Failure to cross-examine despite repeated opportunities defeats a challenge to the cruelty decree.

Catherine Lemoria, the wife, petitioned the Family Court, Cuddalore, for dissolution of her marriage to John Peter on the ground of cruelty.

She alleged that Peter’s suspicious conduct and harassment led to frequent quarrels and that he was arrested and imprisoned in 2016; she later lived separately and worked as a teacher

Peter denied the allegations in his counter, maintained that he wished to resume married life, but did not cross-examine Lemoria or adduce evidence despite repeated opportunities.

The Family Court accepted her case and dissolved the marriage on 2 July 2025

Peter appealed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, contending that there was no evidence to prove cruelty and that viral fever had prevented him from participating at trial

Whether the Family Court’s decree dissolving the marriage on the ground of cruelty warranted interference when the wife’s testimony was not cross-examined and the husband adduced no evidence despite repeated opportunities.

Whether the husband’s stated illness provided a basis to set aside or interfere with the decree in the circumstances of the case.

The appeal was brought under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, which provides for appeals from qualifying judgments or orders of a Family Court.

The judgment cites no precedent or detailed statutory test for cruelty.

In deciding whether interference was warranted, the Court relied on the trial record: the wife had given evidence, while the husband had not cross-examined her or presented his own evidence despite repeated opportunities; the Court treated her case as proved on that record

The High Court noted that the husband’s counter denied the allegations, but he did not test the wife’s evidence through cross-examination or adduce evidence in support of his defence, notwithstanding several adjournments

Although he attributed his absence to viral fever, the Court also observed that he had not sought to set aside the decree and that the appeal was filed with an eight-day delay for which no explanation was given.

In those circumstances, the Court found no ground to disturb the Family Court’s conclusion that the wife had proved cruelty

The connected miscellaneous petition was closed, with no order as to costs