Divorce on a counterclaim for cruelty and desertion was upheld on the evidence.

The parties married on 19 August 2013.

The wife petitioned for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (“HMA”), alleging cruelty, and sought permanent alimony.

The husband denied her allegations and filed a counter-claim under Sections 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib), alleging cruelty and desertion

The Family Court dismissed the wife’s petition, allowed the husband’s counter-claim, and directed the wife to pursue permanent alimony under Section 25 HMA

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

1. Whether the Family Court erred in finding that the wife had not proved cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) HMA

2. Whether the Family Court erred in allowing the husband’s counter-claim for divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion under Sections 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib) HMA

3. Whether the Family Court’s judgment and decree warranted appellate interference

Section 13(1)(ia) HMA provides for divorce on the ground of cruelty, while Section 13(1)(ib) provides for divorce where a spouse has deserted the petitioner for a continuous period of at least two years immediately preceding the petition.

Section 23-A HMA permits a respondent in a matrimonial proceeding to seek relief by counter-claim on a ground available under the Act

The Court applied the requirement that the party seeking relief establish the pleaded ground: the Family Court found that the wife had not discharged her burden of proving cruelty, while the husband had established cruelty and desertion

The High Court relied on the Family Court’s assessment of the evidence, including the wife’s admissions that the marriage was not consummated and that she had stayed in the matrimonial home for only about 31 days within the first four months of marriage

It also noted that the parties had lived separately since 2015 and that the wife had not shown that, after her operation, she was ready to resume marital life; the Family Court had further noted that she had neither issued a notice nor sought restitution of conjugal rights

Having regard to these circumstances and the evidence supporting the husband’s counter-claim, the High Court found no ground to disturb the Family Court’s conclusions

The wife’s divorce petition therefore remained dismissed, and the decree of divorce granted on the husband’s counter-claim remained in force