RAJ TALREJA Vs. KAVITA TALREJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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 1999 both husband and wife lived together with the parents of the husband. In the year 1999, the couple shifted to their own residence. On 19.03.2000, the husband left the matrimonial home and, soon thereafter, on 25.03.2000, filed a petition for grant of a decree of divorce dissolving the marriage.

(2.) It is not disputed that the 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 04.12000, the wife filed a complaint to the State Women Commission making serious allegations against the husband. Thereafter, on 05.12000, she sent a similar letter to the Chief Justice of the High Court as well as the Superintendent of Police. Finally, on 07.12000, she made another complaint to the Chief Minister. On 16.03.2001, these complaints were found to be false. On 104.2001, a First Information Report (for short the 'FIR') was registered at the instance of the wife against the appellant husband under Sec. 452, 323 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code. The police investigated the matter and filed a report on 30.04.2001 stating that there is no merit in the FIR. According to the police, the injuries on the person of the wife were self inflicted and she has filed a false FIR. It was recommended that the criminal proceedings be initiated against her under Sec. 182 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'). It is not disputed that till 16.03.2001, such criminal proceedings were initiated against the wife.

(3.) The husband moved an amendment application in the divorce petition incorporating all these facts and alleging that due to filing of the false complaints before various authorities he had been subjected to cruelty by the wife. This is the only issue raised before us. The learned trial Judge dismissed the petition. The appeal filed by the husband was also dismissed. Hence, this appeal.