Are False Police Complaints Mental Cruelty?

K. Srinivas Rao and D.A. Deepa married on 25 April 1999 according to Hindu rites. The next day, elders on both sides quarrelled, abused one another and hurled chappals. On 27 April 1999, Deepa's parents took her to their house. The marriage was never consummated.

On 4 October 1999, Deepa lodged a complaint with the Women Protection Cell in Hyderabad alleging dowry harassment. The complaint also alleged that Srinivas Rao's mother had asked her to sleep with his father. It led to a case under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, and Srinivas Rao and his parents had to apply for anticipatory bail, which was granted. Deepa then withdrew the complaint and the police filed a closure report. She next filed a protest petition, and the Magistrate Court took cognizance and renumbered the case as C.C. No. 62/2002.

In 2008, the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate convicted Srinivas Rao under Section 498-A and sentenced him to six months' simple imprisonment. His parents were acquitted. After that judgment, Deepa and her parents complained to the High Court that, since he was convicted, he should be dismissed from service. Srinivas Rao was an Assistant Registrar in the Andhra Pradesh High Court.

Deepa also filed Criminal Appeal No. 1219/2008 in the High Court. It questioned the acquittal of Srinivas Rao and his parents under the Dowry Prohibition Act, and the acquittal of his parents under Section 498-A. Separately, she filed Criminal Revision Case No. 1560/2008 seeking enhancement of the punishment awarded to him. In 2010 the Metropolitan Sessions Judge acquitted Srinivas Rao on his own appeal, and Deepa challenged that acquittal in the High Court too.

Meanwhile, Deepa had filed O.P. No. 88/2001 in the Family Court, Secunderabad, seeking restitution of conjugal rights. Srinivas Rao filed a counter-claim for divorce on 27 December 2002 on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. The Family Court dismissed her petition and granted him a divorce. It held that the Rs.10,00,000 dowry-demand story was false. The Andhra Pradesh High Court reversed that decree. It said the finding that a police complaint amounted to cruelty was perverse, and that the couple had not lived together for long.

Deepa's case was that her father had given Rs.80,000 and 15 tolas of gold, that the other side demanded another Rs.10,00,000, and that she went to court after Srinivas Rao failed to keep an assurance. The Supreme Court found the indecent allegation against the mother-in-law to be false, relying on the evidence of Deepa's own mother.

Under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, either spouse can seek divorce if the other has treated the petitioner with cruelty after marriage. Cruelty is evident where one spouse has so treated the other and manifested such feelings as to cause a reasonable apprehension that living with that spouse will be harmful or injurious. Cruelty may be physical or mental.

The High Court took the view that, since the two did not stay together, there was no question of their causing cruelty to each other. It also held that the Family Court's conclusion of mental cruelty rested on presumptions and assumptions.

The Supreme Court therefore had to decide whether false, indecent and defamatory complaints, followed by appeals, a revision and job-removal complaints, could cause mental cruelty even though the spouses never lived together.

The Supreme Court said it was unable to agree with the High Court. It identified the first instance of mental cruelty as the scurrilous, vulgar and defamatory statement in Deepa's 4 October 1999 complaint. It then held that her later conduct showed she made all attempts to ensure that he and his parents were put in jail and he was removed from his job.

On the High Court's no-cohabitation theory, the Court said:

• It closed the High Court's no-cohabitation loophole. A spouse can cause mental cruelty while staying away, by sending vulgar and defamatory letters or notices, filing complaints containing indecent allegations, or initiating a number of judicial proceedings that make the other spouse's life miserable.
• It added to the examples of mental cruelty. Unfounded, indecent, defamatory allegations against the spouse or relatives, complaints or notices that may harm the spouse's job or business prospects, and repeated false complaints and cases can, in the facts of a case, amount to mental cruelty.

The Court first tried to bring about a settlement. Deepa said she wanted to go back to Srinivas Rao, but he was not willing to take her back. Quoting an earlier case, the Court said her claim appeared "too desolate, merely born out of despair rather than based upon any real, concrete or genuine purpose or aim", and that it felt the same on these facts. It dissolved the marriage. It ordered Srinivas Rao to pay Rs.15,00,000 as permanent alimony in three instalments, because Deepa had fought the litigation for more than ten years and appeared to be entirely dependent on her parents and brother.

• Documents to gather first: The Court relied on the complaint itself, which was part of the record and the pleadings, and on the cross-examination of Deepa's mother to show the allegation was false. Collect the actual complaint, the criminal case papers, judgments, appeals, revision petitions, and any letters or complaints to the employer or High Court seeking removal from the job.
• Which forum: Seek a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, in the Family Court, as Srinivas Rao did by counter-claim. In this case he also pleaded desertion under Section 13(1)(b). Under Section 9 of the Family Courts Act, the Family Courts shall make all efforts to settle matrimonial disputes through mediation. The Court directed that even if the Counsellors submit a failure report, the Family Courts shall, with the consent of the parties, refer the matter to the mediation centre.
• If a 498-A complaint is already pending: The Court said that, in suitable cases where the parties genuinely settle, they can approach the High Court under its Section 482 powers to quash the complaint. It recorded in 2013 that the offence was non-compoundable except in Andhra Pradesh, and the High Court will quash only if it finds the settlement equitable and genuine.