Supreme Court grants divorce despite husband's 498A conviction, denies wife maintenance

In a landmark judgment, the Punjab and Haryana High Court recently granted divorce to a man despite being convicted under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deals with cruelty suffered by a woman by her husband or his relatives. The court also denied the woman permanent maintenance, citing her general conduct.

The bench consists of Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Sudeepti Sharma found that the wife's actions, which included filing an FIR against her husband, amounted to cruelty and made it impossible for them to live under one roof.

Background of the case

The couple married in 2004 and had a child in 2005. In 2007, the woman filed a police complaint against her husband under various sections of the IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act. Subsequently, the husband filed for divorce on the grounds of desertion and cruelty in 2009, which was rejected by the family court in 2018.

The husband challenged the Family Court's decision, arguing before the Supreme Court that he and his wife had been living apart for 19 years. He argued that his conviction and sentence in the criminal case made it impossible for him to stay with his wife, while the wife argued that she was still ready and willing to stay with him.

Court's observations

The court stressed that the filing of the FIR by the wife led to the conviction of her husband, which was a mental cruelty on her part. The judges stated:

“A perusal of the present case reveals that the respondent-wife has filed an FIR against the complainant/husband, which resulted in the conviction of the complainant. This act of the respondent-wife amounts to cruelty as it is practically impossible for the party against whom the FIR has been filed or the case has been registered to live together under one roof. Hence, this situation amounts to mental cruelty inflicted by the respondent-wife on the complainant/husband.” the court said.

The court also noted that the woman had accused her in-laws of cruelty, but they were acquitted, which further strengthens the case of harassment against the man's family.

“Since the complainant/plaintiff was convicted but the parents were acquitted, the harassment to which the family was subjected amounts to cruelty on the part of the defendant wife,” it added.

Reasoning of the court

The Supreme Court questioned the wife's willingness to reconcile and stated that if she really wanted to stay with her husband, she could have filed an application for the restoration of marital rights instead of criminal proceedings.

“The court dismissed the divorce petition on the ground that the cruelty of the respondent-wife was condoned by the appellant/plaintiff since the appellant had filed a petition for restoration of conjugal rights in 2007. Moreover, the allegations of cruelty made by the appellant/plaintiff against the wife remained unproven while the court did not find that this would actually constitute cruelty on the part of the respondent/wife,” the court observed.

The High Court also pointed out that the family court had failed to comply with the mandatory requirement for reconciliation between the couple. Despite mediation attempts, the husband was still unwilling to reconcile because of the conviction.

The court concluded that the marriage was irretrievably broken and that after 19 years of separation there was no possibility of reconciliation or cohabitation.

“In the present case, the emotional basis of the marriage has completely disappeared. The course chosen by the Family Court would encourage continued bickering and constant bitterness and could lead to immorality. If the courts find that there is virtually no possibility of the two remaining together and the marriage has irretrievably broken down, as in the present case, a decree of divorce should be entered,” the court said.

Read also

Although the court denied permanent maintenance to the wife, it ordered the husband to pay the daughter a monthly amount of Rs 10,000.

“After the daughter’s marriage, both parents are obliged to take care of the daughter’s needs and give her love and affection,” the court ordered.

The husband was represented by Senior Advocate GS Punia and Advocate Harveen Kaur while the wife was represented by Advocate Sarabjit Singh.