# Merely because the respondent withdrew the complaint it cannot be said that the allegation of sexual harassment is false

- Link: https://section1.in/merely-because-the-respondent-withdrew-the-complaint-it-cannot-be-said-that-the-allegation-of-sexual-harassment-is-false/
- Published: 2025-06-22T08:22:02+00:00
- Author: Reshma Azath

Contents

 * [Prayer](https://section1.in/merely-because-the-respondent-withdrew-the-complaint-it-cannot-be-said-that-the-allegation-of-sexual-harassment-is-false/#prayer)
    - [Crux of the Case](https://section1.in/merely-because-the-respondent-withdrew-the-complaint-it-cannot-be-said-that-the-allegation-of-sexual-harassment-is-false/#crux-of-the-case)
    - [Case of the petitioner / husband](https://section1.in/merely-because-the-respondent-withdrew-the-complaint-it-cannot-be-said-that-the-allegation-of-sexual-harassment-is-false/#case-of-the-petitioner-husband)
    - [Case of the respondent / wife](https://section1.in/merely-because-the-respondent-withdrew-the-complaint-it-cannot-be-said-that-the-allegation-of-sexual-harassment-is-false/#case-of-the-respondent-wife)
    - [Original petition for divorce dismissed by Family Court and order to restore the conjugal  relationship](https://section1.in/merely-because-the-respondent-withdrew-the-complaint-it-cannot-be-said-that-the-allegation-of-sexual-harassment-is-false/#original-petition-for-divorce-dismissed-by-family-court-and-order-to-restore-the-conjugalnbsp-relationship)
    - [Family Court failed to consider the aspect, wrongly concluded that the complaint of sexual harassment was prima facie true](https://section1.in/merely-because-the-respondent-withdrew-the-complaint-it-cannot-be-said-that-the-allegation-of-sexual-harassment-is-false/#family-court-failed-to-consider-the-aspect-wrongly-concluded-that-the-complaint-of-sexual-harassment-was-prima-facie-true)
    - [Merely because the respondent withdrew the complaint, it cannot be said that the allegation of sexual harassment is false](https://section1.in/merely-because-the-respondent-withdrew-the-complaint-it-cannot-be-said-that-the-allegation-of-sexual-harassment-is-false/#merely-because-the-respondent-withdrew-the-complaint-it-cannot-be-said-that-the-allegation-of-sexual-harassment-is-false)
 * [Analysis](https://section1.in/merely-because-the-respondent-withdrew-the-complaint-it-cannot-be-said-that-the-allegation-of-sexual-harassment-is-false/#analysis)
    - [The points for consideration in these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals](https://section1.in/merely-because-the-respondent-withdrew-the-complaint-it-cannot-be-said-that-the-allegation-of-sexual-harassment-is-false/#the-points-for-consideration-in-these-civil-miscellaneous-appeals)
    - [On the written assurance of the petitioner that he will reunite with the respondent, she withdrew the complaint](https://section1.in/merely-because-the-respondent-withdrew-the-complaint-it-cannot-be-said-that-the-allegation-of-sexual-harassment-is-false/#on-the-written-assurance-of-the-petitioner-that-he-will-reunite-with-the-respondent-she-withdrew-the-complaint)
    - [IEA would not strictly applicable to family court matters in view of Sec 14 of the FCA, 1984 and the burden remains upon the petitioner](https://section1.in/merely-because-the-respondent-withdrew-the-complaint-it-cannot-be-said-that-the-allegation-of-sexual-harassment-is-false/#iea-would-not-strictly-applicable-to-family-court-matters-in-view-of-sec-14-of-the-fca-1984-and-the-burden-remains-upon-the-petitioner)
    - [It is an obiter dicta and not a ratio decidendi](https://section1.in/merely-because-the-respondent-withdrew-the-complaint-it-cannot-be-said-that-the-allegation-of-sexual-harassment-is-false/#it-is-an-obiter-dicta-and-not-a-ratio-decidendi)
    - [The petitioner is thus entitled to a Decree of divorce](https://section1.in/merely-because-the-respondent-withdrew-the-complaint-it-cannot-be-said-that-the-allegation-of-sexual-harassment-is-false/#the-petitioner-is-thus-entitled-to-a-decree-of-divorce)
 * [Conclusion](https://section1.in/merely-because-the-respondent-withdrew-the-complaint-it-cannot-be-said-that-the-allegation-of-sexual-harassment-is-false/#conclusion)
 * [Party](https://section1.in/merely-because-the-respondent-withdrew-the-complaint-it-cannot-be-said-that-the-allegation-of-sexual-harassment-is-false/#party)

#### **Prayer**

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 19 of the Family Court Act, 1984 
read with Section 28 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 praying to set aside the fair order
and decree dated December 16, 2023 made in H.M.O.P.No.702 of 2021 on the file of
the Third Additional Principal Family Court, Chennai.

##### **Crux of the Case**

1. Rajesh and Anupriya are husband and wife, whose marriage was solemnized on September
16, 2015. They were blessed with a male child, namely Vignesh, on July 27, 2016.
Some disputes shot up between the couple and hence the husband filed a petition 
on October 4, 2017 under Section 13 (1) (i-a) of ‘Hindu Marriage Act, 1955’ [‘H.
M. Act’ for short] seeking divorce before the Family Court, Chengalpattu and the
same was taken on file in F.C.O.P. No.155 of 2017. Thereafter, as per the Order 
passed by this Court in Tr.C.M.P. No.975 of 2017 dated March 6, 2018, the case in
F.C.O.P. No.155 of 2017 was transferred to Sub Court, Tambaram and renumbered as
H.M.O.P. No.348 of 2018. Again as per the Order of this Court dated March 29, 2021
made in Tr.C.M.P. No.120 of 2021, the matter was transferred to Principal Family
Court, Chennai and renumbered as H.M.O.P. No.2237 of 2021. Thereafter, as per the
Order of the learned Principal Family Judge, Chennai dated February 20, 2023, the
matter was transferred to ‘the III Additional Principal Family Court, Chennai’ [‘
the Family Court’ for brevity], where the respondent-wife had filed for restitution
of conjugal rights in H.M.O.P.No.702 of 2021 on February 3, 2021. Both the Original
Petitions were tried separately. In H.M.O.P.No.2237 of 2021 filed by the husband,
Ex-P.1 to Ex-P.10 and Ex-R.1 to Ex-R.11 were marked. In H.M.O.P.No.702 of 2021 filed
by the wife, Ex-P.1 to Ex-P.11 and Ex-R.1 to Ex-R.33 were marked. In both the cases,
only the parties examined themselves; no independent witness was examined. After
full-fledged trial, separate Judgments were pronounced on the same date i.e., on
December 16, 2023, ruling in favour of the wife; petition for divorce was dismissed
and that for restitution of conjugal rights was ordered. Feeling aggrieved by the
same, the husband has filed the instant Civil Miscellaneous Appeals.

##### **Case of the petitioner / husband**

3. The crux of petitioner’s case is that the respondent / wife refused to live along
with the petitioner’s parents and demanded separate residence, creating conflicts.
The respondent lived together with the petitioner only for 51 days in the 2 years
following their marriage. The respondent ill-treated the petitioner saying that 
he hails from a village whereas she belongs to the city and she cannot live with
the petitioner’s family. The respondent used to leave for her parents’ house very
often without any justifiable cause. The respondent is highly quarrelsome and verbally
abusive towards the petitioner and his parents. The petitioner was employed in an
Engineering College and used to come home by 7 in the evening. While so, the respondent
forced the petitioner to return home by 5.00 pm at any rate which was quite impractical
for the petitioner, and often threatened him of committing suicide. Further, she
threatened him of lodging false complaints as if the petitioner and his family demanded
dowry. During the pendency of both the said Original Petitions, the respondent lodged
a Police Complaint against the petitioner and his parents containing defamatory 
and derogatory remarks; she alleged that the petitioner’s father sexually harassed
her, that the petitioner is flirting and physically intimate with various girls,
and that both are perverts. Thus, the petitioner was constrained to move High Court
for Anticipatory Bail. Later, the respondent filed D.V.C. No.47/2019, which was 
later quashed by this High Court. Subsequently, several complaints were made to 
various authorities, including the Collector, Superintendent of Police and Revenue
Divisional Officer, Kanchipuram, alleging that her in-laws were preventing them 
from living together. However, she failed to attend the inquiries and all the cases
were closed. The aforesaid acts of the respondent amounts to cruelty and has caused
irreparable mental trauma to the petitioner. The petitioner believes reconciliation
is impossible and therefore, seek to dismiss of the petition filed by the respondent
for restitution of conjugal rights and to allow the petition filed by him for divorce.

##### **Case of the respondent / wife**

4. The case of the respondent is that after marriage, they lived at her in-law’s
house. Then, she became pregnant and as her in-laws showed no interest in conducting
her Seemantham function, she moved to her parents’ house. Out of their wedlock, 
a Male child was born on July 27, 2016.

4.1. As an outcome of mutual understanding, the petitioner’s father arranged a separate
residence for the couple at Madipakkam, Guduvanchery, which did not have a compound
wall. Due to security concerns and inconvenience, the respondent requested her father-
in-law to construct a compound wall and she temporarily moved to her parents’ house
on September 9, 2017. Then, as the respondent faced difficulties while travelling
for her child’s medical treatment from Chengalpattu to Chennai, she continued to
stay at her parental home in Chennai, where she had better facilities. But her in-
laws were not happy about it leading to unpleasant situations and discords. Despite
this, her relationship with the petitioner remained cordial.

4.2. When their child developed wheezing symptoms, she admitted him to SRM Hospital,
but the petitioner discharged him against medical advice. She then took the child
to Chennai for better treatment, which enraged her in-laws.

4.3. Growing misunderstandings, family interference, and ill advice from her in-
laws strained their marriage. The respondent’s motherin-law forced her to leave 
the marital home on September 9, 2017 and later, filed a false police complaint 
against the respondent and her parents. During mediation, the couple had a positive
interaction. Further, there arose some difficulty for the respondent in staying 
at her parents’ house after her brother’s marriage, making reunion and support of
her husband an urgent requirement. Also keeping in mind the child’s welfare, the
respondent sought to allow the petition for restitution of conjugal rights and to
dismiss the petition filed by the petitioner / husband seeking divorce.

##### **Original petition for divorce dismissed by Family Court and order to restore the conjugal  relationship**

5. The Family Court, after analyzing the oral and documentary evidence available
on record, held that the allegations levelled against the respondent / wife by the
petitioner / husband, are not proved. As regards the sexual harassment complaint,
it was of the opinion that the same was not investigated and was withdrawn, as the
petitioner promised to live along with the respondent. Withdrawing the complaint
in the above circumstance cannot lead to an inference that the complaint was a false
one. Demanding a separate living from the joint family while facing sexual harassment
by one of the members thereof, does not amount to cruelty. It finally concluded 
that the respondent has not committed any act of cruelty against the petitioner.
Accordingly, the Family Court dismissed the Original Petition in O.P.No.2237 of 
2021 filed for divorce and directed the respondent to restore the conjugal relationship
with the petitioner within two months by allowing H.M.O.P.No.702 of 2021.

##### **Family Court failed to consider the aspect, wrongly concluded that the complaint of sexual harassment was prima facie true**

6. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed in both the Original Petitions, the husband
has filed these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals.

7. The learned counsel for appellant / petitioner (husband) would submit that the
respondent lived along with the petitioner for only 51 days in the 2 years after
their marriage. She refused to live with the petitioner without any justifiable 
cause. On September 8, 2017, she lodged a false complaint of dowry harassment leading
to the petitioner filing for divorce. Upon filing for divorce, on October 6, 2017,
the respondent and her party picked up quarrel with the petitioner and his family.
Further, on October 27, 2017 the respondent lodged a false complaint with derogatory
and defamatory remarks against the petitioner and the petitioner’s father, which
she later admitted as untrue and withdrew. The said act of the respondent amounts
to cruelty. The Family Court failed to consider the said aspect and without any 
basis, wrongly concluded that the complaint of sexual harassment was prima facie
true. The Order of the Family Court ordering restitution of conjugal rights is wrong
and unfair because the respondent/wife left the matrimonial home on her own and 
repeatedly filed false complaints, making the marriage impossible to continue. The
petitioner has suffered severe mental stress due to her actions but chose not to
disturb the child’s life, yet this was wrongly seen as neglect. The couple has been
living separately for more than seven years and there is no chance of reunion. Since
the marriage has completely broken down, the Order passed by the Family Court in
H.M.O.P. No.702 of 2021 and O.P.No.2237 of 2021 are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly,
the learned Counsel prayed to allow these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals.

##### **Merely because the respondent withdrew the complaint, it cannot be said that the allegation of sexual harassment is false**

8. The learned Counsel for the respondent herein / respondent (wife) strongly refuted
the contentions of the petitioner / husband and contended that her allegations are
true and supported by her complaints lodged at Mylapore and Guduvanchery Police 
Stations. She reiterated that the father of the petitioner had sexually harassed
her and unable to bear such harassment and other cruelties inflicted upon her, she
was compelled to take legal action. She further submitted that, the petitioner had
initially given an undertaking that he was willing to live with her and their minor
child persuading the respondent to withdraw the sexual harassment complaint, but
he has failed to keep up his word. Merely because the respondent withdrew the complaint,
it cannot be said that the allegation of sexual harassment is false. Despite the
respondent’s efforts to maintain a cordial relationship, the petitioner continued
to ill-treat and abuse her both verbally and physically. The petitioner never allowed
the respondent to live peacefully with him, yet the respondent remains willing to
continue the marital relationship for the welfare of their child. Referring to the
observation made by this Court in Paragraph No.16 of the Order dated March 29, 2021
in Tr. C.M.P. No.120 of 2021 [Ex-P.11 in H.M.O.P. No.702 of 2021], the learned Counsel
submits that the respondent is ready and willing to live with the petitioner forgetting
all the past events. The Family Court after considering the evidence available on
record, rightly dismissed the petition for divorce and allowed for restitution of
conjugal rights. There is no need to interfere with it. Accordingly, she prayed 
to dismiss both these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals.

#### **Analysis**

##### **The points for consideration in these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals**

10. The points for consideration in these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are whether
the police complaint given by the wife against the husband and her father-in-law
amounts to cruelty and whether the petitioner has made out a case under Section 
13 (1) (i-a) of H.M. Act ?

11. The petitioner and the respondent alone were examined in this case. Perusal 
of their oral evidence would lead to the inference that they were living together
for only two years after their marriage. The allegation against the respondent that
she had totally been with the petitioner only for 51 days in the two years of their
marital life is not supported by any credible evidence. Further it is natural for
a newlywed wife to visit frequently her parents’ home, where usually she would have
grown up and spent her life so far. Further, soon after the marriage, the respondent
got pregnant and it is usual for pregnant women to spend the later part of pregnancy
at their mother’s place. These cannot be termed as cruelty.

12. Another allegation against the respondent is that due to the pressure from the
respondent, the petitioner was forced to quit his employment at college and join
an IT Company. The same is also not supported by acceptable evidence.

13. The evidence available on record would show that till the child birth, the couple
was leading a typical marital life with the usual wear and tear. After filing of
this divorce petition, as evident from in H.M.O.P. No.702 of 2021 – Complaint and
oral evidence of the respondent, the respondent preferred a complaint before All
Women Police Station, Mylapore on October 27, 2017 making sexual allegations against
her husband and father-in-law. She remarked both of them as perverts, alleged that
her father-in-law sexually harassed her as well as that the petitioner was in casual
relationships with various women.

##### **On the written assurance of the petitioner that he will reunite with the respondent, she withdrew the complaint**

14. On November 1, 2017, the respondent withdrew the said complaint vide Ex-R.8 
in H.M.O.P. No.702 of 2021 – Letter, wherein the respondent, her parents as well
as her brother have signed as witnesses. In Ex-R.8 in H.M.O.P. No.702 of 2021it 
has been specifically stated that in Ex-R.5 – Complaint, some averments against 
her husband and father-inlaw have crept in without her knowledge. While so, the 
respondent now contends that only on the written assurance of the petitioner that
he will reunite with the respondent, she withdrew the complaint. The Complaint Closure
Report appears to make the said contention of the respondent probable.

15. But, thereafter, the petitioner failed to keep up his word; he did not reunite
with the respondent as assured before the Police. these circumstances, the respondent
ought to have been prudent and reopened the complaint and sought for investigation
into the matter. But, she miserably failed to do so.

##### **IEA would not strictly applicable to family court matters in view of Sec 14 of the FCA, 1984 and the burden remains upon the petitioner**

16. At this juncture, the learned Counsel for the petitioner would invite the attention
of this Court to Ex-R.4 in H.M.O.P. No.702 of 2021 – Screenshot of Whatsapp Chat
dated October 17, 2017, and would argue that the respondent herself admitted that
everything is her fault and apologised to the petitioner about 10 days before making
Ex-R.5 – Complaint and that in such a scenario, Ex-R.5 – Complaint could only be
a false one. This Court has perused Ex-R.4 – Screenshot. It appears that the petitioner
has received a message from a contact whom he has saved as “ANU”. The respondent
has denied the said message in her crossexamination. The burden is upon the petitioner
to prove Ex-R.4 – Screenshot. It is true that the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 would
not be strictly applicable to family court matters, in view of Section 14 of the
Family Courts Act, 1984. But, said Section 14 does not dispense with the burden 
of proof. The burden remains upon the petitioner. But the petitioner has failed 
to discharge the said burden. The petitioner has not taken any steps to prove that
the said contact from which he received such a message, is his wife / respondent.
Hence, the argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner deserves to be rejected.

17. Be that as it may, whether the averments contained in ExR.5 – Complaint are 
true or not is a matter for police investigation and the truth can be found only
in the trial. But there was no investigation in the first place. The averments remain
unestablished. The averments made in Ex-R.5 are of such nature that unless proved,
they amount to defamation, which in turn constitutes to mental cruelty. If really
the said averments are true, the respondent ought to have taken prudent steps to
prove her averments when the petitioner failed to reunite with her. Unsubstantiated
or uncorroborated defamatory averments made in Ex-R.5, causes stigma and mental 
agony to the petitioner as well as his family, and in the facts and circumstances
of this case amounts to cruelty.

##### **It is an obiter dicta and not a ratio decidendi**

18. Learned Counsel for the respondent / wife would invite the attention of this
Court to observation made by this Court in Paragraph No.16 of the Order dated March
29, 2021 in Tr. C.M.P. No.120 of 2021 [Ex-P.11 in H.M.O.P. No.702 of 2021] to contend
that the petitioner alone refused to co-operate for a reunion. The said observation
made by the Honourable Judge is an obiter dicta and not a ratio decidendi and hence,
not binding on this Court.

##### **The petitioner is thus entitled to a Decree of divorce**

19. The respondent sought to restitute her conjugal rights about 3 ½ years after
filing of the divorce petition. The respondent contends that she was hopeful of 
a reunion until then and that due to some family dynamics within her family, there
arose some difficulty for her to stay at her parents’ place. The respondent may 
be willing to resume her marital life with the petitioner, but in view of the mental
cruelty caused by her as detailed above, the petitioner’s unwillingness for reunion
is a justifiable one. His apprehensions about continuing the marital life with the
respondent, even after the defamatory and derogatory allegations of sexual nature
against him and his father, cannot be brushed aside simply. It has been eight years
since the couples began living estrange and there has been no significant improvement
so far. The matter was referred to Mediation in 2024 by this Court upon considering
the facts and circumstances of this case. Unfortunately, the parties did not reach
a consensus.

20. As elaborated above, the unestablished sexual allegations made by the respondent
against the petitioner and his father, amounts to cruelty and thus, the petitioner
has made out a case under Section 13 (1) (i-a) of H.M. Act. Points for consideration
arising in these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are answered accordingly. The petitioner
is thus entitled to a Decree of divorce.

21. It is learnt that the petitioner is paying a maintenance of Rs.25,000/- to the
respondent and his 8 year old child (who is under the custody of the respondent)
every month. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, especially the
stand taken by the respondent that she is ready and willing to let go of the past
and resume her marital life with the petitioner, this Court is of the view that 
though divorce is granted in favour of the petitioner, maintenance rights of the
respondent shall remain unaffected.

#### **Conclusion**

22. In view of the foregoing narrative, these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are allowed
and the Orders passed by the Family Court are set aside. The petition filed by the
appellant / husband seeking to dissolve his marriage with the respondent is allowed,
the petition filed by the respondent / wife seeking restitution of conjugal rights
is dismissed, and their marriage is dissolved by a Decree of divorce. It is made
clear that although these appeals are allowed and divorce is granted in favour of
the appellant / husband, the respondent / wife as well as the minor child is entitled
to claim maintenance / enhanced maintenance subject to the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance
Act, 1956 or any other laws in force, from the appellant. This judgment, granting
the dissolution of marriage, will not in any way affect the respondent’s right to
claim maintenance. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall
be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is
closed.

#### **Party**

V.Rajesh … Appellant / Respondent Vs. S.Anupriya … Respondent / Petitioner, dated
on 4th June 2025 Cited  CMA NOS.1038 AND 1039 OF 2024 AND CMP NO.9775 OF 2024 IN
CMA NO.1038 OF 2024 Coram:-  In The High Court Of Judicature At Madras The Honourable
Mrs. Justice J.Nisha Banu and The Honourable Mr. Justice R.Sakthivel

[V.Rajesh Vs. S.Anupriya](http://localhost:8080/section1/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/V.Rajesh-Vs.-S.Anupriya.pdf)
[Download](http://localhost:8080/section1/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/V.Rajesh-Vs.-S.Anupriya.pdf)

### Further Study

 No Related Posts Found.