"We used to live in USA. My father-in-law brought me and
kids to India saying my husband will come in one month. But
my husband came back after 5 months and going back
alone. He is not talking to me nor taking me and kids back to
USA. My kids are there with them right now and they are not
allowing me to enter the house. My husband will be leaving
to USA tomorrow. They are creating that I have psychiatric
problem and telling me to take treatment. But I don't have
any problem and I am perfectly normal. I want to go bac to
USA with my husband and kids. Please help me solve my
problem. My In-laws are troubling me here at home since 5
months. They are troubling the kids too. My daughter is 9
years old. My son is 5 years old. They are both citizens of
USA. They are telling my kids that I am a bad mummy. My
father-in-law keeps coming into my room when I am sleeping.
They are telling me to take care of my life my self. They are
not letting my husband talk to me. They are not sending my
kids to my parents house. they are taking video clips of me
when I am crying. They use vulgar and bad words and shout
at me. They blame me for everything at home even if I don't
do ant wrong. My mother-in-law keeps telling my husband to
torture me and leave me and he can remarry. She also told
me to do suicide when my mom expired. They used to come
to USA and trouble me."
8. The complaint dated 23.01.2018 is extracted below:
"As per your direction, I went to the women police station
Begumpet for stopping my husband going to USA without
family and without organising marriage counselling at
Bharosa centre. Even after continuous police enquiry, my
husband went back to USA without attending police station.
After 2 weeks my children Aishwariya and Anirudh were
handed over to me on 5th December 2017. At the same time,
two side families requisition, we went for settlement among
elder of community under the leadership of Mr Dubbaka
Kishan Rao. Community elders discussed extensively and
could not able to come to a conclusion. Mr. Sudhakar B (father-
in-law) shouted on everyone in front of the elders at
Secunderabad Community centre. Aftersometime Mr Murthy,
who is the partner in Mr. Sudhakar business, contacted me on
phone. With his discussion, I came to understand everything
will be fine. Gradually by sending my children to my in-laws
place frequently, on every holiday. Now my children are living
with them. All of a sudden now I have received a legal notice
from B. Srikanth S/o B. Sudhakar mentioning that Mr.
Sudhakar has taken GPA to fight with me in this unethical
and derogatory divorce filing. I don't have any intention to
take divorce. I want to live with my family along with my
husband and children in USA. Whenever my in-laws were
visiting USA, my husband behaved ruthlessly and my life has
been tougher day by day. My In-laws are the main reason for
my miserable life condition and family disturbances. I am
requesting you to help me to go to USA or call my husband for
family counselling to India. I cannot be happy with my in-laws
deceitful activities and continuous torture, besides bringing me
to family courts without the presence of my husband."
9. Learned Counsel for the petitioners argued that the marital
life of the petitioner no. 1 was troubled on account of the peculiar
and abnormal behaviour of the respondent no. 4. The behaviour of
respondent no. 4 was psychopathic and she never cared for her
husband--petitioner no.1--or family members. She further acted
cruelly towards the children, and they were beaten severely and
indiscriminately. Respondent no.4 started alleging that the
petitioner no.1 was having an illicit relationship with his own
mother and sister. The abnormal conduct of respondent No.4 led
the petitioner no. 1 to seek medical advice and treatment of
Respondent No.4. She was treated at Asha Hospital, Banjara Hills,
which specializes in psychiatric disorders. The doctors diagnosed
her with Delusional Disorder, characterized by a skeptical and
suspicious nature, a lack of empathy, and difficulty in
maintaining empathetic relationships. On account of the
respondent no. 4, petitioner no. 1 suffered anxiety and a
depressive mood.
10. Learned Counsel further argued that false complaints were
filed, which is evident from the fact that the Family Court granted
divorce on the basis of cruelty meted out by the respondent no. 4.
Further, custody of the children was also handed over to the
petitioner no. 1, mainly on the ground that the respondent no. 4
was not competent to raise children.
11. The learned counsel has relied upon the judgments of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of A.P. v. M. Madhusudhan
Rao 1 and Dara Lakshmi Narayana & Others v. State of
Telangana & Another 2.
12. It was argued on behalf of the respondent no. 4 that, as seen
from the allegations made in the complaint, the offence under
Section 498-A of IPC is made out. The events that transpired in
the life of the petitioner no. 1 and the respondent no. 4 reflect that
there were disputes between them, and the complaint makes out a
prima facie offence punishable under Section 498-A. In the said
circumstances, this Court, in quash proceedings, cannot consider
the background of the case and has to look into the allegations
levelled in the complaint.
13. It is on record that the petitioner No. 2 had arranged an
appointment for respondent no. 4's treatment at Asha Hospital,
Banjara Hills, a specialized institution for psychological disorders.
However, respondent no. 4 refused to undergo treatment without
(2008) 15 Supreme Court Cases 582
2024 SCC OnLine SC 3682
Petitioner No. 1, asserting that he too required medical
intervention. Complying with her demand, Petitioner No. 1
travelled from the USA to India on 05.10.2017. Following a
psychological evaluation on 12.10.2017, respondent no. 4 was
diagnosed with 'Delusional Disorder,' characterized by suspicion,
lack of empathy, and difficulty in maintaining relationships.
Petitioner No. 1, in turn, was diagnosed with depressive mood and
anxiety. The medical report of respondent no. 4 was filed as ExP1.
14. Subsequently, petitioner no. 1 filed O.P. No. 119 of 2018 on
20.01.2018 in the Family City Civil Court, seeking divorce on
grounds of cruelty and mental disorder under Sections 13(1)(ia)(iii)
and 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The court, in its order dated
30.06.2023, granted the divorce decree, dissolving the marriage on
the grounds of cruelty and incurable mental disorder.
15. During the divorce proceedings in the Family Court,
respondent no. 4 herein alleged that the petitioners herein
harassed her for additional dowry, claiming that her father had
given Rs. 30,21,000, along with 50 tulas of gold and 10 kg of
silver, to petitioner no. 1 herein as per the petitioners' demand.
However, the Judge noted that respondent no. 4 herein admitted
she did not know how her father procured Rs. 30 lakhs and
lacked any bills to substantiate the gold and silver transactions.
Furthermore, in response to a legal notice issued by petitioner no.
1 herein seeking a divorce, respondent no. 4 herein did not
mention the alleged dowry given at the time of marriage or any
harassment regarding additional dowry.
16. The Judge further observed that in the complaint forming
the basis of FIR No. 18 of 2018, no mention was made of dowry
demands. Similarly, in the Section 161 Cr.P.C statement recorded
in the case, both respondent no. 4 herein and her father denied
giving dowry at the time of marriage. The Judge pointed out that
respondent no. 4 herein raised the dowry harassment allegations
for the first time in her counterclaim, despite asserting that she
had been harassed for additional dowry soon after marriage.
Notably, she had not lodged any complaint from 2006 to 2017
regarding dowry-related harassment.
17. The Judge also observed that, as per the Psychological
Evaluation Report by Asha Hospital, respondent no. 4 herein was
referred for psychological evaluation due to complaints of marital
disturbances and suspicion regarding her husband's fidelity. The
Judge specifically referred to one of the findings in the report,
which stated:
"Responses indicate the presence of significant conflicts
with her husband. She believes she is under immense
stress due to his behaviour and feels that he does not
understand her. She perceives herself to be facing
numerous troubles in her life."
18. The report also recommended regular psychiatric follow-ups,
individual counselling, and marital counselling. Based on the
evidence on record, the Judge concluded that the findings
confirmed respondent no. 4's suspicious nature toward petitioner
no. 1 herein and observed that false character assassination by
either spouse would invariably constitute matrimonial cruelty.
19. Despite respondent no. 4 herein claiming that she was not
interested in divorce and was always willing to live with petitioner
no. 1 herein, the Judge noted that she did not take any steps to
reconcile or rejoin him. In fact, she never filed a petition for the
restitution of conjugal rights. On the other hand, it was petitioner
no. 2 herein who had written a letter dated 12.11.2017 to the
President of Vishwakarma Sangham, requesting mediation
between respondent no. 4 herein and petitioner no. 1 herein.
During the conciliation meeting, the elders who were called,
namely Dr. Anand Prabhu and Mr. Satyamurthy, interacted with
both parties and advised respondent no. 4 herein to continue her
medical treatment and attend Satsang meetings to help her
overcome her psychological condition. They also suggested that
petitioner no. 1 herein return after some time and take his wife
and children back to the USA. Although both respondent no. 4
herein and petitioner no. 1 herein initially accepted this advice,
the very next day, father of the respondent no. 4 herein abused
the mediators and dismissed their suggestions as incorrect.
20. The Judge also referred to the resolution passed by the
Vishwakarma Sangham, which stated that the mediation failed
due to non-cooperation from the side of respondent no. 4 herein.
Based on this, the Judge concluded that respondent no. 4 herein
failed to prove that she was genuinely willing to reconcile with
petitioner no. 1 herein. Conversely, petitioner no. 1 herein
demonstrated that he had made efforts to resolve the issues
through mediation and counselling, with the involvement of elders
and Vishwakarma Sangham, but these attempts were
unsuccessful due to non-cooperation of the respondent no. 4
herein.
21. Furthermore, the Judge observed that there was little to no
emotional bond between respondent no. 4 herein and her
children, as the children themselves refused to go with her. It was
also noted that although respondent no. 4 herein had handed over
custody of the children in 2017, she never filed a petition seeking
custody thereafter. Additionally, she did not file a petition for
visitation rights, which would have demonstrated her intent to
maintain a relationship with her children. This lack of effort
further reinforced the conclusion that there was no substantial
affection between respondent no. 4 herein and the children.
22. The Judge also addressed the allegation of the respondent
no. 4 herein in her complaint dated 05.12.2017, wherein she
claimed that petitioner nos. 2 and 3 herein had taken her
passport. However, this allegation was found to be false, as
respondent no. 4 herein had subsequently filed a separate
complaint before the Inspector of Police, Narayanguda, on
07.02.2018, stating that she lost her passport while traveling from
Narayanguda to Koti at around 3:30 PM. She had requested the
police to help trace her passport, contradicting her earlier claim.
23. Ultimately, the divorce petition was allowed based on
substantial evidence proving abnormal and cruel behavior of
respondent no. 4 herein. Voice recordings and email
communications submitted in court revealed that respondent no.
4 herein had used derogatory language against her in-laws,
referring to her mother-in-law as a "bitch, monster, devil," her
sister-in-law as a "skeleton bitch," and parents of the petitioner
no. 1 herein as "bastards." The Judge determined that such
behaviour constituted cruelty, justifying the dissolution of the
marriage.
24. Additionally, petitioner no. 1 filed GWOP No. 4 of 2022
under Sections 7 and 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act read with
Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, seeking
permanent custody of his minor children. The Principal Family
Court, in its order dated 09.12.2022, granted permanent custody
of the children to petitioner no. 1 herein. The decision was based
on abnormal behaviour of the respondent no. 4 herein and the
children's reluctance to meet or stay with her. Moreover,
respondent no. 4 herein remained ex parte in the proceedings,
demonstrating a lack of interest in contesting the petition.
Respondent no. 4 herein has neither sought to set aside the order
nor appealed against the ex-parte order.
25. A chronological table outlining the key events in this case is
as follows:
Date Notable Events
28.08.2006 On this day, Petitioner no. 1 and Respondent no. 4
were married.
21.04.2008 On this day, Petitioner no. 1 and Respondent no.
4's daughter, Aishwariya, was born.
07.06.2012 On this day, their son, Amruth, was born.
12.10.2017 Psychological evaluation report dated 12.10.2017
of Respondent No. 4 at Asha Hospital.
11.11.2017 First complaint filed by Respondent No. 4.
12.11.2017 Letter dated 12.11.2017 from Petitioner No. 2 to
the President of Vishwakarma Sangham,
requesting mediation between Respondent No. 4
and Petitioner No. 1.
05.12.2017 Second complaint filed by Respondent No. 4.
18.12.2017 Letter dated 18.12.2017 concerning the complaint
filed on 05.12.2017.
20.01.2018 Petitioner No. 1 filed O.P. No. 119 of 2018 on
20.01.2018 in the Family City Civil Court, seeking
divorce on grounds of cruelty and mental disorder.
23.01.2018 Third complaint filed by Respondent No. 4.
03.02.2018 FIR registered in Crime No. 18 of 2018 under
Sections 498A and 506 of IPC based on the
complaint dated 05.12.2017.
25.02.2022 Filing of GWOP No. 4 of 2022.
09.12.2022 Decree dated 09.12.2022 in GWOP No. 4 of 2022.
30.06.2023 Decree dated 30.06.2023 in O.P. No. 119 of 2018.
As already discussed in the earlier part of this judgment, there
were three complaints that were filed, and respondent no. 4
underwent treatment for mental disorders. She was diagnosed
with mental illness and treated. The differences between
respondent no. 4 and petitioner no. 1 and his family were on
account of the abnormal conduct and behaviour of respondent no.
4. Though it cannot be said that a false complaint was deliberately
filed, however, in the background of the mental condition of
respondent no. 4, being delusional and being treated for her
condition, the allegations made in the complaint, the family Court
proceedings wherein the allegations are the same, and the
subsequent statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has to be
looked into.
26. A bare reading of the three complaints together would reflect
apprehension of the 4th respondent that she may be deserted by
1st petitioner. In the present complaint, respondent no. 4 narrated
the harassment in the home and stated that current wires were
present and that she was asked to water the cement plastering
with a sponge. She questioned in the complaint as to who would
be responsible if she got an electric shock. She also stated that
she was scolded every day and that the doors of her matrimonial
house were closed on her face. Other allegations were also made
which have no connection with one another.
27. The complaint appears to be an outcome of her delusional
mental condition. There was no connection between the
allegations made, and the narration of events in the complaint
reflects vagueness based on assumptions.
28. The Honourable Supreme Court in M. Madhusudhan Rao
(Supra), held as follows:
"16. In order to appreciate the rival stands, it would be useful
to notice the statutory provisions. Section 498-A IPC makes
"cruelty" by husband or his relatives a punishable offence. The
word "cruelty" is defined in the Explanation appended to the
said section. Section 498-A IPC with Explanation reads thus:
"498-A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting
her to cruelty.--Whoever, being the husband or the relative of
the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall
be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to
three years and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation.--For the purposes of this section, 'cruelty'
means--
(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to
drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or
danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the
woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a
view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any
unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on
account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet
such demand."
17. Thus, providing a new dimension to the concept of
"cruelty", clause (a) of Explanation to Section 498-A IPC
postulates that any willful conduct which is of such a nature as
is likely to drive a woman to commit suicide would constitute
"cruelty". Such wilful conduct, which is likely to cause grave
injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or
physical) of the woman would also amount to "cruelty". Clause
(b) of the Explanation provides that harassment of the woman
where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any
person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any
property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her
or any person related to her to meet such demand, would also
constitute "cruelty" for the purpose of Section 498-A IPC.
18. It is plain that as per clause (b) of the Explanation, which,
according to learned counsel for the State, is attracted in the
instant case, every harassment does not amount to "cruelty"
within the meaning of Section 498-A IPC. The definition
stipulates that the harassment has to be with a definite object
of coercing the woman or any person related to her to meet an
unlawful demand. In other words, for the purpose of Section
498-A IPC, harassment simpliciter is not "cruelty" and it is only
when harassment is committed for the purpose of coercing a
woman or any other person related to her to meet an unlawful
demand for property, etc. that it amounts to "cruelty"
punishable under Section 498-A IPC."
29. Clause (a) of the explanation to Section 498-A of IPC defining
'cruelty', requires any willful conduct that is of such a nature as is
likely to drive a woman to commit suicide.
30. Clause (b) of the explanation requires harassment for the
purpose of meeting any unlawful demand. Clause (b) is not
attracted in this case because there is no allegation in the
complaint regarding any kind of harassment for dowry or that
harassment was inflicted to meet such an unlawful demand.
31. The narration of the events in the complaint does not refer to
any deliberate conduct on the part of the petitioners that was
likely to drive a woman to commit suicide. Apart from the
complaint that was registered as an FIR, two more complaints
were lodged on 11.11.2017 and 23.01.2018, which have already
been extracted.
32. In the complaint filed on 11.11.2017, respondent no. 4
stated that the petitioners had falsely created a situation by
claiming that she had a psychiatric problem and needed
treatment. However, she claimed that she had no such problem.
This claim in the complaint is apparently false because she was,
in fact, diagnosed with a mental illness and treated by doctors.
33. The complaint dated 11.11.2017 does not establish any
willful conduct on the part of the petitioners that would amount to
cruelty under Section 498-A IPC.
34. The next complaint was filed on 23.01.2018. The said
complaint was not registered by the police; however, a GD entry
was made, and it was endorsed that the complaint was received
on 13.11.2017. The complaint dated 23.01.2018 mentions her
prior complaint to Begumpet WPS on 13.11.2017 and that
petitioner no. 1 left for the USA. She also mentioned that the
children were living with the petitioners and that a legal notice
had been sent to her for divorce.
35. In the complaint dated 23.01.2018, 4th respondent stated
that she wanted to live with petitioner no. 1 and her children in
the USA. She further stated that her in-laws were continuously
torturing her and taking her to family courts without the presence
of petitioner no. 1.
36. When all the previous complaints are considered along with
the findings of the learned Family Court Judge while granting
divorce, and also the order passed granting guardianship rights to
petitioner no. 1, it is the petitioner who underwent several Court
proceedings and also criminal investigation.
37. The background of a given case must be considered in its
entirety. The argument made by the learned counsel for
respondent no. 4 that the Court should only examine the
allegations in the complaint is incorrect. Even when considering
the complaint, as already discussed, the averments in the
complaint do not constitute cruelty. The allegations in the present
case would be a repetition of the allegations and counter
allegations made by the 1st petitioner and 4th respondent in the
divorce proceedings. The 4th respondent has to face questions
about her mental condition, which would further traumatize her.
38. In the peculiar facts of the present case, wherein multiple
complaints were filed by respondent no. 4, and none of the
complaints contain any allegations that satisfy the ingredients
required to establish cruelty. Though this Court sympathizes with
the mental illness of respondent No.4, however the criminal
proceedings against the petitioners for the reasons discussed
above cannot be permitted to continue.
39. Accordingly, the petitioners succeed in the present writ
petition. The proceedings against them in CC No. 186 of 2018 on
the file of XV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Nampally,
Hyderabad, are hereby quashed.
_________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 02.04.2025
tk
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
WRIT PETITION No.1905 OF 2019
Dt. 02.04.2025
tk
