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) 20149

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

Where a marriage has undergone an irretrievable breakdown due to a long period of separation and a total loss of emotional connection between the spouses, the court may dissolve the marriage to prevent further misery, as keeping such a tie alive is counterproductive.

Headnote:(A) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Sections 9 and 13 - Cruelty - Irretrievable breakdown of marriage - Parties living separately since 2014 - Multiple failed mediation attempts and lack of communication - Court noted that matrimonial bond has ruptured beyond repair and continuation of marriage would be counter-productive - Held, marriage should be dissolved and permanent alimony awarded to wife.

Facts of the case:
The parties were married on 4.3.2009 and a son was born from the wedlock. The wife filed for restitution of conjugal rights (Section 9), while the husband sought divorce on grounds of cruelty (Section 13). The Family Court dismissed the husband's petition and allowed the wife’s petition. The husband appealed both decisions, emphasizing the long period of separation and alleged mental/physical cruelty, including unconsented abortions and aggressive behavior.

Findings of Court:
The High Court observed that there was a total loss of emotional bond since 2014. The parties' conduct and history of litigation showcased an irretrievable breakdown. The Court found that keeping the marriage alive, despite the absence of any hope for reconciliation, would only serve to cause further misery to both parties.

Issues: Whether the marriage should be dissolved on the ground of cruelty and whether a decree for restitution of conjugal rights is appropriate given the state of the relationship.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the matrimonial bond has been ruptured beyond repair due to a long period of separation and lack of interaction, and where there is no possibility of reunion, it is appropriate to dissolve the marriage in the interest of both parties to prevent unnecessary suffering, regardless of the failure to prove specific individual incidents of cruelty.

Result: Appeals allowed; marriage dissolved with permanent alimony of Rs. 25 lakhs awarded to the wife.

Table of Content
1. summary of conflicting applications for restitution and divorce. (Para 1)
2. contentions of parties regarding physical and mental cruelty. (Para 10)
3. analysis of evidence concerning marital discord and separation. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)
4. application of irretrievable breakdown principle to dissolve the marriage. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25)
5. award of permanent alimony considering financial status of parties. (Para 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 mone

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