaint with the All Women Police Station, Dharmapuri, alleging dowry harassment and a second marriage allegedly contracted by the husband.

However, the husband and all accused were acquitted of all charges, including under Section 494 IPC.

The High Court observed:

“The criminal complaint was a contrived afterthought to ensure that the respondent and his family members are put in jail… The appellant had indulged in character assassination.” [Para 7]

The Court concluded that such malicious prosecution without any substantiating material inflicted serious mental cruelty, not just on the husband but on his entire family:

“The appellant should have realised the implication of making character assassination without any truth and the harm that had been caused to the respondent and his family members.” [Para 11]

Past Reconciliations and Subsequent Conduct Taken into Account

Restitution decrees, re-cohabitation, and birth of second child followed by renewed disputes showed deep marital discord

The Court traced the timeline of events, observing that despite a decree of restitution of conjugal rights obtained by the husband in H.M.O.P. No. 17 of 2009, the wife initially refused to return. A later compromise resulted in the birth of their second child. However, the wife once again left the matrimonial home and initiated criminal proceedings, which eventually ended in acquittal.

The Bench noted:

“The parties have been living separately for more than a decade… Even after the compromise and resumption of cohabitation, the appellant again indulged herself in lodging complaints of dowry harassment and of contracting second marriage.” [Para 13]

Such repeated litigation and conduct demonstrated what courts have often termed as the irretrievable breakdown of marriage, though not an independent statutory ground.

False Accusations as Mental Cruelty: A Legal Principle Reaffirmed

“Allegations made without basis inflict mental trauma and destroy the core of the marital relationship” – Bench endorses cruelty finding under Section 13(1)(i-a)

Relying on the material placed before the Family Court and the conduct of the wife, the High Court emphatically held:

“The allegations of cruelty had been established by the very fact that the appellant had indulged in lodging a false complaint against the respondent of dowry harassment and contracting a second marriage.” [Para 14]

The Court found the Family Court's findings fully supported by evidence, including the FIR (Ex.P-2), and the domestic violence complaint (Ex.P-6), both of which lacked justification or supporting proof.

Husband’s Responsibility Towards Children Recognised and Enforced

“We direct the respondent to strictly abide by his undertaking to bear educational and marriage expenses” – Court relies on affidavit and school fee receipts

Significantly, the Court also took note of the husband’s affidavit and documentary evidence (Exs.P-4 and P-5) indicating that he has been consistently paying the school fees and saving for the children’s future, including under the Sukanya Samriddhi Yojana and LIC policies.

In his affidavit, the husband had stated:

“I hereby undertake to continue and to bear the reasonable future education expenses and reasonable marriage expenses of both my daughters… subject to my maximum capacity.” [Extracted in Para 12]

The Court recognised this undertaking as binding and issued a specific direction:

“We would however direct the respondent to strictly abide by the undertaking given by him before this Court which had been extracted above.” [Para 16]

The Madras High Court has reaffirmed the legal principle that false criminal complaints, especially those involving dowry and bigamy, without evidence, amount to mental cruelty under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The judgment also balances matrimonial relief with parental responsibility, ensuring the husband continues to support the children's education and marriage.

This ruling is a cautionary precedent on the misuse of criminal provisions in matrimonial disputes and underscores that such actions can have serious civil consequences, including dissolution of marriage.

Date of Decision: 8th December 2025