Forcing Couple To Live Together After 7 Years Of Separation Would Itself Amount To Mental Cruelty: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has granted divorce to a couple who were living separately for 7 years, observing that the marriage between the parties has become "unworkable" and has reached the stage of beyond repair and if the parties are called upon to stay together, it may lead to mental cruelty to both of them.

Justice Sudhir Singh and Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi said, "...the parties, who have been living separately since 2017, if compelled to live together, would become a fiction supported by a legal tie and it would show scant regard for the feelings and emotions of the parties. This, in itself would amount to mental cruelty to both the parties.  

The Court was hearing an appeal filed by wife against order of a family court whereby her plea for divorce on the ground of cruelty was rejected.

It was alleged by the wife that from the beginning of the marriage in 2005, the husband and his family used to harass her for dowry. However, the Family Court had dismissed the plea observing that allegation levelled by wife is general in nature.

After hearing the submissions, the High Court considered the question, "Whether a long separation between the parties, rendering the marital bond as unworkable and its having been ruptured beyond repair, amounts to mental cruelty?"

The Court noted, "although the wife was unable to provide evidence of physical cruelty or desertion before the Family Court, we must examine whether the marital relationship between the husband and wife has ruptured beyond repair, especially when the parties have been living separately for more than seven years and during this period, there has been no resumption of their relationship and rather on account of protracted litigation, the same has got worsened day by day."

Speaking for the bench Justice Sudhir Singh noted that even mediation proceedings between the parties failed.

"Indisputably, the parties have been living separately since 2017. In the absence of any resumption of matrimonial obligation and cohabitation between the parties for a long period, there is no possibility of their reunion. The mediation proceedings before this Court, for an amicable settlement of the dispute between the parties, remained unsuccessful. This further speaks of the bitterness of their relationship," added the Court.

It relied on catena of judgments including Supreme Court's decision in K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa (2013) to underscore that when a marriage is dead for all purposes, it cannot be revived by Court's verdict.

It also considered that the husband is defending the judgment and decree passed by the Family Court, but on the other hand, his behaviour during mediation proceedings remained adamant. The bench further noted that the husband did not make any effort to bring his wife back to the matrimonial home, nor had he filed any petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights.

"This clearly speaks volumes of the conduct of the respondent-husband that he is not bothered about the well being and maintenance of the appellant-wife and their son. The only aim of the respondent-husband appears to be to frustrate the appellant-wife's claim and further keep her engaged in the protracted litigation," said the bench.

In the light of the above, the Court allowed the wife's appeal and granted divorce to the couple.

Mr. S.S. Nain, Advocate with Mr. Rajan Garg, Advocate for appellant.

Mr. Mohit Garg, Advocate for Mr. Vineet Sehgal, Advocate for respondent.

Title: XXXX v. XXXX 

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 309