Cruelty finding upheld, and irretrievable breakdown remains unavailable as a divorce ground under the Hindu Marriage Act.

Concurrent findings that the wife had treated the husband with cruelty were based on evidence of ill-treatment and medical examination after assault, so no legal error justified interference with the factual finding. The Court also held that irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not a ground for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; adding such a ground is a legislative function, not a judicial one. Divorce by mutual consent under Section 13B was unavailable because both parties did not agree. The appeal therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the concurrent finding that the wife had treated the husband with cruelty called for interference. (ii) Whether irretrievable breakdown of marriage is a ground for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

Issue (i): Whether the concurrent finding that the wife had treated the husband with cruelty called for interference.

Analysis: The evidence accepted by the courts below showed that the wife had pleaded and proved instances of ill-treatment and medical examination after assault, and the factual conclusion was that the husband had treated the wife cruelly. The finding was one of fact based on evidence and did not disclose any legal error warranting interference.

Conclusion: The finding of cruelty against the husband was not interfered with and stood against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether irretrievable breakdown of marriage is a ground for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

Analysis: Section 13 specifies the grounds on which a marriage may be dissolved, and irretrievable breakdown is not one of them. The power to add such a ground lies with the legislature, not the Court. A decree could have been granted by mutual consent under Section 13B only if both parties agreed, which was not the case here.

Conclusion: Irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not a judicially available ground for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the concurrent factual finding of cruelty remained undisturbed and the requested divorce could not be granted on the ground of irretrievable breakdown.

Ratio Decidendi: A court cannot grant divorce on a ground not enacted by the legislature, and irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not a ground for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

---