Prolonged separation constitutes cruelty, and desertion for over two years supports divorce.

The parties married on 3 December 2007. The husband alleged that the wife left the matrimonial home in March 2008 and that the parties thereafter lived separately; the wife denied the allegations of cruelty and desertion and maintained that she had been ousted from the matrimonial home.

The husband’s earlier divorce suit, filed on grounds of cruelty and desertion, was dismissed in 2010, and his appeal was dismissed in 2011. In the present matrimonial case, initially dismissed and later remanded for decision on the evidence, the Family Court granted the husband a decree of divorce on 7 June 2022. The wife appealed against that decree.

Whether the evidence and the parties’ prolonged separation established grounds for dissolution of marriage, such that the Family Court’s decree of divorce should be upheld.

Whether the appellate court should interfere with the Family Court’s decree.

The judgment’s reasoning rests on the Hindu Marriage Act grounds of cruelty and desertion, corresponding to Sections 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib), although the court did not expressly cite those provisions. It treated desertion for more than two years immediately preceding presentation of the divorce petition as a basis for dissolution, and prolonged separation and denial of conjugal relations as cruelty in the circumstances of this case.

The court expressly referred to Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act as the provision under which the wife could seek permanent alimony. No precedent was cited.

The court noted that the wife did not dispute that the parties had lived separately for approximately 18 years. It considered that prolonged separation and denial of conjugal relations amounted to cruelty, and found that the wife had been in desertion for more than two years immediately before the husband filed the matrimonial case.

On that basis, it concluded that the Family Court had rightly granted divorce and found no reason to interfere. As the wife had not sought permanent alimony before the Family Court, the court preserved her liberty to apply under Section 25.

The wife was granted liberty to apply for permanent alimony under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act; if she does so, the Family Court was directed to decide the application in accordance with law, preferably within four months of filing.