Case Note & Summary
The appellant-wife challenged the judgment and decree dated 30.11.2013 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Bilagi in M.C.No.4/2010, which partly allowed the respondent-husband's petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage. The marriage was solemnized in December 2009 at Rabakavi village according to Hindu customs. The respondent alleged that the appellant came from a rich family and wanted to lead life according to her own wishes, frequently visiting her parental house without informing him, and despite advice from elders, she did not reform. She eventually settled in her parental house and refused to cohabit, compelling the respondent to file a petition under Section 9 of the Act for restitution of conjugal rights. During the pendency of that petition, the appellant promised to join him, leading to its withdrawal. However, she did not fulfill her promise and continued to stay away, causing the marital relationship to break down. The trial court partly allowed the divorce petition. On appeal, the High Court examined the evidence and found that the allegations of cruelty were vague and not supported by any independent witnesses or corroborative evidence. The respondent's own testimony was insufficient to prove cruelty. Regarding desertion, the court noted that the appellant had expressed willingness to join the respondent, as evidenced by the withdrawal of the restitution petition. The court held that the respondent failed to discharge the burden of proof required under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the trial court's decree was set aside, and the divorce petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Hindu Marriage Act - Divorce - Section 13 - Cruelty and Desertion - The respondent-husband sought divorce on grounds of cruelty and desertion alleging that the appellant-wife frequently visited her parental home without informing him and refused to cohabit. The trial court partly allowed the petition. On appeal, the High Court held that the allegations of cruelty were vague and not substantiated by evidence, and the desertion was not proved as the wife had expressed willingness to join the husband. The appeal was allowed and the divorce decree was set aside. (Paras 1-10) B) Hindu Marriage Act - Restitution of Conjugal Rights - Section 9 - The respondent had earlier filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights which was withdrawn on the wife's assurance to join him. The High Court noted that this indicated the wife's willingness to resume marital relations, negating the claim of desertion. (Paras 3-4) C) Evidence - Burden of Proof - The court observed that the respondent failed to discharge the burden of proving cruelty and desertion as required under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The allegations were general and not supported by independent witnesses or corroborative evidence. (Paras 5-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in granting divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act on the grounds of cruelty and desertion?
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. The judgment and decree dated 30.11.2013 passed in M.C.No.4/2010 by the Senior Civil Judge, Bilagi is set aside. The petition filed by the respondent-husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act is dismissed.
Law Points
- Divorce under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act requires proof of cruelty or desertion
- irretrievable breakdown of marriage not a ground for divorce under the Act
- burden of proof on petitioner
- appellate court can re-appreciate evidence
