Patently false dowry allegations, viewed cumulatively with other misconduct, constituted mental cruelty warranting divorce.

The appellant-husband and respondent-wife married on 12 December 2014 and had a son, born on 18 December 2015.

The husband alleged that the wife subjected him and his mother to quarrels, abuse and assault; insisted on a separate residence; maintained an inappropriate relationship and exchanged objectionable communications with respondent No. 2, Narayan Prasad Mishra; neglected matrimonial and parental responsibilities; removed jewellery and cash; and deserted the matrimonial home.

The District Judge, Pendra Road, dismissed the divorce petition on 18 February 2025, holding that cruelty had not been proved.

The husband preferred the present appeal under Section 28 of the Act.

During the appeal, the husband relied on his acquittal in a criminal case under Sections 498-A/34 IPC instituted by the wife, and on the parties’ prolonged separation since 2019.

Whether the wife’s cumulative conduct—including persistent quarrels, insistence on separate residence from the husband’s aged and ailing mother, inappropriate communications with respondent No. 2, and repeated return to her parental home—constituted mental cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

Whether the criminal proceedings initiated by the wife against the husband, which culminated in his acquittal, amounted to mental cruelty in the circumstances of the case.

Whether the husband was entitled to dissolution of marriage under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act notwithstanding the trial court’s contrary finding.

The Court applied Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, particularly the ground of cruelty, under which conduct causing such mental pain and suffering that the parties cannot reasonably be expected to live together may justify dissolution of marriage; the appeal was maintainable under Section 28 of the Act.

The Court held that cruelty must be assessed cumulatively and in the context of the entire matrimonial relationship, rather than by isolating individual incidents; ordinary wear and tear or isolated quarrels do not ordinarily amount to cruelty.

Relying on K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa, (2013) 5 SCC 226, Rani Narasimha Sastri v. Rani Suneela Rani, (2020) 18 SCC 247, and Raj Talreja v. Kavita Talreja, (2017) 14 SCC 194, the Court stated that mere filing of a complaint does not automatically constitute cruelty, but patently false, reckless or defamatory criminal allegations and the resulting prosecution may amount to mental cruelty.

Relying on Narendra v. K. Meena, (2016) 9 SCC 455, the Court further held that an unreasonable and persistent demand by a spouse that the other abandon or substantially distance himself from aged parents may constitute cruelty; however, a mere preference for separate residence is not, by itself, cruelty.

The Court found that the evidence, considered cumulatively, established a seriously fractured matrimonial relationship.

The wife’s mother supported the husband’s case to the extent that she had heard the objectionable recording involving Narayan Prasad Mishra and that Mishra had apologised to the husband.

The Court also relied on the wife’s and her mother’s admissions that the wife repeatedly desired a larger, separate residence on the main road, while the husband was unwilling to leave his aged and ailing mother, who required care and even had to prepare food separately during the wife’s stay.

Although the Court found insufficient independent evidence of strangulation, theft, assault and child neglect, it held that those unproved allegations did not negate the cumulative effect of the proved conduct.

The parties had lived separately since 2019, and the marital relationship had continued mainly through litigation.

Most significantly, the wife’s criminal case alleging dowry harassment ended in the husband’s acquittal on 17 March 2026.

Applying the principles in K. Srinivas Rao, Rani Narasimha Sastri and Raj Talreja, the Court concluded in the circumstances of this case that the accusations were false and that the prosecution caused the husband substantial mental agony and suffering.

The cumulative conduct made continuation of the marriage reasonably difficult and constituted mental cruelty.

It held that the wife’s conduct, viewed cumulatively—including the inappropriate communications, persistent matrimonial discord, unreasonable insistence that the husband separate from his aged mother, prolonged separation and false criminal accusations—amounted to mental cruelty.

The appeal was allowed; the District Judge’s judgment and decree dated 18 February 2025 were set aside; and the marriage solemnised on 12 December 2014 was dissolved by a decree of divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, effective from the date of the High Court’s order.

No order as to costs was made.