Prolonged separation and failed reconciliation, assessed cumulatively with the evidence, support a finding of mental cruelty.

The parties married on 7 February 2021.

The husband petitioned for divorce under Sections 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, alleging mental cruelty and desertion.

The wife denied his allegations and alleged ill-treatment and inappropriate relationships on his part.

The Family Court granted divorce and awarded the wife Rs. 3,00,000 as permanent alimony.

The wife appealed, challenging the assessment of evidence and contending that the alimony was inadequate.

Under Sections 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, cruelty and desertion are grounds for divorce.

Cruelty is assessed in the context of the parties’ relationship and circumstances; the court must evaluate the cumulative conduct rather than apply a uniform standard (Vishwanath Agrawal v. Sarla Vishwanath Agrawal, (2012) 7 SCC 288).

The illustrative factors in Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh, (2007) 4 SCC 511, include sustained conduct rendering cohabitation unreasonable and prolonged separation, while ordinary disagreements or isolated incidents alone do not establish cruelty.

Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act requires permanent alimony to be determined with regard to the parties’ income, needs, status, obligations, qualifications and other circumstances, without a fixed formula.

The amount should preserve dignity without imposing an unreasonable burden (U. Sree v. U. Srinivas, AIR 2013 SC 415; Kalyan Dey Chowdhury v. Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy, (2017) 1 SCC 1099).

The High Court independently reviewed the evidence and found that the husband’s testimony had material corroboration from his father and paternal aunt.

It also considered the wife’s evidence indicating unwillingness to resume cohabitation, the parties’ separation since 31 December 2022, and unsuccessful reconciliation efforts.

The parties’ serious counter-allegations were unsubstantiated and were not treated as established facts; assessed with the other circumstances, however, the evidence supported the Family Court’s finding of cruelty and disclosed no basis for disturbing the divorce decree.

On alimony, the Court considered that the wife was unemployed but B.Sc. and B.Ed. qualified, while the husband’s proved salary was Rs. 17,200 per month and he had a personal loan and restrictions on private tuition.

Balancing these circumstances, it found Rs. 3,00,000 inadequate and fixed total alimony at Rs. 6,00,000.

It enhanced permanent alimony from Rs. 3,00,000 to Rs. 6,00,000.

Since the wife had already received Rs. 3,00,000, the husband was directed to pay the balance of Rs. 3,00,000 within three months of communication of the order.