The court emphasized that the standards of proof in criminal and civil proceedings are different, and the acquittal in a criminal case does not preclude findings of cruelty and desertion in a civil case.

Headnote:
Hindu Marriage Act - Divorce - Section 13(1)(ib) - Debananda v. Smt. Kakumoni, 2022-0-Supreme (SC) 139, Ravi Kumar v. Julmi Devi, 2010-0-AIR (SCW) 1564, Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi, air 1988 SC 121
Fact of the Case:
The appellant filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (the Act). The trial court rejected the petition, and the wife filed a petition for divorce under Section 13(1)(ib) of the Act, which was granted. The appellant challenged the order in a Second Appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the wife had proved mental and physical cruelty by the appellant, leading to the grant of the divorce. The court also observed that the criminal and civil proceedings have different standards of proof, and the acquittal in the criminal case does not negate the evidence of cruelty in the civil case.
Issues: The issues involved the interpretation of the provisions of Section 9 for restitution of conjugal rights and Section 13(1)(ib) for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, as well as the consideration of evidence regarding cruelty and desertion.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the evidence of cruelty and desertion by the appellant justified the grant of divorce under Section 13(1)(ib) of the Act, and the acquittal in the criminal case did not nullify the evidence presented in the civil case.
Final Decision: The Second Appeal was dismissed, affirming the grant of divorce and rejection of the petition for restitution of conjugal rights.

ORDER :

1. The Second Appeal has been preferred challenging the order dated 25.7.2023 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mehsana in RCA no.40/22. While dismissing the appeal, the learned Appellate Court affirmed the judgment and order dated 14.11.2022 passed by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visnagar in Hindu Marriage Petition no.4/21.

2. Earlier the appellant had preferred Civil Revision Application no.379/23 challenging the order but by an order dated 5.10.2023, the same was converted into Second appeal.

3. Learned advocate Mr. Soni submitted that the provisions of law have not been considered in proper perspective while deciding HMP no.4/21 and RCA no.40/22. The issue in question has not been rightly interpreted by the both the courts on the ground of suppression and further submitted that the provisions of Section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) has not been interpreted in its true sense when more particularly with the fact that the respondent has voluntarily abandoned the appellant by not residing with him. Learned advocate Mr. Soni submitted that the issue of cruelty alleged against the appellant has not been rightly considered by the court in view of the fact that the appellant had been acquitted in Criminal Case no.7529/18 under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506(1) of IPC and Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

4. Learned advocate Mr. Soni submitted that learned Trial Court in view of judgment of acquittal in Criminal Case was not right in rejecting the application under Section 9 of the Act which was filed for restitution of conjugal rights.

5. HMP no.30/21 was filed by the husband, the present appellant under Section 9 of the Act praying for restitution of conjugal rights. The learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visnagar rejected the prayer, wherein while answering the issues framed at Exh.11 had considered that the applicant could prove that he is legally wedded husband of the opponent while issue no.2 was raised to the effect that as to whether the applicant proves that the opponent has without reasonable excuse withdrawn herself from the society of the applicant. The learned Trial Court has answered the same in negative and the burden which was laid down on the opponent to prove that after solemnizing the marriage, the applicant has treated the opponent with mental as well as physical cruelty, the learned Trial Court while answering the issue in affirmative has rejected the prayer of decree of restitution of conjugal rights of the applicant observing that he is not entitled to get the decree of restitution of conjugal rights.

6. The marriage was solemnized on 11.3.2012 at Chitrasani, Taluka Palanpur. The certificate of marriage was produced on record at Mark 4/1. In view of the deposition and documentary evidence, the marriage was proved to be solemnized between the parties. The affidavit of the appellant produced at Exh.12 was considered and on 16.9.2018 the appellant had left the respondent along with the minor daughter.

7. The respondent wife in her written statement had pleaded that the applicant is an alcoholic and in a state of intoxication, he was beating the respondent. She has filed the criminal case against him.

8. The learned Trial Court while considering and discussing the meaning of word “cruelty” observed as; “The quality of being cruel; disposition of inflicting suffering; delight in or indifference to another’s pain; mercilessness; hardheartedness.” The learned Trial Court observed that the burden to prove the said issue was on the respondent and the respondent wife by way of written reply as well as the evidence on record as well as the supporting evidence has proved that the husband was cruel to her in the state of intoxication. The learned Trial Court Judge has observed that the appellant has not objected the say of the respondent. The FIR was placed on record. Considering the evidence as well as the documen

Click Here to Read the rest of this document