The High Court of Chhattisgarh, in a judgment delivered on August 18, 2025, granted a decree of divorce to a husband, ruling that his wife’s taunts about his lack of income during the COVID-19 pandemic, combined with her subsequent desertion, amounted to mental cruelty. The court also observed that the marriage had irretrievably broken down.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Rajani Dubey and Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad set aside a judgment dated October 25, 2023, from the Family Court, Durg, which had dismissed the husband’s petition for divorce filed under Section 13(1)(i-a) (cruelty) and 13(1)(i-b) (desertion) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Background of the Case
The appellant-husband and the respondent-wife were married on December 26, 1996. The couple has two children: a daughter, aged 19, who resides with the mother, and a son, aged 16, who lives with the father.
The husband, an advocate by profession, stated in his petition that he had supported his wife in pursuing higher education, which led to her obtaining a Ph.D. and securing a position as a school Principal. He alleged that her behavior changed thereafter, becoming proud and leading to frequent quarrels over trivial matters and taunts regarding his job.
The situation deteriorated during the COVID-19 pandemic when court closures brought the husband’s income to a standstill. He pleaded that instead of supporting him, his wife subjected him to cruelty by calling him “unemployed,” making unreasonable demands, and verbally abusing him when he could not fulfill them.
On August 2, 2020, the wife left the matrimonial home with their daughter to live with her sister. Though the husband convinced her to return a month later, she left again after five days, on September 16, 2020. Before leaving, she wrote a letter (Exhibit P-02) stating she was leaving of her own will, intended to sever all relations with her husband and son, and that no one was responsible for her decision. Since that day, the parties have been living separately.
The wife was served with summons but did not appear before the Family Court or the High Court, and the proceedings were conducted ex-parte.
Arguments Before the High Court
The appellant-husband argued that the Family Court had erred in dismissing his application. He contended that the wife’s departure, evidenced by her own letter, clearly constituted desertion. He emphasized that her taunts about his financial situation during the pandemic amounted to cruelty. He further pointed out that the wife’s decision to remain absent from the proceedings demonstrated her unwillingness to contest his allegations or resume the marriage.
The husband also submitted that the Family Court had wrongly relied on a counseling report that was never exhibited as evidence during the trial.
High Court’s Analysis and Findings
The High Court framed two primary questions for consideration: whether cruelty under Section 13(1)(i-a) and desertion under Section 13(1)(i-b) had been established.
On Mental Cruelty:
The Bench found that the husband had made “detailed and consistent allegations of mental cruelty,” which were corroborated by a witness and documentary evidence. The court held that the wife’s behavior was legally tantamount to mental cruelty.
The judgment stated, “It has been clearly deposed that after obtaining a Ph.D. degree and securing a high-paying job as a Principal, the respondent’s behavior towards the appellant changed significantly. She became disrespectful, frequently taunted him for being unemployed during the COVID-19 pandemic, and engaged in repeated verbal altercations over trivial matters. These acts, including insults and humiliation during a time of financial vulnerability, clearly amount to mental cruelty as recognized under law.”
The court referenced the Supreme Court’s definition of mental cruelty in V. Bhagat vs. D. Bhagat (Mrs.), defining it as “that conduct which inflicts upon the other party such mental pain and suffering as would make it not possible for that party to live with the other.” The Bench concluded that the wife’s conduct fell squarely within this definition.
On Desertion:
The High Court found that the wife had deserted the husband without any justifiable cause on September 16, 2020. The court placed significant weight on the letter (Exhibit P-02) written by the wife.
The judgment noted, “The letter (Exhibit P-2) written by the respondent before leaving clearly indicates that she left the matrimonial home on her own will and volition, without attributing any reason or allegation against the appellant. She expressly stated that she would sever all ties with the appellant and her son Aniket, thereby proving animus deserendi.”
Citing the settled law on desertion from Supreme Court cases like Bipinchandra Jaisinghbhai Shah v. Prabhavati and Debananda Tamuli vs. Kakumoni Kataky, the court affirmed that the two essential elements—the fact of separation and the intention to permanently end cohabitation (animus deserendi)—were both present. The court also noted that the statutory two-year period of desertion had been fulfilled before the petition was filed.
Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage:
Concluding its analysis, the Bench observed that there was no possibility of a reunion between the parties. The court stated, “Since the parties have been residing separately and there is no possibility of their reunion, this Court is of the view that there has been an irretrievable break-down of the marriage, beyond any scope of repair.”
Decision
Based on its findings on cruelty, desertion, and the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage, the High Court allowed the husband’s appeal. The judgment of the Family Court, Durg, was set aside, and the marriage solemnized between the parties was dissolved by a decree of divorce.
