Misrepresenting employment and failing to maintain his wife supported divorce for cruelty and desertion.

Sunil and Pooja, both Hindus, married on 4 April 2021. Pooja alleged that Sunil had misrepresented his employment and income before marriage, treated her with cruelty, and made no meaningful effort to resume cohabitation after she left the matrimonial home in 2021.

She also stated that maintenance had been ordered in proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, but remained unpaid.

The Principal Senior Civil Judge, Chikodi, granted Pooja a divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, on grounds of cruelty and desertion.

Sunil appealed under Section 28(1) of the Act.

1. Whether the trial court’s findings that Sunil had subjected Pooja to cruelty and deserted her were supported by the evidence

2. Whether the divorce decree under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act warranted interference on appeal

The Court applied Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, as the statutory grounds on which the trial court dissolved the marriage for cruelty and desertion.

It also considered the appeal under Section 28(1) of the Act.

The Court found that the trial court’s conclusions were supported by the record: Sunil had led Pooja to believe he was employed and earning, had not paid the maintenance ordered, and had lived apart from her since November 2021 without efforts to bring her back to the matrimonial home.

Sunil’s counsel identified no evidence disproving those findings, and Sunil admitted that he had not paid the ordered maintenance.

The Court therefore found no error in the trial court’s determination of cruelty and desertion.

Pending interlocutory applications, if any, were also dismissed as no longer requiring consideration.