RAJ TALREJA versus KAVITA TALREJA

Citation: [2017] 4 S.C.R. 385 · Decided: 24-04-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ADARSH KUMAR GOEL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2017] 4 S.C.R. 385 
RAJ TALREJA 
A 
. 
v. 
KAVITA TALREJA 
(Civil Appeal No. I 0719 of 2013) 
APRIL 24, 2017 
B 
• 
[ADARSH KUMAR GOEL AND DEEPAK GUPTA, JJ.] 
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: 
s.13 - Divorce Petition by husband - Amendment thereof, 
sought by husband on ground that due to false complaints filed by 
C 
his wife against him, he had been su~jected to cruelty - Held: The 
wife made reckless, defamatory and false accusations against 
husband, his family members and colleagues, which de.finitely had 
the effect of lowering the reputation of the husband in the eyes of 
his peers - It amounted to cruelty - Marriage of parties dissolved D 
by decree of divorce. 
s.25 - Permanent alimony and maintenance - Held: Court 
not to be oblivious to the requirements of wife, keeping in view the 
status of the parties - Direction to husband to pay the wife Rs.50 
lakhs as one time permanent alimony - Wife to continue to live in 
the house in which she was residing, till the husband provided her 
a flat of similar size in a similar locality. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. Cruelty can never be defined with exactitude. 
E 
What is cruelty will depend upon the facts and circumstances of F 
each case. In the present case, it is apparent that the wife made 
reckless, defamatory and false accusations against her husband, 
his family members and colleagues, which would definitely llave 
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. However, if it is found that the allegations 
G 
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. The petition for divorce 
filed by the husband under Section 13 of the Act is decreed and 
H 
385 
386 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 4 S.C.R. 
· A 
the marriage of the parties is dissolved by a decree of divorce. 
[Paras 10, 13)(389-G-H; 390-A-C; 391-D] 
2. In the present case, all the allegations made by wife were 
found to be false. The acts of the wife in filing false complaibts 
against the husband amounts to cruelty, however, one cannot be 
B 
oblivious to the requirements of the wife to have a decent house 
where she can live. Some permanent arrangement has to be 
made for her alimony and residence. Keeping in view the status 
of the parties, the husband shall pay to the wife a sum of 
Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs only) as one time permanent 
alimony. The wife shall continue to live in the house which belongs 
C 
to the mother of the husband till the husband provides her a flat 
of similar size in a similar locality. [Paras 10, 13][390-C, G-H; 
391-A-B] 
D 
E 
K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa (2013) 5 SCC 226 : 
(2013] 2 SCR 126; Ravi Kumar v. Julmidevi (2010) 4 
SCC 476 : [2010] 2 SCR 545 - referred to. 
Case Law Reference 
(2013) 2 SCR 126 
[2010] 2 SCR 545 
referred to 
Para 9 
referred to 
Para 9 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. I 0719 
of2013. 
' From the Judgment and Order dated 01.03.2013 of the High Court 
of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in D. B. Civil Miscellaneous 
F 
Appeal No. 1432 of2004. 
G 
Gaurav Agrawal, S. K. Verma, Advs. for the Appellant. 
Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, Sr. Adv., Akshat Shrivastava, Ms. Disha, 
Advs. for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DEEPAK GUPTA, J. I. 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 ! 999 both husband and 
wife lived together with the parents of the husband. In the year l 999, 
the couple shifted to their own residence. On 19.03.2000, the husband 
H 
left the matrimonial home and, soon thereafter, on 25.03.2000, filed a 
RAJ TALREJA v. KAVITA TALREJA 
387 
[DEEPAK GUPTA, J.] 
petition for grant of a decree of divorce dissolving the marriage. 
A 
2. lt is not disputed thatthe 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, 
B 
the wife filed a complaint to the State Women Commission making serious 
allegations against the husband. Thereafter, on 05.12.2000, she sent a
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.