Back
Husband's Reluctance Isn't 'Wrong': Andhra Pradesh HC Clears Path to Divorce After Restitution Snub
In a significant ruling for stalled marriages, the has overturned a family court's refusal to grant divorce, holding that a husband's mere disinclination to resume cohabitation following a decree does not qualify as a "wrong" under . The bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam dissolved the marriage solemnized in 1992, ending over two decades of separation.
A Marriage on the Rocks: The Long Road to Court
The couple married on , Hindu rites in tow, and welcomed a son. Cracks appeared early, leading to a 1995 maintenance award for wife and child. By 1999, the husband sought divorce (OP 113/1999), but the wife countered with a petition for (OP 114/1999). On , the dismissed the divorce bid and decreed restitution in the wife's favor—a contested order.
The husband claimed the wife never rejoined him despite the decree. Exactly one year later, on , he filed for divorce under , citing non-restitution for over a year. The family court dismissed it on , finding the husband had blocked her efforts, per witnesses. This sparked the 2004 appeal, decided after 22 years on .
Husband's Stand: Statutory Right After Stonewalled Decree
The appellant-husband, represented by , argued the wife flouted the restitution decree, triggering his absolute right to divorce post-one-year mark. He tendered the 2001 order as Exhibit A1 and testified (PW1) to zero compliance. Citing , he stressed consent decrees don't imply wrongdoing, and for (though secondary here).
Wife's Defense: He Shut the Door on Reunion
The respondent-wife, via , countered she tried repeatedly but was rebuffed. In her testimony (RW1), she affirmed readiness to join, claiming post-decree visits were thwarted. RW2 (Rajamma) and RW3 (D. Chandramma) backed this, alleging the husband delayed citing "auspicious days." She invoked , urging post-decree conduct bars relief if tainted by the petitioner's fault.
Peeling Back the Evidence: Witnesses Falter Under Scrutiny
The High Court dissected the testimonies with precision. RW2's claim of a post-decree visit crumbled—her "12 years back" timeline pointed to pre-2001 marriage era. RW3, kin-tied to family feuds (her daughter separated from husband's brother), vaguely cited a December 2001 visit unmentioned by the wife herself. No execution proceedings followed the decree, as conceded.
"Even if we do not consider the evidence of PW1... any 'wrong' within the meaning of Section 23(1)(a)... could not be established,"
the bench noted, shifting burden to the wife: unmet.
'Wrong' Redefined: No Grave Sin in Disinclination
Drawing from Supreme Court wisdom, the judges clarified
Section 23(1)(a) HMA
bars relief only for
, not mere reluctance. In
, "wrong" exceeds
"disinclination to agree to an offer of reunion—it must be misconduct serious enough to justify denial."
Echoing Saroj Rani , prior conduct doesn't shadow post-decree claims, and Pavuluri limits scrutiny to subsequent acts—none proved egregious here. Mere postponement? Insufficient.
As media reports noted post-judgment, this aligns with the court's view:
"Husband's Disinclination To Resume Cohabitation With Wife Not A 'Wrong' U/S 23(1)(a) HMA In Absence Of
."
Key Observations
"In order to be a 'wrong' within the meaning of Section 23(1)(a), the conduct alleged has to be something more than a mere disinclination to agree to an offer of reunion, it must be misconduct serious enough to justify denial of the relief..."
"The evidence of RWs 1 to 3 is wholly unreliable for the contradictions and does not corroborate the evidence of each other or prove the case of the wife."
"Admittedly, the decree of remained uncomplied and for such non-compliance, the husband cannot be held to have committed any wrong..."
Divorce Decreed: A Clean Break After Years of Limbo
"We allow the appeal and set aside the Judgment and Decree dated
. The marriage dated
between the parties stands dissolved."
No costs awarded. This precedent strengthens divorce claims post-restitution lapses, provided no proven petitioner fault—easing irreparably broken unions while safeguarding against manipulation. For families in Andhra Pradesh and beyond, it underscores evidence's primacy in matrimonial endgames.
