The Telangana High Court has dismissed a husband's appeal against the rejection of his divorce petition, holding that allegations of adultery, desertion and other matrimonial misconduct must be supported by reliable evidence. The Court found that the husband had failed to establish cruelty as required under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
A Division Bench comprising Justice K. Lakshman and Justice K. Sujana upheld the Family Court's order, observing that allegations alone cannot become grounds for divorce without convincing evidence. The Bench also pointed out that the husband had sought dissolution of marriage only on the ground of cruelty and could not rely on adultery or desertion as separate grounds when they had not been pleaded as grounds for divorce.
Background
The husband had filed a petition before the Family Court seeking divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, alleging cruelty by his wife. The couple had married in 1992 through the customary Udiki form of marriage and had three sons.
According to the husband, he had worked in Saudi Arabia, Dubai and Iraq to support his family and regularly sent money to his wife. He alleged that she frequently visited her parental home, failed to account for the money sent by him and maintained an alleged extramarital relationship with another person.
He further claimed that his wife had attempted suicide after being caught in the alleged relationship by their elder son. He also accused her of leaving the matrimonial home with cash and gold ornaments and assaulting his relatives during a subsequent incident.
The wife denied the allegations and contended that the divorce petition had been filed to get rid of her.
After examining the evidence of both sides, the Family Court dismissed the divorce petition through its order dated September 16, 2015, holding that the husband had failed to prove cruelty. Challenging this decision, he approached the Telangana High Court.
The High Court examined the evidence and found that several serious allegations made by the husband remained unsupported.
Regarding the alleged extramarital relationship, the Bench noted that although the husband claimed their elder son had caught his wife with another person, he did not examine the son as his witness. Instead, the son appeared for the wife and denied the allegation. The Court also observed that the husband had failed to examine the relative whom his wife was accused of assaulting.
The husband had additionally relied on a bank passbook to support his claim regarding money sent from abroad. However, the Bench found that he had not produced sufficient evidence to establish the alleged misuse of those funds.
Emphasising that cruelty depends on the circumstances of each matrimonial relationship, the Court observed:
"Human mind is extremely complex and human behaviour is equally complicated. Similarly human ingenuity has no bound, therefore, to assimilate the entire human behaviour in one definition is almost impossible. What is cruelty in one case may not amount to cruelty in other case."
The Bench also referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Rakesh Raman v. Smt. Kavita, observing that matrimonial disputes require courts to examine the broader relationship between the parties rather than focusing only on isolated incidents.
It further observed:
"Matrimonial cases before the Courts pose a different challenge, quite unlike any other, as we are dealing with human relationships with its bundle of emotions, with all its faults and frailties. It is not possible in every case to pin point to an act of 'cruelty' or blameworthy conduct of the spouse."
The Court specifically noted that the husband had filed his divorce petition under the ground of cruelty. Although he alleged adultery and desertion against his wife, he had not sought dissolution of marriage on either of those grounds.
The Bench held that the allegation of adultery had also not been established through evidence. Similarly, the husband could not seek relief on the ground of desertion when his petition was not filed on that basis.
Referring to the Supreme Court's decision in Savitri Pandey v. Prem Chandra Pandey, the High Court reiterated that cruelty must be assessed on the basis of conduct that makes it harmful or injurious for one spouse to continue living with the other. It must also be distinguished from the ordinary wear and tear of family life.
The High Court found that the husband had failed to establish the alleged cruelty through reliable and convincing evidence. It held that the Family Court had passed a reasoned and well-founded order and that no grounds existed to interfere with it.
Accordingly, the Division Bench dismissed Family Court Appeal No. 473 of 2017 and upheld the Family Court's rejection of the divorce petition. There was no order as to costs, and any pending miscellaneous applications were directed to stand closed.
