Repeated refusal to resume cohabitation without sufficient cause establishes desertion warranting divorce.

The parties married on 25 April 2018 according to their social customs.

The husband alleged that the wife subjected him and his family to repeated quarrels, neglected matrimonial responsibilities, made allegations of his illicit relationship with another woman, permitted interference by her parental family, made allegations of witchcraft against his parents, and refused to resume cohabitation.

He further alleged that she left the matrimonial home on 8 December 2019 and thereafter remained separate despite counselling and reconciliation efforts.

The wife denied the allegations and asserted that she was willing to reside with the husband, but that the husband was unwilling to maintain her and their child.

She claimed that she apprehended danger to her life and property in the matrimonial home.

The husband approached the police and participated in counselling proceedings.

He subsequently filed proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for restitution of conjugal rights.

The wife admitted that she had expressed unwillingness to return during counselling and had refused to reside with the husband during the Section 9 proceedings.

The Family Court, Durg, allowed the husband’s petition under Sections 13(1)(i-a) and 13(1)(i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act and granted divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion.

The wife challenged that decree in the present appeal.

Whether the wife had treated the husband with cruelty within the meaning of Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955?

Whether the wife had deserted the husband for the statutory period and without reasonable or sufficient cause under Section 13(1)(i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955?

Whether statements made during counselling and reconciliation proceedings could be considered for assessing the parties’ conduct and refusal to resume cohabitation?

Whether the Family Court’s decree of divorce suffered from perversity, illegality, or any error warranting appellate interference?

The Court applied Sections 13(1)(i-a) and 13(1)(i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: cruelty, including mental cruelty, is a ground for divorce, while desertion requires withdrawal from the society of the other spouse without reasonable cause for a continuous period of at least two years immediately preceding the petition.

Relying on Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh, (2007) 4 SCC 511, the Court held that mental cruelty must be assessed from the cumulative effect of the parties’ conduct and may include sustained humiliating or reprehensible behaviour, conduct making matrimonial life intolerable, and prolonged separation; however, ordinary quarrels and normal wear and tear do not ordinarily constitute cruelty.

Under Savitri Pandey v. Prem Chandra Pandey, (2002) 2 SCC 73, desertion involves withdrawal from an existing state of matrimonial cohabitation, and a party seeking relief must not take advantage of his or her own wrong.

Raj Talreja v. Kavita Talreja, (2017) 14 SCC 194, was relied upon for the principle that reckless, false, and defamatory allegations may constitute mental cruelty, though the mere filing of complaints is not by itself cruelty.

The Court also referred to K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa, (2013) 5 SCC 226, and Sonal Talpada v. Veerbhan Singh, Civil Appeal arising from SLP (C) No. 10422 of 2025, decided on 2 June 2026, concerning mental cruelty arising from prolonged matrimonial discord and the futility of continuing a dead relationship.

The Court held that the wife’s repeated refusal to resume cohabitation was established by her own admissions regarding the counselling proceedings and the Section 9 restitution proceedings.

Although statements made during counselling could not be treated as substantive proof of the truth of allegations made therein, they were relevant for the limited purpose of showing the parties’ conduct, particularly the wife’s continuing refusal to return.

The wife’s explanation that she feared danger to her life and property was not supported by any complaint to the police, court, community, or other competent authority; her own witnesses also confirmed the absence of such complaints.

In the Court’s view, the separation from 8 December 2019, the husband’s police complaint, counselling efforts, and institution of proceedings for restitution, coupled with the wife’s sustained refusal to cohabit, established desertion without sufficient cause.

As to cruelty, the Court considered the allegations of repeated quarrels, accusations concerning the husband’s alleged relationship with another woman, allegations against the husband’s family, and the wife’s sustained refusal to resume matrimonial life cumulatively rather than in isolation.

It concluded that the conduct caused mental agony and demonstrated the deterioration of the matrimonial relationship.

The Court found no material contradiction or discrediting admission in the husband’s evidence and held that the Family Court had properly appreciated the evidence.

It held that the wife had subjected him to mental cruelty and had deserted him without reasonable or sufficient cause for the statutory period under Sections 13(1)(i-a) and 13(1)(i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

The Court found no perversity, illegality, or error of law in the Family Court’s judgment and decree dated 6 May 2024.

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, the decree of divorce was affirmed, and the Court directed that a decree be drawn accordingly.