Divorce for mental cruelty requires proof of clear, sustained injurious behavior. Where a spouse genuinely expresses willingness to preserve the marriage and the other fails to substantiate allegations with cogent evidence, the court should prioritize the sanctity of the matrimonial bond over granting a decree of dissolution.

COMMON JUDGMENT

These two Civil Miscellaneous Appeals arise out of a common judgment passed by the learned Family Court, Madurai, in H.M.O.P. Nos.943 of 2018 and 921 of 2018. By the said common judgment, the Family Court dismissed H.M.O.P. No.943 of 2018, filed by the husband, Ramesh, seeking divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and allowed H.M.O.P. No.921 of 2018, filed by the wife, Rama Swathika, seeking restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Act.

2. Aggrieved by the dismissal of his petition for divorce and the grant of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights in favour of the wife, the husband is before this Court in the present appeals. Since both appeals arise out of a common judgment, involve the same parties and raise common questions, they are disposed of by this common judgment. Prologue:

3. Marriage under Hindu law is treated not merely as a contract but as a sacrament and a social institution built upon mutual trust, shared responsibilities and companionship. The jurisdiction of a Family Court, and in appeal this Court, is not confined to adjudicating disputes in an adversarial sense but extends to examining whether the statutory thresholds for dissolution of such a relationship are truly satisfied.

4. Allegations of cruelty and desertion often emanate from the tensions of early married life competing expectations regarding employment and higher studies, economic pressures, geographical separation on account of postings, and the pervasive influence of elders on both sides. While mental cruelty may assume subtle forms and may not always admit of direct proof, it has nonetheless to be established on a preponderance of probabilities by clear, cogent and consistent material.

5. Equally, when one spouse, in spite of differences and misunderstandings, expresses a continuing willingness to cohabit and preserve the marriage, the Court is required to be circumspect and slow in irretrievably snapping the marital bond in the absence of clear legal grounds. The power to dissolve a marriage cannot be exercised on mere impressions of incompatibility or the ebb and flow of ordinary marital discord.

6. The present case concerns a marriage of short duration, conception within a brief period, separation soon thereafter, and competing narratives, on the one hand, that the wife abandoned the matrimonial home and wilfully refused to resume cohabitation. On the other, that the husband drifted away under the influence of his parents and declined to receive back the wife and the child. The learned Family Court, on an elaborate appraisal of the entire evidence, rejected the plea of cruelty and granted restitution of conjugal rights. The question before this Court is whether such findings call for interference in exercise of appellate jurisdiction.

Case of the Husband / Appellant in H.M.O.P. No.943 of 2018 – Petition for Divorce:

7. The marriage between the appellant-husband, Ramesh, and the respondent-wife, Rama Swathika, was solemnised on 09.06.2016 at Arya’s Marriage Hall, Maharaja Nagar, Tirunelveli, as per Hindu rites and customs.According to the hu