Ordinary matrimonial discord and separation do not establish cruelty or desertion without grave conduct and intent to abandon.

The parties married on 09.09.2015 and had a daughter born on 01.09.2016.

The husband was employed in India and later proceeded to Germany for employment, while the wife remained at her parental home with the child.

The husband alleged that the wife subjected him to cruelty through quarrels concerning household work, travel, communication with his parents, the child’s naming ceremony, and refusal to return to the matrimonial home.

He sought dissolution of marriage under Sections 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, in H.M.O.P. No.166 of 2019.

The wife denied the allegations, contending that the husband and his family had subjected her to unpleasant treatment and that the husband had failed to take her and the child with him when he went abroad.

She maintained that she was willing to resume matrimonial life and had approached the police and relatives for reunion.

She filed H.M.O.P. No.31 of 2021 under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights.

The Family Court, Tirunelveli, dismissed the husband’s divorce petition and allowed the wife’s petition for restitution of conjugal rights by a common order dated 08.08.2022.

The husband preferred the present appeals under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984.

Whether the conduct attributed to the wife amounted to cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955?

Whether the husband established the statutory ingredients of desertion under Section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955?

Whether the decree granting restitution of conjugal rights in favour of the wife called for appellate interference?

The Court applied Sections 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, concerning cruelty and desertion, and Section 9 concerning restitution of conjugal rights.

Cruelty must be established through grave and weighty conduct assessed in the context of the entire matrimonial relationship; trivial disagreements, isolated incidents, and the ordinary wear and tear of married life do not constitute mental cruelty.

This principle was drawn from Dr. N.G. Dastane v. S. Dastane , AIR 1975 SC 1534; J.L. Nanda v. Smt. Veena Nanda , AIR 1988 SC 407; Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh , (2007) 4 SCC 511; and Vishwanath Agrawal v. Sarla Vishwanath Agrawal , (2012) 7 SCC 288.

Desertion requires both physical separation and the intention to permanently bring cohabitation to an end, without reasonable cause.

A decree for restitution of conjugal rights may be granted where one spouse has withdrawn from the society of the other without reasonable excuse and the applicant establishes willingness to resume matrimonial life.

The Court held that the allegations concerning washing clothes, travelling by car or bus, telephone communication with the husband’s parents, the child’s name, and participation in family functions were ordinary matrimonial disagreements and did not constitute grave or sustained cruelty.

The parties had lived together at Bangalore for approximately seven months and their relationship during that period was substantially peaceful, which weakened the husband’s claim of continuous matrimonial hostility.

The more serious allegations concerning the wife’s alleged mistreatment of the husband’s parents and exclusion of the paternal grandparents were not supported by direct evidence; the alleged victims were not examined and the husband’s cousin was not an eyewitness.

On desertion, the Court found that the husband had himself left for Germany for employment shortly after the child’s birth, that communication and reconciliation efforts continued, and that the wife consistently asserted her willingness to resume cohabitation.

Her residence at her parental home while caring for the minor child, particularly when the husband was abroad, did not by itself establish a settled intention to permanently abandon the marriage.

The wife’s approach to the police for reunion was consistent with her claim that she desired restoration of the matrimonial relationship.

The husband therefore failed to prove either cruelty or the statutory ingredients of desertion, and no perversity or material illegality was shown in the Family Court’s decree for restitution of conjugal rights.

It held that the alleged conduct did not amount to cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia), that desertion under Section 13(1)(ib) was not established, and that the decree for restitution of conjugal rights was justified.

Accordingly, C.M.A.(MD) Nos. 993 and 994 of 2022 were dismissed, the common order dated 08.08.2022 of the Family Court, Tirunelveli, was confirmed, and the decree granting restitution of conjugal rights in favour of the wife was maintained.

No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.