Chhattisgarh High Court: In an appeal filed by an advocate against the judgment passed by the Family Court whereby his divorce application filed under Section 13(1) (1-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (‘HMA’), was rejected, the Division Bench of Rajani Dubey and Amitendra Kishore Prasad*, JJ., allowed the appeal, holding that the husband had clearly suffered mental cruelty and was deserted by the wife.
Background
The couple got married in 1996 and had two children. Disputes allegedly arose when the wife obtained a PhD and secured a position as a principal. She started acting proud of her position and frequently quarrelling over trivial matters, taunting her husband regarding his job. During the COVID-19 pandemic, when the husband’s income ceased due to the Courts being closed, the wife allegedly verbally abused him, calling him unemployed and demanding unnecessary things which he could not provide.
In 2020, the wife left the matrimonial home with their daughter and went to her sister’s house. The applicant, along with his son, visited her sister’s home to bring her back, but she refused to come home and allegedly ousted her husband after a quarrel. Despite several efforts by the husband, the wife did not return. After about a month, she returned with the applicant but left again after five days, leaving a letter stating that she was leaving the matrimonial home of her own will and intended to sever all relations with her husband and son. Since then, the wife had deserted him, prompting him to inform the Mahila Cell, Bhilai. The husband and his son also made multiple attempts to contact the wife, who did not respond to calls, leading him to file for dissolution of the marriage.
As per the record, the wife was duly served with summons, and the paper publication was also made. Despite the service, she did not appear before the Family Court on any of the hearing dates. The matter was adjourned on multiple occasions, but she failed to avail herself of those opportunities. Ultimately, the Family Court proceeded ex parte, framed one issue, and decided the matter based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the husband, thereby dismissing the application.
Aggrieved by the ex parte decree, the husband filed the present appeal, contending that the wife neither appeared before the Family Court nor filed any written statement nor entered the witness box to record her evidence. Therefore, he prayed that the ex parte decree be set aside and the matrimonial relationship be dissolved.
Issues and Analysis
1. Whether the cruelty under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the HMA has been made out?
The Court noted that the husband made detailed and consistent allegations of mental cruelty against the wife, supported by his own affidavit, corroborated by the testimony of two witnesses, and further substantiated by documentary evidence. It was clearly deposed that after obtaining a Ph.D. degree and securing a high-paying job as a Principal, the wife’s behavior towards the husband 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.”
Referring to several landmark decisions and the evidence, the Court stated that it was quite vivid that the conduct of the wife fell squarely within the definition. Her behaviour, including instigating the daughter against the father, making unfounded demands during a financially unstable period, and leaving the home with the daughter while abandoning the son, demonstrated a pattern of mental harassment and disregard for the matrimonial bond. The Court also noted that no rebuttal or counter-evidence was filed by the wife. Her absence throughout the trial and appeal proceedings further strengthened the unrebutted nature of the husband’s allegations. Thus, the Court held that the Family Court failed to appreciate the legal implications of this uncontroverted evidence and wrongly concluded that cruelty was not established.
2. Whether desertion under Section 13(1)(i-b) of the HMA has been established?
The Court noted that the letter written by the wife before leaving clearly indicated that she left the matrimonial home of her own will and volition, without attributing any reason or allegation against the husband. She expressly stated that she would sever all ties with her husband and son, thereby proving animus deserendi.
The Court reiterated that, to prove desertion, two essential elements must be present, i.e., factum of separation and intention to bring cohabitation permanently to an end (animus deserendi). Noting this, the Court held that both elements were present in this case. Despite repeated efforts by the husband to bring her back, including personal visits and phone calls, the wife neither returned nor expressed any intention to resume marital life. In this regard, the Court referred to Bipinchandra Jaisinghbai Shah v. Prabhavati, 1956 SCC OnLine SC 15.
The Court further noted that, as per the husband’s evidence, the separation had continued uninterrupted since 2020, thus fulfilling the statutory requirement of two years of desertion before the filing of the divorce petition in 2022. Furthermore, no legitimate reason was offered by the wife for such desertion. Thus, the Court held that her conduct indicated a deliberate and wilful decision to end cohabitation and abandon her matrimonial obligations, thereby justifying a decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(i-b) of the HMA.
The Court further held that the Family Court erred in relying on a non-exhibited mediation report and failed to appreciate the legal effect of a clear, unambiguous act of desertion. The unavailability of the wife for cross-examination and her decision to remain ex parte further supported the husband’s claim that the desertion was unjustified and deliberate.
Decision
Since the parties had been residing separately and there was no possibility of their reunion, the Court held that there was an irretrievable breakdown of the marriage, beyond any scope of repair. Taking these facts into consideration, the present appeal was allowed and a decree of divorce in favour of the husband was granted, while setting aside the impugned judgment.
[SKS v. STS, 2025 SCC OnLine Chh 8144, decided on 18-08-2025]
*Judgment authored by: Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the appellant: B.P. Singh
