Madhya Pradesh High Court Grants Divorce, Says Repeated Desertion Amounts To Mental Cruelty

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that repeated desertion and sustained mental agony inflicted by a spouse can amount to cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, even where an earlier divorce petition was withdrawn without liberty.

Allowing a husband’s first appeal, the Division Bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Singh and Justice Himanshu Joshi dissolved a 14-year-old marriage on the ground that the relationship had irretrievably broken down and had become emotionally unworkable.

The appeal arose from the dismissal of a divorce petition by the Family court at Bhopal. The appellant-husband, had sought dissolution of marriage under Sections 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, alleging cruelty and desertion by his wife. The Family court had rejected his plea. Challenging the decision, the husband contended that the trial court failed to appreciate the cumulative effect of repeated abandonment and mental harassment.

Appearing for the appellant, Shri Siddharth Sharma, Advocate, with Shri Mayank Upadhyay, argued that the respondent repeatedly left the matrimonial home without reasonable cause and finally separated in October 2021. It was submitted that such conduct squarely attracted desertion and mental cruelty. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court decisions in A. Jayachandra v. Aneel Kaur to contend that mental cruelty need not involve physical violence and that persistent conduct causing deep anguish is sufficient ground for divorce.

On the other hand, Shri Sanjay Agrawal, Senior Advocate, assisted by Ms. Ankita Singh Parihar for the respondent, opposed the appeal on the ground of maintainability. It was argued that an earlier divorce petition filed in 2018 had been withdrawn without liberty to file afresh, and therefore the subsequent suit was barred under Order XXIII Rule 1(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The wife also denied allegations of cruelty and asserted her willingness to resume cohabitation.

Rejecting the preliminary objection, the High court held that in matrimonial disputes, cruelty and desertion may constitute a continuing or recurring cause of action. The bench observed that where fresh acts occur after a compromise, a subsequent petition is not barred. Referring to precedent, the court noted that “in matrimonial cases, cruelty or desertion is often considered to be a continuing or recurring cause of action,” and therefore the bar under Order XXIII Rule 1(4) CPC would not apply in such circumstances.

On merits, the court undertook a detailed survey of Supreme Court jurisprudence on mental cruelty and irretrievable breakdown of marriage. It reproduced the principles laid down in Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh, emphasising that mental cruelty is a state of mind and must be assessed on the cumulative effect of conduct. The bench found that the wife had left the matrimonial home on multiple occasions, including in 2017 and finally in 2021, taking the younger daughter with her and denying the husband access. Such repeated separation, the court held, caused sustained mental agony and uncertainty.

The judgment records that the Family court had adopted an unduly narrow approach by overlooking the psychological impact of repeated desertion. Observing that the parties had lived apart for several years and that reconciliation attempts had failed, the bench concluded that “the relationship between the parties has evidently grown sour beyond the point of return,” and that long separation had rendered the marriage “emotionally dead and beyond salvation”. It therefore granted divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown, treating it as falling within the ambit of mental cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia).

Significantly, the court also exercised suo motu powers under Section 25 of the Act to award permanent alimony, noting that no separate application had been filed. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Rajnesh v. Neha, it converted interim maintenance of Rs.20,000 per month into a one-time permanent alimony of Rs.25 lakh, payable within six months. The bench reasoned that a consolidated financial settlement would secure long-term stability and avoid multiplicity of proceedings.

Setting aside the Family court’s decree, the High court allowed the appeal and directed dissolution of the marriage solemnised in November 2011.

Case Title: Jitesh Kumar Tolani v. Smt. Varsha Tolani

Date of Judgment: February 23, 2026

Bench: Justice Vivek Kumar Singh and Justice Himanshu Joshi