SOURCE :- SIASAT NEWS
Hyderabad: Just lodging of a domestic violence complaint against husband and his family under Section 498 A of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act does not amount to cruelty, said the Telangana High Court, adding that the FIR by itself cannot constitute a ground for divorce.
According to a report in LiveLaw, neither the family court nor the high court can dissolve a marriage on the ground of ‘irretrievable breakdown’. The partner seeking the divorces on the ground of cruelty must prove the conduct with evidence, it said.
A division bench of justices K Lakshman and K Sujana said that the husband filed for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty, so he has to prove the same “by producing cogent evidence”.
“In the present case, except examining himself, he has not examined any other witness… Mere lodging of a complaint against husband and his family members for the offence under Section 498-A of the IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act does not amount to cruelty. Therefore, on the said ground, the respondent/husband cannot seek dissolution of marriage.”
Details of the case
The couple got married in February 2009 and had a daughter in November that year. They started living separately in August 2010. The husband instituted proceedings under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking dissolution of the marriage on the ground of cruelty. The wife filed a petition under Section 9 of the Act, seeking restitution of conjugal rights. The Family Court allowed the husband’s petition and granted divorce, even as it dismissed the wife’s petition for restitution of conjugal rights. The wife challenged both findings in the High Court.
According to the husband, the wife repeatedly left for the parental home, insisted on living separately from his parents and allegedly assaulted him and his mother. He claimed that she suffered from psychological disorders and hysteria and threatened to implicate his family in false criminal cases. He also relied upon the criminal complaint lodged by the estranged wife against him and his family under Section 498A IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act. The proceedings had ended in acquittal.
For her part, the wife said the man had defamed her by calling her a ‘psycho’ and a ‘hysteria patient’. She said she was treated like a slave in her matrimonial home, wasn’t allowed to talk to her parents, was denied food, and was eventually driven out with the child.
Her lawyer, Seshadri Goalla, submitted that she and her daughter were willing to reside with the husband. The High Court was called upon to determine whether the husband had established cruelty and, if not, whether the divorce decree could still be upheld on the ground that the marriage had irretrievably broken down owing to the parties’ prolonged separation.
Burden of proof rests upon husband
The court said that despite alleging that the wife had psychological disorders, the man hadn’t proved it by way of producing documents or witnesses. The burden of proving this allegation rested upon the husband, it said. The court found the allegation to be false.
It further said that the husband had made several other allegations against the wife but had produced no witnesses except himself to establish the alleged cruelty. The Court observed that cruelty is not defined by statute and must be determined from the entire evidence and conduct of the parties. “What is cruelty in one case may not amount to cruelty in another case,” the Bench said.
The court held that the wife’s lodging of the criminal complaint did not, in itself, establish cruelty merely because the proceedings ended in acquittal. It held that breakdown of marriage is not a ground on which either the Family Court or the High Court could grant divorce. The court then allowed the wife’s appeal and set aside the decree of divorce. The court also granted her liberty to institute a fresh petition seeking restitution of conjugal rights.
SOURCE : SIASAT
