The Andhra Pradesh High Court has allowed a husband’s appeal seeking divorce under Section 13(1A)(ii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, ruling that mere unwillingness to resume marital life does not amount to “wrong” under the law. The Division Bench found that the wife failed to prove that the husband had deliberately prevented compliance with a decree for restitution of conjugal rights.
The judgment was delivered by a Bench comprising Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam on April 28, 2026.
Background Of The Case
The couple married on February 5, 1992, and had a son. Over time, disputes arose between them, leading to multiple legal proceedings. Earlier, the husband had filed a divorce petition, while the wife sought restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
In 2001, the Family Court dismissed the husband’s divorce plea but allowed the wife’s petition for restitution of conjugal rights. According to the husband, despite the decree, the wife never resumed cohabitation for more than one year, giving him the statutory right to seek divorce under Section 13(1A)(ii).
The wife opposed the plea, claiming she repeatedly tried to return to the matrimonial home but the husband refused to take her back.
The Family Court at Tirupati dismissed the husband’s petition in 2004. It accepted the testimony of the wife and her witnesses, holding that the husband lacked bona fide intention to comply with the restitution decree.
The trial court concluded that the husband could not seek divorce by taking advantage of his own conduct under Section 23(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act.
The High Court re-examined the evidence and found inconsistencies in the statements of the wife’s witnesses. The Bench observed that their testimonies did not convincingly establish that the husband had actively prevented the wife from rejoining him after the restitution decree.
The Court noted that the evidence, at best, showed “disinclination” on the husband’s part, which by itself could not be treated as legal misconduct serious enough to deny divorce.
“The conduct alleged has to be something more than a mere disinclination to agree to an offer of reunion,” the Bench observed while relying on earlier Supreme Court rulings.
The judges also pointed out that the wife never initiated execution proceedings to enforce the restitution decree, even though the law provided such a remedy.
The Court further observed that the appeal had remained pending since 2004 and there was nothing on record showing any genuine effort by either side to resume matrimonial life during this long period.
Allowing the appeal, the High Court set aside the Family Court’s 2004 order and dissolved the marriage solemnised on February 5, 1992. The Court held that the statutory ground for divorce under Section 13(1A)(ii) had been clearly made out and that the husband could not be denied relief under Section 23(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act.
Case Details
Case Title: Husband v Wife
Case Number: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 4279 of 2004
Judges: Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam
Decision Date: April 28, 2026
