The Kalaburagi bench of the Karnataka High Court has ruled that the burden of proving cruelty rests squarely on the spouse seeking dissolution of marriage. The court made this observation while setting aside a family court order that had granted divorce to a husband.
Background of the Case
The man had approached the family court seeking divorce, alleging that his wife subjected him to mental cruelty by accusing him of suffering from AIDS and having an extramarital relationship with a colleague. He further claimed that she deserted him by leaving the matrimonial home and refusing to return despite his repeated efforts to resume cohabitation. The family court ruled in favor of the husband, prompting the wife to appeal before the high court.
High Court's Observations
A division bench comprising Justices Suraj Govindaraj and Chillakur Sumalatha allowed the wife's appeal. The bench stated that in the absence of cogent, reliable, and at least minimally corroborative material, the burden of proof cannot be considered discharged. The family court, by recording a finding of cruelty based on such slender material, committed an error in the appreciation of evidence.
The couple married in 2002 and have two sons. The husband claimed that the marital relationship was cordial for about three years before disputes arose. He alleged that his wife left the matrimonial home with the children and started living with her parents, refusing to resume cohabitation despite his requests. The man, a government employee posted at various locations, said his wife, a school principal residing at her parental home, consistently refused to join him.
Conflicting Allegations
After his plea for restitution of conjugal rights was dismissed, the husband filed for divorce on grounds of cruelty. In response, the wife alleged that her husband had an illicit relationship with a colleague. On December 5, 2016, the family court in Bidar ruled in his favor, holding that the wife's allegations of HIV/AIDS and the use of abusive language constituted cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
The division bench noted that if the husband was indeed cohabiting with another woman, the wife's refusal to reside with him cannot be considered desertion. Instead, such conduct by the husband would provide a valid and reasonable ground for the wife to live separately.
Inconsistent Evidentiary Standards
The high court observed that the family court accepted the husband's allegations without sufficient proof, effectively treating mere accusations as evidence, which is not permissible in law. The bench highlighted an inconsistency: the family court rejected the wife's allegations for lack of evidence but accepted the husband's similar unproven claims. The bench stressed that courts must apply the same evidentiary standards to both parties. One party's unverified testimony cannot be accepted while the other's is rejected for want of corroboration unless there is a valid reason for such a distinction.
Order for Fresh Hearing
The bench directed the family court to dispose of the restored plea within six months, providing equal opportunity to both parties to adduce further evidence and conduct cross-examination on additional material.
