Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Section 13(1)(i-a) & (i-b) – Cruelty and desertion – Wife living separately since 2016 – No steps for restitution – Divorce rightly granted Where the wife admittedly lived separately from the husband since 2016, did not initiate any proceedings for restitution of conjugal rights and only sought maintenance, and persistently refused to resume cohabitation despite efforts and social meetings, such conduct amounts to wilful desertion without reasonable cause and mental cruelty. Decree of divorce granted by the Family Court under Section 13(1)(a) on grounds of cruelty/desertion upheld. (Paras 11–16)

A. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Section 13(1)(i-a) & (i-b) – Cruelty and desertion – Wife living separately since 2016 – No steps for restitution – Divorce rightly granted

Where the wife admittedly lived separately from the husband since 2016, did not initiate any proceedings for restitution of conjugal rights and only sought maintenance, and persistently refused to resume cohabitation despite efforts and social meetings, such conduct amounts to wilful desertion without reasonable cause and mental cruelty. Decree of divorce granted by the Family Court under Section 13(1)(a) on grounds of cruelty/desertion upheld.
(Paras 11–16)

B. Desertion – Ingredients – Factum of separation, animus deserendi, absence of consent and absence of reasonable cause – Reiterated and applied

Reiterating the law in Bipinchandra Jaisinghbhai Shah, Lachman Utamchand Kirpalani, Dr. Nirmal Singh Panesar and Debananda Tamuli, the Court holds that desertion requires: (i) factum of separation, (ii) animus deserendi, (iii) absence of consent of the deserted spouse, and (iv) absence of conduct giving reasonable cause to leave. On facts, the wife’s voluntary withdrawal from the matrimonial home and continued refusal to live with the husband satisfied these conditions.
(Paras 15, 16)

C. Cruelty – Mental cruelty – Persistent quarrels, threats, refusal of marital relationship – Indifferent conduct

Evidence showed that after several years of cordial relationship, the wife’s behaviour changed; she repeatedly quarrelled over trivial matters, assaulted and quarrelled with the husband’s mother and sisters, threatened false cases, refused sexual cohabitation since 2013, and admitted arguing with the husband whenever he visited her and their son. Such persistent indifferent and hostile conduct, coupled with withdrawal from companionship, held to constitute mental cruelty to the husband.
(Paras 3, 11, 12, 16)

D. Appreciation of evidence – Allegations of cruelty by wife against husband not substantiated – Complaint only against in-laws – Inference

The wife alleged harassment and beatings by the husband, but led no cogent evidence and had lodged complaint only against mother-in-law and sister-in-law, not against the husband. The Court treated this as indicative that no direct grievance was established against the husband, while her own admissions showed she left and remained away. Findings of cruelty/desertion by the Family Court held to be based on proper appreciation of evidence and not perverse.
(Paras 4, 11, 12, 16)

E. Family Courts Act, 1984 – Section 19(1) – First appeal – Scope of interference – No perversity, no interference

In appeal against a decree of divorce passed by the Family Court, where the trial court has minutely appreciated oral and documentary evidence, framed proper issues and recorded findings consistent with pleadings and admissions, the High Court will not interfere in absence of perversity or illegality. Judgment and decree of divorce affirmed; appeal dismissed.
(Paras 5–7, 16, 17)

F. Permanent alimony – One-time lump sum – Quantum – ₹5,00,000 awarded

Considering the duration of marriage (since 2004), separation since 2016, circumstances of the parties and their financial status, the Court grants one-time permanent alimony to the wife. Husband directed to pay ₹5,00,000 (Rupees five lakhs) as full and final settlement towards permanent alimony and maintenance.
(Paras 18, 19)