ADVOCATEMMMOHAN: Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 13(1)(i-a) & (i-b) — Divorce on grounds of cruelty and adultery — Standard of proof — Mere suspicion and uncorroborated allegations insufficient — Adultery must be proved by cogent, convincing and legally acceptable evidence — Decree of divorce set aside. (Paras 28–31) Irretrievable breakdown of marriage — Not an independent statutory ground under Section 13 HMA — Family Court cannot grant divorce merely because parties are living separately. (Para 29)

Friday, February 27, 2026

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 13(1)(i-a) & (i-b) — Divorce on grounds of cruelty and adultery — Standard of proof — Mere suspicion and uncorroborated allegations insufficient — Adultery must be proved by cogent, convincing and legally acceptable evidence — Decree of divorce set aside. (Paras 28–31) Irretrievable breakdown of marriage — Not an independent statutory ground under Section 13 HMA — Family Court cannot grant divorce merely because parties are living separately. (Para 29)

advocatemmmohan

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 13(1)(i-a) & (i-b) — Divorce on grounds of cruelty and adultery — Standard of proof — Mere suspicion and uncorroborated allegations insufficient — Adultery must be proved by cogent, convincing and legally acceptable evidence — Decree of divorce set aside. (Paras 28–31)

Irretrievable breakdown of marriage — Not an independent statutory ground under Section 13 HMA — Family Court cannot grant divorce merely because parties are living separately. (Para 29)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Order XXII Rules 1 & 11 — Survival of cause of action in appeal — Appeal is continuation of suit — Where decree of divorce is passed and one spouse dies during pendency of appeal, right to challenge survives — Legal representatives can be brought on record. (Paras 16–21)

Status decree (Judgment in rem) — Divorce decree affects marital status and proprietary rights — Right to challenge such decree survives even after death of decree-holder spouse. (Para 18)

Precedent followed:
Yallawwa v. Shantavva

GIST

Appeal by wife against decree of divorce granted by Family Court. Husband died during pendency of appeal. Daughter brought on record as legal representative. High Court held that right to prosecute appeal survives, examined merits, found no proof of adultery or cruelty, and set aside decree of divorce.

JUDGMENT (Structured Summary)

I. Background

The husband filed O.P.No.749 of 2007 before the Family Court, Visakhapatnam seeking dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1)(i-a) and (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act alleging cruelty and adultery. The Family Court granted divorce on 15.04.2010.

The wife preferred the present appeal. During pendency, the husband died and their daughter was impleaded as legal representative.

Point No.1 — Survival of Cause of Action

The Court examined:

Order XXII Rule 11 CPC (application to appeals)
Order XXII Rule 1 CPC (no abatement if right to sue survives)

Relying on Yallawwa v. Shantavva, the Court held:

Proceedings for divorce prior to decree are personal.
However, once a decree of divorce is passed, rights crystallize.
Divorce decree affects:
- Marital status
- Inheritance rights
- Maintenance entitlements
- Social and legal character

Therefore, the right to challenge such decree survives even after death of decree-holder spouse.

The daughter, being Class-I heir and falling within Section 2(11) CPC definition of legal representative, was competent to represent the estate.

Held: Appeal survives. Legal representative properly impleaded.

Point No.2 — Whether Appeal Can Be Allowed Solely on Daughter’s Concession

Though the daughter expressed no objection to allowing the appeal, the Court held:

Divorce was granted on serious allegations of adultery and cruelty.
Such findings carry stigma.
Merits must be independently examined.
Appeal cannot be allowed merely on concession.

Point No.3 — Sustainability of Divorce Decree

Allegations by Husband:

Suspicion over 5-month pregnancy despite alleged abstinence.
Abortion opted.
Wife’s conduct allegedly doubtful.
Alleged illicit intimacy with Respondent No.2.
Desertion and cruelty.

Evidence Analysis:

Husband admitted abortion was mutually decided.
No independent evidence of adultery.
No dates, time, or proof of alleged sexual conduct.
No corroboration.
PWs 2 & 3 gave vague statements.
Maintenance was awarded in same common order.

Legal Findings:

Adultery:
- Serious charge.
- Requires strong and convincing evidence.
- Standard nearly akin to proof beyond reasonable doubt.
- Mere suspicion insufficient.
Cruelty & Desertion:
- Not properly pleaded or proved.
- Living separately does not automatically constitute desertion.
Irretrievable Breakdown:
- Not a statutory ground under Section 13 HMA.
- Family Court erred in granting divorce on that premise.

The Court criticized the Family Court’s “casual observation” and held the decree legally unsustainable.

Final Result

Appeal allowed.
Decree dated 15.04.2010 in O.P.No.749 of 2007 set aside.
Marriage not dissolved.
No order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous petitions closed.

RATIO DECIDENDI

A decree of divorce affects legal status and proprietary rights; therefore, challenge to such decree survives even after death of decree-holder spouse.
Adultery must be proved by clear, cogent and convincing evidence; suspicion is insufficient.
Irretrievable breakdown is not an independent ground for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
Appellate Court must independently assess merits even if legal representative does not contest.

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN