Uncontroverted evidence in ex parte matrimonial proceedings can establish cruelty warranting divorce.

The appellant-husband’s marriage with the respondent-wife was solemnized on 25 February 2019 according to Hindu rites and customs.

He alleged that the wife subjected him and his family to cruelty, including pressuring his parents to partition ancestral property, assaulting his aged parents, taking their money and mobile phone, breaking open his father’s shop, and damaging articles therein.

He further alleged that the wife refused cohabitation and that the marriage remained unconsummated despite the parties residing together for approximately two years.

The wife did not appear despite service through ordinary, registered, and substituted service, and the matrimonial case proceeded ex parte.

The husband and three other witnesses gave evidence, which remained unchallenged in cross-examination.

Nevertheless, the Family Court dismissed Matrimonial Case No. 81 of 2021, holding that the husband had failed to produce family members and sufficient evidence of cruelty.

The husband preferred the present appeal.

Whether the Family Court erred in dismissing the husband’s ex parte matrimonial petition despite the wife’s failure to contest the allegations and the evidence remaining uncontroverted.

Whether the husband proved matrimonial cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, so as to entitle him to a decree of divorce.

Whether the alleged refusal to consummate the marriage additionally justified matrimonial relief.

The Court applied Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, under which a marriage may be dissolved where one spouse has treated the other with cruelty.

Cruelty may be established through conduct that causes a reasonable apprehension in the affected spouse’s mind regarding his or her mental welfare and makes continued matrimonial cohabitation untenable.

In an ex parte proceeding, the absence of the opposing party does not eliminate the petitioner’s obligation to prove the pleaded ground; however, evidence adduced by the petitioner which remains unchallenged may be relied upon by the court.

The Court also considered the pleaded non-consummation of marriage, although the decree was ultimately granted on the ground of cruelty.

The High Court found that the husband had given detailed evidence concerning the wife’s alleged acts of physical and mental cruelty, including interference with the family property, assault upon his parents, damage to the shop, and refusal to consummate the marriage.

The wife had been duly served but chose not to contest the proceedings; consequently, the husband’s evidence and that of his supporting witnesses remained uncontroverted.

The Family Court’s criticism that the husband’s evidence had not been tested in cross-examination was held to be erroneous because the absence of cross-examination resulted from the wife’s failure to appear, not from any procedural default by the husband.

On the totality of the pleaded and unrebutted evidence, the High Court concluded that the wife’s conduct created a legitimate apprehension regarding the husband’s mental welfare and made continued cohabitation practically impossible, thereby satisfying the statutory ground of cruelty.

It set aside the Family Court’s judgment dismissing Matrimonial Case No. 81 of 2021 and granted the husband a decree of divorce.

The miscellaneous appeal was allowed with costs, and a decree was directed to be drawn up.