Prolonged separation and cumulative matrimonial discord established mental cruelty warranting dissolution of marriage.

The parties married according to Hindu rites on 13 May 2002 and had no child from the marriage.

The husband alleged that, after approximately two years of marriage, the wife insisted that he separate from his parents and brother, used abusive language, left the matrimonial home without informing him, and occasionally remained away for several days.

He further alleged that she left the matrimonial home on 7 December 2014 with her father and brother and thereafter resided at her parental home.

The wife denied cruelty and alleged dowry harassment, physical assault, loss of pregnancy, and forcible ouster from the matrimonial home on 14 December 2014.

She instituted a criminal case under Sections 498-A, 323 and 379 of the IPC and claimed that she was willing to resume cohabitation with the husband.

The Principal Judge, Family Court, Sheohar, by judgment and decree dated 30 June 2022 in Matrimonial Case No. 19 of 2015, dissolved the marriage under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, on the ground of cruelty.

The wife preferred the present appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 read with Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

Whether the wife’s alleged conduct, including her insistence that the husband live separately from his parents, alleged abusive behaviour, and the parties’ prolonged separation, constituted mental cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955?

Whether the Family Court’s decree of divorce suffered from perversity, legal error, or inadequate appreciation of the evidence so as to warrant appellate interference?

What permanent alimony and maintenance, if any, should be awarded to the wife under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act?

The Court applied Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, under which a marriage may be dissolved where one spouse has treated the other with cruelty.

Mental cruelty is assessed from the cumulative effect of the parties’ conduct, the entire matrimonial relationship, and the circumstances of separation, rather than from isolated incidents.

The Court relied on Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli, (2006) 4 SCC 558, and Vinita Saxena v. Pankaj Pandit, (2006) 3 SCC 778, for the principle that cruelty depends on human conduct and the totality of the facts.

It relied on Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh, (2007) 4 SCC 511, which recognises that sustained abusive, humiliating, unjustifiable, or intolerable conduct may amount to mental cruelty, while ordinary wear and tear, trivial quarrels, or isolated disagreements do not.

Narendra v. K. Meena, (2016) 9 SCC 455, was considered regarding persistent insistence by a spouse that the other separate from his parents, in the context of familial and social obligations.

For financial relief, the Court applied Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which permits a gross or periodical award having regard to the parties’ income, property, conduct, and other circumstances, along with the financial-disclosure principles in Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324.

The High Court held that the evidence had to be assessed cumulatively.

Although the respondent’s witnesses contained discrepancies concerning chronology and the precise duration of separation, the core allegation of sustained matrimonial discord was supported by the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and the husband’s testimony.

The wife’s insistence upon separate residence, the alleged continuation of discord even after the husband separated from his parents and brother, the parties’ admitted failure to resume cohabitation since December 2014, and the overall deterioration of the relationship demonstrated that the matrimonial bond had become practically unworkable.

Her stated willingness to resume cohabitation did not, by itself, erase the prior conduct or restore a relationship that had deteriorated beyond reasonable repair.

The criminal cases filed by the parties were not treated as conclusive proof of cruelty, but were considered as part of the broader pattern of continuing matrimonial discord.

The Court excluded reliance on the unsubstantiated allegation that the wife was earning Rs.10,000 per month, but found that this did not undermine the remaining evidence establishing cruelty.

For alimony, the Court found no established independent income of the wife and considered the husband’s agricultural property, business activity, vehicle, and disclosed liabilities.

Balancing the wife’s need for support against the husband’s proved financial capacity, it awarded one katha of transferable agricultural land and monthly alimony of Rs.10,000.

The existing maintenance of Rs.5,000 per month was directed to be adjusted to prevent double recovery.

Subject to that affirmation, the decree was modified to grant the wife one katha of land from the husband’s legally owned, transferable, and unencumbered agricultural property, with transfer to be completed within three months.

The husband was further directed to pay the wife Rs.10,000 per month as permanent alimony under Section 25, with the existing Rs.5,000 monthly maintenance being adjusted against that amount.

The parties were permitted to seek variation or rescission under Section 25(2) upon a material change in circumstances.