Supreme Court Warns Women Against Repeated False Complaints - Crying Wolf Ground For Divorce

Source :  The Times of India Nov 26, 2006

Dhananjay Mahapatra | TNN

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has cautioned women facing harassment in their matrimonial homes to be truthful in their complaints before the anti-dowry cell of police, because if their complaints are repeatedly found to be false, the courts could grant divorce on this ground alone.

This ruling came in a case pertaining to a couple, Rishikesh Sharma and Saroj, who were married in 1972, had a daughter in 1975 but developed differences which lead the wife to start living separately since 1981. While she filed several criminal complaints against him, the husband moved the trial court in 1989, for divorce on grounds of mental cruelty and desertion by wife. First, the trial court at Gwalior and then the Madhya Pradesh HC dismissed his plea. Hearing his appeal, an apex court Bench comprising Justices A R Lakshmanan and Tarun Chatterjee noted that the couple was living separately since 1981 and that their marriage had broken down irretrievably.

The wife had repeatedly filed criminal cases against the husband which could not be substantiated in court, the Bench said and felt that there was no point in keeping the marriage alive as both were nearing 50 years of age and their only daughter was married.

Faulting the HC order not granting divorce as sought by the husband, the Bench said, ‘"The HC has not considered the allegations made by the wife which have been repeatedly made and repeatedly found baseless by courts. Therefore, the best course in our opinion is to dissolve the marriage by passing a decree of divorce so that the parties, who are litigating since 1981 and have lost a valuable part of their life, can live peacefully in the remaining part of their life."

During the hearing, the husband offered to pay a lumpsum amount as permanent alimony to the wife, who refused the money and expressed willingness to live with him. "We are of the opinion that her desire to live with her husband at this stage and at this distance of time is not genuine. Therefore, we are not accepting this suggestion made by the wife and reject the same," the Bench said while granting divorce to the husband who had first sought it 17 years ago.