Prolonged separation and irretrievable breakdown of marriage constitute mental cruelty justifying a decree of divorce.

The appellant (wife) and respondent (husband) married on June 6, 2014, and had a daughter in 2015.

The appellant alleged physical and mental torture between 2014 and 2016, specifically citing an incident on December 25, 2016, where the respondent allegedly strangled her and turned her out of the house; she supported this with a contemporaneous transfer application to her employer.

The parties have lived separately since late 2016.

A joint petition for divorce by mutual consent filed in 2019 was dismissed in 2021 due to the respondent's non-appearance.

The Family Court, Satna, dismissed the petition on March 22, 2024, questioning the appellant's credibility because she had not filed a formal police complaint regarding the cruelty.

1. Whether the respondent’s conduct, including physical abuse and subsequent abandonment, constitutes "mental cruelty" under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

2. Whether the long-term separation and irretrievable breakdown of marriage, coupled with the respondent's conduct, justify the dissolution of the marital tie.

Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, regarding divorce on grounds of cruelty.

The Court relied on Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh (2007) to define "mental cruelty" as a sustained course of abusive treatment or long periods of continuous separation where the bond is beyond repair.

Rakesh Raman v. Kavita (2023) and Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli (2006), establishing that long separation without cohabitation and a complete breakdown of meaningful bonds amounts to "cruelty".

Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan (2023) regarding the Court's discretion to grant divorce when a marriage is "emotionally dead" and separation exceeds six years.

The Court found that the trial court erred by ignoring evidence such as Ex.P/24 (the transfer application describing the 2016 assault) and the fact that the respondent failed to rebut the appellant's allegations or lead any evidence in his defense.

The Court observed that the parties had been separated for approximately eight years (since 2016), exceeding the six-year benchmark suggested in Shilpa Sailesh.

The Court determined that the respondent’s withdrawal from the mutual consent petition and his failure to seek restitution of conjugal rights demonstrated a lack of interest in the marriage.

Applying the Samar Ghosh criteria, the Court concluded that the sustained hostile conduct and prolonged separation constituted mental cruelty, as the relationship was "totally unworkable" and "beyond salvation".

The High Court set aside the judgment of the Family Court, Satna, dated March 22, 2024, and allowed the first appeal. The marriage between the appellant and respondent was dissolved, and the Registry was directed to draw a decree accordingly.