A marital property dispute does not, without more, constitute an admission of cruelty warranting divorce.

The husband filed a divorce petition under Sections 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, alleging cruelty and desertion.

The dispute principally concerned a plot allotted in the wife’s name: the husband claimed he had funded its purchase, while the wife disputed that claim and acknowledged that the plot had become the parties’ “bone of contention”.

The husband relied on statements in the wife’s written statement concerning the property dispute, sale proceeds, and the parties’ separation, and sought a divorce decree under Order XII Rule 6 CPC.

The Family Court dismissed the application; the husband appealed.

1. Whether the wife’s statements in her written statement constituted clear and unequivocal admissions entitling the husband to a divorce decree under Order XII Rule 6 CPC

2. Whether the admitted property dispute and related conduct established cruelty or wilful desertion without a trial

Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, read with Section 151 CPC, provided the basis for the appeal.

Order XII Rule 6 CPC permits judgment on admissions, but the discretion must be exercised only where the admission is clear, categorical, unambiguous, and leaves no substantial controversy requiring trial; the provision is intended to provide speedy relief, not to foreclose adjudication of triable factual disputes.

The Court relied on Uttam Singh Duggal & Co. Ltd. v. United Bank of India, (2000) 7 SCC 120; Karam Kapahi v. Lal Chand Public Charitable Trust, (2010) 4 SCC 753; Vikrant Kapila v. Pankaja Panda, (2024) 18 SCC 695; and Pushpa v. Dayawati, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1013, for those principles.

The divorce grounds invoked were cruelty and desertion under Sections 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

The statements relied upon by the husband acknowledged the existence of a property dispute and described the wife’s refusal to transfer the plot or sale proceeds, but did not unequivocally admit that her conduct amounted to cruelty or desertion.

The husband’s reliance on selected portions of the written statement required the Court to draw inferences about the parties’ conduct and the effect of the dispute on their relationship. Those matters required evidence and could not support judgment on admission.

Whether the dispute or either party’s conduct ultimately amounted to cruelty or desertion therefore had to be determined at trial.

It dismissed the appeal and pending applications, characterised the Order XII Rule 6 application as an abuse of law, and directed the husband to pay costs of ₹50,000 to the Armed Forces Battle Casualties Welfare Fund.