Filing False Criminal Cases and Then Seeking Reunion Is Cruelty, Not Reconciliation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Divorce

“Mental Cruelty Is Not Washed Away by Acquittal”: False 498-A Case Caused Social Trauma, Amounted to Cruelty Under Hindu Marriage Act - In a significant matrimonial ruling, the Andhra Pradesh High Court upheld a decree of divorce granted by the trial court to a husband under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, observing that the filing of false criminal complaints under Section 498-A IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act, followed by acquittal, amounted to mental cruelty. The Court further noted that the couple had lived separately for 29 years, rendering the marriage irretrievably broken.

The Division Bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Challa Gunaranjan observed: “The act and conduct of the wife in filing the criminal complaint… in which the husband and his parents were acquitted, was a conduct causing mental cruelty and agony. It amounted to mental cruelty and furnished a ground for divorce.”

The marriage was solemnized on 13 August 1994. The husband alleged that the wife treated the marriage as forced, never cohabited, and displayed consistent abnormal behaviour. The relationship deteriorated, and following failed mediations, the husband filed a divorce petition.

The wife contested the petition, claimed harassment and dowry demands, and alleged cruelty by the husband. Crucially, she filed a criminal complaint under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, which resulted in arrest, bail, and eventual acquittal of the husband and his family.

The Court held that filing unsubstantiated criminal cases against the husband and his family caused social humiliation, trauma, and amounted to mental cruelty:

“The trauma and the sense of diffidence suffered by the husband and his family from the date of filing the criminal case till acquittal could easily be imagined.”

Referring to a string of precedents including K. Srinivas v. K. Sunita and K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa, the Bench emphasized:

“A spouse can cause mental cruelty even while not residing under the same roof… Filing vulgar, defamatory, or false complaints creates mental agony sufficient to destroy the matrimonial bond.”

The Court rejected the argument that mere acquittal cannot constitute cruelty, clarifying:

“Mental cruelty is a matter of inference drawn from the cumulative conduct and impact… The acquittal alone may not be decisive, but the unfounded prosecution that preceded it is.”

The parties had lived separately for nearly three decades, and the wife’s affidavit expressing willingness to reunite was considered inconsequential by the Court.

“The marriage has become a fiction. Even if we refuse the decree of divorce, there are hardly any chances of the wife leading a happy life with the husband, because a lot of bitterness was created by the conduct of the wife.”

Relying again on Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh and K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa, the Bench reiterated that long separation coupled with mental cruelty seals the fate of matrimonial ties.

The Court reaffirmed that in matrimonial proceedings: “The burden lies on the petitioner to establish cruelty, but the standard is preponderance of probabilities, not proof beyond reasonable doubt.”

Quoting Dr. N.G. Dastane v. S. Dastane, the Bench explained that cruelty is inferred from human conduct, sustained humiliation, and the psychological impact of the behaviour.

“Mental cruelty is the conduct that causes reasonable apprehension in the mind of a spouse that living together is harmful or injurious. It is cumulative, not judged by isolated incidents.”

Citing Parveen Mehta v. Inderjit Mehta and Usharani Lenka v. Panigrahi Subhash, the Court emphasized that criminal law cannot be wielded as a tool of matrimonial vengeance.

“The criminal case not only targeted the husband but also his aged parents. Acquittal in the case only confirmed the unfounded nature of the allegations. Such conduct inflicted serious emotional and reputational harm.”

Rejecting the appeal filed by the wife, the Court upheld the trial court’s divorce decree and held:

“When the ground for divorce on cruelty was made out, reversal would only add agony. The relationship is beyond repair. The marriage has become a fiction.”

The appeal was dismissed, with the decree of divorce affirmed. The Court made no order as to costs and directed that pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand closed.

Date of Decision: 07 May 2025