### Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage Coupled with Long Separation Constitutes Mental Cruelty Warranting Dissolution of Marriage

The appellant (husband) and respondent (wife) were married on June 13, 2020.

The appellant alleged that the respondent left the matrimonial home on July 28, 2020, taking ornaments and cash, and refused to return.

The appellant initially filed for restitution of conjugal rights but later withdrew it, while the respondent filed for judicial separation which was dismissed in 2023.

The husband then filed for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act (HM Act), 1955, alleging cruelty and desertion. The Family Court, Narmadapuram, dismissed the petition on January 24, 2024, holding that cruelty and desertion were not proved.

1. Whether the appellant was subjected to mental cruelty by the respondent's conduct and long-term desertion within the meaning of Section 13(1)(ia) of the HM Act.

2. Whether the irretrievable breakdown of marriage, coupled with long separation, justifies a decree of divorce.

The court primarily applied Section 13(1)(ia) (cruelty) and (ib) (desertion) of the HM Act, 1955.

It relied on Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh, which defined "mental cruelty" as an accumulation of behavior causing acute mental pain and recognized long-term separation as a factor.

Principles from Shri Rakesh Raman v. Smt. Kavita, holding that a complete breakdown of meaningful bonds constitutes cruelty.

Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan, which establishes that while irretrievable breakdown is not a statutory right, it is a discretionary factor to be exercised when a marriage is "emotionally dead".

The High Court observed that the parties lived together for only one month following their marriage in 2020 and have remained separated for nearly six years.

The court noted the respondent's continuous refusal to cohabit and the failure of all reconciliation efforts, including mediation and prior litigation.

Applying the Samar Ghosh criteria, the court reasoned that the respondent’s lack of commitment and prolonged desertion caused significant mental agony to the husband.

The court concluded that when a matrimonial bond is "beyond repair" and the relationship has grown "sour beyond the point of return," forcing the parties to maintain a legal tie constitutes mental cruelty.

It found the marriage to be "unworkable" and "emotionally dead," thereby meeting the factual threshold for irretrievable breakdown as a component of cruelty.

The Court held that the marriage had irretrievably broken down, which falls within the ambit of mental cruelty and desertion under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the HM Act.

Consequently, the marriage solemnized on June 13, 2020, was dissolved by a decree of divorce.

Parties were directed to bear their own costs.