Bombay HC has ruled that a false 498-A IPC case filed to correct the husband's conduct falls within the meaning of mental cruelty.In that landmark judgment it said, when false case for criminal trespass on account of having failed to respond correctly is initiated it abuses not only legal processes but inflicts mental agony inasmuch as a bad social image which are of very considerable anguish. Case Story This was a case of marital dispute where the wife had filed a case against her husband and his family under Section 498A of the IPC, which prescribes harassment of a woman by her husband or his relatives. But at the time of trial, it was found that the allegations were false and fabricated for the sole purpose of compelling the husband to do her biddings. The husband approached the court seeking relief on the ground that he had been grossly humiliated and caused emotional disturbance and reputational damage due to the false complaint. He also contended that there was no prima facie grievance on the part of the wife but a personal vendetta. Court's Observations While noting the trend of increased misuse of Section 498A, the High Court reiterated that this section should not be used as a tool for settling personal scores. Citing previous rulings of the Supreme Court, it re-affirmed that cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, is also when false allegations are made against the husband. It has been pointed out in the cases that "When a spouse resorts to making false allegations of a criminal nature against the other, it strikes at the foundation of a matrimonial relationship. Such conduct is indicative of malice and disregard for the emotional well-being of the other spouse." Outcome Considering the facts and admitting of the wife that the case was filed in order to "discipline" the husband, the court term it as an act of mental cruelty. The court granted a dissolution of marriage based on those grounds and directed not to misuses protective law such as section 498A. This judgment gives a message from the judiciary that scales of justice must be balanced: protecting the rights of real victims and preventing malpractices using legal provisions. It brings a message to take laws which aim to protect women from harassment and abuse responsibly. The judgment reminds the public that legal redress should be invoked with prudence and not as coercion, and hence justice is seen to be served for all concerned.