Ordinary marital discord and unproved allegations do not establish cruelty or desertion for divorce.

The husband appealed the Senior Civil Judge, Bailhongal’s dismissal of his petition for divorce under Sections 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, on grounds of cruelty and desertion.

The parties married in 2010 and have a son.

The husband alleged that his wife quarrelled with him and refused household work and care for his parents; the wife denied the allegations and expressed her wish to live with him.

The Family Court found that neither ground was proved.

The High Court considered the evidence, including testimony that the principal dispute concerned the wife’s demand for separate residence.

1. Whether the wife’s alleged conduct established cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

2. Whether the husband proved desertion under Section 13(1)(ib), including the required period and intention to end cohabitation.

3. Whether the Family Court’s dismissal of the divorce petition warranted appellate interference.

Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act permits divorce on proof of cruelty; whether conduct amounts to cruelty depends on the circumstances and context of the parties, and ordinary differences or marital “wear and tear” do not, without more, justify dissolution.

Section 13(1)(ib) requires desertion for the statutory period, together with an intention to bring marital cohabitation to an end (*animus deserendi*); separate living alone is insufficient.

The judgment refers generally to the Supreme Court’s observation that ordinary marital differences and the child’s future should be considered, but does not identify a specific precedent.

The husband’s allegations of quarrelling and refusal to perform domestic duties or care for his parents were not supported by sufficient evidence.

His witnesses largely repeated the allegations, while one testified that there was no substantial quarrelling and identified a demand for separate residence as the dispute.

The wife denied the allegations and wished to resume married life.

The Court found no specific instances proving cruelty and regarded the conflict as ordinary differences.

Desertion also failed because the petition did not establish continuous desertion for two years or the wife’s intention to terminate cohabitation.

The husband showed no basis to disturb the Family Court’s findings.

It clarified that the dismissal would not prevent the husband from bringing a fresh divorce proceeding on a fresh cause of action.