Holding

False and defamatory allegations made by a spouse, proven to be baseless, constitute cruelty under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, justifying a decree of divorce and entitlement to permanent alimony.

Summary

The husband filed a petition for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, alleging that his wife had made false and defamatory complaints against him, his family and colleagues, which amounted to cruelty. The wife had lodged multiple complaints with various authorities and the media, all of which were later found to be baseless and false by police investigations. The trial court dismissed the divorce petition, but the Supreme Court held that false accusations constitute mental cruelty and decreed the marriage dissolved. While recognizing the wife's need for a decent residence, the Court ordered the husband to pay a one‑time permanent alimony of Rs.50 lakh and to provide a flat of up to Rs.1 crore. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the lower courts' orders and granting the divorce with the specified alimony and residence provisions.

Issues considered

Whether the wife’s filing of false and defamatory complaints against the husband amounts to cruelty under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Whether the husband is liable to pay permanent alimony and provide residence to the wife under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

Legislation cited

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955s. 13, s. 25
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 182, s. 323, s. 341, s. 452

Subjects

crueltyfalse allegationsdefamationdivorcepermanent alimonyHindu Marriage Actmaintenanceresidence

Judgment

[2017] 4 S.C.R. 385

RAJ TALREJA A .

v.
KAVITA TALREJA
(Civil Appeal No. I0719 of 2013)
APRIL 24, 2017 B
•
[ADARSH KUMAR GOEL AND DEEPAK GUPTA, JJ.]
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955:
s.13 - Divorce Petition by husband - Amendment thereof,
sought by husband on ground that due to false complaints filed by C
his wife against him, he had been su~jected to cruelty - Held: The
wife made reckless, defamatory and false accusations against
husband, his family members and colleagues, which de.finitely had
the effect of lowering the reputation of the husband in the eyes of
his peers - It amounted to cruelty - Marriage of parties dissolved D
by decree of divorce.
s.25 - Permanent alimony and maintenance - Held: Court
not to be oblivious to the requirements of wife, keeping in view the
status of the parties - Direction to husband to pay the wife Rs.50
lakhs as one time permanent alimony - Wife to continue to live in
the house in which she was residing, till the husband provided her E
a flat of similar size in a similar locality.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. Cruelty can never be defined with exactitude.
What is cruelty will depend upon the facts and circumstances of F
each case. In the present case, it is apparent that the wife made
reckless, defamatory and false accusations against her husband,
his family members and colleagues, which would definitely llave
the effect of lowering his reputation in the eyes of his peers. Mere
filing of complaints is not cruelty, if there are justifiable reasons
to file the complaints. However, if it is found that the allegations G
are patently false, then there can be no manner of doubt that the
said conduct of a spouse levelling false accusations against the
other spouse would be an act of cruelty. The petition for divorce
filed by the husband under Section 13 of the Act is decreed and
H
385
386 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 4 S.C.R.

·A the marriage of the parties is dissolved by a decree of divorce.
[Paras 10, 13)(389-G-H; 390-A-C; 391-D]
2. In the present case, all the allegations made by wife were
found to be false. The acts of the wife in filing false complaibts
against the husband amounts to cruelty, however, one cannot be
B oblivious to the requirements of the wife to have a decent house
where she can live. Some permanent arrangement has to be
made for her alimony and residence. Keeping in view the status
of the parties, the husband shall pay to the wife a sum of
Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs only) as one time permanent
alimony. The wife shall continue to live in the house which belongs
C to the mother of the husband till the husband provides her a flat
of similar size in a similar locality. [Paras 10, 13][390-C, G-H;
391-A-B]
K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa (2013) 5 SCC 226 :
(2013] 2 SCR 126; Ravi Kumar v. Julmidevi (2010) 4
D SCC 476 : [2010] 2 SCR 545 - referred to.
Case Law Reference
(2013) 2 SCR 126 referred to Para 9
[2010] 2 SCR 545 referred to Para 9
E
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. I0719
of2013.
' From the Judgment and Order dated 01.03.2013 of the High Court
of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in D. B. Civil Miscellaneous
F Appeal No. 1432 of2004.
Gaurav Agrawal, S. K. Verma, Advs. for the Appellant.
Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, Sr. Adv., Akshat Shrivastava, Ms. Disha,
Advs. for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
G
DEEPAK GUPTA, J. I. Parties to the appeal got married in
1989 according to Hindu rites. Out of this wedlock a son was born in
the year 1990. It is not disputed that till the year ! 999 both husband and
wife lived together with the parents of the husband. In the year l 999,
the couple shifted to their own residence. On 19.03.2000, the husband
H left the matrimonial home and, soon thereafter, on 25.03.2000, filed a
RAJ TALREJA v. KAVITA TALREJA 387
[DEEPAK GUPTA, J.]

petition for grant of a decree of divorce dissolving the marriage. A
2. lt is not disputed thatthe wife filed a suit praying for injunction
that the husband should not be permitted to enter the matrimonial home.
On 07.11.2000, certain news items appeared in the newspapers in which
serious allegations were made against the husband. These newspaper
reports were based on the intimation given by the wife. On 04.12.2000, B
the wife filed a complaint to the State Women Commission making serious
allegations against the husband. Thereafter, on 05.12.2000, she sent a
similar letter to the Chief Justice of the High Court as well as the
Superintendent of Police. Finally, on 07.12.2000, she made another
complaint to the Chief Minister. On 16.03 .200 I, these complaints were
found to be false. On 12.04.200 I, a First Information Report (for short C
the 'FIR') was registered at the instance of the wife against the appellant
husband under Section 452, 323 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code. The
'police investigated the matter and filed a report on 30.04.200 I stating
that there is no merit in the FIR. According to the police, the injuries on
the person of the wife were self inflicted and she has filed a false FIR. D
It was recommended that the criminal proceedings be initiated against
her under Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code (for short '!PC'). It is
not disputed that till 16.03 .200 I, such criminal proceedings were initiated
against the wife.
3. The husband moved an amendment application in the divorce E
petition incorporating all these facts and alleging that due to filing of the
false complaints before various _authorities he had been subjected to
cruelty by the wife. This is the only issue raised before us. The learned
trial Judge dismissed the petition. The appeal filed by the husband was
also dismissed. Hence, this appeal.
F
4. It would be pertinent to mention that in the year 2012, 11 years
after the police had submitted its repo1t and after proceedings had been
initiated against the wife, the wife filed a protest petition against the
cancellation of FIR against the husband, in which notice was issued by
the court below. However, on a revision being filed by the husband, the
revisional court allowed the revision petition and quashed the ord::r of G
the trial court. As a result, there are no criminal proceedings pending
against the husband.
5. We have heard Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, learned counsel for the •
appellant and Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, learned senior counsel for the
respondent. H
388 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 4 S.C.R.

A 6. Mr. Agrawal, learned counsel has contended that the acts of
the wife in levelling defamatory allegations and filing false complaints
against the husband amounts to cruelty. On the other hand, Ms. Makhija,
learned senior counsel has submitted that her client is not at fault and
cruelty has not been proved. She further submits that her client wants
B the status of being a legally married woman and she prays that the appeal
be dismissed.
7. We may now refer to the evidence relied upon by the husband.
The first is a newspaper report dated 07 .11.2000, in which it is reported
that the wife had alleged that she was beaten by her husband and his
c family members many times for not fulfilling the demand of dowry. There
were allegations that she was kept like an orphan and twice attempts
had been made to set her on fire. These allegations were made in a
letter sent by the wife to the police. Thereafter, the wife sent a similar
complaintto various authorities including the State Women Commission,
Rajasthan. She sent a telegram to the Chief Justice of the Rajasthan
D High Court again alleging that her husband and in-laws had atter.ipted to
burn her and engaged goondas to eliminate her. Complaint was also
made to Chief Minister of Rajasthan. The matter was referred to the
police. On investigation by the police, the allegations were found to be
totally false. Thereafter, the wife filed a complaint against her husband
E and 3 other persons alleging house trespass against them and that she
had been assaulted and threatened to leave the house. In this case also,
the final report of the police is that the complaint is baseless and false
and the injuries were self-inflicted.
8. As noted above, these findings of the police have attained finality
and as on date there is no criminal case pending against the husband. It
F
is more than obvious that the allegations levelled by the wife are false.
It may be true that these allegations were levelled after the divorce
petition had been filed and the wife may have been in an agitated state
of mind. However, that did not give her a right to make defamatory
statements against the husband. The falseness of the allegations is borne
G out from the fact that the police did not even find it a fit case to be tried.
After the police filed its cancellation report, the wife kept silent and
after 11 years she filed a protest petition.

H
RAJ TALREJA v. KAVITA TALREJA 389
[DEEPAK GUPTA, J.]

9. This Court in Para 16 ofK. Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa' has A
held as follows:
"16. Thus, to the instances illustrative of mental cruelty noted in
Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh, 2007 (4) SCC 511, we could add
a few more. Making unfounded indecent defamatory allega~ions
against the spouse or his or her relatives in the pleadings, filing of B
complaints or issuing notices or news items which may have
adverse impact on the business prospect or the job of the spouse
and filing repeated false complaints and cases in the court against
the spouse would, in the facts of a case, amount to causing mental
cruelty to the other spouse."
c
In Rm•i Kumar v. Julmide1•i2, this Court while dealing with the
definition of cruelty held as follows:
"19. lt may be true that there is no definition of cruelty under the
said Act. Actually such a definition is not possible. In matrimonial
relationship, cruelty would obviously mean absence of mutual D
respect and understanding between the spouses which embitters
the relationship and often leads to various outbursts of behaviour
which can be termed as cruelty. Sometime cruelty in a matrimonial
relationship may take the form of violence, sometime it may take
a different form. Attimes, it may be just an attitude or an approach.
Silence in some situations may amount to cruelty. E

20. Therefore, cruelty in matrimonial behaviour defies any
definition and its categories can never be closed. Whether the
husband is cruel to his wife or the wife is cruel to her husband has
to be ascertained and judged by taking into account the entire
facts and circumstances of the given case and not by any F
predetermined rigid formula. Cruelty in matrimonial cases can be
of infinite variety-it may be subtle or even brutal and may be by
gestures and words. That possibly explains why Lord Denning in
Sheldon v. Sheldon, (1966) 2 WLR 993 held that categories of
cruelty in matrimonial cases are never closed." G
I 0. Cruelty can never be defined with exactitude. What is cruelty
will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. In the
present case, from the facts narrated above, it is apparent that the wife
1
2013 (5) sec 226.
2
2010 (4) sec 476.
H
390. SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 4 S.C.R.

A made reckless, defamatory and false accusations against her husband,
his family members and colleagues, which would definitely have the
effect ofloweringhis reputation in the eyes of his peers. Mere filing of
complaints is not cruelty, if there are justifiable reasons to file the
complaints. Merely because no action is taken on the complaint or after
B trial the accused is acquitted may not be a ground to treat such accusations
of the wife as cruelty within the meaning of the Hindu Marriage Act
1955 (for short 'the Act'). However, if it is found that the allegations
are pii.tently false, then there can be no manner of doubt that the said
conduct of a spouse levelling false accusations against the other spouse
would be an act of cruelty. In the present case, all the allegatio.ns were
c found to be false. Later, she filed another complaint alleging that her
husband along with some other persons had trespassed into her house
and assaulted her. The police found, on investigation, that not only was
the complaint false but also the injuries were self inflicted by the wife.
Thereafter, proceedings were launched against the wife under Section
182 of !PC.
D
11. We have perused thejudgment of the High Court. The High
Court while dealing with the plea of false complaints held that there was
no reason to hold that the criminal complaint filed by the respondent-
wife was false and malafide. We are unable to agree with this finding
of the High Court and the court below. Both the courts below relied
E upon the statement of the wife that her husband had often visited her
house and she fulfilled her marital obligations. These observations are
not based on any reliable or cogent evidence on record. It is not disputed
before us that the wife continues to live in the house which belongs to
the mother of the husband whereas the husband lives along with his
F parents in a separate hous~ and the son and daughter-in-law of the parties
live with the wife. The son is working with the husband. We may note
that Ms. Makhija has very fairly stated before us that the husband had
always fulfilled his paternal obligations to his son and is continuing to pay
maintenance to his wife as fixed by the court.
G 12. Though we have held that the acts of the wife in filing false
complaints against the husband amounts to cruelty, we are, however, not
oblivious to the requirements of the wife to have a decent house where
she can live. Her son and daughter-in-law may not continue to live with
her forever. Therefore, some permanent arrangement has to be made
for hef alimony and residence. Keeping in view the status of the parties,
H
RAJ TALREJA v. KAVITA TALREJA 391
[DEEPAK GUPTA, J.]

we direct that the husband shall pay to the wife a sum ofRs.50,00,000/- A
(Rupees Fifty Lakhs only) as one time permanent alimony and she will
not claim any further amount at any later stage. This amount be paid
within three months from today. We further direct that the wife shall
continue to live in the house which belongs to the mother of the husband
till the husband provides her a flat of similar size in a similar locality. For
8
this purpose, the husband is directed to e'11sure that a flat of the value up
to Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Only) be transferred in the name
of his wife and till it is provided, she shall continue to live in the house in
which she is residing at present.
13. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The judgment and order
dated 01.03.2013, passed by the High Court in D.B. Civil Miscellaneous C
Appeal No.1432 of2004 and the judgment and decree dated 05.08.7004,
passed by the Family Court, Udaipur in Civil Case No. 56 of2000 are
set aside. The petition for divorce filed by the husband under Sectic;n 13
of the Act is decreed and the marriage of the parties solemnized on
13.04.1989 is dissolved by a decree of divorce. The wife shall be entitled D
to permanent alimony of Rs. 50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs Only) and
a residential flat of the value of up to Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One
Crore Only), as directed hereinabove. Pending application(s), if any,
stand(s) disposed of.
E
Ankit Gyan Appeal allowed.