The burden of proving cruelty in seeking dissolution of marriage lies with the party claiming it, and the court emphasized the need for evidence to support such claims.

JUDGMENT :

Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.

The preamble of the Hindu Marriage Act is an enactment of the legislature which was formally regarded as a key to open the minds of the people and to avoid the mischief which was intended to be redressed by the Act.

2. The purpose of in certain elaborate preamble in the enactment was to give it a shape of a well settled law that cannot either be restricted or extended and enacted apart from what the language and the scope of the Act are. Under the legislative practice followed in India, it was felt to lay down a law relating to the formation of marriage or its dissolution and other allied matters in the same enactment. It almost governed all the aspects of the civilized society.

3. The system of marriage as it originates has its origin from the Rigveda and Smriti which have dealt with the marriage and its intricacies with meticulous care and study. But with the change of time, the enactment of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was codified which was for the purposes to codify the law relating to the marriage amongst Hindus. Once a legislature codifies a law in a particular branch affecting the society it takes the shape of a social legislation. Hence any matter specifically dealt with by it should be sought for in the codified enactment itself and not outside the scope of an enactment. Hence, it has been held that where statute is expressly to codify the law, the Court has a Rule not at liberty to go outside the law so created simply because before the existence of an enactment another practice or law prevailed. Thus, as per the Hon’ble Apex Court has held out in AIR (2009) SC 1085 in the case of Gulli Pilli Sobhraj Rai Vs. Bandaru Bhawani it lays out that the codified laws of Hindu marriages to regulate it only this enactment can apply to marriage between Hindus.

4. Accordingly, the Hindu Marriage Act was enforced by making an assimilation of all aspects touching the Hindu marriage and that is why, it has been treated as to be a social legislation and it has been said that the fundamental principles of interpretation of a statute is that it should be construed according to the intent of legislature which passes it. That means to say as far as the Hindu Marriage Act is concerned, it is precise unambiguous and nothing more is necessary than to expand those word natural and ordinary sense and that is why the Hon’ble Apex Court in its judgment reported in AIR 1976 (4) SC 701 in the case of West Bengal Vs. Sudhir Chander has laid down that the intention of law giver cannot be defeated by the judicial construction being an Act otherwise would result into many cases which would frustrated enactment and defeat the judicial intention. The precise argument which would be dealt at later stage by the learned counsel for the appellant was to deal with the interpretation of documents in a liberal construction to meet the purposes of the Act. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Reynolds Raj Money vs. Union of India reported in AIR 1982 SC 1261 has laid down that liberal construction does not mean adding what is not contemplated by the legislature in enacting in a particular statute. Under this backdrop, the Hindu Marriage Act was enacted.

5. Section 13 for the purposes of dissolution of marriage, the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 provides the grounds narrated in Section 13 of the Act. None of the grounds other than the grounds mentioned in Section 13 for bringing a petition for dissolution of marriage would be applicable since it will fall to be outside the ambit of the legislature. The makers of the Hindu Marriage Act to govern the proceedings under the Act had made the provisions of the Act number 5 of 1908 that is the Code of Civil Procedure applicable in all its proceedings. Section 21 of the Act reads as under :-

“21. Objections to jurisdiction. (1) No objection as to the place of suing shall be allowed by any Appellate or Revisional Court unless such objection was taken in the Court of first instance at the earlies