Bombay High Court
Amol Jagganathruchke vs Sau Archana Amol Ruchke on 24 March, 2017
Bench: V.A. Naik
2403FCAs168&169.14-Judgment 1/19
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO. 168 OF 2014
APPELLANT :- Amol Jagganath Ruchke, Aged-Adult, Occu-
ON R.A. Contractor/Builder, R/o Khedkar Nagar,
Akola, Tq. And Dist. Akola.
(Ori.Petitioner)
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENT :- Sau. Archana Amol Ruchke, Aged-Adult,
ON R.A. Occu-Service, R/o Mahasul Colony, Akola,
Tq. And Dist. Akola.
(Ori.Respondent)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr.A.R.Deshpande, counsel for the appellant.
Mr.U.J.Deshpande, counsel for the respondent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO. 169 OF 2014
APPELLANT :- Amol Jagganath Ruchke, Aged-Adult, Occu-
ON R.A. Contractor/Builder, R/o Khedkar Nagar,
Akola, Tq. And Dist. Akola.
(Ori. Respnodent)
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENT :- Sau. Archana Amol Ruchke, Aged-Adult,
ON R.A. Occu-Service, R/o Mahasul Colony, Akola,
Tq. And Dist. Akola.
(Ori.Petitioner)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr.A.R.Deshpande, counsel for the appellant.
Mr.U.J.Deshpande, counsel for the respondent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
::: Uploaded on - 30/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2017 00:23:00 :::
2403FCAs168&169.14-Judgment 2/19
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK &
V.M.DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATED : 24.03.2017
O R A L J U D G M E N T (Per Smt.Vasanti A Naik, J.)
Since the issues involved in these family court appeals are
similar and they arise from the common judgment of the Family Court,
dated 05/11/2011, they are heard together and are decided by this
common judgment.
2. The appellant in both the family court appeals is the
husband, who had instituted proceedings against the respondent-wife
for a decree of dissolution of marriage under section 13(1)(i-a) of the
Hindu Marriage Act. The respondent wife had filed proceedings under
section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for a decree of restitution of
conjugal rights. The marriage was solemnized between the parties on
26/06/2005 at Akola, as per Hindu rites and customs. It is pleaded by
the husband in the petition filed by him for a decree of divorce that
since the inception of the marriage, the behaviour of the wife towards
the husband and his mother was not good. It is pleaded that the wife
used to avoid doing the domestic work and the mother of the husband
was required to do the entire work in the house. It is pleaded that the
mother of the husband was suffering from heart and blood pressure
2403FCAs168&169.14-Judgment 3/19
problems, however, the wife used to behave arrogantly with the mother.
It is pleaded that at the time of the marriage, the wife had falsely stated
her birth date to be 22/02/1977 though her date of birth was
30/06/1975. It is stated that whenever the husband enquired about the
correct date of birth of the wife, the wife refused to give satisfactory
answers and used to pick up quarrel with the husband. It is pleaded
that on every festival the wife used to demand new ornaments for
herself on the pretext that in her parental home there was a custom to
prepare gold ornaments for the woman on every festival. It is pleaded
that whenever the husband refused to make gold ornaments for the
wife, she used to abuse the husband. It is pleaded that the wife used to
pick up quarrel with the husband and his mother without any rhyme or
reason. It is pleaded that when the husband informed the father of the
wife about her conduct, instead of giving her an understanding, the
father of the wife made a telephonic call to the grandfather of the
husband, Shri Ramkrushna Gole and threatened him that the husband
should mend his ways. It is pleaded that when Shri Ramkrushna Gole
and his wife had been to Akola and wanted to visit the father of the
wife, he refused to meet them. It is pleaded that in August, 2006, the
wife picked up quarrel with the husband and threatened to implicate
the husband and his mother in false criminal cases. It is pleaded that
the wife not only threatened the husband, but also went to the police
2403FCAs168&169.14-Judgment 4/19
station at Akola and lodged a report against the husband and his
mother. It is pleaded that when the police found that there was no
substance in the report, they did not take any cognizance of the matter.
It is pleaded that the wife had apologized for her behaviour and had
promised to mend her ways. It is pleaded that the parties again resumed
cohabitation after the said incident, but the wife did not mend her
ways. It is pleaded that the wife used to give threats to the husband that
she would commit suicide and implicate the husband and his relatives
in false criminal cases. It is pleaded that the husband had tried to lodge
a report against the wife in respect of her threats, but since the police
did not make an enquiry in the matter, the wife started harassing the
husband to a greater extent. It is pleaded that on 09/04/2007 also, the
wife picked up quarrel with the husband and threatened that she would
falsely implicate the husband and his mother. It is pleaded that the
mother of the husband was required to be admitted to the hospital
because of the behaviour of the wife. It is pleaded that on 09/04/2007,
the wife, the husband, his mother and grandmother had been to the
police station, but the police did not take any cognizance of the matter.
It is pleaded that the wife is residing with her parents since
09/04/2007. It is pleaded that on 26/05/2007 the wife again made a
complaint before the Mahila Takrar Nivaran Manch and in pursuance of
the said complaint, an offence was registered against the husband and
2403FCAs168&169.14-Judgment 5/19
his mother and the husband had to secure anticipatory bail. It is
pleaded that the act on the part of the wife of lodging false complaints
against the husband, has caused mental agony to the husband. It is
pleaded that the wife delivered a male child on 15/10/2007 and on the
same day she issued a notice to the husband from the hospital that he
should return all her belongings, including the gold, silver and the other
household articles within seven days or else, appropriate action would
be taken against him. It is pleaded that instead of taking care of the
newly born, the wife had issued a false notice to the husband though
the wife had carried all her belongings to her parental home when she
left the matrimonial home on 09/04/2007. It is pleaded that it was
decided between the parties that the marriage expenses would be
shared by both the parties and in view of the said agreement, a sum of
Rs.32,000/- was paid by the husband to the brother of the wife. The
husband pleaded that on 09/04/2007, the wife had left the matrimonial
home with all her belongings that were carried by her in about 8 to 10
suitcases. On the aforesaid pleadings, the husband sought a decree of
divorce on the ground of cruelty.
3. The wife filed the written statement and denied every
adverse allegation that was made by the husband against her. The wife
pleaded that the husband had levelled false allegations against the wife.
2403FCAs168&169.14-Judgment 6/19
The wife pleaded that since the husband was aware that the wife would
not be ready for the dissolution of the marriage, he had levelled false
allegations against her. It is pleaded that the wife had to suffer violence
at the hands of the husband. It is pleaded that though the family
members of the wife had asked the husband to mend his ways, the
husband refused to do so. It is pleaded that the wife does not have any
reason to commit suicide and the allegations made by the husband that
the wife threatened the husband and his mother that she would commit
suicide and falsely implicate them in criminal proceedings is false and
baseless. The wife pleaded that she was behaving like a dutiful wife in
the matrimonial home. The wife pleaded that the husband and his
family members used to ill-treat her on the ground that they did not get
proper dowry at the time of marriage, that the marriage was not
celebrated with pomp and splendour. and that the husband had to
consent for the marriage in a great haste. It is pleaded that the husband
used to drive the wife, out of the house at night on a number of
occasions. The wife pleaded that the husband had secured her
signatures on blank stamp papers. The wife sought for the dismissal of
the petition filed by the husband. In the petition for restitution of
conjugal rights filed by the wife, the wife reiterated the facts pleaded by
her in the written statement filed by her in the proceedings filed by the
husband for a decree of divorce. In the petition for restitution of
2403FCAs168&169.14-Judgment 7/19
conjugal rights, the wife had stated that the husband had driven her out
of the matrimonial home on 09/04/2007 and that she was compelled to
reside with her parents since then.
4. On the aforesaid pleadings of the parties, the Family Court
framed the issues and on an appreciation of the evidence on record,
decreed the petition filed by the wife for restitution of conjugal rights
and dismissed the petition filed by the husband for a decree of divorce.
Two family court appeals are filed by the husband, one against the
judgment and decree for restitution of conjugal rights and the second
against the judgment dismissing the petition filed by the husband for a
decree of divorce.
5. Shri A. R. Deshpande, the learned counsel for the
husband, submitted that the wife had lodged two false complaints
against the husband in the police station under section 498-A of the
Penal Code as a result of which the husband had to suffer both mentally
and physically. It is submitted that the husband had to secure
anticipatory bail for himself and his mother when the wife had lodged a
complaint against them on the second occasion. It is submitted that the
image of the husband and his mother was lowered in view of the
lodging of the false complaints by the wife in the police station. It is
2403FCAs168&169.14-Judgment 8/19
stated that the husband is acquitted in the trial that was conducted
against the husband for the offence punishable under section 498-A of
the Penal Code. It is submitted that the wife used to lodge false
complaints against the husband in the police station and also filed
similar complaints before the Mahila Takrar Nivaran Manch. It is
submitted that the case of the wife that she is ready to reside with the
husband would stand falsified, as no woman would be willing to reside
with the husband if the husband was beating her mercilessly with a
demand for dowry and was ill-treating her, both mentally and
physically. It is stated that one one hand the wife had levelled serious
allegations against the husband in the complaint filed by her before the
police station and on the other hand the wife had filed the proceedings
against the husband for restitution of conjugal rights. It is stated that
on the date of birth of the son, i.e. on 15/10/2007, the wife had issued
a notice from the hospital that the husband should not only return the
gold and silver articles, but should also return everything that was
gifted to the wife, including the daily household items, within seven
days or else she would institute proceedings against the husband. It is
stated that if the wife really desired to live in the matrimonial home,
she would not have issued a notice on the date of birth of the child on
15/10/2007 that the husband should return all her household articles.
It is submitted that the Family Court did not advert its mind to this
2403FCAs168&169.14-Judgment 9/19
notice, while considering whether the wife really desired to cohabit
with the husband. It is submitted that it is well settled that the act on
the part of the wife of lodging false police complaints against the
husband would constitute cruelty. It is stated that in the complaints
filed by the wife not only was the husband implicated, but the mother
of the husband was also implicated, though she was old and sick. The
learned counsel relied on the judgment reported in 2013 (3) Bom.C.R.
108 (Nitin Ramesh Dhiwar v. Roopali Nitin Dhiwar) and the
unreported judgment dated 13/08/2012 in First Appeal No.1253 of
2008 to substantiate his submissions.
6. Shri U.J.Deshpande, the learned counsel for the wife,
supported the judgment of the Family Court. It is submitted that the
wife did not file a false complaint against the husband and his mother
but she was compelled to do so. It is submitted that though the main
allegation of the husband is that the wife had ill-treated his mother, the
husband had failed to examine his mother in support of his case. It is
stated that the husband had admitted in his cross-examination that he
had received a sum of Rs.1,98,000/- from the father of the wife. It is
submitted that though the husband had pleaded that the father of the
wife had complained to Shri Ramkrushna Gole, the grandfather of the
husband, about the husband and had also threatened him, Shri Gole is
2403FCAs168&169.14-Judgment 10/19
not examined. It is submitted that in view of the failure to examine
these witnesses, it could be said that the husband has failed to prove his
case. It is stated that when the wife was pregnant, the husband forced
the wife to terminate the pregnancy. It is pleaded that the husband was
taking advantage of his own wrong. It is stated that the husband had
admitted in his cross-examination that on 09/04/2007 the wife had
resided in the house of Shri Janorkar, the neighbour of the husband and
that would show that the wife did not leave the company of the
husband on her own. It is stated that though the husband had examined
Shri Vijay Kaushal and Shri Mukund Mali as his witnesses, their
evidence would not support his case. It is stated that Mukund Mali had
admitted in his cross-examination that he did not know as to what was
the dispute between the parties. It is submitted that the wife has filed
an appeal in the High Court against the order of acquittal of the
husband in the proceedings under section 498-A of the Penal Code. The
learned counsel sought for the dismissal of the appeals.
7. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it appears
that the following points arise for determination in these family court
appeals.
(I) Whether the husband proves that the wife had treated him
with cruelty?
2403FCAs168&169.14-Judgment 11/19
(II) Whether the husband is entitled to a decree of divorce on
the ground of cruelty?
(III) Whether the wife is entitled to a decree for restitution of
conjugal rights?
(IV) What order?
8. It would be necessary to answer the first point of
determination as our answer to the first point of determination would
result in answering the other two points for determination without
dealing with the said points in detail. We have already narrated the
pleadings of the parties in the earlier part of the judgment. The
husband has entered into the witness box and has also examined two
other witnesses namely Shri Vijay Kaushal and Shri Mukund Mali. The
wife has examined herself and has examined her father in support of
her case. The husband has pleaded that the wife was not behaving well
with the husband and his mother right from the inception of the
marriage. The husband has pleaded that there were constant fights
between the husband and the wife as the wife had falsely informed her
date of birth at the time of the marriage. The husband has pleaded and
has also stated in his evidence that there were fights between the
parties, as the husband did not desire that a child should be born from
2403FCAs168&169.14-Judgment 12/19
the wedlock when the atmosphere in the matrimonial house was
embroiled in fights and disputes. It is the case of the husband in his
pleadings and the evidence that the wife did not do the household work
and the mother of the husband, who had heart and blood pressure
problems, had to do all the household work. The husband has pleaded
that the wife was always threatening the husband and his mother that
she would commit suicide and would falsely implicate the husband and
his family members in a criminal case. The husband has further alleged
that when the father of the wife was informed about her conduct, the
father of the wife, instead of giving understanding to his daughter,
called up Shri Ramkrushna Gole, the grandfather of the husband and
threatened him. The husband has further stated in his evidence that the
wife always demanded gold ornaments on festival days by saying that in
her parental home, there was a custom to buy gold ornaments for
women in the family. We are not so much concerned with the aforesaid
allegations that are levelled by the husband against the wife. We are
mainly concerned with the allegations levelled by the husband that the
wife used to threaten the husband that she would commit suicide and
would falsely implicate him in criminal cases. The wife had lodged two
police reports against the husband and his mother under section 498-A
of the Penal Code, one in August, 2006 and the second in May, 2007.
The wife had stated in the complaints filed by her in the police station
2403FCAs168&169.14-Judgment 13/19
that the husband and his mother had demanded money from the father
of the wife and when the father of the wife was not able to pay the
same, the wife was treated with cruelty. It is stated by the wife in the
complaints under section 498-A of the Penal Code that the husband
tried to forcibly abort the child in her womb and ill-treated her, both
physically and mentally. The wife had complained that the husband
had physically and mentally tortured her, as he wished that she should
quit her job. Though it is the case of the wife in the complaint filed in
the police station that the husband always demanded money from her
parents, the allegation in respect of demand of dowry is not made in the
written statement filed by her in the proceedings filed by the husband
for a decree of divorce. It is not the case of the wife in the proceedings
before the Family Court that prior to the marriage or thereafter, the
husband or his mother had demanded any amount from her father
towards dowry. There is only one bald statement that a sum of
Rs.50,000/- was demanded by the husband from the father of the wife.
It is necessary to note that the criminal trial has resulted in the acquittal
of the husband, his mother and his other relatives, who were also
implicated as the accused in the said trial. We find that the complaint
filed by the wife against the husband appears to be false. If the said
complaint was not false, the wife would not have filed the proceedings
against the husband for restitution of conjugal rights without putting
2403FCAs168&169.14-Judgment 14/19
the husband to terms. If the husband was physically and mentally
harassing the wife for the reasons mentioned by her in the complaints
filed in the police station, she would not have been eager to return to
the matrimonial home without putting some terms before the husband
and her mother-in-law. We have held earlier and it would be necessary
to reiterate that a woman desirous of residing in the matrimonial home,
should not file false criminal complaints against the husband and his
family members, as any such instance of filing false complaints against
the husband and his family members would result in creating a fear in
the mind of the husband and his family members that again history
would be repeated and the police would take action against them only
in pursuance of a false complaint made by the wife. Sometimes, with a
view to teach a lesson to the husband and his family members false
complaints are filed, without realising that if they are proved to be false,
the doors of the matrimonial homes would be shut on such women.
There is no dispute, that if a woman is really treated with 'cruelty'
within the meaning of the term under section 498-A of the Penal Code,
she should surely file a complaint and punish the man or his family
members for their wrong doings. We however find that on some
occasions false complaints are filed to teach the in-laws a lesson, though
there is no 'cruelty', and there are only some trivial disputes between
the parties. In the instant case, the wife had earlier filed a complaint
2403FCAs168&169.14-Judgment 15/19
against the husband and his family members in August, 2006 and when
the police did not take any cognizance of the matter and asked the
parties to reside together, the wife once again filed a complaint against
the husband in the month of May, 2007. The act on the part of the wife
of filing false complaints against the husband, his mother and also his
other family members, though they were not residing in the
matrimonial home, would surely tantamount to cruelty. It is rightly
stated on behalf of the husband that the husband would be under
constant fear if he resumes cohabitation, that the wife would again
approach the police authorities if he does not succumb to her demands
or does not consent to every view of hers. In the instant case, after the
wife filed the complaint against the husband and his family members,
all of them had to secure anticipatory bail. It is rightly submitted on
behalf of the husband that the said act on the part of the wife has
lowered the image of the husband and his family members in the
society. It is held by us, time and again that the act on the part of the
wife of filing false complaints against the husband and his family
members under section 498-A of the Penal Code would tantamount to
cruelty. This court has held in the judgment reported in 2013 (3)
Bom.C.R. 108 that filing of false criminal complaint by the wife against
the husband and his family members would amount to cruelty under
section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act. In the instant case, the
2403FCAs168&169.14-Judgment 16/19
husband and his family members are acquitted in the criminal trial. Not
only the prosecution, but the wife has also filed an appeal against the
judgment of acquittal. This shows that the wife is interested in putting
the husband behind the bars. If that is the intention of the wife, it is
difficult to believe that the wife is desirous of seeking the decree of
restitution of conjugal rights and living with the husband under one
roof. If the wife is desirous of putting the husband and his family
members behind the bars and assuming that she succeeds in the said
endeavour, we fail to fathom as to what would be the fate of a decree
for restitution of conjugal rights, even if such a decree is passed in
favour of the wife. In this case, it could be gathered from the evidence
on record, including the complaints, that the wife had filed false police
complaints only with a view to teach the husband a lesson. The wife
has failed to specifically plead and prove that the husband and his
family members had illegally demanded certain amounts from her
parents towards dowry. In view of the well settled position of law, it
would be necessary to hold that the wife had treated the husband with
cruelty by filing false complaints against the husband and his family
members in the police station. As we have held that the act on the part
of the wife of filing false complaints against the husband and his family
members under section 498-A of the Penal Code would tantamount to
cruelty, it would not be necessary to consider the other allegations
2403FCAs168&169.14-Judgment 17/19
that are not so serious in nature, like the allegations that the wife was
ill-treating the mother of the husband or that the father of the wife had
threatened the grandfather of the husband. The non-examination of the
mother and the grandfather of the husband cannot result in holding
that the husband has failed to prove his case. It is not necessary in every
matter where an allegation is made about the ill-treatment meted out
by the wife to the mother-in-law that the mother-in-law should be
examined. The necessity to examine the witness differs from case to
case and depends upon the facts involved in the case. It cannot be said
that the husband had demanded dowry from the wife, in view of his
admission in his cross-examination that he had received a cheque for an
amount of Rs.1,98,000/- from the father of the wife. Firstly, the wife
has not pleaded in either her petition or in the written statement filed in
the proceedings filed by the husband for a decree of divorce that a sum
of Rs.2,00,000/- or Rs.1,98,000/- was ever demanded by the husband
or his family members from the father of the wife. Also, dowry would
normally, not be paid by a cheque. We are not aware as to what is the
effect of that admission because there is no pleading in the written
statement of the wife or in the petition of the wife that would throw
some light on the said admission. While holding that the wife has
treated the husband with cruelty, it would also be necessary to hold that
the wife was not willing to reside with the husband under one roof and
2403FCAs168&169.14-Judgment 18/19
this fact could be gauged from the legal notice issued by the wife to the
husband, dated 15/08/2007, when she had delivered a child and was in
the hospital, that the husband should return all her articles, including
the gold, silver and all the other household articles of daily use to her
within a period of seven days or else she would file appropriate
proceedings against him. When the wife issued the said notice to the
husband, she was residing separately from the husband only for about 4
to 5 months before the delivery and on the date of the birth of child, it
is not expected of a wife to send a legal notice that is also signed by her
that the husband should return not only the gold and silver articles, but
also all her belongings, including the household items. Such a notice
could be issued only when a wife is sure that she does not wish to
cohabit with the husband and reside with him at any point of time in
future. The Family Court however did not consider these aspects of the
matter while dismissing the petition filed by the husband for a decree of
divorce. Since we have held that the wife has treated the husband with
cruelty, the husband would be entitled to a decree of divorce under
section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act. In view of our finding as
aforesaid, it would be necessary to hold that the wife would not be
entitled to a decree of restitution of conjugal rights.
2403FCAs168&169.14-Judgment 19/19
9. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the family court appeals
are allowed. The petition filed by the wife for restitution of conjugal
rights is dismissed. The petition filed by the husband for a decree of
divorce under section 13(1) (i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act is allowed.
The marriage solemnized between the parties on 26/06/2005 is
dissolved by a decree of divorce. Order accordingly. No costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
KHUNTE
