Read Time: 10 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court has held that a prolonged period of continuous separation ultimately results in the irreparable breakdown of a marriage, constituting mental cruelty.

The court allowed the petition of a husband and granted him divorce on the grounds of mental cruelty. The family court had dismissed the husband’s plea for divorce under Section 13 (1) (i-a) and 13 (1) (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA).

The bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna held, “A prolonged period of continuous separation could lead to the irreparable breakdown of the matrimonial bond, constituting mental cruelty and cessation or deprivation of cohabitation and conjugal relationships, is an act of extreme cruelty”.
  
Representing the husband, Senior Advocate Geeta Luthra argued that the wife had a history of leaving him on numerous occasions. Luthra claimed that throughout their marriage, spanning 19 years, his wife's conduct remained consistently unpredictable. They underwent six separations, with the wife leaving their shared residence for the last time on June 10, 2011.

Per the submission, the initial separation occurred in October/November 1992 after a heated disagreement over gifts given to the wife's siblings during Diwali. She returned on December 25, 1992, following intervention from the husband's sister. Another separation took place in March 1994 during the wife's pregnancy, with reconciliation efforts leading to her return on July 6, 1994. In 1997, she left during her brother's wedding, requesting separate accommodation upon her return, which the husband provided but she refused. The fourth separation happened in December 1999 due to a job offer disagreement, coupled with insults towards the husband's father, resulting in health issues for him. Following this, they reconciled. The fifth separation, lasting around ten months, occurred in June 2006 due to disagreements over house renovations. In February 2011, an altercation led to the wife threatening self-harm, involving the police. The final separation, marked by ceremonial rituals symbolizing the end of their relationship, happened on June 10, 2011.

Advocate Reena Jain Malhotra representing the wife, acknowledged these separations but contended that they were often instigated by the husband and his family. Advocate Malhotra claimed that her client endured physical, emotional, and verbal abuse, primarily fueled by the husband's mother, despite her efforts to salvage the marriage.

The court noted that the parties were unable to sustain a harmonious relationship and fully embrace the joys of matrimony. During a span of approximately 19 years, the court noted that differences arose between the parties, resulting in seven instances of separation, each lasting from 3 to 10 months, totaling approximately 23-25 months of separation. 

Additionally, the sequence of events portraysed an unreasonable attitude on the part of the wife. Particularly noteworthy was the husband's testimony recounting an incident where "the respondent performed his last rites in the kitchen and also tied a “Rakhi” on his hand while telling him that henceforth, he would be like a brother to her and she abandoned the relationship of husband and wife". The wife's justification, alleging the husband's prior vow of celibacy and disinterest, underscored the rejection and abandonment of matrimonial ties.

“Marriage, personified as the essence of togetherness, blooms on the fertile soil of mutual support, devotion and allegiance. However, repeated acts of separation, akin to a relentless storm, only uproot this foundation, scattering seeds of discord that threaten the sanctity of the union. Amidst the tempest of distance and abandonment, this bond breaks beyond repair, leaving behind irreparable scars on the landscape of trust and commitment”, the bench underscored. 

The bench noted that the evidence presented by the wife failed to demonstrate any cruelty on the part of the husband. Instead, it indicated the wife's dissatisfaction with her mother's behavior, which led to her leaving the matrimonial home due to feelings of suffocation, lack of control, and respect. The wife's repeated withdrawals from the matrimonial home without valid reasons constitute mental cruelty inflicted upon the husband.

The bench underscored that the family court took a ‘myopic view’ of their marital life. It was the entirety of the parties' journey through matrimony that determined their compatibility and growth. The overwhelming evidence suggested that the wife subjected the husband to a life of uncertainty and mental anguish despite spending 20 years together. Therefore, the husband was entitled to a divorce on the grounds of cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act.

Regarding the ground of desertion in the husband’s plea, the court reiterated the necessary elements to establish desertion. Factum deserdendi, which refers to the act of separation, and Animus deserendi, indicating an intention to abandon the spouse permanently. Moreover, the court reiterated that desertion must be without reasonable cause and for a duration exceeding two years before the petition is filed.

Therefore, the court set aside the impugned judgment and granted divorce to the parties. 

Case Title: X v Y (2024:DHC:2721-DB)