Are the grounds of cruelty and desertion sufficient to get a decree for divorce?

Are the grounds of cruelty and desertion sufficient to get a decree for divorce? written by Prapti Kothari student of Institute of Law, Nirma university

SK. MANIRUDDIN V. SOMA BANERJEE MANU/TN/7669/2018

MATERIAL FACTS

The parties, verified under the Marriage Registrar, Chinsurah, Hooghly, tied the knot on 05.01.1998 under the Special Marriage Act. On the basis of cruelty and desertion, the wife (respondent) pleaded for divorce. The respondent’s case was that, by practice, she was a Hindu, whereas the husband (appellant) was a Muslim and both became associated with each other through their mutual friend and eventually grew intimate towards one another.
It was also the scenario that the respondent had been dwelling at her father’s place after 1998, whereas the appellant was residing in his house, and had seldom expressed any interest in moving her to his family home. It was also argued that while Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) was received by the appellant as salary per month, he hardly provided any amount for her maintenance.
Furthermore, by hiding material evidence, the appellant married her and he also harassed her directly as well as via his men and that both parties had been residing independently for more than fourteen (14) years and that the matrimonial bond had irrevocably dissolved and a divorce order could consequently be issued in her support.

ISSUE

Whether the decree of divorce can be granted?

RULE OF LAW

Section 24 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954

ANALYSIS

Apart from the plea on the basis of cruelty for an order for divorce under Section 27 of the Act, the facts of the wife (respondent) as P.W. 1 and her cross-examination explain that the appellant threatened and abused her on several occasions. For such claims, nevertheless, there was also no substantial proof on paper. P.W. 2 is the respondent’s father and throughout his questioning, he did not testify regarding anything about some occurrence of physical abuse or suffering.
Conversely, the claim made by the respondent, whatever it is, does not seem to be persuasive at all. Thus, on account of the proof of P.W. 1 and from P.W. 2 it can be inferred that there was no mental or physical cruelty in the actions of the appellant or the husband. As a consequence, the facts of the present case do not pose any question of cruelty, whether physical or mental.
With respect to desertion, the proof of P.W. 1 during her cross-examination shows that the respondent submitted multiple complaints to get away from the marital tie and that she married the appellant (husband) out of the former love relationship between them, but she sought to get out of the matrimonial bond by bringing various cases on numerous charges because her family members did not support such relationship. Therefore, based on the above facts, one can conclude that the respondent has faltered to show that the appellant deserted her for no reason whatsoever.

CONCLUSION

In order to allow the parties to establish a common arrangement with trust and dignity and to practice their independent choice and conscience in the case, the court proposed going for an alternative relief such as an order for legal separation. Therefore, a divorce order for the dissolution of the marriage was not a legal option available to the respondent/wife, and at present, there was no legitimate basis for the same.