AMARAVATI<\/em>: In a recent judgment, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh<\/a><\/strong>, led by Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam<\/strong>, allowed a husband\u2019s appeal and granted divorce, setting aside the Family Court\u2019s earlier refusal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The case concerned a marriage from 1992, where the couple had been living separately for a long time. Earlier, a decree for restitution of conjugal rights<\/strong> was passed, legally requiring the parties to resume cohabitation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n However, even after more than one year of the decree, there was no reunion<\/strong>, following which the husband approached the court seeking divorce under Section 13(1A)(ii) of the Hindu Marriage Act.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court examined the defence that efforts were made to resume the marriage but found the supporting evidence unreliable and inconsistent<\/strong>. The judges observed that the testimonies did not establish any clear fault on the part of the husband and failed to discharge the burden of proof required in such cases.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Clarifying the legal position, the Court emphasized that mere reluctance or failure to take back a spouse does not amount to \u201cwrong\u201d under Section 23 of the Hindu Marriage Act<\/strong>. It clearly held:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe conduct alleged has to be something more than a mere disinclination to agree to an offer of reunion.\u201d<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The Court further reinforced that:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cAny \u2018wrong\u2019 within the meaning of Section 23 (1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act on the part of the husband could not be established or proved.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The judges also highlighted that the decree for restitution of conjugal rights was never enforced through legal execution, which weakened the claim that there was a genuine attempt to resume matrimonial life. The Court noted that:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThere is nothing on record to indicate\u2026 that the decree for restitution of conjugal rights was put for execution.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n After evaluating both facts and law, the Court concluded that the statutory requirement of one year of non-compliance was fulfilled and the husband was not taking advantage of his own wrong<\/strong>. It further held that \u201cthe ground for divorce under Section 13 (1-A) of the Hindu Marriage Act was made out\u201d <\/em><\/strong>and the Family Court had erred in appreciating both evidence and legal principles.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Accordingly, the High Court allowed the appeal and dissolved the marriage<\/strong>, bringing an end to a long-pending matrimonial dispute.<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
Explanatory Table: Laws & Sections Involved<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Law \/ Section<\/strong><\/td> Provision<\/strong><\/td> Simple Explanation<\/strong><\/td><\/tr><\/thead> Hindu Marriage Act<\/a>, 1955 \u2013 Section 13(1A)(ii)<\/strong><\/td> Divorce after non-compliance of restitution decree for 1 year<\/td> If spouses don\u2019t resume living together for 1 year after court order, either can seek divorce<\/td><\/tr> Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 \u2013 Section 23(1)(a)<\/strong><\/td> No advantage of own wrong<\/td> Court must ensure the person asking for relief is not benefiting from their own misconduct<\/td><\/tr> Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 \u2013 Section 9<\/strong><\/td> Restitution of conjugal rights<\/td> Court can order spouse to resume cohabitation<\/td><\/tr> Code of Civil Procedure \u2013 Order 21 Rule 31<\/strong><\/td> Execution of restitution decree<\/td> If spouse does not obey court order, enforcement can be done through attachment of property<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n Case Details<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
Key Takeaways<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n