The Madhya Pradesh High Court, in a significant judgment, has granted a decree of divorce to a couple living separately for 22 years, holding that the irretrievable breakdown of a marriage and the intentional resistance to divorce by one party constitutes cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The decision was delivered by a division bench comprising Justice Vishal Dhagat and Justice Ramkumar Choubey in an appeal filed by the husband against a trial court order that had dismissed his divorce petition.
Case Background
The appellant-husband had filed a first appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act against the judgment and decree dated 19.04.2006, passed by the District Judge, Tikamgarh. The original matrimonial case sought the dissolution of his marriage to the respondent-wife.
The marriage was solemnized on 31.05.1998 in Tikamgarh according to Hindu rites. The appellant contended that soon after the marriage, the respondent’s behavior was “abnormal.” He alleged she was “ignorant and unaware of works of married woman in the house,” would continuously move her legs, and would laugh and cry without reason. The petition further claimed that she treated her son and the appellant’s mother cruelly, was negligent in household chores such as forgetting to switch off a jet pump or burning food, and that her presence was a “threat to mother and children of appellant.”
The appellant stated that he was living under constant “mental harassment and tension” and that there was a “possibility of some serious accident in the house due to her behavior.” He claimed she was diagnosed with a “psychiatric problem” after being treated in Delhi, Lalitpur, and Ghaziabad. On these grounds, he filed for divorce under Sections 13(1)(i-a) (cruelty) and 13(1)(iii) (incurable mental disorder) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
The respondent, in her defense before the trial court, denied the allegations, claiming they were false grounds raised because the appellant wished to remarry. She alleged that it was the appellant and his family who were cruel and harassed her for dowry, demanding Rs. 2 Lakhs. She stated that her mother-in-law had manhandled her and banged her head against a wall, which resulted in “uneasiness, numbness and depression.” She asserted that her father died of a heart attack on 05.11.2000 due to the dowry demands.
The Trial Court dismissed the suit, finding that the appellant had failed to prove that the respondent’s alleged mental illness was incurable or that her behavior was so abnormal that he could not be expected to live with her.
Arguments Before the High Court
Before the High Court, counsel for the appellant argued that the trial court had committed an error by not properly considering the evidence on record, including the testimony of the appellant, his neighbor, another acquaintance, and two doctors who had treated the respondent.
The primary argument advanced was that the marriage had irretrievably broken down, as the parties had been living separately since 05.06.2003, a period of 22 years. It was submitted that there was “no possibility of resumption of married life” and the breakdown was “beyond repair.”
The respondent did not appear for the final hearing despite being served notice, and the court proceeded ex-parte.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The High Court acknowledged that “Irretrievable break down of marriage is not a ground available to High Court for granting decree of divorce.” It noted that the Supreme Court has granted such relief by exercising its unique powers under Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India.
However, the bench observed that civil courts possess inherent powers under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure “to make such orders as may be necessary for ends of justice and to prevent abuse of process of Court.” The Court reasoned that it could not ignore the reality of a complete marital breakdown.
The judgment states, “When there is complete breakdown of marriage and there is impossibility of resumption of married life between the parties then Court cannot close its eyes to said fact and enhance the pain of parties in not granting them divorce.”
Crucially, the Court linked the prolonged separation and the apparent lack of interest from the respondent in prosecuting the appeal to the ground of cruelty. The Court made a poignant observation on the conduct of spouses in such deadlocked marriages:
“Husband or wife often adopts to sadistic approach towards their partner and gets enjoyment and happiness from pain and sufferings of others side. They intentionally resist granting of divorce to other party to harass them and not allowing them to settle in life though they vividly know that marriage between them has been broken and marital ties cannot be resumed. Aforesaid conduct of parties also amounts to cruelty under Section 13(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.”
The Court concluded that granting a divorce in such circumstances is not a departure from substantive law but an act “within four corners of law to subserve interest of justice.”
Decision
Finding that there was a “complete breakdown of marriage” and that the respondent was “no longer interested to prosecute appeal,” the High Court set aside the trial court’s order.
The bench concluded, “There is long separation between the parties i.e. for 22 years and no purpose will be served overlooking the said fact and sticking to fact that parties have failed to establish their case on basis of fault theory.”
Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, and the marriage solemnized on 31.05.1998 between the appellant and the respondent was dissolved by a decree of divorce.
