Matrimonial discord, separation, and lack of intimacy alone do not establish mental cruelty.

The parties married on 10 December 2017 and had a son on 3 November 2018.

They lived together in Pune until the wife left the matrimonial home on 17 July 2018, while pregnant; they thereafter lived separately.

The husband sought dissolution under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, alleging, among other things, lack of physical intimacy, indifference, threats of suicide, and that the wife left without informing him.

The wife denied cruelty, alleged mistreatment, and maintained that she wished to resume matrimonial life.

The Family Court dismissed the petition, finding that the evidence established matrimonial discord but not statutory cruelty. The husband appealed.

1. Whether the wife’s alleged conduct, including lack of physical intimacy, threats, and departure from the matrimonial home, amounted to mental cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

2. Whether the wife’s subsequent complaints and legal proceedings, or the parties’ prolonged separation and breakdown of the relationship, established cruelty warranting dissolution of the marriage

Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 permits divorce on proof of cruelty.

As explained in Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh, (2007) 4 SCC 511, ordinary wear and tear, trivial irritations, normal quarrels, and occasional differences do not, without more, amount to mental cruelty; the assessment depends on the facts, including whether sustained conduct caused deep mental pain and agony.

The court also noted that desertion is a distinct ground under Section 13(1)(ib), and separation alone cannot substitute for proof of cruelty.

Institution of legal proceedings by a spouse does not by itself constitute cruelty; the evidence must establish, for example, knowingly false allegations or reckless pursuit intended to cause mental agony.

The court found that the husband’s evidence did not establish a prolonged, unjustified refusal of sexual relations, particularly as the wife conceived within approximately three months of the marriage and the parties continued living together during her pregnancy.

His other allegations were largely unsupported by independent material, and the circumstances of the wife’s departure were disputed.

The complaints and proceedings brought by the wife were not shown to be knowingly false or malicious; nor did the parties’ separation and deteriorated relationship, without proof of statutory cruelty, justify divorce.

Considering the evidence as a whole, the Family Court’s finding that the record showed discord and lack of intimacy, but not cruelty of the required gravity, was reasonably supported and not perverse.

It dismissed the appeal, affirmed the Family Court’s decree dismissing the divorce petition, and directed the parties to bear their own costs.