Madhya Pradesh High Court Upholds Family Court's Dismissal of Divorce Petition Over Lack of Evidence

Allegations of Cruelty and Desertion Deemed Insufficient Without Specific Proof, Says Court

In a significant ruling, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has upheld a Family Court's decision to dismiss a divorce petition filed by Anirudhra Dubey, citing insufficient evidence of cruelty and desertion by his wife, Smt. Prianshu Sharma. The judgment, delivered by a Division Bench comprising Justices Vishal Dhagat and B.P. Sharma on November 6, 2025, emphasizes the necessity for specific and convincing evidence in matrimonial disputes.

The appellant, Anirudhra Dubey, sought dissolution of his marriage under Sections 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, alleging that his wife demonstrated rude behavior, shirked marital responsibilities, and caused financial loss through extravagant habits. However, the Family Court had previously dismissed these claims as vague and unsupported by any substantial evidence.

In his appeal, Dubey argued that his wife's actions amounted to mental cruelty and that their marriage had irretrievably broken down. He further contended that their prolonged separation should be considered as evidence of cruelty. However, the High Court found that Dubey's allegations lacked specific incidents and supporting evidence.

The court noted that Dubey failed to provide any documentary proof or independent witness testimony to corroborate his claims, despite asserting the presence of relatives during attempted reconciliations. Furthermore, the court observed that the allegations regarding financial losses and health impacts on Dubey's mother were unsubstantiated by any concrete evidence.

Justice B.P. Sharma, writing for the bench, asserted that mere allegations of incompatibility or strained relationships could not form the basis for divorce. The court held that cruelty must be proven with definitive evidence, and general allegations do not suffice for the dissolution of marriage.

The High Court also highlighted that the respondent, Prianshu Sharma, demonstrated a willingness to resume matrimonial life and that the element of animus deserendi, or the intention to desert, was not established by Dubey. The judgment reinforced that the burden of proof lies with the party asserting cruelty and desertion, which Dubey failed to meet.

The court's decision underlines the principle that matrimonial ties cannot be dissolved merely due to strained relationships or personal differences. It affirms that the legal requirements for proving cruelty and desertion demand specific and reliable evidence, beyond generalized accusations.

With the dismissal of the appeal, the High Court has affirmed the Family Court's judgment, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

Bottom Line:

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Cruelty and Desertion - Mere allegations of cruelty or incompatibility without specific and reliable evidence are insufficient to grant a decree of divorce.

Statutory provision(s): Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 Section 13(1)(ia), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 Section 13(1)(ib)

Anirudhra Dubey v. Smt. Prianshu Sharma, (Madhya Pradesh)(Jabalpur)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2811850