Karnataka HC Sets Aside Divorce Decree Against Wife, Says Husband’s Unsubstantiated Paternity Claims Amounted To Cruelty

The parties, Christians governed by the Indian Divorce Act, married on 19 October 2008; their son was born on 15 December 2011.

The husband filed a divorce petition on 18 September 2012, styled under Section 10-A of the Act, alleging adultery, desertion and cruelty.

The wife denied those allegations and asserted that she had been ill-treated and remained willing to resume cohabitation.

The Family Court rejected the adultery allegation but granted a divorce on desertion and cruelty.

The wife appealed under Section 55(1) of the Act.

Section 10(1)(ix) of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 requires proof that the other spouse deserted the petitioner for at least two years immediately before presentation of the petition.

Under Section 10(1)(x), cruelty must be such as to cause a reasonable apprehension that it would be harmful or injurious for the petitioner to live with the respondent; ordinary marital disagreements or unsupported allegations do not suffice, and the evidence must be assessed as a whole.

The Court referred to Libin Varghese v. Rajani Anna Mathew, Mary Margret v. Jos P. Tomas, P. G. Raju v. Sallamma and Sudhira Minj v. Amith Anuj Minj on the required nature of matrimonial cruelty and the need for adequate evidence.

Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 provides a presumption of legitimacy for a child born during a valid marriage.

The husband’s own case was that the wife left on 28 March 2011, while he filed the petition on 18 September 2012; the statutory two-year period was therefore not met, making the Family Court’s desertion finding unsustainable.

As to cruelty, the husband offered general allegations without proof of particular acts or corroboration, while the wife’s approach to the police during pregnancy did not, by itself, establish cruelty against him.

The Court also considered the husband’s denial of the child’s paternity and his refusal to undergo DNA testing, despite the child’s birth during the marriage and the statutory presumption under Section 112; his unsubstantiated allegations about the wife’s character and the child’s paternity were conduct relevant to the cruelty assessment, but the Family Court had not considered them.

On the record as a whole, the Family Court had failed to properly assess the evidence and relevant circumstances.

It allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree dated 25 January 2017 in M.C. No. 140/2012; there was no order as to costs.