The wife had separately sought restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act.The Telangana High Court has set aside a divorce decree granted by a Family Court on the ground of cruelty, holding that the husband had failed to prove the allegations made against his wife and that neither the Family Court nor the High Court could dissolve a marriage solely on the ground of “irretrievable breakdown of marriage”.A Division Bench comprising Justice K. Lakshman and Justice K. Sujana allowed the husband's appeal against the Family Court's decree of divorce and set aside the common order passed in the proceedings between the parties. The Bench also disposed of the wife's appeal seeking restitution of conjugal rights, while granting her liberty to file a fresh application for that relief.The parties had married on 05.02.2009 according to Hindu rites and customs. It was an arranged marriage, and a daughter was born to them on 26.11.2009.According to the husband, the parties initially lived together at his residence in Sirpur Kagaznagar, but disputes subsequently arose. He alleged that the wife harassed and ill-treated him, frequently left for her parental home without informing him and insisted on living separately from his parents at Hyderabad. He further alleged that she became violent when he refused, assaulted him and his mother, and abused his father when he intervened.The husband also alleged that the wife suffered from psychological disorders and hysteria and had threatened to implicate him and his family members in false criminal cases. He stated that she left the matrimonial home with their daughter on 15.08.2010 and that several attempts at mediation failed to restore the relationship.The husband further relied upon a criminal case lodged by the wife and alleged that she had falsely implicated him and his family members in a case relating to dowry harassment. According to him, he and his father were arrested and remained in judicial custody for five days, while his mother and sister obtained anticipatory bail.The wife denied the allegations and presented a substantially different account of the matrimonial relationship. She claimed that the husband had made defamatory allegations by describing her as a “psycho” and a patient suffering from hysteria. She claimed that despite attending to household responsibilities, she was not permitted to eat in the presence of her husband and in-laws and that restrictions were imposed on her communication with her parents and relatives.The wife further claimed that the husband and his family members treated her like a slave and had effectively turned the matrimonial home into a “jail”. She also alleged that her father had paid Rs 7 lakh as dowry at the time of marriage and that the husband and his family members had subjected her and her child to physical violence.According to the wife, her in-laws had also pressured her to undergo an abortion, but she nevertheless gave birth to their daughter in November 2009. She alleged that on 14.08.2010 the husband and his parents assaulted her parents and demanded an additional Rs 2 lakh as dowry, followed by her being forcibly driven out of the matrimonial home with her child on 15.08.2010.The husband had instituted O.P. No. 270 of 2011 before the Family Court seeking dissolution of the marriage under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on the ground of cruelty. The wife, in turn, filed O.P. No. 1888 of 2013 under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking restitution of conjugal rights.The Family Court examined the evidence and ultimately dismissed the wife's petition for restitution of conjugal rights while allowing the husband's petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty.The husband examined himself and produced three documents, including the FIR and final report relating to the criminal case. The wife examined herself and her father in defence, but did not produce any documents.The High Court, however, found significant deficiencies in the husband's evidence.Husband Failed To Prove Alleged Mental DisorderOne of the allegations made by the husband was that the wife was suffering from psychological disorders and hysteria and that the alleged condition had been suppressed before the marriage. The High Court found that the husband had not produced any documentary evidence or examined any witness to establish this allegation.The Bench noted that the husband, who had made the allegation, bore the burden of proving it through cogent evidence. He had neither examined any witness nor produced any document in support of the alleged mental condition, nor had he been able to establish it through the cross-examination of the wife's witnesses.The Court therefore concluded:“In the light of the same, we are of the view that the aforesaid allegation made by the respondent/husband is false, as he failed to prove the said allegation.”The Court also took note of the fact that the fathers of both parties were colleagues working in paper mills and had lived in the same colony, a circumstance which, according to the Bench, had not been considered by the Family Court.The husband had also relied upon the criminal proceedings initiated by the wife against him and his family members.The High Court noted that the criminal case under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act had ultimately ended in acquittal. However, the Bench held that the mere fact that the wife had lodged a criminal complaint could not, by itself, constitute cruelty.The Court categorically observed:“Mere lodging of complaint against husband and his family members for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act does not amount to cruelty.”Accordingly, the husband could not rely solely on the filing of that criminal case to establish cruelty and obtain dissolution of the marriage.Cruelty Must Be Determined From Entire Course Of ConductThe Bench then examined the broader legal principles governing cruelty in matrimonial proceedings.The Court noted that cruelty is not defined in any statute and must be assessed from the conduct of the parties and the circumstances of each case. Referring to the Supreme Court's decisions in Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh, Rakesh Raman v. Smt. Kavita and Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli, the Bench emphasised that matrimonial cruelty cannot be reduced to a fixed formula.The Court observed:“What is cruelty in one case may not amount to cruelty in other case.”It further noted that the assessment could depend upon factors including the parties' upbringing, education, family and cultural background, financial position, social status, customs, traditions, religious beliefs and human values.The Bench also stressed that matrimonial disputes involve complex human relationships and that the nature of the relationship, the general conduct of the spouses and the period of separation are relevant circumstances to be considered by a court.At the same time, the Court made clear that the burden remained on the spouse seeking divorce to plead and prove the alleged cruelty. In the present case, the husband had examined only himself despite making several allegations against the wife. He had not examined his parents or other persons whom he relied upon to substantiate his allegations.The High Court then addressed the principal defect in the Family Court's reasoning.The Family Court had recorded that the parties had been living separately since 15.08.2010 and that their marriage had “irretrievably broken down”, with no possibility of reunion. On that basis, it had granted the decree of divorce. The High Court held that this approach was legally unsustainable.The Bench stated:“It is a well settled law that neither the learned Family Court nor this Court can dissolve the marriage of the parties by granting decree of divorce on the ground of ‘irretrievable breakdown of marriage’.”The Court therefore found that the Family Court had granted divorce without properly considering whether the husband had established the specific ground of cruelty pleaded by him.The Bench held that the Family Court's order was not a reasoned order because it failed to properly consider the husband's unsubstantiated allegations and the evidence on record.The divorce decree was accordingly set aside.Wife's Plea For Restitution Also Not Granted At This StageThe wife had separately sought restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act.During the High Court proceedings, her counsel submitted that she and her daughter were willing to live with the husband. The husband, however, had admitted during cross-examination that although he was interested in taking his daughter with him, he was not interested in continuing marital life with the wife. He had also not filed any petition seeking interim custody or visitation rights concerning the child.The High Court took note of these circumstances but declined to grant the wife's 2013 petition for restitution of conjugal rights at this stage.The Bench observed that the petition had been pending since 2013 and that the parties had been living separately since 15.08.2010. It therefore held that the wife's existing petition could not simply be allowed after such a long period.The Court, however, preserved her right to seek appropriate relief afresh. It held that the wife and her daughter could take steps against the husband for restitution of conjugal rights and enhancement of maintenance, as may be available in law.The Bench also recorded that the wife had instituted proceedings under Section 125 CrPC seeking maintenance for herself and the daughter.According to the submissions recorded in the judgment, the Magistrate had awarded Rs 5,000 per month to the wife and Rs 4,000 per month to the daughter. The husband was paying the amounts, and there was no allegation that he had failed to do so.The High Court took note of this position while dealing with the wife's request for further relief.In the final result, the High Court allowed F.C.A. No. 229 of 2017 filed by the wife and set aside the decree of divorce granted by the Family Court in O.P. No. 270 of 2011.F.C.A. No. 202 of 2017, concerning the wife's petition for restitution of conjugal rights, was disposed of in view of the long period of separation. The wife was granted liberty to file a fresh application seeking restitution of conjugal rights.The Court therefore restored the position that the Family Court's divorce decree could not stand because the husband had failed to prove the alleged cruelty and the marriage could not be dissolved merely on the ground of irretrievable breakdown.The appeals were disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.Case Details:XXXX v. XXXXFamily Court Appeal Nos. 202 and 229 of 2017Appearance: Seshadri Goalla for the appellant-wife.(The author of this article, Vatsal Chandra is a Delhi-based Advocate practicing before the courts of Delhi NCR.)