Cruelty U/S 27(1)(d) Special Marriage Act Must Be Shown "Since" Solemnization Of Marriage, Unlike “After” Under Hindu Marriage Act: Karnataka High Court
The Court dismissed husband’s appeal against refusal of divorce, says “since” in Section 27(1)(d) of the Special Marriage Act differs from “after” in the Hindu Marriage Act, and mental disorder ground requires proper diagnosis and cogent evidence.
The Karnataka High Court has held that a spouse seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty under Section 27(1)(d) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 must prove cruelty from the time of solemnization. The Court noted that the provision uses the word “since”, whereas Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 uses “after”. The Court observed that clause (d) was left unchanged when the Special Marriage Act was amended in 1976.
The Court also held that a divorce on the ground of unsoundness of mind or mental disorder under Section 27(1)(e) requires proper diagnosis and treatment, proved by reliable and cogent evidence. It dismissed the husband’s appeal against the Family Court’s refusal to dissolve the marriage.
The petitioner-husband was a Hindu man, while the respondent was a Muslim by religion and since prior to marriage, she was the devotee of Amma Bhagavan and was following those traditions and customs and teachings of Amma Bhagavan.
A Division Bench of Justice Jayant Banerji and Justice K. V. Aravind observed, “…under the Special Marriage Act, it is to be demonstrated that ever since the solemnization of marriage, the respondent has treated the appellant with cruelty. That is not so under the Hindu Marriage Act. It is noted that the Special Marriage Act was amended by Act 68 of 1976 with clauses (a) and (b) of Section 27 (1) being substituted. But clause (d) of Section 27 (1) remained unchanged. The appellant has therefore, not been able to prove that the respondent has since the solemnization of the marriage treated him with cruelty”.
Advocate Rajesh Rao K appeared for the petitioner, while for the respondent the notice served was held sufficient.
The parties married under the Special Marriage Act on May 04, 2009 at Shivamogga, however, the husband alleged that the wife behaved abnormally, quarrelled with landlords and neighbours, forced repeated changes of rented houses, refused cohabitation, and kept his mother and sisters away. The wife denied these allegations, said the suit was filed to enable a remarriage within his caste, and stated she was willing to live with him.
The husband filed a suit on January 02, 2018 under Section 27(1)(d) and (e). The Principal Judge, Family Court, Shivamogga, dismissed it on 9 April 2021 for want of cogent evidence. The husband appealed under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984. Notice to the wife was held sufficient on July 17, 2026.
The Court found contradictions and evidentiary gaps, as the husband pleaded that his mother died because of the wife’s conduct after the marriage, but admitted she died on January 07, 2009, before the marriage. He examined none of his sisters, and his claim of an earlier temple marriage was unpleaded. The Court said that part of his deposition could not be relied on. It noted that no landlord or neighbour was examined despite his own willingness to produce them, and described the testimony of the third and fourth witnesses as hearsay. No medical evidence on the wife’s mental condition was produced, and he offered no explanation for continuing the relationship for over eight years.
The Court concluded that the husband had not proved cruelty since solemnization, and that Section 27(1)(e) was not established. Finding no merit in the appeal, it dismissed the appeal.
Cause Title: P v. S, Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 2480 of 2022 (FC).
Appearances:
Appellant: Advocate Rajesh Rao K.