It is very cruel to make false allegations of rape and dowry harassment against the husband’s family: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court recently noted that for a wife to make false allegations of rape and dowry harassment against her husband’s family members is extreme cruelty which cannot be condoned.

Division of judges Suresh Kumar Kite And Nina Bansal Krishna He added that such false complaints by the wife against her husband constitute mental cruelty The husband can file for divorce on this basis.

“It cannot be condoned that making serious allegations, not only of dowry harassment, but of rape against members of the defendant’s family, which were found to be false, is an act of extreme cruelty which cannot be condoned.… Finally, if these allegations are found to be unwarranted and unfounded, the husband can allege mental cruelty and demand a divorce on this ground.“,” said the court.

The court was dealing with an appeal by a woman challenging a family court order of November 11, 2021 granting a divorce to the husband on the grounds of mental cruelty.

The court learned that the couple got married on November 24, 2012 as per Hindu rites and customs, but the wife left the marital home on February 19, 2014.

She alleged that the husband never granted her his legal file status, and that on February 17, 2014, her brother-in-law raped her.

She further stated that the husband and his family would make fun of her for being disabled and for not bringing enough dowry.

However, the court found that although a case was filed under sections 498a (cruelty towards women) and 376 (rape) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against the husband and his brother, they were acquitted of all allegations. She also indicated that the wife wrote a letter of apology in which she said that there was no harassment as she claimed.

The court further noted that there was no evidence that the marriage had not been consummated as alleged. Rather, the court considered that there was sufficient evidence proving that the appellant (the wife) was reluctant to live with her husband.

The court stressed that depriving one of the spouses from the company of the other is an act of extreme cruelty and that the bedrock of any marital relationship is cohabitation and the marital relationship.

“Depriving the spouses of each other’s company indicates that the marriage cannot last, and such deprivation of the marital relationship is an act of extreme cruelty.” said the court.

In delving into the issue of cruelty, the court held that there was no direct way to categorically classify or define what it could be. rude.

The court emphasized that it was the effect of the behaviour, rather than its nature, that was of paramount importance in assessing a complaint of cruelty.

“The court must take into account the physical and mental conditions of the parties as well as their social status, it must take into account the influence of the personality and behavior of one of the spouses on the mind of the other, and weigh all events and quarrels between the spouses.” The spouses from this point of view, and this behavior must be examined in the light of the complainant’s ability and tolerance and to what extent this characteristic was known to the other spouse. Malicious intent is not necessary to cruelty but is an important component where it is present.explained the court.

In this case, the court also noted that the couple had been living apart for nearly nine years. The court said this was an example The ultimate in mental crueltyWhich called for the immediate severance of the marital relationship.

Therefore, the court upheld the family court’s order and rejected the wife’s appeal.

Lawyer Pradeep Kumar appeared to the wife.

And the husband appeared in person.