Bengaluru: The mere filing of legal proceedings by a spouse does not, per se, constitute mental cruelty or provide a reasonable excuse for abandonment, provided there are justifiable grounds for seeking such legal recourse, the high court has observed.A division bench comprising Justices DK Singh and H Shanthi Bhushan made the observation while setting aside an April 2019 order passed by the family court at Tumakuru, which had dismissed a petition filed by the wife seeking restitution of conjugal rights.The high court said the family court’s reasoning was primarily founded on the premise that the wife’s initiation of criminal proceedings under Section 498-A of the IPC, her claim for maintenance, and the partition suit had generated such hostility that the husband was justified in living separately.“Such an approach,” the division bench observed, “exhibits a fundamental misapplication of matrimonial jurisprudence.”The couple married in 1996 and have two grown-up, college-going sons. The wife alleged that the husband, a high school teacher, developed a relationship with one of his students and subsequently began living separately. Although she attempted to reconcile for the sake of their children, he remained adamant and eventually approached the family court seeking divorce, relying, among other things, on the legal proceedings initiated by his wife.The husband, for his part, claimed that following losses in the arecanut business, he was physically assaulted by his wife, her father and her brother over a financial dispute, following which proceedings under Section 498-A of the IPC were initiated against him.He contended that the wife’s petition for restitution of conjugal rights was not a genuine attempt at reconciliation, but a calculated manoeuvre to obtain judicial sympathy and extract financial benefits from his govt service.Upon examining the material on record, however, the division bench found that the wife had consistently demonstrated a bona fide readiness and willingness to forgive the past and restore the matrimonial relationship, both for the dignity of the family and the welfare of her college-going sons. It noted that she had instituted the petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act soon after the dismissal of the husband’s divorce petition.The bench observed that the record unequivocally established that the husband had voluntarily abandoned his wife and their two sons in March 2010 and taken up residence with his former student. He had also ceased providing financial support and paying the house rent, leaving the family in severe economic distress.The court noted that the police investigation had culminated in a chargesheet that specifically arrayed the husband’s former student as an accused. This, according to the bench, demonstrated that the wife’s allegations concerning his extramarital cohabitation were supported by material evidence and were not merely speculative or defamatory.The bench held that the wife’s decision to pursue maintenance proceedings and institute a partition suit on behalf of her minor sons could not, in such circumstances, be characterised as acts of cruelty. Rather, they constituted lawful and necessary measures to protect herself and secure the basic livelihood and educational needs of her children.The court observed that the situation was further aggravated by what it described as the husband’s attempt to evade his statutory responsibilities by entering into a collusive consent decree providing for the deduction of Rs 10,000 per month from his salary towards an alleged loan that had not been established.“A defaulting spouse who commits the foundational wrong of desertion and adultery cannot be permitted to leverage the victimised spouse’s defensive legal remedies as a ‘reasonable excuse’ to perpetuate the separation,” the division bench observed.Allowing the wife’s petition, the high court set aside the family court’s order and directed the husband to rejoin the matrimonial company of the petitioner and resume cohabitation, thereby fulfilling his marital obligations.
