Seeking restitution of conjugal rights weighs against a finding of intentional desertion.

The parties married on 24 March 2008 and had two daughters.

The husband alleged that, after the birth of their second child, the wife left the matrimonial home and subjected him to cruelty; he petitioned for divorce.

The wife said she left because the husband failed to maintain her and the children and had an illicit relationship.

Before the divorce petition was filed, she had sought maintenance and restitution of conjugal rights.

The Family Court dismissed the husband’s divorce petition and allowed the wife’s restitution petition.

The husband appealed the dismissal.

Whether the wife’s departure from the matrimonial home amounted to desertion without reasonable cause, warranting dissolution of the marriage

Whether the husband established cruelty or any other pleaded ground for divorce, such that the Family Court’s dismissal should be reversed

Whether alleged irretrievable breakdown of the marriage, by itself, justified granting divorce in this appeal

The judgment does not identify a specific provision of the Hindu Marriage Act or cite precedents.

It applies the principles governing the pleaded grounds of cruelty and desertion: the spouse seeking dissolution must establish the asserted statutory ground, and a spouse’s residence away from the matrimonial home does not establish desertion where the evidence indicates reasonable cause and an intention to resume matrimonial life.

The Court also states that irretrievable breakdown, by itself, cannot justify divorce where the pleaded statutory ground has not been established.

The wife’s earlier maintenance and restitution proceedings, particularly her petition seeking restitution of conjugal rights, were inconsistent with an intention permanently to abandon the marriage.

Her explanation that she left because of the husband’s failure to maintain her and the children supported the finding that her departure was not desertion without reasonable cause.

The restitution decree had been granted and was not challenged.

The appellate court also found no perversity or material illegality in the Family Court’s assessment of the evidence on cruelty.

Since the husband failed to prove the pleaded grounds, alleged irretrievable breakdown could not independently support divorce.

It found no reason to interfere with the Family Court’s judgment and decree and dismissed the appeal without costs; any connected miscellaneous petition was closed.