Sustained conduct causing mental agony and disrupting marital life constitutes mental cruelty warranting divorce.

The parties, both medical practitioners, married on 4 May 2022.

The husband petitioned under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, alleging that the wife’s repeated quarrels, verbal abuse, and conduct caused him mental cruelty.

The wife denied those allegations and alleged ill-treatment by the husband and his family.

After receiving the parties’ evidence, the Family Court dissolved the marriage on 26 June 2024.

The wife appealed under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984.

The High Court also considered whether permanent alimony should be awarded to the wife.

1. Whether the Family Court was justified in dissolving the marriage on the ground of cruelty, and whether its decree should be set aside.

2. Whether the wife should be awarded permanent alimony.

Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act permits dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty.

Relying on Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh, (2007) 4 SCC 511, the Court applied the principle that mental cruelty must be assessed on a comprehensive appraisal of the parties’ matrimonial life: ordinary irritations and isolated quarrels are insufficient, but persistent conduct causing serious mental anguish or making it unreasonable to expect the parties to continue living together may constitute cruelty.

The appeal was brought under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984.

The Court awarded permanent alimony but did not identify a statutory provision as the basis for doing so.

The Court considered the parties’ evidence and the husband’s account of repeated quarrels, including incidents during the honeymoon and at home, and found that the conflict had persisted from the beginning of the marriage.

It concluded that the parties lacked mutual respect and effective communication, had lived apart, and that the relationship could not be revived; it therefore treated the conduct proved as more than ordinary marital “wear and tear” under the principles in Samar Ghosh.

Although the wife was also professionally qualified, the Court considered that her income did not match the standard of living during the marriage and that financial support was needed for her to maintain her status.

It additionally directed the husband to pay the wife permanent alimony of ₹20,00,000.