SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 18854

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Rajani Dubey, Amitendra Kishore Prasad, JJ
Jitendra Kumar Sahu – Appellant
Versus
Neeta Sahu – Respondent
FA(MAT) No. 37 of 2023 | FA(MAT) No. 38 of 2023



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Aagney Sail
For the Respondents: Sumit Singh, Vaishali Jaiswani

A marriage that has suffered an irretrievable breakdown, characterized by long-term separation, lack of emotional bond, and failure of all reconciliation efforts, constitutes mental cruelty, justifying the dissolution of the marriage to prevent further counter-productive suffering.

Headnote:(A) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 9 and Section 13(1)(a) - Restitution of Conjugal Rights and Divorce on ground of cruelty - Parties living separately since 2014 with no interaction, emotions, or sentiments - Multiple unsuccessful mediation attempts - Irretrievable breakdown of marriage. (Paras 19, 21, 25)

(B) Mental Cruelty - Definition and Scope - Court observed that sustained coldness, lack of affection, and total departure from normal standards of conjugal kindness, coupled with long separation and no prospect of reconciliation, amounts to mental cruelty. (Paras 20, 24)

Facts of the case:
The parties were married in 2009. The wife filed for restitution of conjugal rights (Section 9), while the husband filed for divorce (Section 13) alleging cruelty, citing abortion, physical assault, and refusal to attend family events. The Family Court dismissed the husband's suit and allowed the wife's application. Both parties appealed the common judgment.

Findings of Court:
The High Court found that the marital bond is ruptured beyond repair. Given that the parties have lived separately for over a decade and mediation failed, continuing the marriage would be counter-productive. The court granted divorce and ordered the husband to pay permanent alimony of Rs. 25 lacs to the wife.

Issues: Whether the trial court erred in denying divorce despite evidence of long-term separation and whether the marriage has suffered an irretrievable breakdown.

Ratio Decidendi: Where parties have lived separately for a significant period with no interaction or emotional bond, and attempts at reconciliation fail, the marriage is considered beyond repair, constituting mental cruelty and justifying a decree of divorce.

Result: Appeals allowed; marriage dissolved with permanent alimony awarded.

Table of Content
1. summary of marriage, matrimonial dispute, and trial court proceedings. (Para 1)
2. summary of rival arguments regarding cruelty and restitution. (Para 10)
3. analysis of evidence and admission of long-term separation. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)
4. application of irretrievable breakdown and mental cruelty principles. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24)
5. final dissolution of marriage and grant of permanent alimony. (Para 25 , 26)
The date when the judgment is reserved The date when the judgment is pronounced The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website
Operative Full
21.8.2025 24-11-2025 - 24-11-2025

NAFR

Judgment reserved on : 21-08-2025

Judgment delivered on : 24-11-2025

CAV Judgment

Per Rajani Dubey, J

The appellant/husband has filed FA(MAT) No.37/2023 challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment and decree dated 20.12.2022 passed by II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg in Civil Suit No.711/2014 whereby application filed by the respondent/wife u/s 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has been allowed whereas in FA(MAT) No.38/2023 the appellant calls in question the legality and validity of the judgment and decree dated 20.12.2022 passed by the said Court in Civil Suit No.418/2017 dismissing his application under Section 13(A) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short “the Act of 1955”) seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty. Being so, both these appeals are being decided by this common judgment.

02. The admitted facts in this case are that marriage of the appellant with the respondent was solemnized on 4.3.2009 at Sai Mangalam Bhavan, Bhilai as per Hindu rites and rituals and from their wedlock, a son namely Vihan was born.

03. The respondent/wife filed an application under Section 9 of the Act of 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights with the averments that after marriage, her in-laws would harass and ill-treat her over every trivial issue. On 18.3.2009 they went to Nainital for honeymoon and after returning from there, the appellant sent her to her parental house with his friend for appearing in some examination but later on the appellant and his parents taunted her parents over telephone that she left the matrimonial home to avoid the household work. Thereupon when her younger brother brought her back to her matrimonial home, they were not allowed to enter the home, so he left her at the door and went back. However, again the appellant and his family members started quarelling and abusing her filthily. She was not even allowed to go to her parental house on festivals etc. During her pregnancy, the appellant, who was working in Rourkela (Orissa), did not take her to doctor for proper treatment and rather used to frequently come from Rourkela to Bhilai as a result of which she suffered miscarriage. During her second pregnancy in June, 2010 also the appellant and his family members instead of providing her medical care, misbehaved, ill-treated and beat her even in presence of her parents and asked them to take her back, so she returned to her parental house and lodged a report at Mahila Thana, Durg. Next day, the appellant along with her in-laws came to her parental house and again raised quarrel over return of their articles, therefore, she gave an application to their society and accordingly, as per decision of their society the appellant was to come to take her back to the matrimonial home on 15.12.2010 but neither he came nor did he get her medically treated. Even when she delivered a child at Sector-9 Hospital, Bhilai, he did not come to see him nor bore the expenses.

04. She further averred that on 1.5.2011 when she along with her son went to her matrimonial home at Sunder Nagar, Kohka, the appellant and his family members misbehaved with her and ousted her. Even when brother of her husband namely Mukesh died due to drowning in swimming pool, the appellant/husband did not let her attend his funeral. He did not give her money for her

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top