A decree for divorce on grounds of cruelty and desertion under the Hindu Marriage Act requires concrete evidence of specific behavioral patterns; mere separation or trivial marital quarrels do not meet the legal threshold for establishing mental cruelty or 'animus deserendi' (intention to desert).

Judgment On Board

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

1. Invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, the appellant/defendant has preferred this appeal against the impugned judgment and decree dated 12/06/2025 (Annexure A/1) passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Manendragarh in Civil Suit No. 44A/2025 whereby application filed by the respondent/plaintiff under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter the Act of 1955) seeking decree for dissolution of marriage on the grounds of mental cruelty as well as desertion has been allowed.

(For the sake of convenience, parties will hereinafter be referred to as per their status shown before the Family Court).

2. The aforesaid challenge has been made on the following factual backdrop :-

(a) Plaintiff/Husband filed a suit stating inter alia that his marriage was solemnized with the defendant/wife on 23/11/2016 as per Hindu customs and rituals and out of their wedlock, they have been blessed with a baby girl namely Rudranavi Tiwari, aged about 6 years, who is currently residing with the defendant/wife. It is the case of the plaintiff that after a considerably short period of time pursuant to their marriage, defendant started misbehaving and quarreling with the plaintiff and his parents and in the year 2020, she went to her parental house and never returned to her matrimonial house. Plaintiff went to take the defendant and insisted her to come back to her matrimonial house but she refused and argued with him and she has been living separately from the plaintiff since six years. As such, it has been prayed by the plaintiff that decree for dissolution of marriage be granted in his favour on the basis of grounds of mental cruelty as well as desertion as enumerated under Sections 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Act of 1955.

(b) Notice was served to the defendant through registered post which was received by her on 27/05/2025, however, she did not appear before the Court. Ultimately, learned Family Court, Manendragarh, proceeded ex-parte against the defendant and framed the following points for consideration and answered them as stated below :-

(04) विचारणीय बिन्दू :-

(01) क्या प्रतिवादी, वादी की विवाहिता पत्नी है? “प्रमाणित"

(02) क्या प्रतिवादी ने वादी के साथ क्रूरता का व्यव्हार किया है ? “प्रमाणित"

(03) क्या प्रतिवादी ने वादी का दो वर्ष से अधिक अवधि से अभित्यजन किया है? “प्रमाणित"

(04) अनुतोष ?

(c) In sum and substance, the Family Court, by its impugned judgment and decree dated 12/06/2025 (Annexure A/1), allowed the application for dissolution of marriage filed by the plaintiff holding that the grounds of cruelty as well as desertion have duly been established by the plaintiff and granted decree of divorce in his favour.

3. Mr. Rishikant Mahobia, learned counsel for the appellant/defendant, would firstly submit that the Family Court ought to have served summons on the defendant by way of process of the Court and merely registered post would not suffice. He would further submit, on the merits of the matter, that merely because defendant remained ex-parte in the matter, the Family Court could not have granted decree for dissolution of marriage in favour of the plaintiff as he has failed to duly establish the grounds of cruelty and desertion. Mere trivial irritations, quarrels, normal wear and tear of the married life which happens in day-to-day would not be adequate for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty and merely because the defendant has been residing separately from the plaintiff for 6 years would not