RFA 230/2024 Page1of22

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Reserved on: 25

th

February, 2026

Pronounced on: 26

th

May, 2026

+ RFA 230/2024, CM APPL. 20530/2024

RENU GOEL

W/O Sh. Arun Goel

R/O B-42, Ground Floor,

Overseas Apartment,Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi. .....Appellant

Through: Mr. Gobind Malhotra, Mr.

RehanSaifi, Mr. Gurpreet Singh, Mr.

MayurVats and Ms. Namrata

Malhotra,Advocates.

versus

ARUN GOEL

S/O Late SH. Puran Chand Goel

R/O H.No.10, Pocket- D-12,

First Floor, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi. .....Respondent

Through: Mr. A.K. Suri, Ms.

MeenakshiChodhary, Mr. Ankit

Kansal andMr. Manoj Manderna,

Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA

J U D G M E N T

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

1. Regular First Appeal under Section 96 read with Order XLI of the

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908(hereinafter referred to as “CPC”) has been

filed on behalf of the Appellant, Smt. Renu Goel, against the Judgment and

Decree dated 22.12.2023, whereby the Suit bearing CS DJ No. 810/2017

filed by the Respondent/Plaintiff has been decreed for a total sum of Rs.

RFA 230/2024 Page2of22

1,55,000/- towards loss of reputation and goodwill of the Plaintiff; damages

and compensation for harassment, torture and mental agony; and

towardslegal expenses incurred in defending the criminal case arising out

of FIR No. 588/2001 under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC.

2. The Plaintiff/Respondent filed a Suit bearing CS DJ No. 810/2017 for

compensation and damages on account of harassment, mental agony, torture

and malicious prosecution amounting to ₹10,00,000/-.

3. The facts in brief, as stated in the plaint are that Plaintiff/Respondent

Arun Goel, got married to the Defendant/Appellant on 15.02.1997,

according to Hindu rites and customs. One son, namely Nikunj, was born

out of their wedlock on 01.06.1998. The parties, after their marriage, came

to reside at Property No. A-110, Prashant Vihar, Delhi, which was jointly

owned by the Plaintiff along with his elder brother, Mr. Manoj KumarGoel,

and constituted their matrimonial home. The Plaintiff’s parents, as well as

the family of his elder brother, were also residing in the said house, along

with the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

4. The Plaintiff claimed that soon after the marriage, on account of

temperamental and behavioural issues, the Defendant/Appellant started

picking up quarrels on trivial issues and behaved discourteously towards the

parents, guests and the Plaintiff.

5. It was further alleged that the defendant/wife used to threaten them by

calling the Police, at the drop of a hat. According to the Plaintiff, owing to

the said conduct of the Defendant/Appellant, his father suffered severe grief

and mental depression and ultimately succumbed thereto, on 26.09.1998.

6. It was further alleged that the Defendant/Appellant on numerous

occasions,resorted to manhandling the Plaintiff and his ailing mother, and

RFA 230/2024 Page3of22

that her conduct became a constant source of insult, defamation and

lowering of their prestige in society. Ultimately, it became impossible for

the parties to continue residing together, in the joint family.

7. The Defendant/Appellant, aside from frequently calling the Police,

also threatened the Plaintiff and his family members with false implication

in criminal cases. Consequently, they were compelled to live separately,

which resulted in the virtual division of their otherwise, happy joint family

life.

8. The Plaintiff and his brother were allegedly constrained to sell the

property in question and the sale proceeds were divided equally between

them. The Plaintiff, from his share of the sale proceeds, purchased another

property bearing H. No. B-42, Ground Floor, Overseas Apartment, Sector-

7, Rohini, Delhi for a total sale consideration of ₹2,99,000/- on 24.09.1999,

9. The Defendant/Appellant has been allegedly residing, to the exclusion

of the Plaintiff.She allegedly, did not permit the Plaintiff’s mother to enter

the said property. Consequently, the Plaintiff, the Defendant/Appellant and

their son shifted to the new house, on or about 15.10.1999.

10. The Plaintiff believed that the Defendant/Appellant would mellow

down with the passage of time, but according to him, she became more

belligerent and started picking up quarrels, on petty issues. The Plaintiff’s

life became hellish, as she would constantly quarrel with him.She became

cruel towards the Plaintiff and used to derive sadistic pleasure, by

continuously torturing and harassing him. It was further alleged that she

refused to cook meals or take care of the household chores.

11. According to the Plaintiff, there was constant interference from the

parents of the Defendant/Appellant, who allegedly abetted her acts of

RFA 230/2024 Page4of22

cruelty, while constantly threatening implication of the Plaintiff in criminal

cases and usurpation of his property.

12. Furthermore, the Defendant/Appellant turned the Plaintiff out of the

house in October, 2000, without permitting him to take his belongings and

thereafter, unlawfully occupied the property in connivance with her parents.

13. The Defendant/Appellant, in order to further harass the Plaintiff and

his family members, got FIR No. 588/2001 under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC

registered at Police Station Prashant Vihar, Delhi. It was further alleged that

the Police was being pressurized by the Defendant/Appellant and her

parents, to arrest the Plaintiff and his family members. However, they were

granted anticipatory bail and their arrest was avoided.

14. Trial in the said FIR commenced and the mother, brother and sister-

in-law of the Plaintiff were discharged at the stage of charge, vide Order

dated 22.02.2005. However, the trial against the Plaintiff continued for

about fourteen years and ultimately culminated in his acquittal vide

Judgment dated 26.05.2014 Ex. PW-1/1.

15. The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant/Appellant, being dissatisfied

with the acquittal, preferred a Criminal Appeal under Section 378 Cr.P.C.,

which also came to be dismissed by the learned ASJ on 05.11.2016. The

Plaintiff claimed that in this manner, the Defendant/Appellant kept him

entangled in false criminal proceedings, for about sixteen years.

16. The Plaintiff claimed that he had to attend Court hearings for sixteen

long years, initially during the trial, arising out of FIR No. 588/2001 under

Sections 498A/406/34 IPC, and thereafter, in the Appeal, because of which

his entire life allegedly got ruined.

RFA 230/2024 Page5of22

17. Further, owing to constant threats, tension and harassment arising out

of the criminal proceedings, it became impossible for him to continue the

joint business being run with his elder brother, Mr. Manoj Kumar Goel, in

the name and style of M/s Jai Bharat Trading Company.Consequently, the

Partnership Firm had to be closed and possession of the premises, namely

Shop No. 570, Katra Ishwar Bhawan, Fatehpuri, Delhi, had to be

surrendered to the landlord during the financial year 2002-2003.

18. The Plaintiff claimed that the closure of the said Firm, was on account

of the frivolous litigation and harassment allegedly caused by the

Defendant/Appellant, which proved to be a major setback for him and his

brother, as a result whereof, their financial condition became precarious and

he was unable to establish himself in any job, profession or business

thereafter. It was further alleged that the Plaintiff suffered additional

financial loss, on account of the expenses incurred in defending the criminal

litigation.

19. The Plaintiff further explained that the Defendant/Appellant also

instituted a Petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on 12.12.2003 along with her

son, which was contested by the Plaintiff. Finally, the learned Family Court

vide Order dated 18.03.2014 directed the Plaintiff to pay maintenance @

₹2,000/- per month from 12.12.2003 till 31.12.2009.

20. The Plaintiff claimed that the Defendant/Appellant made false

representations and uttered falsehoods before the learned Family Court

regarding her employment details, service records, salary and overall

financial condition, but upon the correct facts coming to light, maintenance

in her favour, was declined after December, 2009,on the ground that the

Defendant/Appellant was employed. The Plaintiff claimed that he fulfilled

RFA 230/2024 Page6of22

his obligations and complied with the final Order of maintenance, in letter

and spirit.

21. The Plaintiff further claimed that he had to defend the said frivolous

litigation as well, which became an additional factor preventing him from

rehabilitating himself in life.

22. The Plaintiff further alleged that the Defendant/Appellant, in her

attempt to harass and cause cruelty to the Plaintiff and his family members,

filed a Civil Suit for Permanent Injunction against the Plaintiff, his elder

brother and his sister-in-law in November, 2000 seeking restraint against

her forcible dispossession from the property in question. The said Suit was

ultimately disposed of, on the statements of the parties on 10.11.2000.

23. In order to defend the said case, the Plaintiff claimed that he had to

incur substantial expenses, not only for himself but also for his family

members and suffered mental agony, trauma, harassment and

embarrassment.

24. The Plaintiff further asserted that the Defendant/Appellant was a

chronic litigant and was still not satisfied, despite the aforesaid litigations.In

order to further prolong the miseries of the Plaintiff, the

Defendant/Appellant allegedly filed a Suit for Declaration, Rendition of

Accounts, Permanent Injunction and Mandatory Injunction in the name of

Nikunj, their son, through herself as his natural guardian and next friend,

against the Plaintiff and his family members. According to the Plaintiff, the

Defendant/Appellant thereby, used the son as a tool against him. The said

Suit ultimately was dismissed vide final Judgment dated 21.11.2014 after

about fourteen years.

RFA 230/2024 Page7of22

25. The Plaintiff further claimed that on account of the frivolous

litigations, he along with his mother, had to reside in a tenanted

accommodation in Sector-9, Rohini at a monthly rent of ₹8,500/-. The

Plaintiff claimed that he had no other accommodation or residence

whatsoever, except the house which remained in the exclusive possession of

the Defendant/Appellant, where she was residing along with their son.

26. The Defendant/Appellant refused to pay any rent for occupation of

the said house, despite residing therein gratuitously, after having been

inducted by the Plaintiff. According to the Plaintiff, her occupation of the

said property had become unauthorized and illegal, inasmuch as she had no

right, title or interest therein.

27. The Plaintiff claimed that on account of such alleged misdeeds and

illegalities perpetrated by the Defendant/Appellant,he not only suffered

mental agony and hardship but his reputation and goodwill also got ruined

in society and amongst his friends and relatives.

28. Plaintiff further alleged that people had reservations in visiting him,

lest the Defendant/Appellant created scene causing embarrassment to all

concerned.Further many persons, whose names were unknown to him, upon

hearing about the pending criminal case instituted by the

Defendant/Appellant, presumed him to be a criminal and consequently

stopped giving business to him, which ultimately led to the closure of the

Partnership Firm.

29. The Plaintiff thus, claimed loss of reputation, goodwill and inability

to participate in social organizations and asserted that he had suffered

immense setback, solely on account of the conduct of the

RFA 230/2024 Page8of22

Defendant/Appellant as described above. Hence, he claimed the following

reliefs:

(i) financial loss on account of closure of the Partnership

Firm, ₹3,50,000/-;

(ii) loss of reputation and goodwill, ₹2,00,000/-;

(iii) damages and compensation for harassment, ₹2,50,000/-;

(iv) legal expenses incurred in defending the criminal litigation,

₹1,00,000/-;

(v) legal expenses incurred in defending the Criminal Appeal

against his acquittal, ₹30,000/-; and

(vi) legal expenses incurred in defending the civil litigation,

₹70,000/-.

30. The Plaintiff thus, claimed a Decree for ₹10,00,000/- as damages

and compensation along with interest @ 18% per annum.

31. The Defendant/Appellant in the Written Statement, claimed that

under Hindu Law, the husband has a personal obligation to maintain his

wife and if any properties are possessed by him, the wife has a right to be

maintained out of such properties, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme

Court in JupudyPardha Sarathy v. Pentapati Rama Krishna, 2015 XI AD

(S.C.) 574.

32. It was claimed that there was no privity of contract between the

Plaintiff and the Defendant/Appellant and thus, he cannot be held liable for

any kind of damages or compensation. The Suit does not disclose any cause

of action. Furthermore, there are no documents to support the claim for

damages and compensation and the Suit is barred by limitation. It was

further claimed that the Plaintiff had concealed the material fact that he had

RFA 230/2024 Page9of22

filed a Divorce Petition under Section 13(1) (i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act

vide Petition No. 506/2000, which got dismissed for non-prosecution.

33. Furthermore, it was claimed that this Court had no jurisdiction to

entertain the present Suit, which was barred under Section 7 of the Family

Courts Act. It was therefore, asserted that the Suit of the Plaintiff was liable

to be rejected.

34. On merits, all the averments made in the Plaint were denied and the

assertions made with regard to loss of income or expenditure were stated to

be unsupported by any documentary evidence. Thus, the Suit was liable to

be dismissed.

35. The Plaintiff in the Replication reaffirmed the assertions made in the

Plaint.

36. On the basis of the pleadings, Issues were framed vide Order dated

15.04.2019 are as under:

“(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of

Rs.10,00,000/-on account of damages as prayed for? OPP

(2) Relief.”

37. In order to prove his case, the Plaintiff Arun Goel, examined himself

as PW-1 and deposed on similar lines, as stated in the Plaint.

38. The Defendant/Appellant, Ms. Renu Goel, filed her Affidavit by way

of Evidence as DW-1, however, her right to lead defence evidence was

closed vide Order dated 02.11.2023, under Section 35B CPC.

39. The learned Add. District Judge, on appreciation of the evidence of

the Plaintiff, concluded that the Defendant/Appellant had misused the State

machinery to satisfy her own greed for improper and collateral purposes. It

was further observed that her conduct was malicious, as she had taken

RFA 230/2024 Page10of22

different stands in different forums. In her cross-examination in FIR No.

588/2001, she stated that she had never worked either before or after

marriage. However, in the Petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Ex. PW-1/3,

she had stated that she was actively involved in gainful employment for

many years, since 2010. According to the learned Trial Court, this reflected

the opportunistic and malicious attitude of the Defendant/Appellant towards

the Plaintiff.

40. It was heldto be a classic case whereby the State machinery was

invoked as a tool of harassment against the Plaintiff, by getting FIR No.

588/2001 registered, without any basis. The learned Trial Court observed

that the Defendant/Appellant had made a mockery of the entire judicial

system in order to safeguard her personal interest and, in the process,

harassed and tortured the Plaintiff and his family members. The Plaintiff

was also held to have suffered criminal litigation as well as loss of

reputation and goodwill.

41. Accordingly, the Suit was decreed for:

(i) ₹30,000/- towards loss of reputation and goodwill of

the Plaintiff;

(ii) ₹50,000/- towardsdamages and compensation for

harassment, torture and mental agony; and

(iii) ₹75,000/- towardslegal expenses incurred in defending

the criminal case arising out of FIR No. 588/2001

under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC.

42. The Suit was decreed for a total sum of ₹1,55,000/- on account of

loss of reputation, damages and compensation, and legal expenses

incurred in defending FIR No. 588/2001.

RFA 230/2024 Page11of22

43. Aggrieved by the impugned Judgment, the present Regular First

Appeal has been filed.

44. The grounds of challenge are that the Suit of the Plaintiff lacks the

essential ingredients for grant of damages, on account of

maliciousprosecution. Reliance has been placed on Trilok Chand Bansal v.

Bharat Bhushan Bansal.

45. It is claimed that the Suit of the Plaintiff was liable to be rejected

under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC. It was imperative for the Plaintiff to

establish that the proceedings instituted against him for the matrimonial

offences, were groundless or without reasonable and probable cause or had

been instituted with malicious motives. However, according to the

Appellant, the Plaintiff had led self-serving evidence, to this effect.

46. First of all, the Respondent/Plaintiff, aside from filing and exhibiting

the documents pertaining to the previous litigations, had not led any

independent evidence to establish that the proceedings were malicious. The

acquittal in the proceedings under Sections 498A/406 IPC, was primarily on

account of the prosecution having failed to prove its case beyond reasonable

doubt and there was no categorical finding that the prosecution was entirely

baseless or maliciously instituted.

47. It is further asserted that it was not a case where the Plaintiff was

discharged, but rather a case where, after a full-fledged trial, the benefit of

doubt was extended to the Plaintiff as the prosecution had failed to prove its

case beyond reasonable doubt.

48. Moreover, the learned Trial Court, while appreciating the contents of

the FIR and the grounds of acquittal, practically sat as an Appellate

Court,with respect to the Judgment of acquittal, for which it had no

RFA 230/2024 Page12of22

jurisdiction. Merely because a criminal case resulted in acquittal, cannot be

termed as malicious prosecution, as has been held in Gangadhar Padhy v.

Prem Singh, 211 (2014) DLT 104; Akbar Ali v. State; and Sannam Bharti v.

DTC, 2013 SCC OnLine Del 3104.

49. It had not been appreciated that the Appellant/Defendant was unable

to prove her case beyond reasonable doubt allegedly on account of the

inaction of the Investigating Officer, whereas the Respondent/Plaintiff did

not even appear to substantiate the allegations levelled by him in the

Divorce Petition.

50. Moreover, Article 74 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act provides

that a Suit for compensation for malicious prosecution,is required to be filed

within one year from the date of acquittal of the Plaintiff or otherwise, from

the termination of the prosecution. The issues got framed by the learned

MM on 15.04.2019 and therefore, the Suit of the Plaintiff was barred by

limitation, which aspect was allegedly not considered by the learned Trial

Court, and the impugned Judgment was liable to be set aside on this ground

itself.

51. Mere initiation of legal proceedings against the Plaintiff based on

allegations of commission of offences resulting in registration of FIR under

Sections 498A/406/34 IPC cannot be termed as malicious prosecution. It

was further asserted that the Appellant/Defendant had a legal right to seek

correction of the alleged errors in the impugned Judgment by preferring an

Appeal in accordance with law in order to safeguard her rights.

52. It is a matter of record that on account of matrimonial differences, the

parties were unable to reside together and had levelled various allegations

against each other.

RFA 230/2024 Page13of22

53. Therefore, it was submitted that the impugned Judgment dated

22.12.2023 was liable to be set aside.

54. The Appellant filed the Written Arguments on similar lines, as the

grounds of challenge

55. The Respondent/Plaintiff, in the Written Arguments, justified the

impugned Judgment of the learned Trial Court, by referring to the multiple

litigations between the parties and asserted that the Suit had been rightly

decreed.

Submissions heard and record perused.

56. The Plaintiff, Mr. Arun Goel, got married to the Defendant, Smt.

Renu Goel, on 15.02.1997 and they were blessed with a son on 01.06.1998.

However, unfortunately, their matrimonial life did not proceed smoothly and

temperamental differences arose between the parties, leading to matrimonial

discord. Consequently, the following litigations ensued between the parties:

(i) In the year 2000, a Divorce Petition under Section 13(1)(i-

a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, was filed by the

husband against the wife.

(ii) In November, 2000, a Civil Suit for Permanent Injunction

was filed by the wife against the Plaintiff/husband, his elder

brother and his sister-in-law, seeking restraint against her

forcible dispossession from the Property in question. The

Suit was disposed of on the statements of the parties on

10.11.2000.

(iii) In the year 2002, FIR No. 588/01 under Sections

498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, was registered

against the Plaintiff, his mother, brother and sister-in-law at

RFA 230/2024 Page14of22

Police Station Prashant Vihar. A Chargesheet was filed on

10.09.2002; however, the accused persons were acquitted

vide Judgment dated 26.05.2014.

(iv) On 12.12.2003, a Petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was

filed by the wife and the son seeking maintenance, which

was allowed vide Judgment dated 18.03.2014, whereby the

Plaintiff/husband was directed to pay maintenance @

Rs.2,000/- per month from 12.12.2003 till 31.12.2009.

(v) On 21.07.2014, Criminal Appeal No. 2/14 under Section

378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, was filed

against the Judgment of acquittal, which was dismissed on

05.11.2016 by the learned ASJ.

(vi) On 21.11.2014, the Defendant, Smt. Renu Goel, filed Civil

Suit No. 410/2014 titled Master Nikunj (Minor) vs. Sh. Arun

Goel & Ors., for Declaration, Permanent and Mandatory

Injunction and Rendition of Accounts against the Plaintiff,

his mother and uncle before the learned Civil Judge, Tis

Hazari Courts, which came to be dismissed.

(vii) On 07.09.2017, the present Suit bearing CS No. 810/2017

was filed by the Plaintiff, seeking compensation and

damages in the sum of Rs.10,00,000/- on account of

harassment, mental agony, torture and malicious

prosecution.

57. The Plaintiff, claimed that he had incurred legal expenses of

₹1,00,000/- in defending the criminal litigation; legal expenses of ₹30,000/-

in defending the Criminal Appeal against his acquittal under Sections 498-

RFA 230/2024 Page15of22

A/406 IPC; and legal expenses of ₹70,000/- in defending the civil litigation.

He further claimed that the same amounted to malicious prosecution.

I.Whether the learned Trial Court was justified in awarding Rs.75,000/-

towards litigation expenses and Rs.50,000/- towards damages and

compensation for harassment, torture and mental agony

58. The learned District Judge, while considering the claim of the

Respondent/Plaintiff for damages on account of the loss caused to the

Plaintiff due to initiation of false and frivolous litigation against him,

concluded as under :

“9.13 On perusal of the above judgment, it is clear that

the defendant has misused the state machinery to satisfy

her own greed, improper and collateral purpose. The

conduct of the defendant is malicious as she has taken

different stands before different corums. In the state case

stemming out of FIR No.588/01, during her cross-

examination, she has stated that she had never worked

before or after marriage. However, in the petition under

Section 125 Cr.P.C (Ex.PW1/3), she has stated that she

was actively involved in gainful employment for the past

many years since 2010. This clearly reflects upon the

opportunistic and malicious attitude of the defendant

towards the plaintiff. This is a classic case, whereby the

state machinery was put to motion by invoking Section

498A/406/34 IPC without any basis as a too of

harassment of plaintiff. The defendant had made a

mockery of the entire justice system to safeguard her

personal interest and in the process have harassed/

tortured the plaintiff and his entire family. The plaintiff

on account of criminal litigation must have suffered loss

of reputation and goodwill apart from the expenses

incurred by him in defending himself in the criminal case.

RFA 230/2024 Page16of22

Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff

and against the defendant.”

59. At the outset, it may be noted that while in the title of the Suit, the

Plaintiff had claimed compensation, damages for mental agony, torture and

malicious prosecution, there is not even a whisper in the entire body of the

Plaint in regard to the allegations of malicious prosecution. Only the details

of multiple matrimonial litigations, which ensued between the parties, have

been referred.

60. Furthermore, in order to constitute malicious prosecution, the

following aspects have to be proved:

(i) initiation or continuation of a law suit;

(ii) lack of probable cause;

(iii) Malice; and

(iv) favourable termination of lawsuit.

61. It was explained by the Privy Council in Sah Mauji Ram vs. Sah

Chaturbhuj, AIR 1939 Privy Council 225 that in order to succeed in an

action for malicious prosecution, it must be established that the Defendant

acted without reasonable and probable cause and with malice.

62. Likewise, the Supreme Court of India in the case of West Bengal State

Electricity Board v. Dilip Kumar Ray, (2007) 14 SCC 568, reiterated the

same principle and held that in an action for malicious prosecution, the

plaintiff must prove that the defendant acted without reasonable and

probable cause and with malice; that 'malice' and 'want of reasonable and

probable cause' have reference to the state of the defendant's mind at the

date of initiation of the criminal proceedings, and the onus rests on the

plaintiff to prove them."

RFA 230/2024 Page17of22

63. In the present case, there is not a whisper by the Plaintiff to explain

how the criminal litigation undertaken by the Appellant, was permeated with

malice or was intended to harass the Plaintiff and his family members

merely because the Appellant sought redressal of her grievances pertaining

to alleged dowry harassment and cruelty, which resulted in the litigation

under Sections 498-A/406 IPC, cannot per se be termed as malicious.

64. Insofar as the criminal litigation under Sections 498A and 406 IPC is

concerned, the Defendant/wife, Smt. Renu Goel, had merely exercised her

rights under the law to seek redressal of her grievances. It has been rightly

contended by the Appellant that merely because the criminal case was

dismissed or that the Appeal also did not succeed, does not imply that it was

initiated with an ulterior motive or was malicious.

65. Moreover, it has been rightly argued on behalf of the Appellant that

the acquittal was on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove its case

beyond reasonable doubt. In the entire Judgment of acquittal or the Order

dismissing the Appeal, there is no observation whatsoever that the criminal

litigation was malicious or had been undertaken by the wife/Appellant, with

an intent to harass the Plaintiff.

66. It is not the success or failure of the litigation, which determines its

malicious nature, but the intent and motive with which the litigation was

initiated. There is no evidence to show that the criminal litigation had been

initiated by the wife for any ulterior motive and therefore, it cannot be said

that the criminal litigation was initiated maliciously or that it entitled the

Plaintiff to compensation.Painful and sad as it may be, there was no basis

shown for grant of litigation expenses incurred in defending the criminal

litigation, as has been claimed by the Plaintiff.

RFA 230/2024 Page18of22

67. It is a settled principle that acquittal in a criminal case and liability for

malicious prosecution operate in two distinct spheres. Failure of the

prosecution to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt, cannot

automatically lead to an inference that the complaint itself was maliciously

false.

68. A prosecution that fails because of the investigating agency's inability

to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt is different, from a prosecution

filed with the knowledge of its falsity or an improper motive. Where a

complainant lodges a complaint on the basis of facts known to her and

honestly believes in the substance of her allegations, the subsequent failure

of prosecution to prove the offence on the evidence produced, cannot be

visited upon her by way of civil damages.

69. As has been consistently held in Gangadhar Padhy v. Prem Singh

211 (2014) DLT 104 and Sannam Bharti v. DTC 2013 SCC Online Del

3104, mere acquittal does not lead to a finding of malicious prosecution, and

this well-settled principle was referred to but then overlooked in the

impugned judgment. The Ld. Add. District Judge referred to these very

judgments in its analysis, yet proceeded to treat the acquittal as establishing

malice, a conclusion which is patently incorrect.

70. The learned Trial Court appears to have conflated acquittal in a

criminal case, with proof of malicious prosecution. The distinction between

failure of prosecution and malicious institution of prosecution was not

properly appreciated.

71. The Respondent/Plaintiff was required not merely to show that he was

acquitted, but further to establish through cogent pleadings and evidence

that the Appellant/Defendant acted maliciously and without reasonable

RFA 230/2024 Page19of22

cause while instituting the criminal proceedings. The said burden was not

discharged.

72. Likewise, the Appellant/wife may have initiated the civil litigation, as

stated above, but that too, was only to agitate her civil rights and seek their

protection, which again cannot be termed either as malicious or as intended

to harass the Respondent/husband. One litigation had been initiated by the

Appellant/wife for protection of her right of residence and the other was

instituted to seek protection of the rights of the child, in the property of the

husband.

73. The Appellant had initiated proceedings under Section 125 Cr.PC Ex.

PW1/3, for claiming maintenance for herself and the son. The Respondent

had claimed that it, was based on incorrect averments, inasmuch as the wife

had claimed maintenance, despite admitting that she had been gainfully

employed since the year 2010.

74. While deciding the Petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Ex. PW1/3,

the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, vide Judgment dated 18.03.2014,

awarded maintenance @ ₹2,000/- per month, while future maintenance to

the Appellant/wife was declined.

75. The learned ADJ, observed while the Appellant/wife had taken a

stand in the criminal litigation that she had never been employed after her

marriage, in the Petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Ex. PW1/3, that she had

admitted that she had been gainfully employed since 2010. According to the

learned District Judge, this reflected an obstinate and malicious attitude of

the Defendant/Appellant, towards the Plaintiff.

76. However, this observation is absolutely incorrect as the wife had a

legal right to claim maintenance on her own behalf as well as on behalf of

RFA 230/2024 Page20of22

her child. Moreover, it had been disclosed that she had started working in

the year 2010 and no maintenance was granted to her, after 2010. Therefore,

to hold that this litigation for claiming maintenance was malicious, is not

tenable.

77. Therefore, to conclude that there was any concealment of facts or the

Maintenance litigation, was motivated or false; is completely untenable.

78. The sum of Rs.75,000/- granted to the Plaintiff towards legal

expenses for defending the criminal case is, therefore, not sustainable.

II. Whether damages and compensation of Rs.50,000/- for harassment,

torture and mental agony, are justified:

79. The Plaintiff has been awarded Rs.50,000/- as damages and

compensation for harassment, torture and mental agony, which is also not

sustainable.

80. The learned ADJ, though right in observing the pain and agony

suffered by the respondent, Husband, but in a matrimonial litigation, the

suffering is by both the parties. While it may be right that such litigation

causes tremendous pain, agony and harassment, as the Plaintiff remained

embroiled in this litigation for a period of 14 years, but it cannot be

overlooked that in such matrimonial litigation, not only the husband but also

the wife, to some extent, even the child becomes an unwilling victim.The

consequences of such litigation are suffered not only by one, but by all the

three stakeholders. The husband definitely would have suffered tremendous

pain but, at the same time, the wife also cannot be held to have escaped the

consequences of initiation of litigation.

RFA 230/2024 Page21of22

81. There was no intentional act of causing pain and agony to the

respondent and the consequences of matrimonial litigation, were suffered by

the husband and wife and by their family members, as well. The Ld. ADJ

fell in error in attributing it solely to the wife and holding her liable to pay

the litigation expenses incurred by the Respondent.

82. Having concluded that there was no intentional harassment on the part

of the Appellant/wife in pursuing her legal remedies, the granting the

compensation and damages for harassment in the sum of Rs.50,000/-, are

held to be not justified.

III. Whether the grant of Rs.30,000/- towards “Loss of Reputation and

Goodwill” are justified:

83. Significantly, the learned Trial Court awarded a sum of ₹30,000/-

towards "loss of reputation and goodwill". While awarding the aforesaid

sum,the Ld. Trial Court in the impugned Judgment had observed that the

Plaintiff "must have suffered loss of reputation and goodwill" on account of

the criminal litigation. Subsequently, in the very next instance, the Ld. Trial

Court itself recorded that the Plaintiff has not led any evidence on record to

prove the loss of goodwill caused to him.

84. The loss of reputation and damages as a distinct head of civil damages

requires the Plaintiff to establish that the Defendant made a false statement

of fact, that such statement was published or communicated to third parties,

and that it caused actual damage to his reputation in the estimation of right-

thinking members of society. A claim for loss of reputation must be

grounded in specific acts and not in mere general allegations of social

embarrassment. Vague and omnibus allegations, bereft of particulars, cannot

sustain an award under this head.

RFA 230/2024 Page22of22

85. In the present case, the Respondent/Plaintiff has led no evidence

whatsoever to prove any actual loss of reputation, no witness has been

examined nor any document placed on record to demonstrate that his

standing in society was specifically injured on account of the acts of the

Appellant.

86. Furthermore, it is well settled that mere acquittal in a criminal case

does not, by itself, amount to or establish loss of reputation. An acquittal

only signifies that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable

doubt and cannot be elevated to proof of reputational harm so as to found a

civil claim for damages. In the absence of any cogent pleading or evidence,

the grant of ₹30,000/- towards loss of reputation and goodwill is, therefore,

not sustainable.

Conclusion:

87. In the absence of foundational pleadings, absence of evidence proving

want of reasonable cause, and absence of proof regarding actual damages

allegedly suffered by the Respondent/Plaintiff, the decree passed by the

learned Trial Court cannot be sustained.

88. The impugned Judgment and Decree dated 22.12.2023 are

accordingly set aside.

89. The Appeal is allowed and the Suit of the Respondent/Plaintiff is

dismissed. Pending Applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

(NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA)

JUDGE

MAY 26, 2026/R