A bitter, irretrievably broken marriage may amount to cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia).

The parties married on 14 July 2010 and had a son in 2011.

The wife alleged that the husband demanded money, subjected her to physical and mental cruelty, and ultimately forced her and their son to leave the matrimonial home.

The husband denied the allegations and asserted that the wife was unwilling to return.

The wife sought divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; the trial court granted a decree on the ground of cruelty.

The husband appealed, arguing that cruelty had not been proved and that irretrievable breakdown was not an independent statutory ground for divorce.

1. Whether the wife’s pleadings and evidence established that the husband had treated her with cruelty, entitling her to divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

2. Whether the trial court’s decree could be sustained where the parties’ prolonged separation and breakdown of the marriage formed part of the circumstances considered by the court.

Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 permits divorce where one spouse has treated the petitioner with cruelty.

In A.E.G. Carapiet v. A.Y. Derderia, AIR 1961 Cal 359, the Court held that failure to put a material part of a case to a witness in cross-examination may support the conclusion that the evidence was not disputed.

Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh, (2007) 4 SCC 511, recognises that prolonged separation may indicate that a matrimonial bond is beyond repair and that continuation of the legal tie may cause mental cruelty.

Rakesh Raman v. Kavita, (2023) 17 SCC 433, clarifies that irretrievable breakdown is not itself a ground for divorce under the Act, but that the bitterness and acrimony of a broken marriage may constitute cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia).

The Court relied on the husband’s admissions that he did not know the wife’s whereabouts or their son’s schooling and had not supported the child’s education, viewing these as evidence of a lack of care or intention to discharge his familial responsibilities.

The husband had not challenged in cross-examination the wife’s evidence that she was forced to leave the matrimonial home; applying Carapiet, the Court treated that evidence as uncontroverted.

It also found no evidence that the husband had attempted to resume the marital relationship and noted that the parties had lived separately for over fourteen years.

Although irretrievable breakdown was not treated as a standalone ground, the Court considered the prolonged separation and acrimonious circumstances alongside the evidence of cruelty.

It found no merit in the appeal, affirmed the judgment and decree dated 12 October 2023, and dismissed the appeal without an order as to costs.