While displaying the utmost level of sensitivity, the Punjab and Haryana High Court in a most laudable, learned, landmark and latest judgment titled Ratandeep Singh Ahuja Vs Harpreet Kaur in FAO-M-182 of 2017 that was pronounced quite recently on October 11, 2022 decreed a divorce plea that was filed by a man on account of the desertion and cruelty that was meted out to him by his wife who had gone to the extent of filing false and frivolous cases against him. It is really a matter of greatest concern that now we witness filing of false cases by wife against the husband immediately after there is some fight over even a trivial issue! What is most alarming to note is that the fear of false cases is ignited in the mind of the husband and his relatives and they are thus made to extort money in return to save themselves from landing in jail. This definitely necessitates prompt course correction by which wife and her relatives must be made to pay heavy fine and imprisonment also for an year or two. Not just this, unsubstantiated allegations must be not just rejected outright but woman must be punished for it also because men too has right to reputation which cannot be held to ransom by any women whether it is wife or anyone else!
At the very outset, we see that this commendable, cogent, composed and creditworthy judgment authored by Hon’ble Justice Ms Nidhi Gupta for a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court comprising of Hon’ble Justice Ms Ritu Bahri and herself sets the pitch in motion by first and foremost putting forth in the opening para that, “This appeal has been filed by the husband against the order dated 8.5.2017 passed by the Additional District Judge, Patiala whereby his petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955 (hereinafter ‘the Act’), seeking dissolution of his marriage with the respondent on the ground of cruelty and desertion has been dismissed.”
To put things in perspective, the Division Bench then points out in the next para that, “Briefly stated the facts are that the parties were married according to Sikh rites and ceremonies at Ludhiana on 11.11.2012. After marriage they cohabited together as husband and wife. No child was born of this wedlock. It is appellant’s case that soon after their marriage the respondent started pressurising him to leave his job as C.O., Dental Centre, Air Force Station, Gorakhpur, Uttar Pradesh so as to settle in Patiala where her parental home was. She is stated to be dominating and disrespectful to him and his family and picked up quarrel for no reasons. She is also stated to have physically assaulted the petitioner at times and misbehaved with him and insulted him in the presence of his relatives and friends. It is further alleged that the respondent frequently behaved offensively and arrogantly using bad language, and would lock herself up in her room for hours threatening to do something drastic and implicate the appellant in criminal case involving non-bailable offences. Appellant states that this caused him great mental tension and agony. It is averred that to please the respondent the appellant also brought her to her parental home on Lohri soon after their marriage in the month of April 2013, as the respondent preferred to stay mostly in her parental home. He brought her back on 24.4.2013. The appellant was transferred from Gorakhpur to Udhampur on 28.8.2013 and was to join on 5.9.2013. During this period while they were staying at the appellant’s parents’ house the respondent left from there on 1.9.2013 without any reasonable cause and she took away all her dowry articles including the ones given to her by the appellant’s parents and she did not join the appellant’s company thereafter though he requested and pleaded with her several times. Accordingly it was pleaded that the respondent had deserted the appellant.”
As against this, the Division Bench then states in the next para that, “On the other hand, respondent denied all the allegations and stated that in fact she had been deserted by the appellant. She stated that prior to her marriage she had worked as Ayurvedic Medical Officer for four years in the State Health Department. However, she had been forced by the appellant to leave her Government job. She further states that after marriage she moved to Gorakhpur with her husband but soon thereafter he started torturing her and making illegal demand of dowry and would beat her mercilessly and never paid any maintenance to her because of which she had to seek monetary help from her parents. Respondent further states that the appellant constantly mocked her abusively for bringing inadequate dowry and made her work as domestic help and would lock her in room for hours together. It is further stated that in April 2013 respondent was sent to her parental home for a long time and was brought back to Ludhiana on 24.4.2013 to attend the engagement ceremony of the appellant’s cousin which was scheduled for 27.4.2013. She further states that appellant’s parents visited Gorakhpur in July 2013. Thereafter prior to appellant’s transfer from Gorakhpur to Udhampur they stayed in the appellant’s parents’ home and that on 1.9.2013 the appellant along with his parents threw the respondent out of the matrimonial home and appellant flatly refused to take her with him to Udhampur. Eventually the respondent was constrained to approach the police authorities and registered case under Section 406/ 498-A, 377 IPC against the appellant.”
As we see, the Division Bench then envisages that, “The appellant filed replication before the trial Court controverting the abovesaid allegations of the respondent and stated that the respondent had filed innumerable false complaints against the appellant and his family. The respondent had filed a false complaint on 25.3.2014 against the appellant; and then again on 1.4.2014 before DSP, Patiala. Appellant stated that he and his mother were facing trial in the Court of JMIC, Patiala, on totally false charges levelled by the respondent. Not only this she had also filed false complaints before the Army Wives Welfare Association on 27.3.2015 and the worst was that the respondent had levelled false allegations against the appellant’s father alleging that the appellant’s father had behaved with her in an objectionable and inappropriate manner. Appellant further denied that the respondent had been turned out of the matrimonial home. It was stated that in fact the respondent had left directly from the venue of his cousin’s wedding along with her brother and father on 1.9.2013 on the pretext of visiting her ailing mother for a few days whereafter she never came back and never replied to the appellant’s requests to join the matrimonial home. Appellant further stated that he had got a return Railway ticket booked for both of them from Ludhiana to Udhampur for 27.12.2013. However, she never joined him. On the contrary she sent her father and brother on 27.12.2013 to bring back all her educational and professional certificates from which it was clear that she had no plan to return to her matrimonial home. It was further stated that numerous complaints made by her to his professional Headquarters had caused him immense embarrassment in front of his seniors and colleagues. This had caused him mental harassment and ruined his reputation in his fraternity. On 26.10.2014 and then on 8.1.2015 the respondent had filed false online dowry complaints against him with the National Commission for Women, New Delhi. Respondent further filed a criminal complaint against him before this Court in 2014 and against senior Police authorities of State of Punjab seeking directions for the arrest of the appellant even though he had already been granted interim bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 15.12.2014. Respondent also continuously alleged that her jewellery and other valuable articles were still in the possession of the appellant and his family though the entire istri dhan of the respondent had been handed over to her by the appellant’s mother at Women Police Station, Patiala on 23.6.2014 when his mother had been granted interim bail which was later on made absolute on 28.6.2014.”
It is worth noting that the Division Bench then hastens to add that, “Also, as stated above, in the present matter the parties have been living separately for the last almost ten years, since 2013. Reference at this stage can be made to the case of ‘Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli’, (2006) 4 SCC 558 which was also a case of cruelty (mental and physical) where the Hon’ble Supreme Court again considered the concept of irretrievable breakdown of marriage. In that case too the parties had been living separately since ten years and the wife was not ready to grant divorce to her husband. However, notwithstanding this factual position, Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to grant divorce in said matter and has further noticed as follows:
“32. In ‘Sandhya Rani v. Kalyanram Narayanan’, (1994) Supp. 2 SCC 588, this Court reiterated and took the view that since the parties are living separately for the last more than three years, we have no doubt in our mind that the marriage between the parties has irretrievably broken down. There is no chance whatsoever of their coming together. Therefore, the Court granted the decree of divorce.
33. In the case of ‘Chandrakala Menon v. Vipin Menon’, (1993)2 SCC 6, the parties had been living separately for so many years. This Court came to the conclusion that there is no scope of settlement between them because, according to the observation of this Court, the marriage has irretrievably broken down and there is no chance of their coming together. This Court granted decree of divorce.
34. In the case of Kanchan Devi v. Promod Kumar Mittal, 1996(2) RCR (Criminal) 614 : (1996)8 SCC 90, the parties were living separately for more than 10 years and the Court came to the conclusion that the marriage between the parties had to be irretrievably broken down and there was no possibility of reconciliation and therefore the Court directed that the marriage between the parties stands dissolved by a decree of divorce.””
Quite ostensibly, the Division Bench then deems it apposite to hold that, “Thus, in the conspectus of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, and in consonance with the aforesaid pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, with a view to do complete justice, and put an end to the agony of the parties, this Court deems it appropriate to allow the present appeal.”
Most notably, the Division Bench then directs in the next para of this notable judgment that, “Before parting, even though the parties have lived together in matrimonial home only for nine months, and even though there is no child from their wedlock, and even though during this litigation admittedly the appellant has already paid Rs. 23 lacs to the respondent as maintenance yet, we deem it fit to grant her permanent alimony of a sum of Rs. 18,00,000/- (Rupees eighteen lacs only) as full and final settlement.”
As a corollary, the Division Bench then further directs in the next para that, “For the reasons stated above, this appeal is allowed; impugned order dated 8.5.2017 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Patiala is set aside; the petition for divorce filed by the appellant-husband under Sections 13(ia) and (ib) of the Act is decreed and the marriage solemnized between the parties on 11.11.2012 is dissolved by a decree of divorce.”
Finally, the Division Bench then concludes by holding in the final para of this brilliant judgment that, “All pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.”
All told, it is really high time and our lawmakers must without wasting any more time dilly dallying now act most promptly to stop the rampant, rash and reprehensible misuse of such laws which are actually meant for protection of women but are instead mostly misused as a most potent weapon to harass, humiliate and harangue men and extort huge money and property and what not as a “bargaining chip” for compromise! Of course, it is really most heartening to note that two most eminent women Judges have themselves delivered such a courageous judgment wherein they have not hesitated to call a spade a spade and termed filing of false cases against husband as cruelty. The Court thus very rightly granted divorce to men along with the conditions stipulated as stated hereinabove!
Sanjeev Sirohi