Burden Of Proof Of Cruelty Rests Upon Husband When He Has Sought Relief Of Divorce Based On Wife’s Cruel Behaviour: Patna High Court
The appeal before the Patna High Court was filed under Section 19 of the Family Court Act, impugning the judgment dismissing the husband's suit seeking dissolution of marriage.
Patna High Court
The Patna High Court upheld the dismissal of the matrimonial case of a man seeking divorce after finding that the allegations of cruelty, adultery and desertion against the wife were not proved. The High Court also held that the burden of proof of cruelty was upon the husband because he had sought the relief of divorce based on the cruel behaviour of the wife towards him.
The appeal before the High Court was filed under Section 19 of the Family Court Act, 1984, impugning the judgment of the Additional Principal Judge in a Matrimonial Case whereby the suit, preferred by the appellant, seeking dissolution of marriage, had been dismissed.
The Division Bench of Justice P. B. Bajanthri and Justice S. B. Pd. Singh said, “After going through the aforesaid facts adduced on behalf the appellant-husband, it is crystal clear that appellant-husband has failed to prove the cruel behaviour of the respondent towards him and his family members by the strength of cogent, relevant and reliable evidence, while burden of proof of cruelty rests upon the appellant-husband of this case, because, he has sought relief of divorce on the basis of cruel behaviour of the respondent towards him. Not even single incident with reference to specific date of alleged cruelty has been urged in the plaint before the Family Court.”
Advocate Priya Gupta represented the Appellant.
Factual Background
The marriage of the appellant with the respondent was solemnized in the year 2016. During her stay at her matrimonial house, the behaviour of the respondent with her husband and other in-laws family members was not amicable, and it was alleged that she always misbehaved, humiliated and rebuked the appellant-husband in the presence of his parents and relatives to lower down the reputation of the appellant. Ultimately, the respondent left her matrimonial house with all her ornaments and stayed at her parental house.
The appellant-husband’s efforts to reconcile the matter went in vain. The husband filed a case for restitution of conjugal rights, and the wife filed a maintenance case. In the aforesaid case, the appellant-husband is paying Rs 10,000 per month to the respondent-wife and child for their maintenance. The husband’s divorce petition came to be dismissed. Aggrieved thereby, he approached the High Court.
Reasoning
The Bench was of the view that though the word 'cruelty' has not been defined in specific words and language in the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, but it is well settled that cruelty is of such a character and conduct which would cause in mind of other spouse a reasonable apprehension that it will be harmful and injurious for him to live with the opposite party- respondent.
On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench found that the appellant-husband failed to prove the cruel behaviour of the respondent towards him and his family members by the strength of cogent, relevant and reliable evidence. “Some trifling utterance or remarks or mere threatening of one spouse to other cannot be construed as such decree of cruelty, which is legally required to a decree of divorce. The austerity of temper and behaviour, petulance of manner and harshness of language may vary from man to man born and brought up in different family background, living in different standard of life, having their quality of educational qualification and their status in society in which they live”, it said.
As per the Bench, the appellant had failed to prove the allegation of cruelty.
Coming to the allegations of desertion, the Bench noted that in the matrimonial suit filed by the appellant for dissolution of marriage, the appellant had stated that he regularly started visiting the house of the respondent/opposite party to meet his wife and son. This fact contradicted the deposition of the appellant during the trial, which was itself sufficient to suggest that the respondent had not deserted the appellant for a considerable time. Moreover, the allegation of adultery was not proved by any material information or admissible evidence.
Thus, finding no merit in the appeal, the Bench dismissed the same.
Cause Title: A v. B (Case No.: Miscellaneous Appeal No.685 of 2023)
Appearance
Appellant: Advocate Priya Gupta
