In matrimonial proceedings, the burden of proof rests on the petitioner to establish allegations of cruelty and desertion based on a preponderance of probabilities. Appellate courts lack the authority to disturb lower court findings absent evidence of clear perversity or legal illegality.

Headnote:(A) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 13(1)(i-a) - Divorce - Cruelty - Desertion - Burden of proof. Matrimonial cases require proof based on the preponderance of probabilities rather than proof beyond reasonable doubt. It is not necessary to prove mental cruelty to a degree that it adversely affects the health of the petitioner; it must be assessed based on the social and domestic context of the parties involved. (Paras 14, 15, 17, 18).

(B) Appellate Court - Scope and ambit - An appellate court should not interfere with the findings of the first appellate court unless there is manifest perversity, legal infirmity, or illegality in the reasoning or conclusion arrived at by the lower court. (Para 22).

Facts of the case:
The appellant (husband) filed a petition seeking dissolution of marriage on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. He alleged that his spouse engaged in illicit relationships and exhibited abusive behavior towards him and his family. The parties have been living in separation since 2013, with various legal proceedings initiated by both sides. The trial court initially granted a divorce, but the first appellate court reversed this decision, finding that the allegations were unsubstantiated.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the petitioner failed to provide corroborative evidence to support the claims of cruelty and extra-marital intimacy, relying solely on self-serving testimony. The court determined that the allegations made against the spouse were not proven and that the standard of preponderance of probabilities was not met.

Issues: The main issues were whether the appellant successfully proved the grounds of cruelty and desertion to warrant a divorce and whether the appellate court erred in its reversal of the initial trial court decree.

Ratio Decidendi: The burden of proof in matrimonial matters rests on the party seeking relief. Given the conflicting assertions and the lack of external evidence to substantiate the claim of specific matrimonial offences, the court ruled that the dissolution of the marriage could not be granted based on uncorroborated allegations.

Result: Appeal dismissed. The judgment and decree of the lower appellate court are confirmed.

JUDGMENT

This Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 29.08.2024 passed in H.M.C.M.A.No.1 of 2022 on the file of the District and Sessions Court, Thirupattur, reversing the judgment and decree dated 13.10.2022 passed in H.M.O.P.No.167 of 2015 on the file of the Sub Court, Thirupattur. The petitioner in H.M.O.P has preferred this appeal.

2. The parties are indicated herein as per their litigative status and ranking before the Trial Court.

3. The appellant/husband filed the original petition before the Sub Court, Thirupattur in H.M.O.P.No.167 of 2015 for grant of divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion.

4. Case of the petitioner/husband is that the marriage with the first respondent (R.Suseela) was held on 21.08.1997 as per Hindu customary rights in the presence of friends alone at Kuppam, Lakshmipuram, Varadharajar Koil, (State of Andhra Pradesh), and the same was registered at the Office of the Sub Registrar of Natrampalli on 27.08.1997. Thereafter, they lived at the residence of the petitioner for six months. The first respondent was living as she liked and she would not respect the family members of her husband. The first respondent's mother was in a political party and they were giving all sorts of trouble to him. Thereafter, for a year, both husband and wife lived at Jolarpet. As the petitioner got a job at a Pharmaceutical Company, they shifted their residence to Chennai for six months. The first respondent created unnecessary issues with relatives and they returned to Jolarpet and they lived at Edayampatti for eight months and thereafter, for a year, they lived behind KKC Cinema Theatre and thereafter, they resided for a year at Vakanampatti.

4.1. During the said period, the first respondent used to quarrel with his mother and she used to beat him. The first respondent would also quarrel with neighbours often, due to which they had to shift their residence. Meanwhile, he met with an accident and he was under continuous treatment. Meanwhile, the first respondent had developed illegal intimacy with one Aruna, who is the owner of the Vinayaka Hardwares and the first respondent was avoiding her husband/petitioner. In 2005, they went to the petitioner's village and on 01.12.2006, a female baby was born to his wife. The petitioner got a job at Bangalore and hence, he went to Bangalore.

4.2. In the year 2009, the petitioner got a job at Railways and he worked at Howra, Culcutta and got transferred to Chennai in the year 2011. He was transferred to Jolarpet in the year 2012. The first respondent did not do any work at home. The first respondent often would state that she is going to commit suicide and told him not to have any contact with his friends or relatives. Meanwhile, the first respondent purchased household articles on installment basis and the second respondent used to come to their residence to collect the installment amount.

4.3.The first respondent developed illegal intimacy with the second respondent and the petitioner came to know about the same and when he asked the first respondent, she gave blunt answers. Once, he witnessed that the first and second respondents were in a compromising position at his residence. Having seen the petitioner, the second respondent went out of his residence. On 11.10.2013, the first respondent went to her parents' house with all her clothes. But, the mother of the first respondent lodged a vague complaint at Naatrampalli Police Station and thereafter at Vaniampadi Women Police Station and a case was registered against him in Crime No.13 of 2013 under Section 4 98(A) IPC and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 1998 . Since 11.10.2013, they have been in separation. For the abovestated reasons on the grounds of cruelty and desertion, an order of divorce was sought for.

5. On behalf of the first respondent, it was contended that without intimating anything, the petitioner went to Mellupalayam and Erode for six mo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 22657

In matrimonial proceedings, the burden of proof rests on the petitioner to establish allegations of cruelty and desertion based on a preponderance of probabilities. Appellate courts lack the authority to disturb lower court findings absent evidence of clear perversity or legal illegality.

Cases Referred (3)