LOVELY

PROFESSIONAL
UNIVERSITY

School of Law
COURSE CODE : LAW 203
COURSE TITLE : FAMILY LAW-I
NAME OF FACULTY : DR. ABHILASHA JOSHI KATARIA

Reg. No : 12008186
Name : Kumar Ankit
Class : L2003
Roll No : RL2003A07

-1-
 Acknowledgement
It is my proud privilege to express the feelings of my
gratitude to several persons who helped me directly
or indirectly to prepare this class assignment. I
express my heart full indebtedness and owe a deep
sense of gratitude to my teacher Dr. Abhilasha Joshi
Kataria, for her sincere guidance, encouragement
and inspiration in completing this

Class Assignment - 2.
I also thank my family and friends who have more
or less contributed to the preparation of this
assignment. I will always be indebted to them.
The study has indeed helped me to explore more
knowledgeable avenues related to my topic and I am
sure it will help me in my future.

-2-
 RANI NARASIMHA SASTRY
v.
RANI SUNEELA RANI

S. No. Table of Contents Page No.

1. Topic 4

2. Bench 4

3. Appellants & Respondent 4

4. Related Law Sections 4

5. Facts 5

6. Issues 6

7. Proceedings before the trial court 6

8. Proceedings before the HC 7

9. Proceedings before the SC 6

10. Judgement 8

11. Analysis 8

12. Current status 9

-3-
RANI NARASIMHA SASTRY v. RANI SUNEELA RANI

on 19 November, 2019

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8871 OF 2019

ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO. 1981 OF 2019

TOPIC

Acquittal under Section 498A IPC may become a ground for the husband to seek divorce
due to mental cruelty.

BENCH

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHUSHAN

&

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA

APPELLANT

RANI NARASIMHA SASTRY (HUSBAND)

RESPONDENT

RANI SUNEELA RANI (WIFE)

RELATED LAW SECTIONS

(a) Section 13 (1) (i-a), The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

(b) Section 13 (1) (iii), The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

(c) Section 498A IPC

-4-
FACTS

• In this case, the appellant is the husband (Rani Narasimha Sastry) and the respondent is the
wife (Rani Suneela Rani)

• The appellant and the respondent got married on 14-08-2005 at Annavaram Sri Veera
Venkata Sathyanarayana Swamy Temple of East Godavari District of Andhra Pradesh.

• The couple got separated after 18 months of marriage on 17-01-2007 and thereafter they
have been living separately for more than 10 years.

• False complaints had been filed by the wife against the husband and his family members.

• FIR Criminal No.148/2007 in which charge-sheet No.672 of 2007 was submitted against
the appellant and his sister-in-law on the basis of which charge under Section 498-A of
Indian Penal Code (IPC) was framed and the appellant was tried by the Court of
Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad.

• The Cyberabad Court held the husband not guilty of offence under Section 498-A IPC and
he was acquitted after which he filed a case for divorce on the grounds of cruelty

• The appellant filed O.P. No. 109/2007 in the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, R.R.
District, L.B. Nagar under
o Section 13(1) (i-a) of HMA,1955 [divorce on the ground of cruelty]
o 13(1)(iii) of HMA,1955 [divorce on the ground of mental illness of respondent

seeking divorce from the respondent.

• Thus, the petition was basically filed on two grounds- cruelty and mental illness of the
respondent.

-5-
ISSUES
Whether the ground for divorce under Section 13(1) (i-a) of Hindu Marriage Act 1955 [divorce
on the ground of cruelty] is valid or not, when person is acquitted under Section 498A IPC.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT

The petition was dismissed by the trial court on the basis of the evidence adduced by the
appellant. The appellant failed to prove cruelty and mental illness of the respondent. Therefore,
the appellant aggrieved by Trial Court’s order filed an appeal in the High Court at Hyderabad.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE HIGH COURT

The High Court refused to grant divorce to the husband by observing that merely because the
wife had sought for maintenance or had filed a complaint against him for the offence
punishable under Section 498-A of IPC, they cannot be said to be valid grounds for holding
that such a recourse adopted by her amounts to cruelty.

Therefore, the appeal was dismissed by the High Court stating the grounds as invalid and
ultimately the matter came before Hon’ble Supreme court after an appeal was filed.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT

While deciding the matter the SC observed that, “The petition filed by appellant for dissolution
of marriage on the ground of cruelty and mental illness has been rejected. With regard to
second ground i.e. mental illness of the respondent, no serious efforts have been made to
question the findings of the Court below which ground has rightly rejected by the court below.”

The Court has also observed that respondent is working as Sanskrit Lecturer, hence, there is
no merit in the submission of the appellant that respondent is suffering from mental illness.

-6-
The ground which was pressed by the appellant before the Trial Court and the High Court was
ground of cruelty.

Hence the only issue to be determined by the court was whether the ground for divorce under
Section 13 (1) (i-a) has been made out or not?

The SC observed that the charges under Section 498A of IPC are of high gravity and the
husband has undergone trial which resulted in his acquittal. There has been recording of serious
allegation being levelled against each other.

Further, disapproving the view taken by the High Court, the bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan
and Justice Navin Sinha noted that averments, accusations and character assassination of the
wife by the husband in the written statement constitutes mental cruelty for sustaining the claim
for divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Act. It said:

“The above observation of the High Court cannot be approved. It is true that it is open for
anyone to file complaint or lodge prosecution for redressal for his or her grievances and lodge
a first information report for an offence also and mere lodging of complaint or FIR cannot
ipso facto be treated as cruelty. But when a person undergoes a trial in which he is acquitted
of the allegation of offence under Section 498-A of IPC, levelled by the wife against the
husband, it cannot be accepted that no cruelty has meted on the husband.”

Regarding this, the bench further noted:

“In the present case the prosecution is launched by the respondent against the appellant under
Section 498-A of IPC making serious allegations in which the appellant had to undergo trial
which ultimately resulted in his acquittal. In the prosecution under Section 498-A of IPC not
only acquittal has been recorded but observations have been made that allegations of serious
nature are levelled against each other. The case set up by the appellant seeking decree of
divorce on the ground of cruelty has been established.”

So the appellant in this case seeking divorce under section 13(1)(i-a) decree has rightly
established the ground of cruelty.

-7-
JUDGEMENT

The Apex Court took the view of the High Court into consideration which states that:

"Merely because the respondent has sought for maintenance or has filed a complaint against
the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC, they cannot be said to be
valid grounds for holding that such a recourse adopted by the respondent amounts to cruelty"

The Apex Court dissented this view of the High Court and stated that:

"When a person undergoes a trial in which he is acquitted of the allegation of offence under
Section 498-A of IPC, levelled by the wife against the husband, it cannot be accepted that no
cruelty has meted on the husband."

The Apex Court allowed the appeal and granted the divorce decree to the appellant.

ANALYSIS
The appellant appearing in-person submitted that he has made out a case for grant of
dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty but the Court below erred in law in rejecting
the application. He submitted that false complaints have been filed by the respondent against
the appellant and his family members and criminal cases (referring to to an FIR filed under
Section 498A IPC, i.e., Husband or relative subjecting cruelty on wife; in which Court
acquitted the husband and his family) have also been initiated which fully prove the cruelty on
the part of the respondent.

The petition filed by appellant for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty and mental
illness was rejected by the Trial Court and High Court. With regard to second ground i.e.
mental illness of the respondent, no serious efforts was made. Also, the Court observed that
respondent is working as Sanskrit Lecturer, hence, there was no merit in the submission of the
appellant that respondent is suffering from mental illness. Therefore, the ground which was
pressed by the appellant before the court was ground of cruelty. Before the court, the appellant

-8-
has relied several incidents of cruelty allegedly meted out by the respondent towards him and
his family members.

The Supreme Court ruled that when a husband undergoes a trial in which he is acquitted of the
allegation of offense leveled by his wife under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code, it cannot
be said that no cruelty has meted on him. Therefore, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal
and granted the divorce decree to the appellant.

CURRENT STATUS
The bench of Justice Bhushan and Justice Sinha in the case titled RANI NARASIMHA
SASTRY vs RANI SUNEELA RANI on 19.11.2019 has observed that once acquitted for an
offence under Section-498A, husband can claim cruelty and seek divorce.

Filing of IPC 498A cases by women on husbands is very common in context of overall
matrimonial proceedings. People are aware of their misuse as a legal weapon and a tool of
harassment, though many are unaware that it is also used as a tool for leverage. Usually, many
husbands settle cases before seeing their final end, and they don't get to use full benefit of the
acquittal in IPC 498A case had it run through full trial.

This particular case may open door for those men against whom false allegations are levelled
by their wives under section 498A IPC since, in this particular case, the husband waited
patiently and used the fact of acquittal in magistrate court in IPC 498A case to get decree of
divorce on ground of cruelty.

-9-