HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955 — S.13(1)(ia) — CRUELTY — NON-CONSUMMATION OF MARRIAGE — EVIDENCE — MENTAL CRUELTY Non-consummation of marriage — Persistent refusal by wife — Deprivation of normal marital cohabitation — Constitutes mental cruelty — Husband entitled to decree of divorce. (Paras 24–26, 35–37) Evidence — Proof of non-consummation — Medical or scientific evidence not mandatory — Oral evidence of spouses and surrounding circumstances sufficient — Consistent testimony of husband accepted. (Paras 24–25, 33–35)

advocatemmmohan

HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955 — S.13(1)(ia) —
CRUELTY — NON-CONSUMMATION OF MARRIAGE — EVIDENCE — MENTAL CRUELTY

Non-consummation of marriage — Persistent refusal by wife — Deprivation of normal marital cohabitation — Constitutes mental cruelty — Husband entitled to decree of divorce.
(Paras 24–26, 35–37)

Evidence — Proof of non-consummation — Medical or scientific evidence not mandatory — Oral evidence of spouses and surrounding circumstances sufficient — Consistent testimony of husband accepted.
(Paras 24–25, 33–35)

Witnesses — Relatives and neighbours — Matrimonial disputes — Evidence cannot be discarded merely on ground of relationship — Test of credibility is consistency and probability.
(Paras 27–30)

Cruelty — False allegations of dowry harassment and criminal prosecution — Failure to prove allegations — Filing of criminal and DV cases after breakdown of marriage — Amounts to mental cruelty.
(Paras 38–45)

Desertion — Wife leaving matrimonial home within short duration — Absence of justification — Supports case of cruelty.
(Paras 20–21, 41)

Maintenance — Divorced wife — Entitlement — Wife educated and earning meagre income — Maintenance of ₹7,500 per month — Held reasonable — No enhancement warranted.
(Paras 46–49)

Appeals — Concurrent findings of fact — No perversity — Interference declined — Both appeals dismissed.
(Paras 45, 49–51)

---

ANALYSIS OF FACTS

1. The husband filed O.P. No.741 of 2012 under Section 13(1)(ia) HMA seeking divorce on grounds of non-consummation, cruelty, and desertion. (Paras 1, 6)

2. The Trial Court granted decree of divorce and awarded maintenance of ₹7,500 per month to the wife till remarriage. (Para 2)

3. The wife appealed against the decree of divorce, while the husband appealed against grant of maintenance. (Paras 3–4)

4. The husband’s consistent case was that:

   • Marriage was never consummated due to wife’s refusal;

   • Wife displayed abnormal behaviour, lack of interest in marital life, and desertion within 48 days of marriage. (Paras 6(ii)–(xiv))

5. The wife denied non-consummation and alleged dowry harassment and physical cruelty, and admitted filing criminal cases and DV proceedings against the husband and his family. (Paras 7, 43)

---

ANALYSIS OF LAW

1. Non-consummation as cruelty

   • Consummation is a private act; direct evidence is rarely available.

   • Courts may rely on oral evidence, conduct, and probabilities.

   • Persistent refusal of sexual relationship by a spouse amounts to mental cruelty. (Paras 24–26, 36–37)

2. Evidentiary principles in matrimonial cases

   • Expectation of independent or outsider witnesses is unrealistic.

   • Relatives and neighbours are natural witnesses; their evidence must be tested on credibility, not discarded per se. (Paras 27–30)

3. False criminal allegations

   • Unsubstantiated allegations of dowry harassment and criminal prosecution, particularly after breakdown of marriage, constitute mental cruelty. (Paras 38–45)

4. Maintenance

   • Even a divorced wife is entitled to maintenance if unable to maintain herself.

   • Considering wife’s educational qualifications and claimed income, maintenance fixed by Trial Court was held just and reasonable. (Paras 46–49)

5. Appellate interference

   • Findings of fact based on proper appreciation of evidence do not warrant interference unless perverse. (Paras 45, 50–51)

---

RATIO DECIDENDI

Persistent refusal by a spouse to consummate the marriage, resulting in deprivation of normal marital cohabitation, constitutes mental cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; such cruelty can be established through consistent oral evidence and surrounding circumstances without insistence on medical proof, and unsubstantiated allegations of dowry harassment coupled with criminal and domestic violence proceedings further reinforce the ground of cruelty, justifying a decree of divorce, while reasonable maintenance may still be awarded to the divorced spouse if she is unable to maintain herself.