K. SRINIVAS versus K. SUNITA

Citation: [2014] 11 S.C.R. 298 · Decided: 19-11-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: VIKRAMAJIT SEN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2014) 11 S.C.R. 298 
K. SRINIVAS 
v. 
K. SUNITA 
(Civil Appeal No. 1213 of 2006) 
NOVEMBER 19, 2014 
[VIKRAMAJIT SEN AND PRAFULLA C. PANT,, JJ.] 
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: 
C 
s.13(1)(ia) - Divorce on ground of cruelty - Filing of 
false criminal complaint by wife against husband and other 
family members of husband amounts to cruelty -
The 
husband can claim dissolution of marriage even when one 
such complaint is made. 
D 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. Irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a 
ground for divorce has not found statutory acceptance 
till date. Under Article 142 of the Constitution, th1: 
E Supreme Court has plenary powers "to pass such 
decree or make such order as is necessary for doing 
complete justice in any case or order pending before it". 
This power, however, has not been bestowed by our 
Constitution on any other Court. The Law Commission 
F of India in its Reports in 1978 as well as in 2009 has 
recommended the introduction of irretrievable breakdown 
of marriage as a ground for dissolution of marriage; the 
Marriage Laws (Amendment) Bill of 2013 incorporating the 
ground has even received the assent of the Rajya Sabha. 
G It is, however, highly debatable whether, in the Indian 
situation, where there is rampant oppression of women, 
such a ground would at all be expedient. But that 
controversy will be considered by the Lok Sabha. [Para 
3] [301-G-H; 302-A-C] 
H 
298 
• 
• 
K. SRINIVAS v. K. SUNITA 
299 
2. The respondent-wife has admitted in her cross-
A 
examination that she did not mention all the incidents on 
which her complaint is predicated, in her statement under 
Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. It was not her case that she had 
actually narrated all these facts to the Investigating 8 
Officer, but that he had neglected to mention them. This 
clearly indicated that the criminal complaint was a 
contrived afterthought. The view of the High Court that 
the criminal complaint was "ill advised" is affirmed. 
Adding thereto is the factor that the High Court had been 
C 
informed of the acquittal of the appellant-husband and 
members of his family. In these circumstances, the High 
Court ought to have ~oncluded that the respondent-wife 
knowingly and int6ntionally filed a false complaint, 
calculated to embarras~ and incarcerate the appellant and o 
seven members of his family and that such conduct 
unquestionably constitutes cruelty as postulated in 
Section 13(1 )(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The 
respondent-wife had filed a false criminal complaint, and 
even one such complaint is sufficient to constitute E 
matrimonial cruelty. The marriage of the parties is 
dissolved under Section 13(1) (ia) of the Act. [Paras 5, 7 
and 8] [303-B-E; 304-A-B] 
K. Srinivas Rao vs. D.A. Deepa 2013 (5) SCC 226 -
F 
relied on. 
Case Law Reference: 
2013(5) sec 225 
relied on 
Para 1 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
1213 of 2006. 
G 
From the Judgment & oraer dated 7.11.2005 of the High 
Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in C.M.A. 
H 
Nos. 605 and 673 of 2000. 
A 
B 
300 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014) 11 S.C.R. 
D. Rama Krishna Reddy, D. Bharathi Reddy for the 
Appellant. 
Yashvardhan, Piyush Singh, S.K. Sabharwal for the 
Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J. 1. In this Appeal, counsel for the 
Appellant has sought to draw our attention to all the arguments 
• 
C 
that had been addressed before the High Court on behalf of 
the Appellant-Husband in support of his claim for dissolution 
of his marriage to the Respondent by a decree of divorce under 
Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. We have, 
however, restricted him to the ground of alleged cruelty on 
o account of the filing of a criminal complaint by the Respondent 
against the Appellant and several members of his family under 
Sections 498A and 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). We 
did this for the reason that if this ground is successfully 
substantiated by the Petitioner, we need not delve any further 
E 
i.e. whether a marriage can be dissolved by the Trial Court or 
the High Court on the premise that the marriage has irretrievably 
broken down. This nature of cruelty, in the wake of filing of a 
false criminal case by either of the spouses, has been agitated 
frequently before this Court, and has been discussed so 
F 
comprehensively and thoroughly that yet another Judgment on 
this well-settled question of law, would be merely a waste of 
time. 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.