Unsubstantiated allegations and ordinary matrimonial discord do not constitute cruelty warranting divorce.

The parties, husband and wife, married on 13.03.2011 according to Hindu rites and had a daughter on 21.01.2014.

The husband, a legal practitioner, filed FCOP No. 1037 of 2014 under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty.

The wife denied the allegations and contended that the husband had subjected her to harassment and demanded additional dowry.

The Family Court dismissed the husband’s divorce petition, holding that cruelty had not been proved.

Whether the husband proved that the wife’s conduct amounted to mental or physical cruelty within the meaning of Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

Whether the Family Court erred in dismissing the husband’s petition for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty.

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.

The burden rests on the spouse alleging cruelty to plead and prove specific conduct constituting cruelty.

Relying on Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh, (2007) 4 SCC 511, the Court held that cruelty is fact-sensitive and depends upon the parties’ background, social and economic circumstances, sensitivities, and value systems.

Relying on Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli, (2006) 4 SCC 558, it reiterated that cruelty may be physical or mental, intentional or unintentional, and must be assessed in the context of the parties’ overall relationship.

The Court further applied the principle that the cumulative effect of the alleged conduct must be considered, while ordinary matrimonial disagreements, petty quarrels, and isolated differences do not by themselves constitute cruelty.

The Court also declined to rely on testimony based merely on information supplied by a party, treating such evidence as lacking personal knowledge.

The husband failed to establish the alleged cruelty through cogent and reliable evidence.

The allegation that the wife insulted him for his income was inconsistent with the evidence showing that she and her family were aware of his financial position before marriage.

The allegation that she mocked his appearance was not pleaded in the divorce petition and was introduced only in his evidence.

His claim that the wife threatened to implicate him in false criminal cases was unsupported, particularly as no such criminal proceedings had been initiated.

The allegation that the abortion was performed without his consent and to facilitate the wife’s pursuit of a Sub-Inspector post was not proved; the wife denied the allegation, and the husband produced no supporting evidence.

Similarly, the evidence established only that the wife and her relatives recovered her articles and belongings from the matrimonial home, not that they forcibly removed the husband’s jewellery or other valuables.

The evidence of P.W.2 was substantially based on what the husband had told him and therefore did not independently corroborate the alleged acts of cruelty.

Although the parties had quarrelled and had lived separately, those circumstances, without proof of conduct of the requisite intensity, did not amount to matrimonial cruelty.

The Court also noted the husband’s failure to assume adequate responsibility for the daughter and observed that the wife had been caring for and educating the child.

The Family Court’s dismissal of FCOP No. 1037 of 2014 was found to be correct and warranted no interference.

The appeal was accordingly dismissed, with no order as to costs.

Any pending miscellaneous applications were closed.