Back
for divorce must be proved with evidence, mere FIR not enough:
In a significant ruling that reinforces the evidentiary standard for divorce on the ground of , the has held that the mere filing of a criminal complaint under and the does not, by itself, constitute . The Division Bench of Justice K. Lakshman and Justice K. Sujana further clarified that neither the nor the High Court can dissolve a marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown, as it is not a ground recognised under the .
The Backstory of a Strained Marriage
The appellant-wife and respondent-husband were married on in an arranged marriage. A daughter was born on . However, by , the couple had separated and were living apart. The husband filed a petition under seeking divorce on the ground of , while the wife filed a cross-petition under seeking . The allowed the husband’s petition and granted a , dismissing the wife’s plea. The wife appealed.
The Husband’s Allegations and the Wife’s Denials
The husband alleged that the wife harassed and ill-treated him, frequently left for her parental home without informing him, and insisted on living separately from his parents. He claimed she assaulted him and his mother, used abusive language toward his father, and suffered from psychological disorders and hysteria. He also relied on a criminal complaint filed by the wife under and the , which ended in , as evidence of .
The wife denied all allegations. She contended that she was treated like a slave, denied food, prevented from speaking to her parents, and ultimately driven out of the matrimonial home with her child. She alleged that the husband and his family had demanded additional dowry and pressured her to undergo an abortion. She asserted that the husband had defamed her by labelling her a “psycho” and “hysteria patient”.
No Evidence, No : Court’s Reasoning
The High Court observed that the husband, who sought divorce on the ground of , bore the burden of proving the alleged conduct through . He examined only himself as a witness and produced no other witness — not even his parents or panchayat elders — to support his claims.
The Court noted that the husband had specifically alleged that the wife was a psycho and hysteria patient and that this fact was concealed before marriage. However, he produced no medical documents or other proof. The Court found this allegation to be false.
Crucially, the Bench held that the mere lodging of a criminal complaint under and — even if it ended in — does not amount to . The Court stated:
“Mere lodging of complaint against husband and his family members for the offence under and Sections 3 & 4 of does not amount to . Therefore, on the said ground, respondent/husband cannot seek dissolution of marriage.”
The Court also took strong exception to the ’s reliance on the “irretrievable breakdown” of the marriage as a ground for granting divorce, noting that it is not a legally recognised ground. The Bench observed:
“Neither the learned nor this Court can dissolve the marriage of the parties by granting on the ground of ‘’.”
Key Observations from the Judgment
The Division Bench made several important observations on the nature of in matrimonial law:
“ is not defined in any Statute. It is a course or conduct of one, which is adversely affecting the other. We have to consider the entire evidence and the allegations made by the husband, assess the same and come to a conclusion as to whether the same amounts to or not.”
“What is in one case may not amount to in other case. The concept of differs from person to person depending upon his upbringing, level of sensitivity, educational, family and cultural background, financial position, social status, customs, traditions, religious beliefs, human values and their value system.”
The Final Decision and Its Implications
The High Court allowed the wife’s appeal () and set aside the granted by the . The husband’s petition for divorce was dismissed. The wife’s appeal for () was disposed of, with the Court granting her liberty to file a fresh application for restitution, given the long separation.
The ruling sends a clear message: divorce on the ground of requires substantive proof, not mere allegations or the filing of criminal complaints. It also reiterates that the judiciary cannot create new grounds for divorce beyond those specified by Parliament. The decision reinforces the need for courts to examine the totality of evidence and human behaviour before dissolving a marriage.
