In a significant ruling, the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed an appeal challenging a divorce decree, observing that a marriage that has irretrievably broken down and existed only on paper cannot be forced upon either party. The decision, delivered by a division bench comprising Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Challa Gunaranjan, upheld the divorce granted to Sanka Sruthi @ Sujatha from her husband Sanka Anil Kumar, citing mental cruelty and lack of cohabitation.
Background of the Case
The case stemmed from a matrimonial dispute between Sanka Anil Kumar (Appellant) and Sanka Sruthi @ Sujatha (Respondent), who were married on October 31, 2020, under Hindu customs. The respondent-wife filed H.M.O.P. No. 35 of 2022 before the Family Court, seeking a decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, on grounds of cruelty, claiming that the marriage was never consummated and that the appellant showed no interest in marital life.
The Family Court ruled in favor of the wife, granting the divorce decree. The appellant-husband challenged this decision through Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 52 of 2024 before the Andhra Pradesh High Court, arguing that there was no evidence of cruelty and that he had sought restitution of conjugal rights.
Legal Issues Involved
The High Court considered two major legal questions in the appeal:
Validity of Remarriage During the Limitation Period: The wife remarried on April 4, 2024, while the appeal against the divorce decree was still within the statutory limitation period of 90 days under Section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The court had to decide whether this remarriage was valid.
Sufficiency of Evidence for Grant of Divorce: The appellant contended that there was no substantive proof of cruelty, and that the trial court had misread his statements regarding their lack of cohabitation.
Court’s Observations and Ruling
The High Court found that the wife had indeed remarried before the limitation period for appeal had expired. However, citing precedents from the Supreme Court, including Lila Gupta v. Laxmi Narain (1978) and Krishnaveni Rai v. Pankaj Rai (2020), the court held that such remarriages, though against the mandate of Section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act, are not void but remain subject to the outcome of the pending appeal.
On the second issue, the court emphasized that mental cruelty can manifest in various forms, including prolonged separation and absence of cohabitation. Quoting from Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh (2007), the bench reiterated that “unilateral refusal to have sexual intercourse for a considerable period without valid reason may amount to mental cruelty.”
The court further noted, “A marriage cannot be an oppressive tie that one party is forced to endure against their will. A relationship that has broken down beyond repair cannot be legally or morally sustained.”
Referring to Roopa Soni v. Kamalnarayan Soni (2023), the court observed, “Cruelty does not have a fixed meaning and must be understood in the context of each case. A marriage devoid of emotional and physical companionship is akin to a legal fiction that serves no purpose.”
The court found that both parties had accused each other of not showing interest in marital life, but the undeniable fact remained that they had not cohabited since January 2021, leading to prolonged distress and emotional suffering. In such a scenario, the marriage had effectively broken down irretrievably, and forcing it to continue would only inflict further hardship.
Final Judgment
Concluding that there was no valid ground to interfere with the trial court’s decision, the High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the divorce decree. It also took note of the appellant’s insistence on arguing the case in person and appreciated the assistance provided by Amicus Curiae Smt. Nimmagadda Revathi in helping the court reach a fair conclusion.
Key Takeaways
Remarriage during the appeal period is not void but remains subject to appellate court decisions.
Prolonged separation and lack of cohabitation can amount to mental cruelty.
Courts will not force a marriage that has irretrievably broken down to continue.
