Prolonged separation without reasonable cause establishes desertion warranting dissolution of marriage.

The appellant-husband and respondent-wife married according to Hindu rites on 29 January 1989 and had two sons. The parties began living separately after the wife left the matrimonial home on 3 August 1992. The husband alleged cruelty and desertion and sought dissolution of marriage under Sections 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The wife denied the allegations and contended that she had been compelled to reside with her parents due to harassment by the husband.

The husband initially instituted divorce proceedings in 1999, which were later transferred and renumbered as Family Suit No. 878 of 2000. Although a decree of divorce was initially granted on 28 September 2007, the matter was remanded by the High Court in First Appeal No. 3021 of 2008 for fresh adjudication after permitting additional evidence. On remand, the Family Court, Ahmedabad dismissed the divorce petition on 7 July 2015, holding that cruelty was not proved and that the husband had failed to establish desertion.

During the appeal, the husband abandoned the ground of cruelty and relied only on desertion. He also agreed to increase the wife’s permanent alimony from Rs.12,000 per month to Rs.20,000 per month.

Whether the Family Court erred in holding that the husband had failed to establish the wife’s desertion under Section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955?

Whether, considering the prolonged separation and the parties’ circumstances, the marriage was liable to be dissolved and the wife’s permanent alimony revised?

The Court applied Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, governing the appeal, and Section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which permits dissolution of marriage where one spouse has deserted the other for a continuous period of not less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition.

Desertion requires withdrawal from the society of the other spouse without reasonable cause and with the intention of permanently bringing cohabitation to an end; the Court also considered whether the deserted spouse was willing to resume matrimonial life.

The Court further exercised its jurisdiction concerning permanent alimony, modifying the existing monthly payment from Rs.12,000 to Rs.20,000 in light of the husband’s pension, the wife’s lack of independent means, and the husband’s consent.

The Court found that the parties had admittedly lived separately since 1992—approximately forty years by the time of judgment—and that there had been no resumption of matrimonial cohabitation.

It examined the wife’s explanation for living separately and held that her reasons were unsatisfactory and did not establish that the husband had created an atmosphere justifying her continued refusal to return. The prolonged separation, absence of reasonable cause, and lack of any effective attempt by the wife to resume cohabitation established the elements of desertion.

Consequently, the Family Court’s finding that desertion had not been proved was held to be unsupported by the evidence. Since cruelty was expressly conceded not to have been established, the decree rested solely on desertion under Section 13(1)(ib).

Regarding financial relief, the Court noted that the husband received a pension of approximately Rs.45,000 per month and that the wife had no independent means of livelihood. It therefore enhanced the permanent alimony to Rs.20,000 per month and recorded the husband’s undertaking to retain the wife as nominee for pensionary and other retiral benefits.

The wife’s permanent alimony was enhanced from Rs.12,000 to Rs.20,000 per month with effect from the date of the High Court’s order, payable directly into her State Bank of India account. The Court further recorded that the wife would remain the nominee for the husband’s pension and other retiral benefits. The cross-objection was partly allowed, there was no order as to costs, and the records were directed to be returned to the Family Court.