Page 1 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1794 OF 2013

(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 4782 of

2007)

K. SRINIVAS RAO … APPELLANT

Versus

D.A. DEEPA … RESPONDENT

JUDGMENT

(SMT.) RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, J.

1.Leave granted.

2. This appeal, by special leave, has been filed by the

appellant-husband, being aggrieved by the judgment and

order dated 8/11/2006 passed by the Andhra Pradesh High

Court in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.797/03, setting aside

the decree of divorce granted in his favour.

Page 2 3.The appellant-husband is working as Assistant Registrar

in the Andhra Pradesh High Court. The marriage between the

appellant-husband and the respondent-wife was solemnized

on 25/4/1999 as per Hindu rites and customs. Unfortunately,

on the very next day disputes arose between the elders on

both sides which resulted in their abusing each other and

hurling chappals at each other. As a consequence, on

27/4/1999, the newly married couple got separated without

consummation of the marriage and started living separately.

On 4/10/1999, the respondent-wife lodged a criminal

complaint against the appellant-husband before the Women

Protection Cell alleging inter alia that the appellant-husband

is harassing her for more dowry. This complaint is very

crucial to this case. We shall advert to it more in detail a

little later. Escalated acrimony led to complaints and

counter complaints. The respondent-wife filed a petition

under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for

restitution of conjugal rights before the Family Court,

Secunderabad. The appellant-husband filed a counter-claim

seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty and

2

Page 3 desertion under Section 13(1)(i-a) and (b) of the Hindu

Marriage Act, 1955.

4.The Family Court while dismissing the petition for

restitution of conjugal rights and granting decree of divorce

inter alia held that the respondent-wife stayed in the

appellant-husband’s house only for a day, she admitted that

she did not have any conversation with anyone and hence

any amount of oral evidence adduced by her will not support

her plea that she was harassed and driven out of the house;

that the story that the appellant-husband made a demand of

dowry of Rs.10,00,000/- is false; that by filing false complaint

against the appellant-husband and his family, alleging

offence under Section 498-A of the IPC in the Metropolitan

Magistrate Court, Hyderabad and by filing complaints

against the appellant-husband in the High Court where he is

working, the respondent-wife caused mental cruelty to the

appellant-husband and that reunion was not possible. The

Family Court directed the appellant-husband to repay

Rs.80,000/- given by the respondent-wife’s father to him

3

Page 4 with interest at 8% per annum from the date of the marriage

till payment.

5.By the impugned judgment the High Court allowed the

appeal carried by the respondent-wife against the said

judgment and set aside the decree of divorce granted in

favour of the appellant-husband. The High Court inter alia

observed that the finding of the Family Court that lodging a

complaint with the police against the appellant-husband

amounts to cruelty is perverse because it is not a ground for

divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The High Court

further held that the appellant-husband and the respondent-

wife did not live together for a long time and, therefore, the

question of their treating each other with cruelty does not

arise. According to the High Court, the conclusion that the

respondent-wife caused mental cruelty to the appellant-

husband is based on presumptions and assumptions.

6.Mr. Jayanth Muth Raj, learned counsel for the appellant-

husband assailed the conduct of the respondent-wife and

4

Page 5 submitted that it disentitles her from getting any relief from

this Court. Counsel took us through the complaint lodged

by the respondent-wife with the Superintendent of Police,

Women Protection Cell, Hyderabad, making defamatory

allegations against the mother of the appellant-husband and

drew our attention to the various legal proceedings initiated

by her against the appellant-husband and his family.

Counsel submitted that she also lodged complaints with the

High Court asking for the removal of the appellant-husband

from his job. Counsel submitted that by lodging such false

complaints the respondent-wife caused extreme mental

cruelty to the appellant-husband. Counsel submitted that

the High Court fell into a grave error in observing that

because the respondent-wife did not live with the appellant-

husband for long she could not have caused mental cruelty

to him. Counsel submitted that this observation is erroneous

and is contrary to the law laid down by this Court. False and

defamatory allegations made in the pleadings can also cause

mental cruelty. Counsel submitted that the marriage has

irretrievably broken down and, therefore, it is necessary to

5

Page 6 dissolve it by a decree of divorce. In support of his

submissions counsel placed reliance on G.V.N. Kameswara

Rao vs. G. Jabilli

1

, Parveen Mehta vs. Inderjit Mehta

2

,

Vijayakumar R. Bhate vs. Neela Vijayakumar Bhate

3

,

Durga Prasanna Tripathy vs. Arundhati Tripathy

4

,

Naveen Kohli vs. Neelu Kohli

5

and Samar Ghosh vs.

Jaya Ghosh

6

.

7.Mr. D. Rama Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for the

respondent-wife, on the other hand, submitted that the

father of the respondent-wife had given Rs.80,000/- and 15

tolas of gold as dowry to the appellant-husband’s family.

However, they demanded additional cash of Rs.10,00,000/-.

Because this demand could not be met, the respondent-wife

and her family was humiliated and ill-treated. Therefore, the

parents of the respondent-wife had to return to their house

along with her immediately after marriage. The father of the

respondent-wife made efforts to talk to the appellant-

1

(2002) 2 SCC 296

2

(2002) 5 SCC 706

3

(2003) 6 SCC 334

4

(2005) 7 SCC 353

5

(2006) 4 SCC 558

6

(2007) 4 SCC 511

6

Page 7 husband’s family, but, they did not respond to his efforts.

They persisted with their demands and, therefore, the

respondent-wife had no alternative but to lodge complaint

against them under Section 498-A of the IPC before the

Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. The appellant-husband

thereafter gave a false assurance that he will not harass her

and, therefore, she withdrew the complaint and went to the

matrimonial house. However, the approach of the appellant-

husband and his family did not change. She had to therefore

renew her complaint. Counsel submitted that only because

of the obstinate and uncompromising attitude of the

appellant-husband and his family that the respondent-wife

had to take recourse to court proceedings. Counsel

submitted that the respondent-wife values the matrimonial

tie. She wants to lead a happy married life with the

appellant-husband. She had, therefore, filed a petition for

restitution of conjugal rights which should have been allowed

by the Family Court. Counsel submitted that after properly

evaluating all the circumstances the High Court has rightly

set aside the decree of divorce and granted a decree of

7

Page 8 restitution of conjugal rights. The High Court’s judgment,

therefore, merits no interference.

8.The matrimonial dispute started with a quarrel between

the elders of both sides in which initially the appellant-

husband and the respondent-wife were not involved. The

ego battle of the elders took an ugly turn. Parties were

dragged to the court and the inevitable happened. The

relations between the two families got strained. With a fond

hope that we could bring about a settlement we requested

the counsel to talk to the parties and convey our wishes that

they should bury the hatchet and start living together. We

also tried to counsel them in the court. The respondent-wife

appears to be very keen to go back to the matrimonial home

and start life afresh, but the appellant-husband is adamant.

He conveyed to us through his counsel that by filing

repeated false complaints against him and his family the

respondent-wife has caused extreme cruelty to them and

therefore it will not be possible to take her back. In view of

this we have no option but to proceed with the case.

8

Page 9 9.The High Court has taken a view that since the

appellant-husband and the respondent-wife did not stay

together, there is no question of their causing cruelty to

each other. The High Court concluded that the conclusion

drawn by the Family Court that the respondent-wife caused

mental cruelty to the appellant-husband is erroneous. We

are unable to agree with the High Court.

10.Under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act,

1955, a marriage can be dissolved by a decree of divorce on

a petition presented either by the husband or the wife on the

ground that the other party has, after solemnization of the

marriage, treated the petitioner with cruelty. In a series of

judgments this Court has repeatedly stated the meaning and

outlined the scope of the term ‘cruelty’. Cruelty is evident

where one spouse has so treated the other and manifested

such feelings towards her or him as to cause in her or his

mind reasonable apprehension that it will be harmful or

9

Page 10 injurious to live with the other spouse. Cruelty may be

physical or mental.

11.In Samar Ghosh this Court set out illustrative cases

where inference of ‘mental cruelty’ can be drawn. This list is

obviously not exhaustive because each case presents it’s

own peculiar factual matrix and existence or otherwise of

mental cruelty will have to be judged after applying mind to

it. We must quote the relevant paragraph of Samar Ghosh .

We have reproduced only the instances which are relevant

to the present case.

“101. No uniform standard can ever be laid down

for guidance, yet we deem it appropriate to

enumerate some instances of human behaviour

which may be relevant in dealing with the cases of

“mental cruelty”. The instances indicated in the

succeeding paragraphs are only illustrative and

not exhaustive:

(i) On consideration of complete matrimonial life

of the parties, acute mental pain, agony and

suffering as would not make possible for the

parties to live with each other could come within

the broad parameters of mental cruelty.

(ii) On comprehensive appraisal of the entire

matrimonial life of the parties, it becomes

abundantly clear that situation is such that the

10

Page 11 wronged party cannot reasonably be asked to put

up with such conduct and continue to live with

other party.

(iii) xxxxxxxxx

(iv) Mental cruelty is a state of mind. The feeling

of deep anguish, disappointment, frustration in

one spouse caused by the conduct of other for a

long time may lead to mental cruelty.

(v) A sustained course of abusive and humiliating

treatment calculated to torture, discommode or

render miserable life of the spouse.

(vi) Sustained unjustifiable conduct and behaviour

of one spouse actually affecting physical and

mental health of the other spouse. The treatment

complained of and the resultant danger or

apprehension must be very grave, substantial and

weighty.

(vii) xxxxxxxxx

(viii) xxxxxxxxx

(ix) xxxxxxxxx

(x) The married life should be reviewed as a whole

and a few isolated instances over a period of years

will not amount to cruelty. The ill conduct must be

persistent for a fairly lengthy period, where the

relationship has deteriorated to an extent that

because of the acts and behaviour of a spouse,

the wronged party finds it extremely difficult to

live with the other party any longer, may amount

to mental cruelty.

11

Page 12 (xi) xxxxxxxxx

(xii) xxxxxxxxx

(xiii) xxxxxxxxx

(xiv) Where there has been a long period of

continuous separation, it may fairly be concluded

that the matrimonial bond is beyond repair. The

marriage becomes a fiction though supported by a

legal tie. By refusing to sever that tie, the law in

such cases, does not serve the sanctity of

marriage; on the contrary, it shows scant regard

for the feelings and emotions of the parties. In

such like situations, it may lead to mental

cruelty.”

It is pertinent to note that in this case the husband and

wife had lived separately for more than sixteen and a half

years. This fact was taken into consideration along with

other facts as leading to the conclusion that matrimonial

bond had been ruptured beyond repair because of the

mental cruelty caused by the wife. Similar view was taken in

Naveen Kohli.

12.In V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat

7

in the divorce petition

filed by the husband the wife filed written statement stating

7

(1994) 1 SCC 337

12

Page 13 that the husband was suffering from mental hallucination,

that his was a morbid mind for which he needs expert

psychiatric treatment and that he was suffering from

‘paranoid disorder’. In cross-examination her counsel put

several questions to the husband suggesting that several

members of his family including his grandfather were

lunatics. This court held that these assertions cannot but

constitute mental cruelty of such a nature that the husband

cannot be asked to live with the wife thereafter. Such

pleadings and questions it was held, are bound to cause

immense mental pain and anguish to the husband. In

Vijaykumar Bhate disgusting accusations of unchastity and

indecent familiarity with a neighbour were made in the

written statement. This Court held that the allegations are

of such quality, magnitude and consequence as to cause

mental pain, agony and suffering amounting to the

reformulated concept of cruelty in matrimonial law causing

profound and lasting disruption and driving the wife to feel

deeply hurt and reasonably apprehend that it would be

dangerous to live with her husband. In Naveen Kohli the

13

Page 14 respondent-wife got an advertisement issued in a national

newspaper that her husband was her employee. She got

another news item issued cautioning his business associates

to avoid dealing with him. This was treated as causing

mental cruelty to the husband.

13.In Naveen Kohli the wife had filed several complaints

and cases against the husband. This Court viewed her

conduct as a conduct causing mental cruelty and observed

that the finding of the High Court that these proceedings

could not be taken to be such which may warrant annulment

of marriage is wholly unsustainable.

14.Thus, to the instances illustrative of mental cruelty

noted in Samar Ghosh , 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

14

Page 15 court against the spouse would, in the facts of a case,

amount to causing mental cruelty to the other spouse.

15.We shall apply the above principles to the present case.

Firstly, it is necessary to have a look at the legal proceedings

initiated by both sides against each other. The facts on

record disclose that after the marriage, due to some dispute

which arose between the elders, both sides abused and

virtually attacked each other. The respondent-wife was

taken by her parents to their house. According to the

respondent-wife, her father made efforts to bring about an

amicable settlement but the other side did not respond

favourably and, therefore, on 4/10/1999 she lodged a

complaint with the Superintendent of Police, Women

Protection Cell against the appellant-husband and members

of his family. In our opinion, this complaint is, to a large

extent, responsible for widening the rift between the parties.

In this complaint, after alleging ill-treatment and harassment

for dowry, it is alleged that mother of the appellant-husband

asked the respondent-wife to sleep with the father of the

15

Page 16 appellant-husband. When she was cross-examined in the

Family Court during the hearing of her petition for restitution

of conjugal rights the respondent-wife admitted that she had

lodged the complaint. PW-2 her mother, in her cross-

examination stated that though they had asked her not to

lodge the complaint, the respondent-wife lodged it. She told

them that she had lodged the complaint because the

appellant-husband was not listening to her. Thus, it appears

that this complaint was lodged out of frustration and anger

and was a reaction to the appellant-husband’s refusal to live

with her. It was, perhaps, felt by her that because of the

pressure of such a complaint the appellant-husband would

take her back to his house. Far from helping the

respondent-wife, the complaint appears to have caused

irreparable harm to her. It increased the bitterness.

Perhaps, the respondent-wife was misguided by someone.

But, such evidence is not on record. Even in this court, this

complaint appears to us to be a major factor amongst others

impeding settlement. Pursuant to the said complaint, Crime

No.8/2000 was registered by C.I.D., Hyderabad, in the

16

Page 17 Metropolitan Magistrate (Mahila Court), Hyderabad against

the appellant-husband and his family under Section 498-A of

the IPC. It is the respondent-wife’s case that the appellant-

husband gave an assurance before the police that he will not

harass her. She, therefore, withdrew the complaint. The

police then filed a closure report. According to the

respondent-wife, the appellant-husband did not abide by the

promise made by him and, therefore, she filed a protest

petition. The Magistrate Court, Hyderabad, then, took

cognizance of the case and renumbered the case as

C.C.No.62/2002.

16.In the meantime, the respondent-wife filed

O.P.No.88/2001 in the Family Court, Secunderabad, for

restitution of conjugal rights. The appellant-husband filed a

counter claim for divorce on 27/12/2002. The Family Court

dismissed the petition for restitution of conjugal rights and

allowed the counter claim for divorce filed by the appellant-

husband. The respondent-wife challenged the Family Court

judgment in the High Court. On 8/12/2006 the High Court

17

Page 18 reversed the Family Court’s order and allowed the petition

for restitution of conjugal rights. The present appeal is filed

by the appellant-husband against the said judgment.

17.According to the respondent-wife, on 17/9/2007 when

she, along with her mother, came out of the court after a

case filed by her against the appellant-husband was

adjourned, the appellant-husband beat her mother and

kicked her on her stomach. Both of them received injuries.

She, therefore, filed complaint for the offence punishable

under Section 324 of the IPC against the appellant-husband

(C.C.No. 79/2009). It may be stated here that on 19/10/2009

the appellant-husband was acquitted in this case.

18.On 24/6/2008 the judgment was delivered by Additional

Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad in C.C.No.

62/2002. The appellant-husband was convicted under

Section 498-A of the IPC and was sentenced to undergo six

months simple imprisonment. He and his parents were

acquitted of the offences under the Dowry Prohibition Act.

18

Page 19 His parents were acquitted of the offence under Section 498-

A of the IPC. After this judgment the respondent-wife and

her parents filed a complaint in the High Court saying that

since the appellant-husband was convicted he should be

dismissed from service. Similar letters were sent to the High

Court by the maternal uncle of the respondent-wife.

19.On 14/7/2008 the appellant-husband filed Criminal

Appeal No.186/2008 challenging his conviction under Section

498-A of the IPC before the Metropolitan Sessions Judge. It is

pertinent to note that the respondent-wife filed Criminal

Appeal No.1219/2008 in the High Court questioning the

acquittal of the appellant-husband and his parents of the

offences under the Dowry Prohibition Act and also the

acquittal of his parents of the offence punishable under

Section 498-A of the IPC. This appeal is pending in the High

Court. Not being content with this, the respondent-wife filed

Criminal Revision Case No.1560/2008 in the High Court

seeking enhancement of punishment awarded to the

19

Page 20 appellant-husband for offence under Section 498-A of the

IPC.

20.According to the appellant-husband on 6/12/2009 the

brother of the respondent-wife came to their house and

attacked his mother. His mother filed a complaint and the

police registered a complaint under Section 354 of the IPC.

The brother of the respondent-wife also lodged a complaint

and an offence came to be registered. Both the cases are

pending.

21.On 29/6/2010 Criminal Appeal No. 186/2010 filed by the

appellant-husband challenging his conviction for the offence

under Section 498-A of the IPC was allowed by the

Metropolitan Sessions Judge and he was acquitted. The

respondent-wife has filed criminal appeal in the High Court

challenging the said acquittal which is pending.

22.We need to now see the effect of the above events. In

our opinion, the first instance of mental cruelty is seen in the

scurrilous, vulgar and defamatory statement made by the

20

Page 21 respondent-wife in her complaint dated 4/10/1999 addressed

to the Superintendent of Police, Women Protection Cell. The

statement that the mother of the appellant-husband asked

her to sleep with his father is bound to anger him. It is his

case that this humiliation of his parents caused great

anguish to him. He and his family were traumatized by the

false and indecent statement made in the complaint. His

grievance appears to us to be justified. This complaint is a

part of the record. It is a part of the pleadings. That this

statement is false is evident from the evidence of the mother

of the respondent-wife, which we have already quoted. This

statement cannot be explained away by stating that it was

made because the respondent-wife was anxious to go back

to the appellant-husband. This is not the way to win the

husband back. It is well settled that such statements cause

mental cruelty. By sending this complaint the respondent-

wife has caused mental cruelty to the appellant-husband.

23. Pursuant to this complaint, the police registered a

case under Section 498-A of the IPC. The appellant-husband

21

Page 22 and his parents had to apply for anticipatory bail, which was

granted to them. Later, the respondent-wife withdrew the

complaint. Pursuant to the withdrawal, the police filed a

closure report. Thereafter, the respondent-wife filed a

protest petition. The trial court took cognizance of the case

against the appellant-husband and his parents (CC No.

62/2002). What is pertinent to note is that the respondent-

wife filed criminal appeal in the High Court challenging the

acquittal of the appellant-husband and his parents of the

offences under the Dowry Prohibition Act and also the

acquittal of his parents of the offence punishable under

Section 498-A of the IPC. She filed criminal revision seeking

enhancement of the punishment awarded to the appellant-

husband for the offence under Section 498-A of the IPC in

the High Court which is still pending. When the criminal

appeal filed by the appellant-husband challenging his

conviction for the offence under Section 498-A of the IPC was

allowed and he was acquitted, the respondent-wife filed

criminal appeal in the High Court challenging the said

acquittal. During this period respondent-wife and members

22

Page 23 of her family have also filed complaints in the High Court

complaining about the appellant-husband so that he would

be removed from the job. The conduct of the respondent-

wife in filing a complaint making unfounded, indecent and

defamatory allegation against her mother-in-law, in filing

revision seeking enhancement of the sentence awarded to

the appellant-husband, in filing appeal questioning the

acquittal of the appellant-husband and acquittal of his

parents indicates that she made all attempts to ensure that

he and his parents are put in jail and he is removed from his

job. We have no manner of doubt that this conduct has

caused mental cruelty to the appellant-husband.

24.In our opinion, the High Court wrongly held that

because the appellant-husband and the respondent-wife did

not stay together there is no question of the parties causing

cruelty to each other. Staying together under the same roof

is not a pre-condition for mental cruelty. Spouse can cause

mental cruelty by his or her conduct even while he or she is

not staying under the same roof. In a given case, while

23

Page 24 staying away, a spouse can cause mental cruelty to the

other spouse by sending vulgar and defamatory letters or

notices or filing complaints containing indecent allegations

or by initiating number of judicial proceedings making the

other spouse’s life miserable. This is what has happened in

this case.

25.It is also to be noted that the appellant-husband and

the respondent-wife are staying apart from 27/4/1999. Thus,

they are living separately for more than ten years. This

separation has created an unbridgeable distance between

the two. As held in Samar Ghosh , if we refuse to sever the

tie, it may lead to mental cruelty.

26.We are also satisfied that this marriage has

irretrievably broken down. Irretrievable breakdown of

marriage is not a ground for divorce under the Hindu

Marriage Act, 1955. But, where marriage is beyond repair on

account of bitterness created by the acts of the husband or

the wife or of both, the courts have always taken

24

Page 25 irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a very weighty

circumstance amongst others necessitating severance of

marital tie. A marriage which is dead for all purposes cannot

be revived by the court’s verdict, if the parties are not

willing. This is because marriage involves human sentiments

and emotions and if they are dried-up there is hardly any

chance of their springing back to life on account of artificial

reunion created by the court’s decree.

27.In V. Bhagat this Court noted that divorce petition was

pending for eight years and a good part of the lives of both

the parties had been consumed in litigation, yet the end was

not in sight. The facts were such that there was no question

of reunion, the marriage having irretrievably broken down.

While dissolving the marriage on the ground of mental

cruelty this Court observed that irretrievable breakdown of

marriage is not a ground by itself, but, while scrutinizing the

evidence on record to determine whether the grounds

alleged are made out and in determining the relief to be

granted the said circumstance can certainly be borne in

25

Page 26 mind. In Naveen Kohli, where husband and wife had been

living separately for more than 10 years and a large number

of criminal proceedings had been initiated by the wife

against the husband, this Court observed that the marriage

had been wrecked beyond the hope of salvage and public

interest and interest of all concerned lies in the recognition

of the fact and to declare defunct de jure what is already

defunct de facto. It is important to note that in this case this

Court made a recommendation to the Union of India that the

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 be amended to incorporate

irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a ground for the

grant of divorce.

28.In the ultimate analysis, we hold that the respondent-

wife has caused by her conduct mental cruelty to the

appellant-husband and the marriage has irretrievably broken

down. Dissolution of marriage will relieve both sides of pain

and anguish. In this Court the respondent-wife expressed

that she wants to go back to the appellant-husband, but,

that is not possible now. The appellant-husband is not

26

Page 27 willing to take her back. Even if we refuse decree of divorce

to the appellant-husband, there are hardly any chances of

the respondent-wife leading a happy life with the appellant-

husband because a lot of bitterness is created by the

conduct of the respondent-wife.

29.In Vijay Kumar, it was submitted that if the decree of

divorce is set aside, there may be fresh avenues and scope

for reconciliation between parties. This court observed that

judged in the background of all surrounding circumstances,

the claim appeared to be too desolate, merely born out of

despair rather than based upon any real, concrete or

genuine purpose or aim. In the facts of this case we feel the

same.

30.While we are of the opinion that decree of divorce must

be granted, we are alive to the plight of the respondent-wife.

The appellant-husband is working as an Assistant Registrar

in the Andhra Pradesh High Court. He is getting a good

salary. The respondent-wife fought the litigation for more

27

Page 28 than 10 years. She appears to be entirely dependent on her

parents and on her brother, therefore, her future must be

secured by directing the appellant-husband to give her

permanent alimony. In the facts and circumstance of this

case, we are of the opinion that the appellant-husband

should be directed to pay a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees

Fifteen Lakhs only) to the respondent-wife as and by way of

permanent alimony. In the result, the impugned judgment is

quashed and set aside. The marriage between the

appellant-husband - K. Srinivas Rao and the respondent-wife

- D.A. Deepa is dissolved by a decree of divorce. The

appellant-husband shall pay to the respondent-wife

permanent alimony in the sum of Rs.15,00,000/-, in three

instalments. The first instalment of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees

Five Lakhs only) should be paid on 15/03/2013 and the

remaining amount of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only)

should be paid in instalments of Rs.5,00,000/- each after a

gap of two months i.e. on 15/05/2013 and 15/07/2013

respectively. Each instalment of Rs.5,00,000/- be paid by a

28

Page 29 demand draft drawn in favour of the respondent-wife “D.A.

Deepa”.

31.Before parting, we wish to touch upon an issue which

needs to be discussed in the interest of victims of

matrimonial disputes. Though in this case, we have

recorded a finding that by her conduct, the respondent-wife

has caused mental cruelty to the appellant-husband, we may

not be understood, however, to have said that the fault lies

only with the respondent-wife. In matrimonial disputes

there is hardly any case where one spouse is entirely at

fault. But, then, before the dispute assumes alarming

proportions, someone must make efforts to make parties see

reason. In this case, if at the earliest stage, before the

respondent-wife filed the complaint making indecent

allegation against her mother-in-law, she were to be

counselled by an independent and sensible elder or if the

parties were sent to a mediation centre or if they had access

to a pre-litigation clinic, perhaps the bitterness would not

have escalated. Things would not have come to such a pass

29

Page 30 if, at the earliest, somebody had mediated between the two.

It is possible that the respondent-wife was desperate to save

the marriage. Perhaps, in desperation, she lost balance and

went on filing complaints. It is possible that she was

misguided. Perhaps, the appellant-husband should have

forgiven her indiscretion in filing complaints in the larger

interest of matrimony. But, the way the respondent-wife

approached the problem was wrong. It portrays a vindictive

mind. She caused extreme mental cruelty to the appellant-

husband. Now the marriage is beyond repair.

32.Quite often, the cause of the misunderstanding in a

matrimonial dispute is trivial and can be sorted. Mediation as

a method of alternative dispute resolution has got legal

recognition now. We have referred several matrimonial

disputes to mediation centres. Our experience shows that

about 10 to 15% of matrimonial disputes get settled in this

Court through various mediation centres. We, therefore, feel

that at the earliest stage i.e. when the dispute is taken up by

the Family Court or by the court of first instance for hearing,

30

Page 31 it must be referred to mediation centres. Matrimonial

disputes particularly those relating to custody of child,

maintenance, etc. are preeminently fit for mediation. Section

9 of the Family Courts Act enjoins upon the Family Court to

make efforts to settle the matrimonial disputes and in these

efforts, Family Courts are assisted by Counsellors. Even if

the Counsellors fail in their efforts, the Family Courts should

direct the parties to mediation centres, where trained

mediators are appointed to mediate between the parties.

Being trained in the skill of mediation, they produce good

results.

33.The idea of pre-litigation mediation is also catching up.

Some mediation centres have, after giving wide publicity, set

up “Help Desks” at prominent places including facilitation

centres at court complexes to conduct pre-litigation

mediation. We are informed that in Delhi Government

Mediation and Conciliation Centres, and in Delhi High Court

Mediation Centre, several matrimonial disputes are settled.

These centres have a good success rate in pre-litigation

31

Page 32 mediation. If all mediation centres set up pre-litigation

desks/clinics by giving sufficient publicity and matrimonial

disputes are taken up for pre-litigation settlement, many

families will be saved of hardship if, at least, some of them

are settled.

34.While purely a civil matrimonial dispute can be

amicably settled by a Family Court either by itself or by

directing the parties to explore the possibility of settlement

through mediation, a complaint under Section 498-A of the

IPC presents difficulty because the said offence is not

compoundable except in the State of Andhra Pradesh where

by a State amendment, it has been made compoundable.

Though in Ramgopal & Anr. v. State of Madhya

Pradesh & Anr.

8

, this Court requested the Law Commission

and the Government of India to examine whether offence

punishable under Section 498-A of the IPC could be made

compoundable, it has not been made compoundable as yet.

The courts direct parties to approach mediation centres

8

(2010) 13 SCC 540

32

Page 33 where offences are compoundable. Offence punishable

under Section 498-A being a non-compoundable offence,

such a course is not followed in respect thereof. This Court

has always adopted a positive approach and encouraged

settlement of matrimonial disputes and discouraged their

escalation. In this connection, we must refer to the relevant

paragraph from G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad & Ors .

9

, where

the complaint appeared to be the result of matrimonial

dispute, while refusing to interfere with the High Court’s

order quashing the complaint, this court made very pertinent

observations, which read thus:

“12. There has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in

recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, the main

purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle

down in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial

skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume serious

proportions resulting in commission of heinous crimes in

which elders of the family are also involved with the result

that those who could have counselled and brought about

rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being

arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are many

other reasons which need not be mentioned here for not

encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may

ponder over their defaults and terminate their disputes

amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in

a court of law where it takes years and years to conclude

and in that process the parties lose their “young” days in

chasing their “cases” in different courts.”

9

(2000) 3 SCC 693

33

Page 34 In B.S. Joshi & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr.

10

,

after referring to the above observations, this Court stated

that the said observations are required to be kept in view by

courts while dealing with matrimonial disputes and held that

complaint involving offence under Section 498-A of the IPC

can be quashed by the High Court in exercise of its powers

under Section 482 of the Code if the parties settle their

dispute. Even in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab &

Anr.

11

, this Court expressed that certain offences which

overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour like

those arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to

dowry, etc. or the family dispute and where the offender and

the victim had settled all disputes between them amicably,

irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been

made compoundable, the High Court may quash the criminal

proceedings if it feels that by not quashing the same, the

ends of justice shall be defeated.

10

AIR 2003 SC 1386

11

(2012) 10 SCC 303

34

Page 35 35.We, therefore, feel that though offence punishable

under Section 498-A of the IPC is not compoundable, in

appropriate cases if the parties are willing and if it appears

to the criminal court that there exist elements of settlement,

it should direct the parties to explore the possibility of

settlement through mediation. This is, obviously, not to

dilute the rigour, efficacy and purport of Section 498-A of the

IPC, but to locate cases where the matrimonial dispute can

be nipped in bud in an equitable manner. The judges, with

their expertise, must ensure that this exercise does not lead

to the erring spouse using mediation process to get out of

clutches of the law. During mediation, the parties can either

decide to part company on mutually agreed terms or they

may decide to patch up and stay together. In either case for

the settlement to come through, the complaint will have to

be quashed. In that event, they can approach the High

Court and get the complaint quashed. If however they chose

not to settle, they can proceed with the complaint. In this

exercise, there is no loss to anyone. If there is settlement,

the parties will be saved from the trials and tribulations of a

35

Page 36 criminal case and that will reduce the burden on the courts

which will be in the larger public interest. Obviously, the

High Court will quash the complaint only if after considering

all circumstances it finds the settlement to be equitable and

genuine. Such a course, in our opinion, will be beneficial to

those who genuinely want to accord a quietus to their

matrimonial disputes. We would, however, like to clarify that

reduction of burden of cases on the courts will, however, be

merely an incidental benefit and not the reason for sending

the parties for mediation. We recognize ‘mediation’ as an

effective method of alternative dispute resolution in

matrimonial matters and that is the reason why we want the

parties to explore the possibility of settlement through

mediation in matrimonial disputes.

36.We, therefore, issue directions, which the courts

dealing with the matrimonial matters shall follow:

(a)In terms of Section 9 of the Family Courts Act, the

Family Courts shall make all efforts to settle the

matrimonial disputes through mediation. Even if the

36

Page 37 Counsellors submit a failure report, the Family Courts

shall, with the consent of the parties, refer the

matter to the mediation centre. In such a case,

however, the Family Courts shall set a reasonable

time limit for mediation centres to complete the

process of mediation because otherwise the

resolution of the disputes by the Family Court may

get delayed. In a given case, if there is good chance

of settlement, the Family Court in its discretion, can

always extend the time limit.

(b)The criminal courts dealing with the complaint under

Section 498-A of the IPC should, at any stage and

particularly, before they take up the complaint for

hearing, refer the parties to mediation centre if they

feel that there exist elements of settlement and both

the parties are willing. However, they should take

care to see that in this exercise, rigour, purport and

efficacy of Section 498-A of the IPC is not diluted.

Needless to say that the discretion to grant or not to

37

Page 38 grant bail is not in any way curtailed by this

direction. It will be for the concerned court to work

out the modalities taking into consideration the facts

of each case.

(c)All mediation centres shall set up pre-litigation

desks/clinics; give them wide publicity and make

efforts to settle matrimonial disputes at pre-litigation

stage.

37.The appeal is disposed of in the aforestated terms.

…………………………………………… ..J.

(AFTAB ALAM)

…………………………………………… ..J.

(RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI)

NEW DELHI,

FEBRUARY 22, 2013.

38