Persistent unsubstantiated allegations of infidelity and removal of Thali constitute mental cruelty warranting divorce.

The parties were married on August 30, 1977

The respondent (husband), a retired Army personnel, filed for divorce (HMOP No. 157 of 2014) alleging mental cruelty and desertion.

He claimed that the appellant (wife) sent defamatory letters to his Army superiors in 1989 alleging illegal contacts with other women and that she subsequently initiated criminal proceedings resulting in his conviction.

The wife alleged the husband maintained several extra-marital affairs and had committed acts of physical violence, including setting fire to their house and cutting her finger.

Both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court granted divorce on the grounds of cruelty.

The wife appealed to the High Court, asserting that past incidents were condoned by subsequent cohabitation and that long separation is not a statutory ground for divorce.

1. Whether the Courts below were correct in finding that the wife was guilty of cruelty.

2. Whether the decree of divorce was sustainable without testing the grant of relief under Section 23(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act (regarding condonation and delay).

The Court primarily applied Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, regarding divorce on the grounds of cruelty.

It relied on the precedent in Joydeep Majumdar v. Bharti Jaiswal Majumdar (2021), which established that defamatory complaints by a spouse to the other’s superiors that damage reputation and career constitute mental cruelty.

The Court further applied the principles from Sivakumar v. Srividhya (2022) regarding the symbolic significance of the ‘Thali’ (Mangalsutra), holding its removal reflects mental cruelty of the highest order.

the doctrine from Rakesh Raman v. Kavita (2023), stating that long separation (25+ years) accompanied by bitterness and litigation constitutes a breakdown of the matrimonial bond amounting to cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia).

The Court found that the wife’s admission of sending complaints to the husband's Army superiors regarding alleged "illegal contacts" constituted mental cruelty, as she failed to prove these allegations.

The Court rejected the wife's argument of "condonation" under Section 23(1)(b) of the Act; it reasoned that since the wife continued to make the same allegations and engaged in subsequent quarrels after the husband's retirement, the cruelty was not condoned but was recurring.

Furthermore, the wife’s admission that she removed her Thali was treated as a significant act of mental cruelty against the husband.

While acknowledging that "irretrievable breakdown" is not a standalone statutory ground for High Courts, the Court analyzed the 30-year separation and ongoing litigation as a factual state of mental cruelty that made continuation of the marriage an act of further cruelty.

The Court confirmed the decree of divorce passed by the Principal Subordinate Court and the First Appellate Court. The Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal was dismissed without costs.