Unjustified withdrawal from matrimonial life and refusal to resume cohabitation, assessed cumulatively, constitutes mental cruelty.

The parties married on 12 April 2015. The husband sought divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, alleging cruelty and desertion; the wife denied the allegations and asserted that she had been subjected to cruelty by the husband and his family

The husband pleaded that the wife left the matrimonial home on 10 October 2015. His petition was filed on 6 July 2017, and the Family Court granted a divorce decree on 27 October 2022

The wife appealed, challenging the Family Court’s appreciation of the evidence

Whether the husband established desertion for the statutory period of at least two years immediately preceding presentation of the divorce petition

Whether the wife’s conduct, considered on the evidence, amounted to cruelty warranting divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

Section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 requires desertion to have continued for at least two years immediately before the divorce petition is presented

Under Section 13(1)(ia), cruelty may be a ground for divorce; its assessment depends on the nature and effect of the conduct, the surrounding circumstances, and the cumulative course of conduct, rather than a fixed or exhaustive definition

The Court relied on Ravi Kumar v. Julmidevi, (2010) 4 SCC 476, and its reference to Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi, (1988) 1 SCC 105, for these principles

The Court held that the pleaded separation began on 10 October 2015, less than two years before the petition was filed on 6 July 2017; the statutory requirement for divorce on desertion was therefore not met

On cruelty, it relied on admissions in the wife’s cross-examination and her mother’s evidence concerning the wife’s departure, removal of her belongings, the community meeting intended to bring her back, and the husband’s alleged visits and contributions to treatment and delivery expenses

Considering those circumstances cumulatively, the Court found that the wife had left voluntarily and remained unwilling to resume cohabitation despite social intervention, and treated that conduct as mental cruelty

It dismissed the wife’s appeal and directed that a decree be drawn accordingly