Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Section 13(1)(ia)—Dissolution of marriage on ground of cruelty—Dismissal of petition filed by husband—Appeal—Appellant’s testimony regarding the respondent’s repeated verbal abuses, threats of suicide, withdrawal from cohabitation, and ultimate desertion remained consistent and largely unshaken in cross-examination—Evidence establishes that the respondent’s conduct caused continuous mental stress and humiliation to the appellant and his family—Family Court’s approach of assessing each incident in isolation rather than cumulatively was contrary to the settled legal position in 2007 (4) SCC 511—Respondent’s allegations of dowry demand and of an attempted molestation by the Appellant’s father are devoid of contemporaneous support—No complaint, FIR, or protective action was initiated at any point prior to the filing of the appellant’s divorce petition—Respondent’s belated criminal allegations cannot detract from or outweigh the appellant’s consistent evidence of sustained cruelty—Cruelty must be judged from the entirety of the circumstances and not from isolated episodes of reconciliation— Respondent’s conduct, repeated verbal insults directed at the Appellant and his mother, who is disabled, persistent threats of self-harm, refusal to cohabit, and desertion without reasonable cause, satisfies the test of mental cruelty —Marriage between the parties has irretrievably broken down and the appellant has successfully established the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act—Impugned judgment and decree passed by the Family Court is set aside and marriage stands dissolved by a decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act—Appeal allowed.
[Paras 17 to 20 & 23]
Section 23(1)(a)—Invocation of principle of “clean hands” to deny relief to husband who filed divorce petition on ground of cruelty—Provision is intended to prevent a party from deriving advantage from his or her own wrong—It does not empower the court to reject relief where petitioner has otherwise established statutory ground for divorce—Respondent’s allegations of dowry harassment and misconduct remained unsubstantiated—Withdrawal of appellant’s father as a witness does not, by itself, amount to suppression of material facts or constitute “wrong” within the meaning of Section 23(1)(a) of the Act—Family Court’s conclusion that appellant approached the court with unclean hands, therefore, rests on conjecture rather than proof—There exists no bar under Section 23(1)(a) of the Act to the grant of relief.
[Paras 21 & 22]