Filing Criminal Complaints and Matrimonial Litigation Does Not Constitute Cruelty Without Proof of Malicious Intent

The parties married on 21.01.2016 following a long-term love affair, despite initial opposition from the respondent-husband’s parents

Marital discord led to the appellant-wife leaving the matrimonial home on 09.08.2020 after an alleged assault

The wife filed an FIR under Section 498A IPC and a maintenance petition

The husband filed for divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA), 1955, alleging cruelty based on the wife’s arrogance, a pre-marital suicide attempt, accusations of incestuous relationships, and the filing of "false" criminal cases

The Trial Court granted the divorce on 16.08.2023, concluding that the filing of multiple cases constituted mental harassment

During the pendency of this appeal, the respondent remarried

1. Whether the filing of criminal cases and allegations of cruelty by the wife, which resulted in the husband's acquittal, per se constitute "cruelty" under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the HMA

2. Whether a second marriage contracted during the pendency of a matrimonial appeal is lawful under Section 15 of the HMA

Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, regarding dissolution of marriage on grounds of cruelty

Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh (2007), which established that "cruelty" lacks a straitjacket formula and must be evaluated based on the specific social and cultural milieu of the parties

Section 15 of the HMA, which prohibits remarriage until an appeal against a divorce decree is dismissed, as reinforced by Anurag Mittal v. Shaily Mishra Mittal (2018)

Principles in K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa regarding the impact of criminal litigation on matrimonial ties

The Court noted that allegations regarding the wife's pre-marital suicide attempt were irrelevant as Section 13(1)(i-a) only recognizes acts committed "after the solemnization of marriage"

Regarding the husband's acquittal in criminal cases, the Court reasoned that acquittal alone does not prove the allegations were "absolutely false" or intended solely for harassment, especially when the wife provided testimony (DW-1) regarding ill-treatment

The Court further determined that the respondent’s remarriage during the pendency of the appeal was a violation of Section 15 of the HMA, intended to frustrate the appellant's right to appeal; thus, he could not seek equity based on a "wrong" he committed

The Court specifically ruled that the respondent's second marriage was "apparently illegal" as it was contracted while the appeal was pending, in violation of Section 15 of the HMA

The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree of divorce dated 16.08.2023