Dismissed

Sindhu P.V v. Sreejith Balakrishnan

Kerala HC20 Sept 2021Mat.Appeal/649/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this matrimonial appeal filed by the wife, the High Court upheld the Family Court's decree dissolving the marriage granted to the husband. The Court ruled that the wife's filing of false criminal complaints and domestic violence allegations against the husband and his relatives amounted to matrimonial cruelty, justifying the divorce.

What did the court decide?

The matrimonial appeal was dismissed; the decree for dissolution of marriage granted to the husband under the impugned judgment was upheld.

Sindhu P.V Vs Sreejith Balakrishnan — Matrimonial and Divorce | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH MONDAY, THE 20^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 29TH BHADRA, 1943

¶6

MAT.APPEAL NO. 649 OF 2020

¶7

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 11.6.2020 IN OP 700/2011 OF FAMILY COURT, KANNUR

¶8

APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:

¶9

SINDHU P.V AGED 37 YEARS D/O.SUDHARMAN, PUTHIYAVALAPPIL HOUSE, MANGAD, KALLIASSERY P.O., KALLIASSERY VILLAGE, KANNUR TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV UNNI. K.K. (EZHUMATTOOR)

¶11

RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:

¶12

SREEJITH BALAKRISHNAN,

¶13

AGED 44 YEARS S/O.BALAKRISHNAN, DEVADHATHAM, NADUVANADU P.O., MATTANNUR, CHAVASSERY VILLAGE, THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶14

BY ADV SRI.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN

¶15

THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15.09.2021, THE COURT ON 20.9.2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

Mat.Appeal No.649/2020

¶17

-:2:-

¶18

Dated this the 20th day of September, 2021

¶19

Kauser Edappagath, J.

¶20

The wife is the appellant and the husband is the respondent. The husband filed O.P.No. 700/2011 at Family Court, Kannur (for short 'the court below') for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty and desertion. The court below as per the judgment dated 12.3.2013 dismissed the petition. The husband challenged the said judgment before this Court in Mat.Appeal No. 577/2013. This Court, as per judgment dated 11.10.2019, allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the court below for fresh disposal. The main purpose of remand was to consider the documents produced by the husband before this Court as per IA.No.1/2019 in Mat.Appeal No. 577/2013 to substantiate his allegation that the wife has initiated false criminal prosecution and made false complaint before

¶21

Mat.Appeal No.649/2020

¶22

-:3:-

¶23

various authorities against him and his relatives. After remand, the court below relying on those documents and fresh evidence adduced, found that the wife has initiated false criminal prosecution and false complaint before various authorities against the husband and his relatives and the said act would amount to matrimonial cruelty. Accordingly, original petition was allowed granting divorce as per the impugned decree and judgment. The said decree and judgment are under challenge in this appeal.

¶24

We have heard Sri. K.K. Unni, the learned counsel for

¶25

the appellant and Sri. C.P. Peethambaran, the learned counsel for the respondent.

¶26

The evidence on record would show that the wife has filed a private complaint before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court against the husband, his parents, his sister and sister's husband alleging offence under Section 498A of the IPC. The said complaint was forwarded to the police for investigation and crime was registered. After investigation, the final report was filed and the case was tried as C.C.No. 947/2011. After a full

¶27

Mat.Appeal No.649/2020

¶28

-:4:-

¶29

fledged trial, all the accused were acquitted. At the time of the disposal of the original petition on the earlier occasion by the court below, C.C.No. 947/2011 was not disposed. It was disposed of during the pendency of Mat. Appeal No. 577/2013. Similarly, the wife had filed Ext.X1 complaint before C.I. of Police, Women Cell, Kannur against the husband, his parents, sister, and sister's husband alleging harassment and cruelty on their part. The wife has also filed M.C.No.6/2010 against her husband, his sister and sister's husband at the JFCM-I, Kannur under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short 'the Domestic Violence Act) alleging domestic violence. The definite case of the husband is that all these complaints are false and frivolous intended only to harass him and his family members and it will amount to matrimonial cruelty.

¶30

No doubt, making false complaints and initiating false

¶31

criminal prosecution by one spouse against other constitutes mental cruelty. In K. Srinivas v. K Sunitha [(2014) 16 SCC

¶32

34], the Apex Court held that filing false complaints against the

¶33

Mat.Appeal No.649/2020

¶34

-:5:-

¶35

husband and his family members under Sections 498A and 307 of the IPC will amount to matrimonial cruelty defined under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act. In Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli [AIR 2006 SC 1675], the Apex Court held that making false complaints before the police and authorities causing innumerable mental stress and making false and defamatory allegations will amount to mental cruelty. In David M D v. K G Mercy [2013 (3) KHC 739], the Division Bench of this Court has held that making false allegations against the husband and child and making false complaints to the authorities by the wife will amount to cruelty. In Srinivas (supra), the criminal complaint was filed by the wife after filing of husband's divorce petition. Still, it was taken into consideration being a subsequent event, to grant divorce.

¶36

Coming to the evidence on record, the private complaint filed by the wife before the JFCM Court, Mattannur has been marked as Ext.A3 and the copy of the judgment in C.C.No. 947/2011 has been produced and marked as Ext.A4. The copy of the order in MC.No. 6/2010 on the file of the JFCM-I, Kannur has

¶37

Mat.Appeal No.649/2020

¶38

-:6:-

¶39

been produced and marked as Ext.A6. The copy of the order in RP(FC) No. 474/2014 on the files of the High Court of Kerala has been marked as Ext.B1. In Ext.A6, it was specifically found that the wife has failed to prove that she suffered any physical as well as mental abuse at the hands of the husband and in-laws. Ext.B1 is the order of the High Court, confirming the order in Ext.A6. A perusal of Ext.A4 would show that there is clear observation doubting the veracity and genuineness of the prosecution case. It shows that the said initiation of criminal prosecution is false. From Exts.A6 and B1 also, it is clear that the filing of complaints before the Magistrate Court under the provision of the Domestic Violence Act was also false. It was observed in Ext.A6 that no act of domestic violence was committed by the husband against the wife and her relatives. Ext.X1 would show that the wife filed a complaint against her husband, parents and sister before the Women Cell, Kannur. After enquiry, no action was taken against the husband. Filing false complaints and false initiation of criminal prosecution by the wife against the husband, his parents, sister and sister's husband

¶40

Mat.Appeal No.649/2020

¶41

-:7:-

¶42

as stated above will definitely constitute mental cruelty. Hence, we are of the view that the husband has made out a case for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty and the court below rightly granted a decree for dissolution of marriage to the husband. We see no merit in the appeal.

¶43

In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No costs.

¶44

Sd/-

¶45

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶46

JUDGE

¶47

Sd/-

¶48

DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH

¶49

JUDGE

¶50

kp True copy

¶51

P.A. to Judge

Sindhu P.V v. Sreejith Balakrishnan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sindhu P.V v. Sreejith Balakrishnan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lalu, Vs Sheeja

Biju Paul Vs Roobi Paul

Roobi Vs Biju Paul

Ajeesh.P.M Vs Nima K.K

Anitha Vs Sreejith

Rajendran Vs Jancy