For divorce under Special Marriage Act, spouse must prove cruelty since the marriage was solemnised, Karnataka High Court rules

The parties married under the Special Marriage Act, 1954, on 4 May 2009. The husband sought divorce under Section 27(1)(d) and (e), alleging cruelty and that the wife displayed abnormal behaviour. The wife denied the allegations, asserted that the husband had neglected and harassed her, and stated that she was willing to resume married life.

The Family Court dismissed the petition, finding the grounds unproved.

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

1. Whether the husband proved that, since solemnization of the marriage, the wife treated him with cruelty.

2. Whether the husband proved that the wife was incurably of unsound mind, or suffered from a mental disorder of such kind and extent that he could not reasonably be expected to live with her.

The Court applied Section 27(1)(d) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, which permits divorce where the respondent “has since the solemnization of the marriage treated the petitioner with cruelty”; it distinguished this wording from Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which refers to cruelty “after” solemnization.

Under Section 27(1)(e), divorce requires proof that the respondent is incurably of unsound mind or suffers continuously or intermittently from a mental disorder of such kind and extent that the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with the respondent; the Court stated that this ground requires reliable and cogent evidence.

The husband’s account was materially weakened by his evidence that his mother died before the parties’ registered marriage, despite his allegation that the wife’s conduct toward his mother had caused her distress; he also did not call his sisters, whom the Court considered material witnesses.

The alleged conduct in rented homes was largely unsupported by landlords or neighbours, and parts of the witnesses’ accounts were hearsay or did not corroborate the pleaded allegations.

The husband produced no medical records or doctor’s evidence establishing unsoundness of mind or a qualifying mental disorder.

The Court therefore found neither statutory ground proved.