Burden of proving cruelty lies on husband seeking divorce: HC

Bengaluru: The burden of proving cruelty lies squarely on the spouse seeking dissolution of marriage, while setting aside a family court order granting divorce to a husband, the Kalaburagi bench of the Karnataka High Court has said.The man had moved the family court seeking dissolution of marriage, alleging that his wife had subjected him to mental cruelty by accusing him of suffering from AIDS and maintaining a relationship with his colleague. He alleged that she had deserted him by leaving the matrimonial home and refusing to return despite repeated efforts to resume cohabitation. As the family court favoured the man, his wife appealed to the high court.A division bench, comprising Justices Suraj Govindaraj and Chillakur Sumalatha, while allowing the appeal filed by the man’s wife, a resident of Bidar, said in the absence of cogent, reliable, and at least minimally corroborative material, the burden cannot be said to have been discharged. The family court, in proceeding to record a finding of cruelty on such slender material, committed an error in appreciation of evidence, it added.The couple got married in 2002 and have two sons. According to the husband, the couple’s marital relationship was cordial for about three years; thereafter, disputes arose between them. It is his case that his wife left the matrimonial home and started residing with her parents, taking along the children. Despite his repeated requests, she did not resume cohabitation. The man, a govt employee posted at different places, claimed that his wife, employed as a school principal and residing at her parental home, consistently refused to join him.After his plea for restitution of conjugal rights was dismissed, the man filed a petition seeking divorce, on the ground of cruelty. On the other hand, the woman argued that her husband had an illicit relationship with his colleague.On Dec 5, 2016, the family court at Bidar ruled in his favour, holding that the allegations made by the wife imputing that the husband was suffering from HIV/AIDS and the use of abusive and vulgar language would constitute cruelty within the meaning of Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act-1955.The division bench noted that if the man was indeed cohabiting with another woman, the refusal of his wife to reside with him cannot be construed as desertion. On the contrary, such conduct on the part of the husband would constitute a valid and reasonable ground for the wife to live separately, the bench added.The high court observed that the family court had accepted the husband’s allegations without sufficient proof, effectively treating mere accusations as evidence, which is not permissible in law. The bench also noted that the family court had rejected the wife’s allegations that her husband was living with another woman and had forced her out of the matrimonial home, on the ground that she had not produced evidence to support her claims. The division bench highlighted this inconsistency in the family court’s approach.The bench said although the family court was entitled to reject the wife’s allegations for lack of evidence, it could not apply a different standard to the husband’s claims. While the wife’s allegations were dismissed because they were unsupported by evidence, the husband’s allegations were accepted despite a similar lack of proof. 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.The bench directed the family court to dispose of the restored plea in six months by providing equal opportunity to both the parties to adduce further evidence as well as cross-examination on the additional material.-- Prapti Idnani