Irretrievable breakdown of marriage following prolonged separation constitutes mental cruelty justifying a decree of divorce.

The parties married on 12.12.2012 and have one daughter.

The appellant-husband alleged that the respondent-wife coerced him regarding employment transfers and eventually deserted the matrimonial home on 24.05.2016.

The husband filed for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA), 1955, on grounds of cruelty and desertion. The Family Court, Anuppur, dismissed the divorce petition but granted a decree for judicial separation under Section 10 of the HMA.

Both parties appealed: the husband seeking dissolution of marriage (F.A. No. 1553/2019) and the wife challenging the decree of judicial separation (F.A. No. 1594/2019).

The parties have lived separately for approximately ten years.

The Court primarily applied Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, regarding cruelty and desertion.

It relied on Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh (2007), which established that a long period of continuous separation renders a marriage a legal fiction and causes mental cruelty.

It further cited Shri Rakesh Raman v. Smt. Kavita (2023), noting that a complete breakdown of meaningful bonds constitutes cruelty.

It further cited Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan (2023), which provides guidelines for exercising discretion in cases of irretrievable breakdown, highlighting that separation exceeding six years is a significant factor for dissolution.

The Court observed that the parties had cohabited for only a brief period and had been living separately since May 2016.

The Court found that the respondent-wife’s refusal to cohabit and her abandonment of the matrimonial home caused the husband significant mental agony.

Applying the Samar Ghosh criteria, the Court reasoned that the prolonged separation of nearly a decade had resulted in an absolute lack of emotional or social bonding, making the marriage "emotionally dead and beyond salvation".

The Court determined that the Family Court erred in granting judicial separation because the "sour" relationship had reached an irreconcilable stage where compelling the parties to remain legally wedded served no purpose other than to prolong mental cruelty.

The Court allowed First Appeal No. 1553/2019, set aside the Family Court's judgment, and granted a decree of divorce dissolving the marriage dated 12.12.2012.

Consequently, First Appeal No. 1594/2019 (filed by the wife) was dismissed as infructuous.

No order as to costs was made.