Hyderabad: Telangana High Court has recently dismissed a husband’s appeals seeking divorce on grounds of cruelty, holding that his “allegations were not proved by credible evidence.”The 50-year-old US-returnee’s allegations include that his wife and her parents forced him to live at her parental home as “Illatom” (matrilocality, ghar jamai), that a domestic violence case was filed against him and ended in acquittal, that the wife had a psychiatric problem and suicidal tendencies, and that she took valuables and jewellery from their Hyderabad home in his absence.Dismissing the appeals, a division bench of Justice K Lakshman and Justice K Sujana upheld a family court order which had dismissed the husband’s petition for divorce and allowed the wife’s petition for restitution of conjugal rights. Married in 2009, the couple have a 16-year-old daughter, and have been living separately for 14 years.Holding that it could not accept the husband’s allegations, the bench observed, “There are no major differences between the couple and the husband unnecessarily precipitated the issue and sought divorce on untenable grounds.”Further, confirming that “the family court rightly dismissed the husband’s plea for dissolution of marriage,” the bench said such trivial or petty issues cannot amount to mental cruelty.“Thus, we are not inclined to grant divorce on the ground of cruelty,” said the bench.According to the husband, his wife was temperamental and left home on March 6, 2011. He alleged that she and her family demanded mutual-consent divorce with ₹2 lakh deposited for the child, that she filed a false case, and that he was denied access to their daughter.The wife denied the allegations, stating that her husband and his family harassed her for dowry despite ₹6.5 lakh in cash and ten tolas of gold given at marriage, demanded a further ₹5 lakh, drove her out, and forced an abortion in July 2012.The bench found the husband’s case riddled with inconsistencies. The “Illatom” claim was a “bald allegation with no evidence,” said the court, noting that it was the husband who sent a notice seeking mutual-consent divorce, and he never sought restitution of conjugal rights.
