Regard being had to laws relating to Hindu, which of the following is not correct?

In Vijaykumar Ramchandra Bhate v Neela Vijaykumar Bhate (2003) the Supreme Court held that allegations of unchastity and extra-marital relationship made by the husband in his written statement amount to mental cruelty under section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act; so the statement that such allegations "would not constitute cruelty" is not correct. Irretrievable breakdown is not by itself a statutory ground of divorce, and in Labishwar Manjhi v Pran Manjhi (2000) the Hindu Succession Act was applied to Santhals found to be following Hindu customs.

Current law: Shilpa Sailesh (2023) confirms the Supreme Court's discretionary Article 142 power to dissolve a marriage for irretrievable breakdown; it does not add a statutory ground available to every matrimonial court. Ram Charan (2025) reiterates HSA section 2(2)'s Scheduled Tribe exclusion and protects equal inheritance under justice, equity and good conscience where no contrary custom was proved. Labishwar's particular factual conclusion should not be taught as an automatic current tribal-succession rule.