Deepali Jain vs Priyank Jain

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:34286
1 FA-1553-2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR NIRANKARI
th
ON THE 27 OF APRIL, 2026
FIRST APPEAL No. 1553 of 2019
PRIYANK JAIN
Versus
SMT. DEEPALI JAIN
Appearance:
Shri Pranay Gupta - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Amit Choudhary - Advocate for the respondent.
WITH
FIRST APPEAL No. 1594 of 2019
DEEPALI JAIN
Versus
PRIYANK JAIN
Appearance:
Shri Amit Choudhary - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Pranay Gupta - Advocate for the respondent.
ORDER
Per: Justice Vivek Kumar Singh
This first appeal No.1553/2019 under Section 19 of the Family Courts
Act, 1984 has been filed by appellant/husband being aggrieved by the
judgment and decree dated 29.07.2019 passed by Principal Judge, Family
Court, Anuppur (M.P.) in Regular Civil Suit No.HM-26A/2016, whereby the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHMA
KUSHWAHA
Signing time: 11-05-2026
18:54:06

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:34286
2 FA-1553-2019
application under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for brevity ‘HM

Act, 1955’) filed by the appellant/husband seeking dissolution of marriage
on the ground of cruelty and desertion has been dismissed and aggrieved by
the same impugned judgment and decree of judicial separation passed by the
trial court, the respondent/wife preferred the First Appeal No.1594/2019
before this Court.
2. Factual matrix of the case, in short, are that the marriage between the
appellant/husband and the respondent/wife was solemnized on 12.12.2012 at
Raipur (C.G.) as per Hindu rites and customs. Out of the said wedlock, they
have one daughter currently aged about 11 years. As alleged by the
appellant/husband, the respondent/wife is forced him to take the transfer
from Raipur to Jabalpur and put a condition that only then she will reside
with him. The respondent/wife left her matrimonial house on 24.05.2016 and
from then they are living separately till date. When both the parties are
resided separately for more than three years then the appellant/husband has
filed a divorce petition under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act before
Family Court, Anuppur on the ground of cruelty and desertion. In this case,
the learned trial Court dismissed the petition under Section 13 of Hindu
Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage but granted the decree of judicial
separation under Section 10 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
3. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree of learned Family
Court in which the said Court dismissed the decree of dissolution of marriage
preferred by the appellant/husband before the learned trial court, the
husband/appellant preferred the First Appeal No.1553/2019 before this Court
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHMA
KUSHWAHA
Signing time: 11-05-2026
18:54:06

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:34286
3 FA-1553-2019
and aggrieved by the same impugned judgment and decree of judicial

separation passed by the trial court, the respondent/wife preferred this First
Appeal No.1594/2019 before this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant/husband submits that the learned Family
Court has committed a grave error in ignoring the consistent pleadings and
evidence on record demonstrating a continuous pattern of cruel conduct on
the part of the respondent/wife. It is further submitted that the
respondent/wife repeatedly left her matrimonial home without there being
any reasonable cause and finally abandoned the appellant/husband on
24.05.2016 inflicting immeasurable mental agony, torture and uncertainty to
the appellant. Such repeated abandonment squarely fulfills the ingredients of
desertion as contemplated under Section 13(1)(ib) of HM Act, 1955. It is
also submitted that the learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that
desertion is not a single act but a continuous cruel conduct of the
respondent/wife and that conduct of the respondent/wife clearly established
animus deserendi especially when the separation continues since April, 2016
till date without any genuine attempt of restitution. It was further submitted
that the learned Family Court has erred in holding that there is possibility of
reconciliation between the parties ignoring the fact that the court below has
conducted several mediations which failed and respondent/wife filed a police
complaint against the appellant/husband and his father which was later found
to be false by the police authorities. In support of their contentions, learned
counsel for the appellant/husband relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex
Court in the case of Mangayakarasi Vs. M. Yuvaraj in Civil Appeal
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHMA
KUSHWAHA
Signing time: 11-05-2026
18:54:06

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:34286
4 FA-1553-2019
No.1912-1913/2020 and also relied upon the judgment this Court in the case

of Smt. Swayamprabha Jain Vs. Dr. Parmod Jain in F.A.No.132/2025 .
5. Further, learned counsel for the appellant/husband seamlessly submits that
the learned Family Court has failed to appreciate the fact that the parties are
living separately for a considerable period of time and the marriage has
irretrievably broken down with no emotional, physical or social bonding
surviving between them and completely overlooked the cumulative effect of
continuous cruel conduct. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the
appellant/husband that if the impugned judgment is allowed to stand, it
would compel the appellant/husband to continue in a dead and emotionally
destructive marriage, which is not the object and spirit of Hindu Marriage
Act.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/wife has
categorically denied all the allegations of cruelty and has consistently
pleaded that respondent/wife was always willing to reside with the
appellant/husband. It was further submitted that the appellant/husband
thrown out the respondent/wife from her matrimonial house with her
daughter on the basis of illegal advice of Family Counselling Centre,
Anuppur (M.P.). During the trial proceedings, the respondent/wife many
times approached the appellant/husband to live together a peaceful married
life but appellant/husband not shown any interest. It was further submitted
that the appellant/husband alleged the respondent/wife for non-cohabitation
and commit cruelty with him but they are failed to prove this ground before
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHMA
KUSHWAHA
Signing time: 11-05-2026
18:54:06

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:34286
5 FA-1553-2019
the Family Court. It was further submitted that the appellant/husband took

false ground before the Family Court by stating that respondent/wife
deserted him but it is pertinent to mention here that the appellant/husband
filed an application before the Family Counselling Centre, Anuppur in which
he filed an affidavit which itself proves that the appellant/husband wanted to
take divorce and he abuses the process of law through vexatious litigations.
Also the appellant/husband never filed any application under Section 9 of
HMA, 1955 for seeking the decree of restitution of conjugal rights which
itself proves that the appellant/husband does not want to live with her.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
8. Here the question for consideration is whether such action of desertion by
the respondent/wife falls within the ambit of “cruelty” or not and whether the
appellant/husband was subjected to such cruelty or desertion?
9. To answer the aforesaid question, it is apposite to refer to the law laid
down by the Supreme Court in the case of Samar Ghosh vs. Jaya Ghosh,
(2007) 4 SCC 511, in which the Apex Court has illustrated the instances of
human behaviour, relevant for dealing with the cases of ''mental cruelty'' and
has also considered the aspect of ''irretrievable breakdown'' and observed that
the same can be made a ground for divorce, which are as under:-
''(i) On consideration of complete matrimonial life of
the parties, acute mental pain, agony and suffering as
would not make possible for the parties to live with
each other could come within the broad parameters of
mental cruelty.
(ii) On comprehensive appraisal of the entire
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHMA
KUSHWAHA
Signing time: 11-05-2026
18:54:06

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:34286
6 FA-1553-2019
matrimonial life of the parties, it becomes abundantly
clear that situation is such that the wronged party cannot
reasonably be asked to put up with such conduct and
continue to live with other party.

(iii) Mere coldness or lack of affection cannot amount
to cruelty, frequent rudeness of language, petulance of
manner, indifference and neglect may reach such a
degree that it makes the married life for the other spouse
absolutely intolerable.
(iv) Mental cruelty is a state of mind. The feeling of
deep anguish, disappointment, frustration in one spouse
caused by the conduct of other for a long time may lead
to mental cruelty.
(v) A sustained course of abusive and humiliating
treatment calculated to torture, discommode or render
miserable life of the spouse.
(vi) Sustained unjustifiable conduct and behaviour of
one spouse actually affecting physical and mental health
of the other spouse. The treatment complained of and
the resultant danger or apprehension must be very
grave, substantial and weighty.
(vii) Sustained reprehensible conduct, studied neglect,
indifference or total departure from the normal standard
of conjugal kindness causing injury to mental health or
deriving sadistic pleasure can also amount to mental
cruelty.
(viii) The conduct must be much more than jealousy,
selfishness, possessiveness, which causes unhappiness
and dissatisfaction and emotional upset may not be a
ground for grant of divorce on the ground of mental
cruelty.
(ix) Mere trivial irritations, quarrels, normal wear and
tear of the married life which happens in day to day life
would not be adequate for grant of divorce on the
ground of mental cruelty.
(x) The married life should be reviewed as a whole and
a few isolated instances over a period of years will not
amount to cruelty. The ill conduct must be persistent for
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHMA
KUSHWAHA
Signing time: 11-05-2026
18:54:06

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:34286
7 FA-1553-2019
a fairly lengthy period, where the relationship has
deteriorated to an extent that because of the acts and
behaviour of a spouse, the wronged party finds it
extremely difficult to live with the other party any
longer, may amount to mental cruelty.

(xi) If a husband submits himself for an operation of
sterilization without medical reasons and without the
consent or knowledge of his wife and similarly if the
wife undergoes vasectomy or abortion without medical
reason or without the consent or knowledge of her
husband, such an act of the spouse may lead to mental
cruelty.
(xii) Unilateral decision of refusal to have intercourse
for considerable period without there being any physical
incapacity or valid reason may amount to mental
cruelty.
(xiii) Unilateral decision of either husband or wife after
marriage not to have child from the marriage may
amount to cruelty.
(xiv) Where there has been a long period of continuous
separation, it may fairly be concluded that the
matrimonial bond is beyond repair. The marriage
becomes a fiction though supported by a legal tie. By
refusing to sever that tie, the law in such cases, does not
serve the sanctity of marriage; on the contrary, it shows
scant regard for the feelings and emotions of the parties.
In such like situations, it may lead to mental cruelty.
19. Further, in the case of Shri Rakesh Raman Vs. Smt. Kavita 2023 Live
Law (SC) 353, the Hon'ble Apex Court has manifestly observed that long
separation, in absence of cohabitation and complete breakdown of all
meaningful bonds and existing bitterness between husband and wife, has to
be read as ''cruelty'' under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the HM Act.
20. Furthermore, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shilpa Sailesh Vs.
Varun Sreenivasan (2023) AIR (SC) Civil 2212 has clearly observed that
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHMA
KUSHWAHA
Signing time: 11-05-2026
18:54:06

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:34286
8 FA-1553-2019
grant of divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage by the

Court is not a matter of right, but a discretion which is to be exercised with
great care and caution, keeping in mind several factors ensuring that
‘complete justice’ is done to both the parties. It is obvious that this Court
should be fully convinced and satisfied that the marriage is totally
unworkable, emotionally dead and beyond salvation and, therefore,
dissolution of marriage is the right solution and the only way to look
forward. That the marriage has irretrievably broken-down is to be factually
determined and firmly established. For this, several factors are to be
considered such as the period of time the parties had cohabited after
marriage; when the parties had last cohabited; the nature of allegations made
by the parties against each other and their family members; the orders passed
in the legal proceedings from time to time, cumulative impact on the
personal relationship; whether, and how many attempts were made to settle
the disputes by intervention of the Court or through mediation, and when the
last attempt was made, etc. The period of separation should be sufficiently
long, and anything above six years or more will be a relevant factor.
21. After considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the
parties, it is apparent that the appellant/husband and respondent/wife had
lived together only for few years and thereafter, they are living separately till
date. On 24.05.2016, the respondent/wife alongwith her daughter left the
house and thereby deserted the appellant/husband, which falls within the
ambit of cruelty. Learned Family Court has overlooked the fact that the
respondent/wife was not committed towards the marriage and refused to
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHMA
KUSHWAHA
Signing time: 11-05-2026
18:54:06

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:34286
9 FA-1553-2019
cohabit with the appellant/husband continuously which resulted into mental

agony. The respondent/wife has continuously deserted the appellant/husband,
due to which the marriage between them has suffered to the extent of
irretrievable breakdown.
22. Thus, in the conspectus of facts and circumstances of the case, it is
noticeable that the relationship between the parties has evidently grown sour
beyond the point of return and such a long period of separation has turned
these differences irreconcilable. It is unfortunate that the parties have already
spent a considerable long period of their adult lives fighting marital battles in
the courtrooms. The parties still have a considerable natural life ahead of
them to look forward to. Therefore, we are inclined to allow the appeal
preferred by the appellant/husband and grant divorce on the ground of
irretrievable breakdown of marriage, which also falls within the ambit of
mental cruelty in the terms of Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of HM Act, 1955. In
these circumstances, this Court deems it fit and proper to dissolve the
marriage solemnized between the appellant and the respondent/wife on
12.12.2012.
23. Resultantly, the First Appeal No.1553/2019 is allowed. The impugned
judgment and decree dated 29.07.2019 passed by Principal Judge, Family
Court, Anuppur (M.P.) in Regular Civil Suit No.HM-26A/2016 is hereby set
aside and consequently, the First Appeal No.1594/2019 which was preferred
against the decree of judicial separation is hereby dismissed as infructuous.
26. Registry is directed to draw a decree accordingly.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHMA
KUSHWAHA
Signing time: 11-05-2026
18:54:06

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:34286
10 FA-1553-2019
27. Parties to bear their own costs.

Appeal allowed.
(VIVEK KUMAR SINGH)
(AJAY KUMAR NIRANKARI)
JUDGE
JUDGE
NP

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHMA
KUSHWAHA
Signing time: 11-05-2026
18:54:06