FAO.No.425/2001 Page 1 of 4 6 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO No. 425/2001 % Date of decision: 28th May, 2009 RAMPARKASH ..... Appellant Through : Mr. Prag Chawla, Adv. versus SURESHWATI ..... Respondent Through : None. CORAM :- THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may YES be allowed to see the Judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? YES 3. Whether the judgment should be YES reported in the Digest? JUDGMENT (Oral) 1. The appellant has challenged the judgment of the learned Trial Court whereby the petition for divorce filed by the appellant under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955 was dismissed. 2. The parties were married according to the Hindu rites and ceremonies on 25th November, 1988. The appellant filed the petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on 5th November, 1989 on various grounds inter alia that the respondent filed a false complaint against the appellant before the Police in pursuance to which the appellant was arrested on 2nd October, 1989 and remained in custody for 17 days. FAO.No.425/2001 Page 2 of 4 3. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, FIR No.228/89 was registered against the appellant. While the appellant was in custody, he agreed to compromise the matter with the respondent on 16th October, 1989 but the respondent did not withdraw the police complaint which remained pending against the appellant and on 21st May, 1991, the respondent left the matrimonial home along with her brother and has not returned back since then. The parties are living separately since 21st May, 1991. 4. The learned Trial Court dismissed the petition of the appellant on the ground that the filing of the complaint with the police authorities does not amount to cruelty because no judicial finding has come in the criminal case to show that the allegations leveled by the respondent in her complaint were false and the criminal case was still pending. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the criminal case filed by the respondent against the appellant has been decided by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate vide judgment dated 2nd April, 2002 in which the appellant has been acquitted. The appellant has tendered the certified copy of the judgment dated 2nd April, 2002 which has been taken on record. The relevant findings of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate contained in para 15 of the judgment are reproduced hereunder:- “15. There are many loose ends in the prosecution story. Complainant has stated about the demand of cooler, plot of 500 sq.yards & ½.15,000/- whereas father of the complainant has not averred even a single word about the demand of plot and cash of Rs.15,000/-. PW-3 has stated that the demand was FAO.No.425/2001 Page 3 of 4 raised for cooler plot & cash of Rs.30,000/- which is in conflict with the statement of PW-1 & PW-4, they have not stated anything about the cash demand. PW-1 has made allegation against her father in law in her examination in chief but in her cross examination she stated that he died about 25 years back and inadvertently his name has come in. She wanted to state about her mother in law. There have been many improvements in the sworn testimony of the complainant before the court. No report was lodged immediately after the beatings given. The present complaint was lodged only after 1 ½ years of the incident.” 6. The learned counsel for the appellant refers to and relies upon the judgment of this Court in Pinki Jain vs. Sanjay Jain, AIR 2005 Delhi 273 where this Court has held that filing of false complaint by the wife against the husband and in-laws amounts to cruelty. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant also refers to and relies upon the judgment of the Apex Court in G.V.N. Kameswara Rao vs. G. Jabilli, (2002) 2 SCC 296 where the Apex Court has held that filing of false police complaint and consequent loss of reputation and standing in the society at the instance of one’s spouse amounts to cruelty. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant also refers to and relies upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Naveen Kohli vs. Neelu Kohli, 2006 (4) SCC 558. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant has also filed an affidavit before this Court stating that the respondent has not challenged the judgment dated 2nd April, 2002 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate acquitting the appellant and, therefore, the judgment dated 2nd April, 2002 has become final. FAO.No.425/2001 Page 4 of 4 The respondent was duly served in this appeal but has chosen not to appear before this Court to contest this appeal. 10. From the judgment dated 2nd April, 2002, it is clear that the complaint filed by the respondent against the appellant was false. Filing of false complaint and consequent arrest of the appellant and remaining in custody for 17 days and consequent loss of reputation and standing in the society at the instance of the respondent amounts to cruelty in terms of the judgments of this Court and the Apex Court. 11. The respondent has treated the appellant with cruelty and, therefore, the appellant is entitled to decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The findings of the learned Trial Court are, therefore, liable to be set aside. 12. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the impugned judgment and decree are set aside and the appellant’s petition for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is allowed and the marriage between the parties is dissolved by a decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 13. No costs. J.R. MIDHA, J MAY 28, 2009 aj