No Substantial Evidence of Cruelty or Desertion: Telangana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Husband’s Divorce Petition
Family Court’s Rejection of Divorce Petition Under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of Hindu Marriage Act Confirmed by High Court
On June 2024, the Telangana High Court upheld the Family Court’s decision dismissing a divorce petition filed by the husband under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The bench, comprising Hon’ble Sri Justice K. Lakshman and Hon’ble Smt. Justice P. Sree Sudha, found that the appellant failed to provide substantial evidence to support claims of cruelty and desertion against his wife.
The appellant-husband married the respondent-wife on May 19, 2006, in Hyderabad. The marriage, which was arranged, initially appeared harmonious but soon deteriorated. The husband alleged that the wife began harassing him over minor issues, accused him of infidelity, and demanded they live separately from his family. In response, the wife claimed that she suffered physical abuse, dowry demands, and was forced to undergo abortions. The husband’s petition for divorce was dismissed by the Family Court, prompting him to appeal to the High Court.
Credibility of Evidence:
The High Court meticulously reviewed the evidence presented. It noted the appellant’s failure to provide specific instances or credible testimony to substantiate claims of cruelty. “The allegations made by the appellant are vague and lack the necessary detail to establish cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act,” the bench remarked.
Assessment of Witness Testimonies:
The court highlighted inconsistencies in the appellant’s testimonies and found the evidence provided by his neighbor, PW-2, unconvincing. “The witness statements were generalized and did not corroborate the claims of sustained cruelty,” the judgment stated.
Desertion Claims:
Regarding desertion, the court pointed out contradictions in the appellant’s narrative. While the appellant alleged that the respondent deserted him in April 2007, evidence suggested mutual consent to live separately. “Desertion requires clear evidence of the intention to permanently forsake the marital relationship, which is absent in this case,” the court observed, citing precedents from cases such as Lachman Utamchand Kirpalani v. Meena @ Mota and Adhyatma Bhattar Alwar v. Adhyatma Bhattar Sri Devi.
Mediation and Settlement Attempts:
The court acknowledged that the case had been referred to mediation, which was unsuccessful. Despite prolonged separation and the appellant’s monetary settlement offer, the court noted, “Irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not a recognized ground for divorce under current law.”
The court reiterated the need for concrete evidence to substantiate claims of cruelty and desertion. “Cruelty, as defined in Dastane v. Dastane, must be willful and unjustifiable conduct that endangers the spouse’s life, limb, or health,” the judgment emphasized. Similarly, it cited the necessity of proving both the factum of separation and animus deserendi for desertion claims.
Justice K. Lakshman noted, “The appellant failed to prove the alleged cruelty and desertion with specific instances. The Family Court’s detailed reasoning and judgment leave no room for interference.”
The Telangana High Court’s decision underscores the judiciary’s rigorous standards in divorce cases involving allegations of cruelty and desertion. By upholding the Family Court’s findings, the judgment reinforces the necessity for substantial evidence to substantiate such claims. This ruling is expected to influence future cases by emphasizing the importance of credible, detailed evidence in matrimonial disputes.
Date of Decision: June 7, 2024
Xxx vs xxx
