K. SRINIVASversusK. SUNITA

A
                       [2014) 11 S.C.R. 298


                           K. SRINIVAS
                                v.
                                                                   •
                            K. SUNITA
                 (Civil Appeal No. 1213 of 2006)
                      NOVEMBER 19, 2014
B
       [VIKRAMAJIT SEN AND PRAFULLA C. PANT,, JJ.]

        Hindu Marriage Act, 1955:

C         s.13(1)(ia) - Divorce on ground of cruelty - Filing of
    false criminal complaint by wife against husband and other
    family members of husband amounts to cruelty - The
    husband can claim dissolution of marriage even when one
    such complaint is made.

D       Allowing the appeal, the Court

        HELD: 1. Irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a
  ground for divorce has not found statutory acceptance
  till date. Under Article 142 of the Constitution, th1:
E Supreme Court has plenary powers "to pass such
  decree or make such order as is necessary for doing
  complete justice in any case or order pending before it".
  This power, however, has not been bestowed by our
  Constitution on any other Court. The Law Commission
F of India in its Reports in 1978 as well as in 2009 has
  recommended the introduction of irretrievable breakdown
  of marriage as a ground for dissolution of marriage; the
  Marriage Laws (Amendment) Bill of 2013 incorporating the
  ground has even received the assent of the Rajya Sabha.
G It is, however, highly debatable whether, in the Indian
  situation, where there is rampant oppression of women,
  such a ground would at all be expedient. But that
  controversy will be considered by the Lok Sabha. [Para
  3] [301-G-H; 302-A-C]

H                               298
•                K. SRINIVAS v. K. SUNITA                 299

         2. The respondent-wife has admitted in her cross- A
    examination that she did not mention all the incidents on
    which her complaint is predicated, in her statement under
    Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. It was not her case that she had
    actually narrated all these facts to the Investigating
                                                                8
    Officer, but that he had neglected to mention them. This
    clearly indicated that the criminal complaint was a
    contrived afterthought. The view of the High Court that
    the criminal complaint was "ill advised" is affirmed.
    Adding thereto is the factor that the High Court had been C
    informed of the acquittal of the appellant-husband and
    members of his family. In these circumstances, the High
    Court ought to have ~oncluded that the respondent-wife
    knowingly and int6ntionally filed a false complaint,
    calculated to embarras~ and incarcerate the appellant and o
    seven members of his family and that such conduct
    unquestionably constitutes cruelty as postulated in
    Section 13(1 )(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The
    respondent-wife had filed a false criminal complaint, and
    even one such complaint is sufficient to constitute E
    matrimonial cruelty. The marriage of the parties is
    dissolved under Section 13(1) (ia) of the Act. [Paras 5, 7
    and 8] [303-B-E; 304-A-B]

         K. Srinivas Rao vs. D.A. Deepa 2013 (5) SCC 226 -       F
    relied on.

                       Case Law Reference:

        2013(5) sec 225         relied on           Para 1
                                                                 G
        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
    1213 of 2006.
        From the Judgment & oraer dated 7.11.2005 of the High
    Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in C.M.A.   H
    Nos. 605 and 673 of 2000.
A
    300      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2014) 11 S.C.R.


        D. Rama Krishna Reddy, D. Bharathi Reddy for the
                                                                     •
    Appellant.

        Yashvardhan, Piyush Singh, S.K. Sabharwal for the
    Respondent.
B
          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

          VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J. 1. In this Appeal, counsel for the
    Appellant has sought to draw our attention to all the arguments
C   that had been addressed before the High Court on behalf of
    the Appellant-Husband in support of his claim for dissolution
    of his marriage to the Respondent by a decree of divorce under
    Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. We have,
    however, restricted him to the ground of alleged cruelty on
o   account of the filing of a criminal complaint by the Respondent
    against the Appellant and several members of his family under
    Sections 498A and 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). We
    did this for the reason that if this ground is successfully
    substantiated by the Petitioner, we need not delve any further
E   i.e. whether a marriage can be dissolved by the Trial Court or
    the High Court on the premise that the marriage has irretrievably
    broken down. This nature of cruelty, in the wake of filing of a
    false criminal case by either of the spouses, has been agitated
    frequently before this Court, and has been discussed so
F   comprehensively and thoroughly that yet another Judgment on
    this well-settled question of law, would be merely a waste of
    time. A complete discourse and analysis on this issue is
    available in a well-reasoned judgment in K. Srinivas Rao vs.
    D.A. Deepa, 2013(5) SCC 226, in which numerous decisions
G   have been cited and discussed. It is now beyond cavil that if a
    false criminal complaint is preferred by either spouse it would
    invariably and indubitably constitute matrimonial cruelty, such
    as would entitle the other spouse to claim a divorce.
H
•   K. SRINIVAS v. K. SUNITA [VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J.]          301


      2. The marriage of the parties was celebrated according A
to Hindu rites at Hyderatiad on 11th February, 1989. A male
child was born to the parties on 8th May, 1991, after which the
Respondent-Wife, as per her pleadings, started suffering from
Sheehan's syndrome. On the night of 29th/30th June, 1995, the
Respondent left the matrimonial house and ever since then she B
has been living with her brother, who is a senior IAS officer.
On 14th July, 1995, the Appellant filed an original petition
praying for divorce on the ground of cruelty as well as of the
irretrievable breakdown of their marriage. The Respondent-
Wife retorted by filing a criminal complaint against the Appellant C
as well as seven members of his family for offences under
Section 307 read with Sections 34, 148A, 384, 324 of the IPC,
and Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. It is
pursuant to this complaint that the Appellant-Husband and seven
of his family members were arrested and incarcerated. The
 Respondent-Wife also filed a petition under Section 9 of the D
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights. On
30th June, 2000, the Learned Vth Additional Metropolitan
Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Hyderabad, acquitted the
Appellant and his family members, and this Order has attained
finality. Meanwhile, by its Judgment dated 30th December, E
1999, the Family Court at Hyderabad, granted a divorce to the
Appellant on the ground of cruelty as also irretrievable
breakdown of marriage; it rejected the Respondent's petition
 under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The Respondent-
 Wife successfully appealed against the said Judgment in the F
 High Court, and it is this Order dated 7th November, 2005 that
 is impugned before us.

      3. Irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a ground for
divorce has not found statutory acceptance till date. Under G
Article 142 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court has plenary
powers "to pass such decree or make such order as is
necessary for doing complete justice in any case or order
pending before it". This power, however, has not been
bestowed by our Constitution on any other Court. It is for these H
    302       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 (2014] 11 S.C.R.
                                                         •             •
A   reasons that we have confined arguments only to the aspect
    of whether the filing of a false criminal complaint s?.Jfficiently
    proves matrimonial cruelty as would entitle the injured party to
    claim dissolution of marriage. It will be relevant to mention that
    the Law Commission of India in its Reports in 1978 as well as
B   in 2009 has recommended the introduction of irretrievable
    breakdown of marriage as a ground for dissolution of marriage;
    the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Bill of 2013 incorporating the
    ground has even received the assent of the Rajya Sabha. It is,
    however, highly debatable whether, in the Indian situation, where
c   there is rampant oppression of women, such a ground would
    at all be expedient. But that controversy will be com>idered by
    the Lok Sabha.

        4. In the case in hand, learned counsel for the Respondent-
  Wife has vehemently contended that it is not possible to label
D the wife's criminal complaint detailed above as a false or a
  vindictive action. In other words, the acquittal of the Appellant
  and his family members in the criminal'     complaint does not by
  itself, automatically and justifiably, lead to the conclusion that
  the complaint was false; that only one complaint was preferred
E by the Respondent-Wife, whereas, in contradistinction, in
  K.Srinivas Rao a series of complaints by the wife had been
  preferred. The argument was premised on the averment that
  the investigation may have been faulty or the prosecution may
  have been so careless as to lead to the acquittal, but the
F acquittal would not always indicate that the Complainant had
  intentionally filed a false case. What should be kept in
  perspective, it is reasonably argued, that the Complainant is
  not the controlling conductor in this Orchestra, but only one of
  the musicians who must deliver her rendition as and when and
G how she is called upon to do. Secondly, according to the
  learned counsel, the position would have been appreciably
  different if a specific finding regarding the falsity of the criminal
  complaint was returned, or if the Complainant or a witness on
  her behalf had committed perjury or had recorded a
H contradictory or incredible testimony. Learned counsel for the
•     K. SRINIVAS v. K. SUNITA [VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J.)              303


    Respondent-Wife states that neither possibility has manifested       A
    itself here and, therefore, it would be unfair to the Respondent-
    Wife to conclude that she had exhibited such cruelty towards
    the Appellant and her in-laws that would justify the dissolution
    of her marriage.
                                                                         B
          5. The Respondent-Wife has admitted in her cross-
    examination that she did not mention all the incidents on which
    her Complaint is predicated, in her statement under Section 161
    of the Cr.P.C. It is not her case that she had actually narrated
    all these facts to the Investigating Officer, but that he had        C
    neglected to mention them. This, it seems to us, is clearly
    indicative of the fact that the criminal complaint was a contrived
    afterthought. We affirm the view of the High Court that the
    criminal complaint was "ill advised". Adding thereto is the factor
    that the High Court had been informed of the acquittal of the
    Appellant-Husband and members of his family. In these                D
    circumstances, the High Court ought to have concluded that the
    Respondent-Wife knowingly and intentionally filed a false
    complaint, calculated to embarrass and incarcerate the
    Appellant and seven members of his family and that such
    conduct unquestionably constitutes cruelty as postulated in          E
    Section 13(1 )(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

          6. Another argument which has been articulated on behalf
    of the learned counsel for the Respondent is that the filing of
    the criminal complaint has not been pleaded in the petition F
    itself. As we see it, the criminal complaint was filed by the wife
    after filing of the husband's divorce petition, and being
    subsequent events could have been looked into by the Court.
    In any event, both the parties were fully aware of this facet of
    cruelty which was allegedly suffered by the husband. When G
    evidence was lead, as also when arguments were addressed,
    objection had not been raised on behalf of the Respondent-
    Wife that this aspect of cruelty was beyond the pleadings. We
    are, therefore, not impressed by this argument raised on her
    behalf.
                                                                       H
A
    304       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2014] 11 S.C.R.


          7.. In these circumstances, we find that the Appeial is well
                                                                          •
    founded and deserves to be allowed. We unequivocally find that
    the Respondent-Wife had filed a false criminal complaint, and
    even one such complaint is sufficient to constitute matrimonial
    cruelty.
B
         8. We, accordingly, dissolve the marriage of the parties
    under Section 13(1 )(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The parties
    shall bear their respective costs.

    Devika Gujral                                       Appeal allowed.