The Madhya Pradesh High Court allowed a wife’s first appeal for divorce, holding that prolonged marital separation had rendered the marriage irretrievably broken. Justices Vivek Kumar Singh and Ajay Kumar Nirankari ruled separation constitutes mental cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia).
MADHYA PRADESH: The High Court of Madhya Pradesh has upheld a First Appeal from a wife seeking a divorce, determining that the marital discord had escalated to an irreparable state.
The Division Bench, consisting of Justice Vivek Kumar Singh and Justice Ajay Kumar Nirankari, ruled that an extended period of separation qualifies as “mental cruelty” under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
The Court set aside the Family Court’s ruling dated May 6, 2015, which had initially rejected the wife’s divorce application.
Factual Backgrounds:
The couple’s marriage, conducted in accordance with Hindu customs, took place on July 12, 2008. The wife claimed that a dowry of Rs. 1,75,000 was demanded and given by her father during the marriage. She also stated that her husband falsely portrayed himself as temporarily employed at VMB College, Amravati, only to later disclose he had no income. They welcomed a daughter on September 10, 2009.
The wife contended that after a visit to her matrimonial home on July 13, 2010, in an effort to salvage the marriage, the husband showed no willingness to continue the relationship. Since then, she has lived separately, supporting herself and her daughter through tuition work.
The appellant filed for divorce under Section 13, citing cruelty. However, the Family Court in Betul dismissed her petition in 2015, ruling that her separation lacked sufficient justification and remarking that no FIR had been filed regarding the supposed cruelty or dowry demands.
Arguments of Parties:
Advocate Sandeep Singh Baghel, representing the wife, argued that the Family Court failed to recognize that her husband had no earnings, leaving her solely responsible for their child’s upbringing. He asserted that they had been living apart since 2013 and that the marriage had irretrievably broken down.
The counsel highlighted that the husband’s petition for Restitution of Conjugal Rights, pursued under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, was dismissed by the lower court on January 4, 2023, due to the respondent’s conduct and delays, particularly since it was filed only after the wife sought maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.
The appellant referenced the Delhi High Court ruling in Poonam Wadhwa Vs. Rajeev Wadhwa, which established that financial instability can lead to mental distress and be categorized as mental cruelty. She also cited the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s decision in Smt. Saroj Bai Vs. Naresh Kumar concerning desertion.
Court’s Findings and Analysis
The High Court reviewed the concepts of “mental cruelty” and “irretrievable breakdown of marriage,” referencing landmark Supreme Court cases, including Samar Ghosh vs. Jaya Ghosh (2007) and Shri Rakesh Raman Vs. Smt. Kavita (2023).
The Bench noted that the couple had only spent about a year together after their marriage and had been living apart since.
The Court stated,
“From evidence available on record, it is clear that the relations between the parties have evidently grown sour beyond the point of return and such a long period of separation has turned these differences irreconcilable.”
Citing the Supreme Court in Shilpa Sailesh Vs. Varun Sreenivasan (2023), the Court emphasized that while irretrievable breakdown is not an automatic right, the judiciary must exercise discretion to ensure “complete justice.”
The Bench concluded,
“It is evident that in the instant case, marital discord has reached to a point of no remedy and there is a complete irretrievable breakdown of marriage. Therefore, no purpose would be served by insisting the parties to continue their marital relationship which is already dead…”
Consequently, the Court found that the lengthy separation and the dissolution of the marital bond fell under the definition of mental cruelty as stated in Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act.
The High Court granted the First Appeal, nullifying the Family Court’s 2015 decision. As a result, the marriage between the appellant and the respondent, solemnized on July 12, 2008, was officially dissolved through a divorce decree. The Court instructed both parties to bear their own legal costs.
Case Title: Kavita Vs. Sudhakar Rao Sukhsohale First Appeal No. 238 of 2017
Read Attachment: