Husband Who Left Injured Wife And Refused To Take Her Back Loses Divorce Appeal: Chhattisgarh HC

The parties married on 21 May 2002 and had two sons.

The husband sought divorce under Sections 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, alleging cruelty and desertion by the wife.

He relied, among other matters, on alleged quarrels, an alleged suicide attempt by the wife, and an undertaking said to have been executed in 2014.

The wife denied the allegations and maintained that the husband had abandoned her and the children.

The Family Court dismissed the divorce petition, and the husband appealed.

Under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, cruelty must be established through conduct sufficiently grave in the context of the parties’ matrimonial life; ordinary quarrels and the normal wear and tear of marriage do not suffice.

The assessment is fact-specific, and the illustrative principles in Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh, (2007) 4 SCC 511, guide the inquiry into mental cruelty.

Under Section 13(1)(ib), desertion requires both the fact of separation and the requisite intention to permanently end cohabitation, without reasonable cause and without the other spouse’s consent or against that spouse’s wish.

The Court referred to Lachman Utamchand Kirpalani v. Meena, AIR 1964 SC 40, and Adhyatma Bhattar Alwar v. Adhyatma Bhattar Sri Devi, (2002) 1 SCC 308, on the requirements of desertion.

The husband’s witness lacked direct knowledge of the alleged incidents, while the alleged 2014 undertaking was neither properly tendered nor proved.

The alleged poison incident, without evidence establishing its circumstances, did not prove cruelty; the evidence also showed that the husband left the wife after she sustained a head injury and remained away without enquiring about her welfare.

On desertion, the evidence indicated that the husband had left the wife and children, refused to resume cohabitation in related proceedings, and had not established that the wife intended permanently to end the marriage without reasonable cause.

The Court therefore found that neither statutory ground was made out.

Finding no illegality or perversity in the Family Court’s decision, it dismissed the appeal, affirmed the judgment and decree, and directed the husband to bear the appeal costs.