Long Separation, Absence Of Cohabitation, Complete Breakdown Of All Meaningful Bonds & Existing Bitterness Between Spouses Amounts To Cruelty U/S. 13(1)(ia) Of Hindu Marriage Act: MP HC
The Madhya Pradesh High Court allowed a petition for divorce and held that the long separation, absence of cohabitation, the complete breakdown of all meaningful bonds and the existing bitterness between the spouses, has to be read as cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955.
The first appeal was preferred by the appellant-husband under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act read with Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 assailing the judgment passed by the Family Court whereby his application for divorce on the ground of ''cruelty suppressing fact of unsound mind of respondent and desertion'' had been rejected.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Anand Pathak and Justice Hirdesh said, “In the present case, marriage of appellant and respondent was solemnized in year 2008 and they are living separately since 2012 i.e. around 12 years. The matrimonial bond is completely broken and is beyond repair. So, this Court has no doubt that this relationship must end as its continuation is causing cruelty on both sides.”
Advocate Girija Shankar Sharma appeared for the appellant-husband.
It was the case of the appellant-husband that his marriage was solemnized with respondent-wife in 2008 as per Hindu rites and rituals without any dowry. It was alleged that the appellant and his family members noticed that the respondent used to behave like she had an unsound mind. It was also alleged that she lost the ability to think, remember and reason things out.
On humanitarian grounds, the appellant tolerated said trouble and kept her with him. Thereafter, from their wedlock, two children were born. But even after that, there was no improvement in the mental state of the respondent and there was no possibility of improving her mental state in future too. Leaving the two children, the parents of respondent took her in 2012 and since then, she is living at her parents' home. It was also stated that the respondent is no longer in a position to provide marital happiness to the appellant.
It was further alleged that the parents of the respondent solemnized the marriage of respondent with appellant by suppressing the fact in regard to unsoundness of mind of respondent. On these grounds, he prayed to obtain a decree of divorce in his favour on the ground of ''cruelty suppressing fact of unsound mind of respondent and desertion'' but the Family Court dismissed his petition.
The Bench noted that there was no reason to disbelieve evidence of appellant as the same was not rebutted by respondent. Regarding “irretrievable marriage ” the Bench referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in R. Srinivas Kumar V. R. Shametha, 2019 (4) SCC 409, Munish Kakkar Vs Nidhi Kakkar, AIR 2020 SC 111 wherein it has been held that an irretrievable marriage is a marriage where husband and wife have been living separately for a considerable period and there is absolutely no chance of their living together again. Reliance was also placed upon Samar Ghosh Vs Jaya Gosh, 2007 (4)SCC 511, wherein it has been observed that cruelty can be physical as well as mental.
The Bench asserted, “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. 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.”
The High Court also noted that the Family Court committed an error in rejecting divorce petition filed by the appellant overlooking unrebutted evidence. Accordingly, this appeal stands allowed and petition of divorce filed by the appellant is allowed and marriage of appellant and respondent is dissolved. Thus, allowing the appeal, the Bench held that the marriage of appellant and respondent is dissolved.
Further considering the economic condition of both the parties and the fact that the appellant is a labour, the Bench ordered the appellant husband to give Rs 2 lakh to the respondent-wife as permanent alimony.
Cause Title: X v. Y [Case No.- FIRST APPEAL No. 1821 of 2018]
Appearance:
Appellant Husband: Advocate Girija Shankar Sharma
