Prolonged unjustified separation and refusal to communicate with children constitute mental cruelty warranting divorce.

The parties married on 21.06.2007 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies and had two children.

The husband alleged that the wife subjected him and his family to verbal abuse, frequently left the matrimonial home, threatened to implicate them in false dowry cases, and ultimately left the matrimonial home in September 2019 without returning or maintaining contact with him or the children.

The wife denied the allegations and alleged dowry harassment, physical abuse, and verbal mistreatment by the husband.

Earlier proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act were compromised, pursuant to which the parties resided separately in rented accommodation for some time.

The Principal Judge, Family Court, Kangra, allowed the husband’s petition under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and granted divorce on the ground of cruelty by judgment and decree dated 18.06.2025.

In appeal, the High Court noted that the husband’s testimony and that of his mother remained unchallenged because the wife did not cross-examine them, while the wife’s allegations of dowry harassment and beatings were unsupported by medical or other reliable evidence.

Mediation during the appeal failed owing to a deadlock between the parties.

Whether the wife had deserted the husband by separating from him since September 2019 with the intention of permanently bringing cohabitation to an end, and without reasonable cause?

Whether the wife’s conduct, including leaving the matrimonial home, allegedly abusing and threatening the husband and his family, and ceasing communication with the children, amounted to mental cruelty under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955?

Whether the findings of the Family Court granting divorce were based on proper appreciation of the evidence and warranted interference in appeal?

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

It also examined the principles governing desertion, namely, the factum of separation and the intention to permanently end cohabitation (*animus deserendi*) on the part of the deserting spouse, together with absence of consent and absence of conduct by the other spouse giving reasonable cause for separation.

Relying on *Adhyatma Bhattar Alwar v. Adhyatma Bhattar Sri Devi*, (2002) 1 SCC 308, the Court held that desertion must continue throughout the statutory period and may include wilful neglect; the burden lies on the petitioner to establish the relevant elements.

The Court further relied on *Bhikam Ram v. Satya Devi*, 2011 (2) Shim. L.C. 342, for the principle that unjustified refusal to cohabit for a prolonged period may constitute cruelty.

The Court further relied on *Durga Prasanna Tripathy v. Arundhati Tripathy*, AIR 2005 SC 3297, concerning the relevance of irretrievable breakdown and prolonged separation in bringing matrimonial litigation to an end.

The Court found that the parties had admittedly lived separately since September 2019 and had not resumed cohabitation.

The wife failed to provide a credible explanation for the separation, while her allegations of beatings and dowry harassment were not supported by specific particulars, medical evidence, or reliable corroboration; her own witnesses made material admissions regarding her leaving the matrimonial home and the husband’s attempts to bring her back.

The Court therefore inferred both the factum of separation and *animus deserendi*.

It further held that the wife’s prolonged and unjustified refusal to cohabit, failure to communicate with the children, alleged abusive conduct, and threats of false criminal proceedings constituted mental cruelty.

The husband’s testimony regarding these allegations remained unchallenged due to the wife’s failure to cross-examine him and his witness, strengthening the evidentiary basis for the finding of cruelty.

The prolonged separation and failed mediation also demonstrated that the marital relationship had irretrievably broken down and that reconciliation was unlikely.

Finding no merit in the appeal, the Court dismissed it and upheld the judgment and decree dated 18.06.2025 granting dissolution of the marriage.

Any pending applications were also disposed of.