Page 1

1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10719 OF 2013

Raj Talreja          … Appellant(s)

Versus

Kavita Talreja       …Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

Parties to the appeal got married in 1989 according to

Hindu rites.  Out of this wedlock a son was born in the year

1990.  It is not disputed that till the year 1999 both husband

and wife lived together with the parents of the husband.  In the

year  1999,  the  couple  shifted  to  their  own  residence.   On

19.03.2000, the husband left the matrimonial home and, soon

thereafter, on 25.03.2000, filed a petition for grant of a decree

of divorce dissolving the marriage.  

Page 2

2

2. It is not disputed that the wife filed a suit praying for

injunction that the husband should not be permitted to enter

the  matrimonial  home.   On  07.11.2000,  certain  news  items

appeared in the newspapers in which serious allegations were

made  against  the  husband.   These  newspaper  reports  were

based on the intimation given by the wife.  On 04.12.2000, the

wife filed a complaint to the State Women Commission making

serious  allegations  against  the  husband.   Thereafter,  on

05.12.2000, she sent a similar letter to the Chief Justice of the

High Court as well as the Superintendent of Police.  Finally, on

07.12.2000, she made another complaint to the Chief Minister.

On 16.03.2001, these complaints were found to be false.  On

12.04.2001, a First Information Report (for short the ‘FIR’) was

registered  at  the  instance  of  the  wife  against  the  appellant

husband under Section 452, 323 and 341 of the Indian Penal

Code.  The police investigated the matter and filed a report on

30.04.2001 stating that there is no merit in the FIR.  According

to the police, the injuries on the person of the wife were self

inflicted and she has filed a false FIR.  It  was recommended

Page 3

3

that  the  criminal  proceedings  be  initiated  against  her  under

Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’).  It is not

disputed that till 16.03.2001, such criminal proceedings were

initiated against the wife.   

3. The husband moved an amendment application in the

divorce petition incorporating all these facts and alleging that

due to filing of the false complaints before various authorities

he had been subjected to cruelty by the wife. This is the only

issue raised before us. The learned trial Judge dismissed the

petition.  The appeal filed by the husband was also dismissed.

Hence, this appeal.

4. It would be pertinent to mention that in the year 2012,

11  years  after  the  police  had  submitted its  report  and after

proceedings had been initiated against the wife, the wife filed a

protest  petition  against  the  cancellation  of  FIR  against  the

husband,  in  which  notice  was  issued  by  the  court  below.

However,  on  a  revision  being  filed  by  the  husband,  the

revisional court allowed the revision petition and quashed the

Page 4

4

order  of  the  trial  court.   As  a  result,  there  are  no  criminal

proceedings pending against the husband.     

5. We have heard Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, learned counsel for

the  appellant  and  Ms.  Vibha  Datta  Makhija,  learned  senior

counsel for the respondent.

6. Mr. Agrawal, learned counsel has contended that the acts

of the wife in levelling defamatory allegations and filing false

complaints against the husband amounts to cruelty.  On the

other hand, Ms. Makhija, learned senior counsel has submitted

that her client is not at fault and cruelty has not been proved.

She further submits that her client wants the status of being a

legally  married  woman  and  she  prays  that  the  appeal  be

dismissed.   

7. We may  now refer  to  the  evidence  relied  upon by  the

husband.  The first is a newspaper report dated 07.11.2000, in

which  it  is  reported  that  the  wife  had  alleged  that  she  was

beaten by her husband and his family members many times for

not fulfilling the demand of dowry.  There were allegations that

she was kept like an orphan and twice attempts had been made

Page 5

5

to set her on fire.  These allegations were made in a letter sent

by the wife to the police.  Thereafter, the wife sent a similar

complaint  to  various  authorities  including  the  State  Women

Commission,  Rajasthan.   She  sent  a  telegram  to  the  Chief

Justice  of  the  Rajasthan High  Court  again  alleging  that  her

husband and in-laws had attempted to burn her and engaged

goondas to eliminate her.  Complaint was also made to Chief

Minister of Rajasthan.  The matter was referred to the police.

On investigation by the police, the allegations were found to be

totally false.  Thereafter, the wife filed a complaint against her

husband and 3 other persons alleging house trespass against

them and that she had been assaulted and threatened to leave

the house.  In this case also, the final report of the police is that

the  complaint  is  baseless  and  false  and  the  injuries  were

self-inflicted.

8. As noted above, these findings of the police have attained

finality  and  as  on  date  there  is  no  criminal  case  pending

against  the  husband.   It  is  more  than  obvious  that  the

allegations levelled by the wife are false.  It may be true that

Page 6

6

these allegations were levelled after the divorce petition had

been filed and the wife may have been in an agitated state of

mind.   However,  that  did  not  give  her  a  right  to  make

defamatory statements against the husband.  The falseness of

the allegations is borne out from the fact that the police did

not even find it a fit case to be tried.  After the police filed its

cancellation report, the wife kept silent and after 11 years she

filed a protest petition.   

9. This Court in Para 16 of K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa1

has held as follows:

“16. Thus,  to  the  instances  illustrative  of  mental  cruelty noted in  Samar Ghosh v.  Jaya Ghosh,  2007 (4)  SCC 511,  we could add a few more. Making unfounded indecent defamatory allegations  against  the  spouse  or  his  or  her  relatives  in  the pleadings, filing of complaints or issuing notices or news items which may have adverse impact on the business prospect or the job of the spouse and filing repeated false complaints and cases in the court against the spouse would, in the facts of a case, amount to causing mental cruelty to the other spouse.”

In  Ravi Kumar v.  Julmidevi2, this Court while dealing

with the definition of cruelty held as follows:

“19. It may be true that there is no definition of cruelty under the  said  Act.  Actually  such  a  definition  is  not  possible.  In matrimonial relationship, cruelty would obviously mean absence

1 2013 (5) SCC 226.   2 2010 (4) SCC 476.  

Page 7

7

of mutual respect and understanding between the spouses which embitters the relationship and often leads to various outbursts of behaviour which can be termed as cruelty. Sometime cruelty in a matrimonial relationship may take the form of violence, sometime it may take a different form. At times, it may be just an attitude or  an  approach.  Silence  in  some  situations  may  amount  to cruelty.

20. Therefore,  cruelty  in  matrimonial  behaviour  defies  any definition and its categories  can never  be closed.  Whether the husband is cruel to his wife or the wife is cruel to her husband has  to  be  ascertained  and judged  by  taking  into  account  the entire facts and circumstances of the given case and not by any predetermined rigid formula. Cruelty in matrimonial cases can be of infinite variety—it may be subtle or even brutal and may be by gestures and words. That possibly explains why Lord Denning in Sheldon v.  Sheldon,  (1966)  2  WLR 993 held that  categories  of cruelty in matrimonial cases are never closed.”

10.    Cruelty can never be defined with exactitude.  What is

cruelty will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each

case.  In the present case, from the facts narrated above, it is

apparent that  the wife made reckless,  defamatory and false

accusations  against  her  husband,  his  family  members  and

colleagues, which would definitely have the effect of lowering

his  reputation  in  the  eyes  of  his  peers.   Mere  filing  of

complaints is not cruelty, if there are justifiable reasons to file

the  complaints.   Merely  because no  action is  taken on the

complaint or after trial the accused is acquitted may not be a

ground to treat such accusations of the wife as cruelty within

the meaning of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 (for short ‘the

Page 8

8

Act’).  However, if it is found that the allegations are patently

false,  then there can be no manner of  doubt  that  the  said

conduct  of  a  spouse  levelling  false  accusations  against  the

other spouse would be an act of cruelty.  In the present case,

all  the  allegations  were  found  to  be  false.   Later,  she  filed

another complaint alleging that her husband along with some

other persons had trespassed into her house and assaulted

her.  The police found, on investigation, that not only was the

complaint false but also the injuries were self inflicted by the

wife.  Thereafter, proceedings were launched against the wife

under Section 182 of IPC.   

11.     We have perused the judgment of the High Court.  The

High Court while dealing with the plea of false complaints held

that there was no reason to hold that the criminal complaint

filed by the respondent-wife was false and mala fide.  We are

unable to agree with this finding of the High Court and the

court below.  Both the courts below relied upon the statement

of the wife that her husband had often visited her house and

she fulfilled her marital  obligations.  These observations are

Page 9

9

not based on any reliable or cogent evidence on record.  It is

not disputed before us that the wife continues to live in the

house which belongs to the mother of the husband whereas

the husband lives along with his parents in a separate house

and the son and daughter-in-law of the parties live with the

wife. The son is working with the husband.  We may note that

Ms. Makhija has very fairly stated before us that the husband

had always fulfilled his paternal obligations to his son and is

continuing  to  pay  maintenance  to  his  wife  as  fixed  by  the

court.

12.     Though we have held that the acts of the wife in filing

false complaints against the husband amounts to cruelty, we

are, however, not oblivious to the requirements of the wife to

have  a  decent  house  where  she  can  live.   Her  son  and

daughter-in-law  may  not  continue  to  live  with  her  forever.

Therefore, some permanent arrangement has to be made for

her alimony and residence.  Keeping in view the status of the

parties, we direct that the husband shall pay to the wife a sum

of  Rs.50,00,000/-  (Rupees  Fifty  Lakhs  only)  as  one  time

Page 10

10

permanent alimony and she will not claim any further amount

at any later stage.  This amount be paid within three months

from today.  We further direct that the wife shall continue to

live in the house which belongs to the mother of the husband

till the husband provides her a flat of similar size in a similar

locality.  For this purpose, the husband is directed to ensure

that a flat of the value up to Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One

Crore Only) be transferred in the name of his wife and till it is

provided, she shall continue to live in the house in which she

is residing at present.   

13.     The appeal is accordingly allowed.  The judgment and

order  dated 01.03.2013,  passed by  the  High Court  in  D.B.

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1432 of 2004 and the judgment

and decree  dated 05.08.2004,  passed by  the  Family  Court,

Udaipur  in  Civil  Case  No.  56  of  2000  are  set  aside.   The

petition for divorce filed by the husband under Section 13 of

the Act is decreed and the marriage of the parties solemnized

on 13.04.1989 is dissolved by a decree of divorce.  The wife

shall  be  entitled  to  permanent  alimony  of  Rs.  50,00,000/-

Page 11

11

(Rupees Fifty Lakhs Only) and a residential flat of the value of

up to Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Only), as directed

hereinabove.   Pending  application(s),  if  any,  stand(s)

disposed of.

…………………………………..J. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL)

…………………………………..J. (DEEPAK GUPTA)

New Delhi April 24, 2017