The court established that ordinary marital disagreements do not constitute grounds for divorce under the Divorce Act.

P.Krishna Kumar, J.

The appellant/husband has preferred this appeal against the order of the Family Court, Ernakulam, dismissing an application filed by him under Section 10 of the Divorce Act seeking dissolution of his marriage with the respondent/wife.

2. The marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnized on 29.09.2008. According to the appellant, prior to the marriage he had informed the respondent about his financial constraints, family circumstances, and his inability to take leave frequently. However, after the marriage, the respondent began quarrelling with him, expressing dissatisfaction with his financial condition and the amenities available in the matrimonial home. She was allegedly unwilling to take care of his parents. The respondent was taken abroad to the place where the appellant was working, and after a couple of months she returned to the matrimonial home, alleging that she was no longer willing to live with him. Later, on 30.11.2009, she returned to her parental home along with her parents without the appellant’s knowledge or permission. On enquiry, he learned that she was not willing to return and live with him. The appellant further alleged that these acts caused him severe mental hardship and agony, entitling him to a decree of divorce on the ground of matrimonial cruelty and desertion. He also alleged that although he had taken the respondent abroad and they lived together for a few months, she later returned to her home stating that she was unwilling to continue living with him.

3. The respondent, on the other hand, denied all the allegations as false. She stated that she went to Dubai on

30.04.2009, became pregnant, and returned to Kerala on 18.08.2009. Until then, their marital life had been happy and harmonious. After her return, the appellant insisted that she should reside with his parents, but as she was pregnant, she sought permission to stay at her parental home. Since the appellant refused permission, she was compelled to leave his house for delivery. Thereafter, the appellant allegedly called her over the telephone and abused her in filthy language. He also demanded that she should abort the child. Although the appellant reached his native place on 19.12.2009, he did not attempt to meet her. While she was expecting delivery on 08.02.2010, the appellant issued a notice dated 01.01.2010 seeking divorce. In these circumstances, the respondent contended that she had never deserted the appellant; instead, she had been subjected to cruelty by him.

4. At the trial, the appellant and the respondent were examined as PW1 and RW1 respectively, and Exts. A1 to A6 and B1 were marked. Upon evaluating the oral and documentary evidence, the trial court found that the respondent had returned from abroad and went to her parental home for delivery, and thus it could not be treated as desertion. The court also found that the appellant had failed to prove any allegation of cruelty through his oral testimony.

5. We have heard the learned counsel on both sides. 6. The appellant filed the petition for divorce on

06.10.2010 on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. The petition was preceded by Ext. A2 lawyer notice dated 01.01.2010 demanding divorce. The appellant admitted in the petition that the parties had lived together in Dubai until 18.08.2009. He did not disclose that she had returned to her native place due to certain complications in the early stage of her pregnancy. However, in cross-examination, he admitted that the respondent became pregnant within 15 days of arriving in Dubai and had undergone treatment for morning sickness and other pregnancy-related ailments. A reading of his cross-examination makes it evident that she returned to her parental home due to pregnancy-related complic