General, unsubstantiated allegations of cruelty do not justify divorce.

The husband sought divorce on the ground of cruelty, alleging that his wife abused and mistreated him and his parents, quarrelled with him, and failed to care for his ailing father.

The wife denied the allegations, asserting that the husband had driven her from the matrimonial home and that she wished to resume cohabitation.

She separately sought restitution of conjugal rights.

The Family Court dismissed the husband’s divorce petition and granted the wife’s petition for restitution; the husband appealed both orders.

Whether the husband was entitled to a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty

Whether the wife was entitled to a decree for restitution of conjugal rights

The appeals were brought under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, which provides for appeals from Family Court orders.

Its reasoning applies the evidentiary principle that allegations must be adequately particularised and proved: general assertions, without details of when the alleged incidents occurred or supporting independent evidence, were insufficient to establish cruelty.

The Court found that the husband’s allegations were general and lacked dates or other particulars. He produced no independent witness to substantiate claims of insulting behaviour, abusive language, or throwing vessels.

The evidence also showed that the wife attended her father-in-law’s death ceremony and had sought reconciliation, while the husband had not visited or financially supported her and their child after the child’s birth.

The Court therefore upheld the Family Court’s finding that the husband had not proved cruelty.

It also rejected the husband’s reliance on the wife’s complaints as cruelty, noting that they were made in an effort to secure his return to cohabitation.

It dismissed both civil miscellaneous appeals without costs.