Case Note & Summary
The appellant-husband filed a petition for dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, on the grounds of cruelty and desertion against the respondent-wife. The Family Court at Aurangabad dismissed the petition on 17.11.2016, finding that the husband had failed to prove both grounds. Aggrieved, the husband preferred this appeal to the Bombay High Court. The parties were married on 06.12.2000, and a female child was born on 05.12.2001. The husband contended that the wife left the matrimonial home in September 2001 while pregnant, refused to visit his ailing father or attend his funeral, and that her family members abused and threatened him. The husband had earlier filed a divorce petition in 2003, which was settled on 18.02.2004, and cohabitation resumed briefly until the wife allegedly left again on 07.04.2004 without reasonable cause. The husband claimed desertion since that date. The wife denied the allegations, stating that the husband's family was dissatisfied with dowry demands and ill-treated her, and that after the settlement, she was harassed and driven out. She also claimed the husband neglected her and the minor child. The High Court examined the evidence on cruelty. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Savitri Pandey v. Prem Chandra Pandey, the court reiterated that cruelty under matrimonial law must be conduct of such gravity that it endangers living together, and it must be distinguished from ordinary wear and tear of family life. The court found that the wife's non-attendance at the husband's father's illness and funeral was justified because she was in an advanced stage of pregnancy and could not have traveled. Moreover, the earlier divorce petition settlement meant that prior instances of cruelty were waived, and the husband failed to plead any specific new acts of cruelty after the settlement. The pleadings were vague. Accordingly, the court held that the cruelty ground was not established. As regards desertion, though the provided text does not contain the complete analysis, the High Court concurred with the Family Court's finding that the husband himself was responsible for the separation and failed to prove desertion on the wife's part. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the Family Court's order refusing divorce was upheld.
Headnote
A) Family Law - Divorce - Cruelty - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 13(1)(ia) - The appellant-husband alleged cruelty on the ground that the respondent-wife did not visit his ill father or attend his funeral, and that her family members abused him; the court noted the wife was in advanced pregnancy at the relevant time and hence could not be expected to travel, and that the parties had settled an earlier divorce petition in 2004, thereby waiving prior instances; the pleadings were vague and no specific fresh acts of cruelty after the settlement were pleaded; Held that the alleged conduct did not amount to cruelty and was part of the ordinary wear and tear of family life (Paras 7-11).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant-husband proved cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) and desertion under Section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, to entitle him to divorce
Final Decision
The appeal was dismissed; the Family Court's order refusing divorce was upheld. No costs were awarded.
Law Points
- Cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act requires conduct endangering living together
- beyond ordinary wear and tear
- settlement of earlier divorce petition waives past instances of cruelty
- desertion requires animus deserendi and continuous two-year separation without reasonable cause
