Long Separation, Absence Of Cohabitation, Complete Breakdown Of Bonds Between Spouses Is Cruelty U/S 13(1)(ia) HMA: MP High Court

“Where the marital relationship has broken down irretrievably, where there is a long separation and absence of cohabitation (as in the present case for the last 12 years), then continuation of such marriage would only mean giving sanction to cruelty with each is inflicting on the other”, a bench of Justice Anand Pathak and Justice Hirdesh remarked while granting divorce to a husband.

With this, the Court allowed an appeal filed by the Husband challenging a family court order whereby his application filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking a decree of divorce on the ground of ''cruelty suppressing fact of unsound mind of respondent and desertion'' had been rejected.

The case in brief

The appellant-husband sought a divorce from the respondent-wife, claiming that their marriage, solemnised in February 2008, was troubled by the wife's mental health issues. It was claimed that his wife used to exhibit irrational behaviours, such as hearing voices, seeing hallucinations, and losing her ability to reason.

It was his case that despite attempts to manage her condition, including seeking help from her parents, there was no improvement, and after having two children, the wife was taken back to her parents' home in June 2012, and her condition did not improve over the next five years.

Thus, the appellant moved an application seeking divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion before the Family court, claiming that he suffered humiliation and mental agony due to her condition.

The Family Court proceeded ex parte against the respondent after she failed to appear in court. However, it dismissed the appellant's divorce petition in January 2018.

Hearing his appeal, the division bench noted that the respondent has been living separately from the appellant since 2012, and the respondent had not rebutted this evidence of the appellant regarding her abnormal behaviour. Therefore, there was no reason to disbelieve the evidence of the appellant-husband.

The Court specifically noted that as per the appellant's evidence, the wife-respondent used to say that someone was following her, spying on her, she heard screams, someone was calling her, and she saw a woman's body, while in reality, nothing happened with her.

As per the appellant, due to his strange and crazy behaviour, he could not sleep at night, kept roaming around, and kept talking. Sometimes, she became unaware of her clothes and used to pick up and throw away things. She also lost her ability to think, recollect, and reason things out.

The Court further stated that in the present case, the parties have been living separately since 2012, and their matrimonial bond is completely broken and beyond repair. So, the Court added, it has no doubt that this relationship must end as its continuation is causing cruelty on both sides.

“The long separation, absence of cohabitation, the complete breakdown of all meaningful bonds and the existing bitterness between the two, has to be read cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the 1955 Act,” the Court observed.

Under these circumstances, the Court found that the Family Court committed an error in rejecting the divorce petition filed by the appellant overlooking unrebutted evidence.

So, setting aside the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Family Court, Gwalior.

Accordingly, this appeal was allowed, the petition of divorce filed by the appellant was allowed, and the marriage of the appellant and respondent was dissolved.

However, considering the fact that the appellant is a labour and economic condition of both the parties, the Court deemed it fit and proper to direct the husband to give Rs—two Lacs to the respondent-wife as permanent alimony.

Case title – XXX vs YYY

Case citation:

Click here toRead/Download Order