The Bombay High Court has set aside a 2019 Family Court judgment and granted a decree of divorce to a husband, ruling that the continuation of a “dead marriage” amounts to cruelty. The Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Gautam A. Ankhad, held that compelling parties to live in a marriage that has irretrievably broken down serves no purpose and perpetuates mental agony.
Significantly, the Court granted relief despite noting that the husband had filed a false affidavit denying his remarriage, conduct which the Court termed as perjury. To balance the equities, the Court directed the husband to transfer two flats, 80 grams of gold, and pay Rs. 25 Lakhs to the wife as a full and final settlement.
Background of the Case
The appellant-husband and the respondent-wife were married on May 10, 2006, and have a son born in 2007. Marital discord began in 2008, leading to the respondent leaving the matrimonial home on September 2, 2012. The parties have lived separately since then.
The litigation history between the parties is extensive. The appellant filed for divorce in 2013, which was dismissed by the Family Court, Thane, on May 15, 2019. The respondent-wife initiated multiple legal proceedings against the husband from 2014 to 2025, including petitions for restitution of conjugal rights, maintenance, proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and criminal cases under the Indian Penal Code for bigamy and cruelty.
During the pendency of the appeal, the wife filed an Interim Application alleging the husband had remarried. The husband filed an affidavit on February 14, 2025, denying this. However, a police inquiry ordered by the High Court revealed that the husband was residing with another woman and had a daughter with her. The Court noted, “The affidavit dated 14th February 2025 filed by the respondent/husband… is a false affidavit.”
Arguments of the Parties
Ms. Divya A. Pawar, counsel for the appellant, argued that the parties had been separated since 2012. She contended that the Trial Court failed to appreciate instances of cruelty, desertion, and the respondent’s attempt to commit suicide. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court judgment in Pradeep Bhardwaj v. Priya (2025), arguing that compelling parties to continue in a dead marriage perpetuates social burden.
Ms. Lucy Massey, counsel for the respondent, supported the Trial Court’s dismissal of the divorce petition, arguing that the appellant failed to discharge the burden of proving his allegations. She submitted that the Trial Court’s findings suffered from no perversity.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The High Court observed that the marriage had completely broken down. The Bench referred to the marriage counsellor’s 2015 report stating that reconciliation was impossible.
On the issue of multiple litigations, the Court cited the Supreme Court’s decision in K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa (2013), noting: “Repeatedly filing of criminal cases by one party against the other in matrimonial matter would amount to cruelty.”
Regarding the definition of cruelty, the Court relied on Savitri Pandey v. Prem Chandra Pandey (2002) and Ravi Kumar v. Julmidevi (2010), reiterating that cruelty refers to a course of conduct that adversely affects the other spouse.
Criticizing the Trial Court’s approach, Justice Ankhad observed: “The findings recorded in the impugned judgment appear to be influenced by the trial Court’s generalised perceptions rather than a proper appreciation of the evidence… The trial Court erred in dismissing the divorce petition without due regard to the fact that the parties have been residing separately since 2012 and have not cohabited for over a decade.”
The Court extensively quoted the Supreme Court judgment in Rakesh Raman v. Kavita (2023), stating: “A marriage which has broken down irretrievably, in our opinion spells cruelty to both the parties, as in such a relationship each party is treating the other with cruelty.”
Addressing the husband’s conduct regarding the false affidavit, the Court acknowledged the perjury but emphasized that the priority was acknowledging the breakdown of the marriage. The Court noted: “We also note from the police report that the appellant has since remarried, though not in accordance with law… In these circumstances, it is impossible for the parties to resume cohabitation. Continuation of such a marriage would only mean giving sanction to cruelty which each is inflicting on the other.”
Decision
The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Family Court’s 2019 judgment and dissolving the marriage between the parties.
As a full and final settlement, based on an offer made by the appellant, the Court issued the following mandatory directions to the husband:
- Transfer of Property: Transfer ownership of two flats (Flat no. 407 in Vaishnavi Apartment and Flat no. 204 in Sumit Heights, both in Diva Station East) to the respondent-wife.
- Streedhan: Transfer 80 grams of gold to the respondent.
- Monetary Settlement: Pay a sum of Rs. 25,00,000/- (Twenty-Five Lakhs) to the respondent.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Yogendra Lahu Bhoir v. Mrs. Prema Yogendra Bhoir
- Case Number: Family Court Appeal No. 137 of 2019
- Coram: Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Gautam A. Ankhad
- Counsel for Appellant: Ms. Divya A. Pawar with Mr. Krishnakant Deshmukh
- Counsel for Respondent: Ms. Lucy Massey with Ms. Aarti R. Dharamsey
