A spouse seeking divorce must prove cruelty on a balance of probabilities.

The appellant-wife and respondent-husband married on 18 July 2010 and have a daughter.

In 2015, the wife petitioned for divorce on grounds of alleged cruelty, including drunken harassment, physical and verbal abuse, a demand for dowry, misuse of cheques, and other mistreatment

The husband denied the allegations.

The Family Court dismissed the divorce petition for want of proof and granted the husband visitation rights with the child.

The wife appealed under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984

The appeal was brought under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984

The Court applied the principle that a party alleging cruelty bears the burden of proving it on a balance of probabilities

The judgment does not identify or discuss any precedent or expressly set out a statutory provision defining cruelty.

The wife repeated her allegations in her testimony but, in the Court’s assessment, did not produce sufficiently persuasive evidence to establish the alleged dowry demand, physical or verbal abuse, drunken harassment, cigarette burns, or misuse of cheques

The additional documents filed on appeal showed that the parties had approached a women’s support centre and the police, and that the wife had written to her bank about possible cheque misuse; they did not establish cruelty

Considering the parties’ competing allegations and the evidence as a whole, the Court held that the wife had not discharged her burden of proof

It also found no error in the visitation order, noting the child’s need for the love and affection of both parents

It clarified that dismissal would not prevent either party from instituting appropriate proceedings based on a fresh cause of action concerning divorce, maintenance, or child custody