THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI F.C.A.NO.123 OF 2023 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya)

The Appeal arises out of an order dated 13.10.2020 dismissing the appellant’s petition for grant of divorce under section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, that is, grant of divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion, respectively.

2. The appellant’s contention, as reflected from the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the appellant, is that the respondent (wife) not only behaved cruelly towards the appellant (husband) but that the respondent also left the matrimonial home on 24.01.2015 and continued to live separately from the appellant. Counsel submits that the respondent continues with cruel acts even after filing of the Appeal by failing to take care of the appellant’s mother, who is presently indisposed. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the appellant could not produce any evidence of cruelty or desertion and hence the Trial Court justifiably rejected the petition for grant of divorce under section 13(1) of the 1955 Act.

4. We have perused the impugned order by which the appellant’s petition for grant of divorce was dismissed and have also considered the evidence brought forth by the parties in support of the divorce and in opposition to it.

5. It is clear from the impugned order that the appellant (petitioner before the Trial Court) was unable to produce any evidence to substantiate cruelty or desertion on the part of the respondent. The Trial Court came to the specific finding that the parties are both educated and employed in well-paying jobs in reputed companies. The Trial Court further found that the appellant arranged for a panchayat in 2014 for bringing the respondent back to the matrimonial home.

6. We further find from the impugned order that the appellant’s primary allegation against the respondent in support of the plea of cruelty was that the respondent failed to adjust to the appellant’s lifestyle and moved around with “boyfriends” (as used in the impugned order). The Trial Court considered the evidence given by the appellant’s brothers-in-law (P.Ws.2 and 3) and a friend of the appellant’s father (P.W.4).

7. We find that none of the witnesses were able to give any evidence corroborating the allegation of cruelty made by the appellant against the respondent or even any opinion on the state of the marriage between the appellant and the respondent. The Trial Court accordingly found that none of the 3 witnesses had any knowledge of the marriage between the appellant and the respondent. The Trial Court also found that the appellant failed to name any of the respondent’s “boyfriends” or give any further particulars of the respondent’s associations with them.

8. The Trial Court found that although the respondent was living separately from the appellant since 24.01.2015, but that the said fact was more due to the respondent’s work compulsions as she was working as a Branch Manager in the State Bank of India at Mahabubnagar. The Trial Court accordingly came to the conclusion that the appellant was also unable to make out a ground of ‘desertion’ and the appellant filed for divorce on the incompatibility between the parties.

9. We are not inclined to question the findings of the Trial Court since the only evidence/documents marked by the appellant before the Trial Court were the Wedding Invitation Card, marriage photographs and the verified copy of the appellant’s Aadhar Card. The appellant did not produce any evidence of cruelty or desertion for grant of divorce.

10. A married person who seeks to present a petition for grant of divorce on any of the grounds mentioned under section 13(1) of the 1955 Act, must produce evidence in support of the grounds. Although, “cruelty” has not been defined in The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, it is reasonable to presume that “cruelty” must lead to a feeling of isolation, hurt,