Absence of Corroborative Evidence and Allegations of Adultery Negate Findings of Cruelty and Desertion

The parties married on 16.06.2002 and have two sons.

The respondent-husband filed M.C. No. 10/2009 seeking divorce, alleging the appellant-wife deserted the matrimonial home, used vulgar language, and falsely accused him of having an illicit relationship and suffering from HIV/AIDS.

The appellant-wife denied these allegations, contending that she left due to the husband's ill-treatment and his illicit relationship with another woman.

The Family Court granted the divorce on 05.12.2016, finding the husband proved cruelty and desertion under Sections 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

The wife appealed, presenting additional evidence through an application under Section 151 CPC alleging the husband had children with another woman during the subsistence of the marriage.

The Court applied Section 13(1)(ia) regarding cruelty and Section 13(1)(ib) regarding desertion under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

While the standard of proof in matrimonial cases is the "preponderance of probabilities," serious and stigmatic allegations require a degree of corroboration beyond mere uncorroborated testimony.

"Desertion" requires both the factum of separation and animus deserendi (intention to desert) without reasonable cause; a spouse’s illicit relationship constitutes a "reasonable cause" for the other spouse to live separately.

The Court applied Order XLI Rule 27 of the CPC regarding the admission of additional evidence at the appellate stage.

The High Court found the Family Court’s judgment flawed due to inconsistent evidentiary standards; the lower court accepted the husband's uncorroborated testimony as proof of cruelty while rejecting the wife's similar testimony for lack of evidence.

The husband failed to produce independent witnesses or documentary evidence (e.g., medical reports or complaints) to prove the wife's alleged "HIV/AIDS" slurs or abusive conduct.

Regarding desertion, the Court emphasized that if the husband was indeed cohabiting with another woman as alleged (supported by new evidence showing a child born in 2008), the wife's refusal to join him would be legally justified and would negate animus deserendi.

Because the additional documents regarding the husband's alleged second family were material to the case, they necessitated a fresh trial to uphold the principles of natural justice.

The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree dated 05.12.2016, and remitted the matter to the Family Court for fresh consideration with directions to permit further oral and documentary evidence.