The Hush Post: It should come as a big lesson to the women who misuse laws against their husband and in laws. Getting a fake case registered against their spouse or in laws can land them in trouble.
In a recent verdict, the Bombay High Court has come to the rescue of a man who had been attacked by his wife and against whom his wife had filed a fake dowry harassment case registered. The court has granted the man a decree of divorce and has directed his estranged wife to pay him Rs 50,000 as costs of litigation, as per a report.
A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court granted divorce under the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act to the man on grounds of cruelty by his wife during their decade-long married life. The man reportedly told the police that his wife’s behaviour had caused him mental and physical stress and her behaviour had also damaged his family’s reputation, the report said.
This man had got married to this woman (now his ex-wife) in 2006 and both were living at Nariman Point in Mumbai. The man alleged that after one year, his wife slapped her mother-in-law (man’s mother) who was a cancer patient. The woman also attacked her husband, the report said.
The report said that after some time, the woman lodged a false complaint alleging dowry harassment, after which the police detained the husband and his father. Later, the husband’s family got a relief in that case. In 2009, the husband filed for divorce and this infuriated the wife who filed criminal cases against her brother-in-law.
In her complaint, the accused her brother-in-law of having sent goons to molest her. But that false case fell flat when it was proved that the brother-in-law was in the sessions court applying for anticipatory bail in another case that she had lodged. The Bench held that there was no substance in the FIR and this complaint clearly amounts to cruelty, the report said.
The court struck down the order of the Family Court which had refused to grant a divorce and also asked the husband to pay maintenance of Rs 15,000. The High Court, however, upheld a portion of the Family Court’s order which had directed the man to pay monthly maintenance to their son who lives with the wife.