‘Not a prerequisite’: Telangana HC rules criminal case not needed to prove cruelty in divorce

The couple was married in 2013 and separated the same year. Two years later, the wife filed for divorce on the grounds of cruelty in 2015.

The husband, meanwhile, denied the allegations and filed a counter-claim for the restitution of conjugal rights. The family court in 2018 dismissed the divorce petition and allowed the husband’s counter-claim, and also ordered him to return to the wife Rs 5.5 lakh in cash and gold ornaments weighing over 130 grams that he received during their wedding. The court also had directed the wife to join the husband within three months and lead a conjugal life.

While the appellant argued before the division bench that the family court failed to recognise that she was subjected to cruelty and harassment and there were no chances of reunion, the respondent claimed that the absence of any criminal complaint by the wife during the marriage indicated that the plea of cruelty was a fabricated ground created only for the purpose of securing a decree of divorce.

‘Criminal proceedings not prerequisite to prove cruelty’ 

After considering the submissions by both parties and examining the record, the court found that the woman “categorically” established several incidents, supported by her deposition and corroborative material, to indicate instances of physical and mental cruelty, including physical aggression, verbal abuse, unwarranted suspicion, public humiliation, and demands for additional dowry, while creating a hostile environment for her within the matrimonial home.

Such conduct, affecting the mental peace of the petitioner, clearly falls within the ambit of “cruelty” under Section 13(1) (ia) of the Act, the bench stated. The court also noted that the allegation of cruelty raised by the woman cannot be discarded merely on the ground that no criminal complaint was lodged. It said that the Supreme Court and this court have repeatedly held that initiation of criminal proceedings is not a prerequisite to prove cruelty in matrimonial matters.

The court remarked that many women in matrimonial disputes refrain from filing criminal complaints due to social pressure, stigma or with the hope of reconciliation.

“The personal choice of a woman to avoid criminal litigation cannot be construed as acceptance of cruelty or condonation of ill-treatment.” The court held that the lower court’s reasoning that cruelty cannot be presumed in the absence of a criminal complaint is legally untenable.

The bench noted that the man and woman were at loggerheads right from the inception of their marriage, and the marriage never took off, and they were unable to patch up their differences in the last 12 years. The bench underscored that the marriage was virtually shattered and had become dead wood, with no further chance of a rapprochement. “Both parties have crossed the point of no return. A workable solution is certainly not possible.”

Setting aside the lower court’s decree for restitution of conjugal rights as unsustainable in law, the bench noted that “A spouse, who has been subjected to cruelty, cannot, either in law or equity, be compelled to resume cohabitation. Under Section 9 of the Act, the burden lies squarely on the respondent to prove that the petitioner withdrew from his society without reasonable cause.” Here, since cruelty is established on record, the reasonable cause stands proved and the very foundation for the grant of restitution of conjugal rights collapses, the bench noted.