Court’s Decision
The Patna High Court, comprising Chief Justice P. B. Bajanthri and Justice S. B. Pd. Singh, dismissed two connected matrimonial appeals filed by the wife challenging the Family Court’s decree granting divorce to her husband and rejecting her petition for restitution of conjugal rights.
While upholding the Family Court’s judgment, the Bench observed:
“Continuance of a marriage which has broken down irretrievably amounts to cruelty to both parties. To keep the façade of this broken marriage alive would be doing injustice.”
The Court upheld the decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and simultaneously directed the husband to pay ₹10,00,000 as permanent alimony to the wife within three months, failing which the amount would carry 6% simple interest per annum.
Facts
The marriage between the appellant-wife and the respondent-husband was solemnized on 9 May 1997 under Hindu rites. The marriage was consummated, but no child was born from the wedlock.
According to the husband, the wife was educated and the only child of her parents. Soon after marriage, she allegedly exhibited rude and quarrelsome behavior, often abusing the husband and his family. She stayed only ten days at her matrimonial home initially and later left to pursue studies at Banaras Hindu University without his consent.
She made brief visits in 1999 and 2001 but soon left again. The husband alleged she threatened suicide and to implicate his family in false cases. In 2003, she filed a criminal case under Section 498A IPC, which led to the arrest of the husband and his family members. However, they were later acquitted in appeal in 2018.
The wife, in her defense, alleged dowry harassment and desertion by her husband, contending that he had forced her out of the matrimonial home. She claimed she never misbehaved or quarreled, and the husband fabricated allegations to justify divorce.
She had also filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which was dismissed by the Family Court in 2013.
Issues
- Whether the Family Court erred in granting divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion.
- Whether the wife’s conduct constituted “mental cruelty” under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act.
- Whether the wife was entitled to permanent alimony after the dissolution of marriage.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The wife argued that the Family Court misappreciated evidence, as it was she who was subjected to cruelty and dowry demands. She asserted that filing criminal proceedings was a legal remedy, not cruelty. The trial court, she claimed, wrongly concluded desertion and cruelty when she was the aggrieved party.
She contended that the court failed to make genuine efforts for reconciliation and that her desire to resume marital life was disregarded. Further, the husband’s claim that the marriage was not consummated was false, and the Family Court’s conclusion was perverse and unsustainable in law.
Respondent’s Arguments
The husband submitted that the wife refused cohabitation, displayed disrespectful and abusive behavior, and voluntarily abandoned him and his family. Despite multiple efforts to bring her back, she and her relatives allegedly humiliated him.
He further argued that filing false criminal cases and threatening to implicate his family constituted mental cruelty, especially since the cases were found to be baseless and resulted in his acquittal.
Relying on the Family Court’s findings, the respondent contended that long separation (over 20 years) and absence of any possibility of reconciliation rendered the marriage irretrievably broken.
Analysis of the Law
The Bench examined the concept of mental cruelty under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, citing the Supreme Court’s landmark rulings in:
- Joydeep Majumdar v. Bharti Jaiswal Majumdar (2021) 2 RCR (Civil) 289 – holding that mental cruelty is such conduct that makes it impossible for the other spouse to live with the wrongdoer.
- Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh (2007) 4 SCC 511 – laying down illustrative instances of mental cruelty, including long separation, refusal of cohabitation, and humiliating conduct.
- Rakesh Raman v. Kavita (2023 SCC OnLine SC 497) – reaffirming that cruelty can be both physical and mental, even unintentional, and that unilateral refusal to cohabit amounts to mental cruelty.
The Court held that sustained neglect, denial of companionship, and prolonged separation amounted to mental cruelty. The wife’s refusal to resume conjugal life and initiation of criminal proceedings, later found false, demonstrated her intent to sever marital ties permanently.
The Court also referred to Jagdish Singh v. Madhuri Devi (2008) 10 SCC 497, which clarified the appellate court’s power to reassess facts while respecting the trial court’s findings based on witness demeanor.
Precedent Analysis
- Joydeep Majumdar v. Bharti Jaiswal Majumdar (2021) – Applied to interpret cruelty as persistent behavior making cohabitation impossible.
- Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh (2007) – Relied upon to define “mental cruelty” through enumerated examples like long separation, refusal of intercourse, and humiliation.
- Rakesh Raman v. Kavita (2023) – Cited to explain that absence of intention does not negate cruelty; the impact on the spouse is determinative.
- Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324 – Referred for framework on determining alimony.
- Pravin Kumar Jain v. Anju Jain (2024 SCC OnLine SC 3678) – Quoted for eight key factors to be considered while fixing permanent alimony, including status, needs, conduct, and capacity of parties.
- Sukhdev Singh v. Sukhbir Kaur (2025 SCC OnLine SC 299) – Cited to clarify that alimony under Section 25 is discretionary and contingent on equitable conduct.
Court’s Reasoning
The Division Bench found that the marriage had effectively ended in 2002, and for over 22 years, there was no cohabitation, reconciliation, or mutual trust. The Family Court had made multiple attempts to mediate, but both parties “were not in a position to even see each other.”
The Court held that long separation, refusal of cohabitation, and false criminal complaints caused grave mental cruelty to the husband. It reiterated that although “irretrievable breakdown” is not an independent statutory ground under Section 13, it may still indicate cruelty when the marriage becomes a legal fiction.
“A marriage which has only become more bitter and acrimonious does nothing but inflict cruelty on both sides. Keeping it alive would be doing injustice.”
Regarding maintenance, the Court noted that though the Family Court omitted to consider alimony, Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act empowers courts to grant it even after divorce. The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s guidelines in Rajnesh v. Neha and Pravin Kumar Jain v. Anju Jain, observing that while no fixed formula applies, the wife must be ensured a life of dignity and comfort, not luxury.
The husband, a private school teacher with agricultural property, offered ₹10 lakh as alimony, while the wife, a government teacher earning ₹28,232 per month, also had inherited property. Considering these factors, the Court found the offer reasonable and granted ₹10 lakh as permanent alimony.
Conclusion
The Patna High Court dismissed both appeals, affirming the Family Court’s decree of divorce and upholding its reasoning on cruelty and desertion. The Court also directed the husband to pay ₹10,00,000 as permanent alimony within three months, failing which the amount would attract 6% interest per annum.
“The duty of the Court is to ensure that the wife lives with dignity and comfort and not in penury. The living need not be luxurious but simultaneously she should not be left to live in discomfort.”
The judgment thus balanced compassion with judicial prudence—recognizing the emotional futility of a dead marriage while safeguarding the wife’s financial security.
Implications
This decision reaffirms the broad interpretation of “mental cruelty” in matrimonial law and reinforces that long separation and refusal to cohabit constitute valid grounds for divorce. It also underscores that courts retain jurisdiction to grant alimony even post-divorce, emphasizing fairness, equity, and proportionality.
The ruling provides a guiding precedent on how irretrievable breakdown, though not a statutory ground, informs cruelty, ensuring justice where marriages have collapsed beyond repair.
FAQs
1. Can long separation itself be a ground for divorce?
While not an independent ground, long separation often evidences “mental cruelty,” justifying divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act.
2. Can alimony be granted after divorce?
Yes. Under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, courts can grant permanent alimony even after passing a decree of divorce.
3. Is false criminal litigation a form of cruelty?
Yes. Filing false or vindictive criminal cases that lead to harassment or humiliation constitutes mental cruelty.
