Cumulative matrimonial conduct and prolonged separation established cruelty warranting divorce under Section 13(1)(ia).

The parties married on 5 May 2009 according to Hindu rites and customs and had two children, born in 2010 and 2015.

The appellant-wife instituted Matrimonial Divorce Case No. 333 of 2019 seeking dissolution of marriage on grounds including physical and mental cruelty, alleging ill-treatment, assault, demand-related misconduct, and breakdown of the matrimonial relationship.

The respondent-husband denied the allegations, asserted that the wife had voluntarily left the matrimonial home in April 2019, and alleged that she had an extramarital relationship with one Armaan Hussain; the wife denied the allegation of adultery.

The Principal Judge, Family Court, Muzaffarpur dismissed the matrimonial case on 20 September 2024, leading to the present appeal.

The parties had remained separately since April 2019.

Whether the appellant-wife established matrimonial cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, warranting dissolution of the marriage despite the Family Court’s dismissal of her petition.

Whether the unproved allegations concerning impotence, artificial insemination, and the respondent’s alleged relationship with Armaan Hussain could independently justify a decree of divorce.

Whether the appellant was entitled to permanent alimony under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act and, if so, what amount would be just and reasonable.

What consequential directions were required regarding payment of alimony, adjustment of maintenance, the children’s rights, and pending proceedings.

The Court applied Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, under which a marriage may be dissolved where one spouse has treated the other with cruelty.

Relying on Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi, (1988) 1 SCC 105, the Court held that cruelty may be physical or mental, intentional or unintentional, and must be assessed by considering the nature of the conduct and its effect on the complaining spouse.

The Court further relied on Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh, (2007) 4 SCC 511, which identifies sustained abusive or humiliating conduct, conduct affecting mental health, and prolonged separation indicating that the matrimonial bond is beyond repair as illustrative instances of mental cruelty, while distinguishing ordinary quarrels and trivial irritations.

The Court held that unproved allegations could not themselves constitute the basis for divorce.

For permanent alimony, the Court applied Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act and the principles in Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324, requiring a realistic assessment of the parties’ income, needs, liabilities, earning capacity, and other circumstances, without applying a rigid mathematical formula.

The Court assessed the parties’ matrimonial relationship cumulatively rather than relying on the unsubstantiated allegations regarding impotence, artificial insemination, or adultery.

Although prolonged separation was not treated as an independent statutory ground for divorce, the parties’ separation since April 2019, the prolonged matrimonial discord, and the failure to restore the relationship despite the passage of time were considered relevant circumstances demonstrating that the appellant could not reasonably be expected to continue the relationship.

Applying the principles of Shobha Rani and Samar Ghosh, the Court concluded that the cumulative conduct and circumstances established matrimonial cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia).

In determining alimony, the Court considered the respondent’s disclosed monthly income of ₹3,70,000, the duration of the marriage, the appellant’s lack of independent income, her reasonable requirements, and the respondent’s financial responsibilities towards the children.

On that basis, it fixed consolidated permanent alimony at ₹71,66,000.

The Family Court’s judgment dated 20 September 2024 was set aside, and the marriage solemnised on 5 May 2009 was dissolved by a decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

The respondent-husband was directed to pay ₹71,66,000 to the appellant-wife as permanent alimony in two equal instalments of ₹35,83,000 each, payable within three and six months respectively from the date of judgment.

Amounts already paid towards maintenance were to be adjusted, the independent rights and requirements of the minor children were preserved, and the parties were directed to withdraw pending cases after payment of the permanent alimony.

Miscellaneous Appeal No. 133 of 2025, described as the analogous matter, was disposed of accordingly.