Failure to Establish Specific Allegations of Cruelty and Forced Agreements Precludes Dissolution of Marriage

The parties married on 08.12.2020.

The appellant (husband) filed for divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, alleging mental cruelty.

He claimed the respondent (wife) pressured him to sell ancestral land to buy a flat in Hazaribagh, extorted ₹12,00,000 for a divorce agreement dated 13.01.2022, and underwent a forced abortion.

An earlier suit (O.S. Case No. 36/2023) was withdrawn following a mediation agreement for mutual divorce, which the wife subsequently refused to honor.

The wife denied all allegations, claiming the agreements were obtained under duress/fraud and that she wished to resume conjugal life.

The Family Court, Chatra, dismissed the suit on 18.12.2024, finding no proof of cruelty.

1. Whether the conduct of the respondent-wife amounted to mental cruelty justifying a decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

2. Whether the judgment of the Family Court was "perverse" due to erroneous consideration or exclusion of evidence.

The court applied Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, regarding divorce on grounds of cruelty.

It relied on Dr. N.G. Dastane v. Mrs. S. Dastane to define cruelty as conduct causing a reasonable apprehension of harm.

The Court relied on Joydeep Majumdar v. Bharti Jaiswal Majumdar to distinguish "grave and weighty" conduct from "normal wear and tear" of marriage.

The court further applied the doctrine of "perversity" as defined in Arulvelu v. State, where a finding is perverse if it ignores relevant material or defies logic.

Principles from Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi were used to establish that cruelty is a subjective question of fact depending on social and economic contexts.

Regarding the ₹12,00,000 payment, the Court noted the appellant failed to prove the source of funds or file for recovery, and a subsequent agreement dated 23.05.2022 omitted any mention of this prior payment, casting doubt on its authenticity.

The Court observed that the appellant’s own witnesses (PW-2, PW-3, PW-4) admitted they never personally witnessed the alleged cruelty.

The wife provided medical evidence (Ext. B, C, C/1) proving an accident on 13.12.2023, which explained her failure to appear after the mediation, thereby rebutting the charge of bad faith in breaching the mediation settlement.

The appellant’s admission in cross-examination that he was "ready to keep his wife" was found to be inconsistent with a claim that the marriage had irretrievably broken down due to cruelty.

The Court concluded that the Family Court’s findings were not perverse as they were based on a proper appreciation of the lack of cogent evidence and the prayer for dissolution of marriage was denied.