HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955 — Sections 13(1)(ia) & (ib) — Divorce — Cruelty and desertion — Standard of proof — Two-year period — Wife going to parental home during pregnancy — No cruelty or desertion made out — Decree of divorce set aside. Husband sought dissolution of marriage on grounds of cruelty and desertion, alleging that the wife frequently left the matrimonial home, did not allow him to see the child and was acting under the influence of her mother. Wife alleged husband was a drunkard, abusive, demanded ₹20,000, took her jewellery, necked her out while four months pregnant, did not come to see the child and threatened second marriage if demands were not met; she asserted her willingness to cohabit and had also filed maintenance proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The Family Court granted divorce. In appeal, it was held that: (i) the statutory requirement of two years’ continuous desertion under Section 13(1)(ib) was not satisfied, given that the alleged second separation in July 2000 was followed by filing of the petition for divorce in October 2000; (ii) the wife going to her parental home in the same town during pregnancy could not be treated as cruelty; (iii) evidence of PWs.2 and 3 attempting to attribute unchastity to the wife without such a case in pleadings was unreliable and should have been discarded; and (iv) on the overall material, any “cruelty”, if at all, appeared on the husband’s side, not the wife’s. Decree of divorce on grounds of cruelty and desertion was unsustainable and was set aside.

HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955 — Sections 13(1)(ia) & (ib) — Divorce — Cruelty and desertion — Standard of proof — Two-year period — Wife going to parental home during pregnancy — No cruelty or desertion made out — Decree of divorce set aside.
Husband sought dissolution of marriage on grounds of cruelty and desertion, alleging that the wife frequently left the matrimonial home, did not allow him to see the child and was acting under the influence of her mother. Wife alleged husband was a drunkard, abusive, demanded ₹20,000, took her jewellery, necked her out while four months pregnant, did not come to see the child and threatened second marriage if demands were not met; she asserted her willingness to cohabit and had also filed maintenance proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The Family Court granted divorce. In appeal, it was held that: (i) the statutory requirement of two years’ continuous desertion under Section 13(1)(ib) was not satisfied, given that the alleged second separation in July 2000 was followed by filing of the petition for divorce in October 2000; (ii) the wife going to her parental home in the same town during pregnancy could not be treated as cruelty; (iii) evidence of PWs.2 and 3 attempting to attribute unchastity to the wife without such a case in pleadings was unreliable and should have been discarded; and (iv) on the overall material, any “cruelty”, if at all, appeared on the husband’s side, not the wife’s. Decree of divorce on grounds of cruelty and desertion was unsustainable and was set aside.

(K. Saritha v. K. Harinath, F.C.A. No.113 of 2008, decided on 05-12-2025 (AP), per A. Hari Haranadha Sarma, J. (for the Bench: Battu Devanand & A. Hari Haranadha Sarma, JJ.))

II. ANALYSIS OF FACTS AND LAW

1. Procedural Background

• Husband (petitioner before the Family Court) filed H.M.O.P. No.85/2000 for dissolution of marriage dated 12.04.1998 under Section 13(1)(ia) & (ib) HMA on grounds of cruelty and desertion.

• Family Court-cum-V Additional District and Sessions Court, Tirupati, by judgment dated 15.09.2006, allowed the petition and dissolved the marriage.

• Wife filed the present Family Court Appeal (FCA No.113/2008) challenging that decree.

• Appeal heard ex parte as to respondent (husband); sufficient opportunities and deemed service recorded.

2. Undisputed Facts

The High Court notes these as not in dispute:

1. The marriage on 12.04.1998.

2. The fact of separate living.

3. Issuance of legal notices by the husband.

4. Birth of a male child during wedlock.

These form the backdrop for assessing cruelty and desertion.

3. Husband’s Case (Cruelty & Desertion)

Key allegations:

• Wife frequently left the matrimonial home without intimation, influenced by her mother.

• On 17.02.1999, when she was 4 months pregnant, she allegedly left the house voluntarily without information.

• Husband was allegedly not allowed to see the child after birth; in-laws allegedly beat him and his mother-in-law allegedly asked him to resign from his bank job, send his mother out, and do coolie work.

• Husband issued legal notice dated 10.12.1999, she returned briefly (20 days) and again left.

• On 20.07.2000, she allegedly refused cohabitation and left voluntarily, denying conjugal and parental rights.

• Legal notices dated 10.12.1999 and 25.09.2000 went unreplied; no reunion ensued, hence divorce sought.

4. Wife’s Case

She alleges:

• Husband is habitual drunkard and debauch, comes home drunk, abuses her and her parents in filthy language.

• He demanded ₹20,000/-, and when she was 4 months pregnant, forcibly took her jewellery and drove her out, insisting she return with money.

• After child’s birth, petitioner never came to see the child, nor participated in ceremonies.

• Legal notice contained false allegations; on mediation and assurance of no further demands, she resumed cohabitation but was again harassed for money and driven out.

• Husband threatened to contract a second marriage if demands were not met.

• She claims she always wanted to live with him, and that he deserted her.

• She filed M.C. No.3/2001 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance.

• She is not willing to give divorce.

5. Evidence Appreciation by High Court

Petitioner’s side:

• PW1 (husband): repeats pleadings. In cross-examination:

  • Admits he did not give any notice demanding divorce (notice was for restitution).

  • Marriage is arranged; doesn’t know if wife’s father is alive or dead.

  • Admits he cannot tell the correct name of his own son.

  • States he is unwilling to take wife back even if she is ready, stating he has “no security” with her.

  • Admits no police complaint about alleged beating by in-laws.

• PW2 (Savithramma): known from childhood.

  • Claims mediation; but doesn’t know address of wife’s parents, doesn’t know who mediators were.

  • Goes beyond husband’s case: asserts wife said child was not born to husband and husband is impotent — neither pleaded nor put to wife in cross-examination.

  • High Court finds her “loyalty… more than the petitioner” and her evidence unsafe and discardable. Family Court failed to appreciate this.

• PW3 (Prameela): another “mediator”, essentially parrots PW2.

Respondent’s side:

• RW1 (wife): reiterates counter version.

  • Cross-examination indicates existence of maintenance proceedings and issues of non-payment.

  • Her version about being sent back after rejoining and about husband’s demands remains materially unshaken on core points.

6. Desertion under Section 13(1)(ib)

The Court carefully applies the two-year requirement:

• As per Ex.A2 and Ex.A4, wife first left on 17.02.1999 (went for delivery) and then again in July 2000.

• Divorce petition was filed on 11.10.2000.

• Under Section 13(1)(ib), desertion must be for a continuous period not less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition.

• The Court observes that:

  “when the law contemplates minimum two years voluntary desertion… it is not known how the petitioner can claim that he is entitled for divorce on the ground of desertion…”

• Since the second separation in 2000 and filing in October 2000 do not satisfy the two-year statutory period, the ground of desertion is not available to the husband.

7. Cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia)

Key reasoning:

• Wife went to parental home, in the same town, during pregnancy; treating such visits, especially in that emotional context, as cruelty is unreasonable.

• The husband’s grievance seems to be that his wife should not go to her parents without his permission. The Court characterizes this as a mindset problem, not cruelty by wife.

• PWs 2 and 3 made wild, unpleaded imputations of unchastity (saying child is not husband’s, husband impotent), which is not even the husband’s case and were never put to the wife — thus their testimony is suspect and should not have been relied on.

• The Court notes that if any cruelty can be visualised on the record, it appears more on husband’s side, given:

  • allegations of drinking, abuse and dowry demand,

  • wife’s pregnancy and being sent out,

  • his refusal to take her back even now,

  • and his own evidence.

The Court finds no adequate proof of legal cruelty by the wife justifying dissolution.

8. Critique of Family Court’s Judgment

The Division Bench specifically criticises:

• The Family Court’s reliance on Parimi Mehar Seshu and Chiranjeevi v. Lavanya (frequent desertions as cruelty) without contextual similarity to facts.

• The observation that wife’s “only ground” is husband’s drinking and abuse, as if such behaviour is tolerable, which the High Court calls out implicitly.

• The reasoning that wife did not take steps to join husband from 2000 to 2006: the High Court notes litigation was pending, and what step could she take except asserting willingness in her evidence? This aspect was completely overlooked.

• The lack of empathetic concern and incorrect appreciation of evidence, particularly ignoring maintenance proceedings and wife’s version of being willing to resume cohabitation.

Thus, the trial court’s findings on both cruelty and desertion are held unsustainable.

III. CONCLUSION / OPERATIVE RESULT

• Point No.1: There is no sufficient evidence to sustain grounds of either desertion or cruelty on the part of the wife; the Family Court’s decree of divorce dated 15.09.2006 in H.M.O.P. No.85/2000 is unsustainable in law and on facts.

• Point No.2 / Result:

  • The appeal is allowed.

  • The impugned orders and decree dated 15.09.2006 in H.M.O.P. No.85/2000 (Family Court-cum-V Additional District and Sessions Court, Tirupati) dissolving the marriage are set aside.

  • Effect: Marriage stands restored, as the decree of divorce is reversed.

  • No order as to costs.

  • All pending miscellaneous petitions stand closed.