The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that prolonged separation and the irretrievable breakdown of a marital relationship constitute cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. In a significant judgment, the Division Bench comprising Justice Anand Pathak and Justice Hirdesh dissolved a 12-year-long failed marriage in First Appeal No. 1821 of 2018, overturning a lower court’s decision that had rejected the husband’s plea for divorce.
Background of the Case
The case revolved around a divorce petition filed by the husband, Mukesh Sahu, who alleged cruelty and suppression of his wife’s mental illness as grounds for dissolution of the marriage. Married in February 2008, the couple faced challenges early on due to the wife’s alleged erratic behavior, which included paranoia, hallucinations, and actions indicative of mental instability.
Despite interventions from her parents and the husband’s attempts to tolerate and support her, the wife left the matrimonial home in June 2012, leaving behind their two children. Since then, the couple lived separately, with no efforts at reconciliation from the wife’s side. The husband argued that the marriage had become irretrievable and caused him immense mental agony.
The Family Court had dismissed the husband’s plea for divorce in 2018, citing insufficient evidence. Aggrieved, the husband approached the High Court.
Legal Issues
1. Definition of Cruelty Under the Hindu Marriage Act:
The husband claimed that the wife’s behavior amounted to cruelty, as it caused significant mental and emotional suffering. The court evaluated whether prolonged separation and the breakdown of meaningful bonds could qualify as cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act.
2. Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage:
Although not a statutory ground under the Hindu Marriage Act, the concept of irretrievable breakdown has been judicially recognized in multiple precedents. The court examined whether the facts of the case supported this principle.
3. Impact of Unrebutted Evidence:
The wife did not participate in the proceedings or provide evidence to counter the allegations. The court considered whether unrebutted evidence could suffice to grant a divorce.
4. Role of Economic Considerations in Alimony:
The court deliberated on the financial disparity between the parties and the necessity of granting permanent alimony to the wife.
Observations by the Court
1. Cruelty Defined Through Separation:
The Bench highlighted that the long period of separation inflicted emotional harm on both parties, amounting to cruelty:
“The long separation, absence of cohabitation, and the complete breakdown of all meaningful bonds must be read as cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act.”
2. Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage:
Referring to Supreme Court precedents such as R. Srinivas Kumar v. R. Shametha (2019) and Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh (2007), the court stated:
“Where the marital relationship has broken down irretrievably, continuation of such a marriage would only sanction cruelty inflicted on both sides.”
3. Unrebutted Evidence Supports Divorce:
The husband’s claims, corroborated by witness testimony, were not contested by the wife, leading the court to conclude:
“There is no reason to disbelieve the unrebutted evidence of the appellant.”
4. Emotional and Financial Justice:
Balancing the financial disparity between the parties, the court awarded ₹2 lakh as permanent alimony to the wife.
Court’s Decision
The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Family Court’s order, and granted a decree of divorce. The court emphasized the need to end a dysfunctional marital relationship to avoid further cruelty to both parties.
The decree will take effect once the appellant deposits the alimony amount with the court within two months.
