The Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, has overturned a decision of the Family Court, Hardoi, and granted a decree of divorce in a case concerning allegations of mental cruelty and desertion. The judgment was delivered by a Division Bench comprising Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Subhash Vidyarthi.
Background of the Case
The appellant challenged a judgment and decree dated February 8, 2022, passed by the First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Hardoi, under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The suit for divorce filed by the appellant had been dismissed by the Family Court, which found that the grounds of cruelty and desertion were not sufficiently established under the Act.
The parties were married in 2012, but soon after, disputes arose between them, leading to a prolonged separation. The appellant alleged that the spouse had been cruel, made false allegations, and deserted without any reasonable cause.
Key Legal Issues Involved
The High Court focused on two major legal issues:
1. Whether the grounds of cruelty and desertion were sufficiently established by the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. Whether the Family Court’s judgment dismissing the suit for divorce was legally sustainable.
Court’s Decision and Observations
The High Court, in its detailed judgment authored by Justice Subhash Vidyarthi, made several significant observations while allowing the appeal. The Court held that the facts and circumstances presented in the case were sufficient to establish both mental cruelty and desertion by the respondent.
Mental Cruelty
The Court referred to the precedent set by the Supreme Court in Rakesh Raman v. Kavita (2023 SCC OnLine SC 497), which explained that “cruelty” under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act can be both physical and mental. It quoted:
“Cruelty can be even unintentional… The absence of intention should not make any difference in the case if by ordinary sense in human affairs, the act complained of could otherwise be regarded as cruelty.”
The Court noted that the parties had been living separately for over a decade, and the appellant had not been able to meet their daughter during this period, which constituted mental cruelty under the broad parameters laid out by the Supreme Court.
The Court also examined the concept of “desertion” as explained by the Supreme Court in Debananda Tamuli v. Kakumoni Kataky (2022) 5 SCC 459:
“Desertion means the intentional abandonment of one spouse by the other without the consent of the other and without a reasonable cause.”
The respondent had left the appellant’s house in May 2014 and had not returned to cohabit since, which the Court interpreted as a clear case of desertion with no reasonable cause. The lack of participation by the respondent in the proceedings further supported the finding that the relationship had been abandoned.
Outcome of the Appeal
The High Court set aside the Family Court’s judgment and granted a decree of divorce, noting:
“By refusing to sever the tie between the plaintiff and the defendant, the Family Court has not served the sanctity of marriage; on the contrary, it has shown disregard for the feelings and emotions of the parties, which are not affectionate towards each other. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case make out a case for grant of divorce on the ground of cruelty.”
The appeal was allowed, and the marriage was dissolved. The Court observed that the long period of separation and lack of mutual affection made the marriage a “fiction supported by a legal tie,” which only perpetuated mental cruelty. The judges further noted that the Family Court had erred in dismissing the suit for divorce and did not properly address the emotional and factual nuances of the case.
Counsel for the Appellant: Akshat Kumar, Sanjay Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for the Respondent: Sagar Singh, Jyoti Prakash, Shri Ram Maurya
