False Allegations of Grave Criminality Combined with Prolonged Matrimonial Discord Constitute Mental Cruelty and Justify Dissolution of Marriage Summary: 1. Facts: The parties married in 2010. After years of infertility treatment and increasing matrimonial discord, the appellant-wife left the matrimonial home. The respondent-husband filed for divorce on grounds of cruelty and desertion. Subsequently, the wife initiated criminal proceedings alleging dowry demand and attempt to murder (Sections 498A and 307 IPC), which resulted in the husband’s acquittal. The Family Court granted the divorce, which the wife challenged in this appeal. During the appeal's pendency, the husband remarried. 2. Issues: * Whether the institution of criminal cases and general conduct of the wife amounted to mental cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act. * Whether the respondent established statutory desertion. * The legal impact of the husband’s remarriage and subsequent criminal acquittal on the appeal. * Determination of permanent alimony under Section 25. 3. Decision: The Patna High Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decree of divorce. The Court held that while ordinary quarrels do not suffice, the cumulative effect of prolonged separation, failure of reconciliation, and the institution of serious yet unsubstantiated criminal charges (culminating in acquittal) constituted mental cruelty. The Court clarified that remarriage during an appeal’s pendency does not render the appeal infructuous but is done at the party's own peril. 4. Key Takeaways: * Cruelty and Acquittal: While acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically prove cruelty, the pursuit of serious, unproven allegations of attempted murder and dowry harassment causes grave mental agony, justifying a decree of divorce. * Section 15 and Remarriage: Remarriage before the expiry of the limitation period for an appeal is a violation of Section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act, though it does not prevent the Appellate Court from deciding the case on its merits. * Permanent Alimony: Applying the principles in *Rajnesh v. Neha*, the Court calculated alimony based on the husband's gross salary (ignoring voluntary deductions like loan EMIs), awarding the wife approximately one-third of the husband’s estimated future earnings (₹34.76 Lakhs).

The parties married on 12.06.2010 but faced matrimonial discord primarily due to their inability to conceive despite prolonged fertility treatments

The respondent-husband instituted a divorce petition under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA), alleging mental cruelty and desertion, claiming the wife humiliated him regarding his fertility

The appellant-wife alleged dowry demands, physical assault, and coercion for his second marriage, leading to her filing Mahila P.S. Case No. 20 of 2018 (Sections 498A, 307 IPC)

The Family Court, Rohtas, granted the divorce on 19.03.2021

During the pendency of this appeal, the husband was acquitted of all criminal charges by the High Court

he contracted a second marriage before the expiry of the appeal limitation period

The court applied Section 13(1)(ia) (Cruelty) and 13(1)(ib) (Desertion) of the HMA, interpreting "mental cruelty" per Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh [(2007) 4 SCC 511], which emphasizes the cumulative impact of conduct

It relied on Mangayakarasi v. M. Yuvaraj [(2020) 3 SCC 786] regarding false criminal proceedings as cruelty

For desertion, it applied the dual test of factum deserdendi and animus deserendi from Bipinchandra Jaisinghbhai Shah v. Prabhavati [AIR 1957 SC 176]

Section 15 of the HMA and Anurag Mittal v. Shaily Mishra Mittal [(2018) 9 SCC 691] were applied to hold that remarriage during an appeal is subject to the appeal’s outcome

Section 25 HMA and Rajnesh v. Neha [(2021) 2 SCC 324] governed the determination of permanent alimony

The Court found that while infertility itself is not a ground for divorce, the resulting emotional strain led to a complete breakdown of trust

The Court observed that the wife’s institution of a criminal case involving serious charges (Section 307 IPC), which ended in a reasoned acquittal, caused significant mental agony and social damage to the husband, constituting mental cruelty

Regarding remarriage, the Court held that since the husband remarried before the appeal period expired, he did so at his own peril under Section 15 of the HMA; however, this did not bar the Court from upholding the divorce on its merits

On desertion, the Court found the evidence inconclusive regarding unilateral abandonment but held that the decree was independently sustainable on the ground of cruelty

considering the husband’s monthly income of ₹86,900 and his assets, the Court applied a "one-third" rule to determine just alimony

It held that the husband's remarriage did not render the appeal infructuous but was a violation of the statutory period under Section 15

Under Section 25 HMA, the Court directed the respondent-husband to pay the appellant-wife a total of ₹34,76,000/- as permanent alimony in two equal installments within 75 days