Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(MP) 8773
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Vivek Rusia, Binod Kumar Dwivedi, JJ
Apurva Garg – Appellant
Versus
Arun Garg – Respondent
FIRST APPEAL No. 590 of 2020 | FIRST APPEAL No. 591-2020
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Pradip Kumar Gupta, Bharat Yadav
For the Respondents: Sanjay P. Joshi
In matrimonial disputes, where a marriage has irretrievably broken down due to persistent mental cruelty and impossible behavioral differences, the court should grant a divorce to avoid further misery, prioritizing the pragmatic reality of the relationship over an unworkable legal bond.
Headnote:(A) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Sections 9, 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib) - Divorce and Restitution of Conjugal Rights - Cruelty and Desertion - Mental cruelty is conduct which inflicts such pain and suffering that it is not possible for parties to live together - Cruelty need not be physical; sustained course of abusive conduct, indifference, and neglect causing mental agony amounts to cruelty - No specific definition for cruelty; courts must evaluate on basis of peculiar facts, social status, and educational background of parties - Burden of proof for reasonable excuse for withdrawing from society lies on the withdrawing spouse. (Paras 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 16)
(B) Appellate Jurisdiction - Role of Appellate Court - Need to move away from rigid formulaic approaches in matrimonial disputes - When a marriage has irretrievably broken down and there is no possibility of reconciliation, forcing the continuation of a legal bond that has ceased to be effective creates further misery - Court should adopt a human approach to resolve issues of profound personal significance. (Paras 17.5, 17.6, 17.7, 22)
Facts of the case:
The appellant-wife filed for divorce alleging cruelty and desertion, while the respondent-husband filed for restitution of conjugal rights. The trial court dismissed the wife's petition and allowed the husband's petition. The wife appealed, contenting that the evidence established mental cruelty and that the marriage had irretrievably broken down due to years of separation.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the evidence supported the allegations of mental cruelty, including persistent harassment, bad temperament, and abusive conduct by the husband. It observed that the respondent's conduct in court reflected a domineering and irascible nature, reinforcing the claims of the appellant. The court held that forcing a reconciliation in a marriage that has been effectively destroyed would be against public interest and personal wellbeing.
Issues: Whether the appellant was entitled to a decree of divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion, and whether the trial court erred in granting a decree for restitution of conjugal rights to the respondent.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a matrimonial bond has irretrievably broken down and evidence establishes a persistent course of cruel conduct that makes it impossible for parties to reasonably live together, the court must grant a decree of divorce to prevent further misery, rather than upholding a legal fiction of marriage.
Result: Appeals allowed. Judgment and decree of the lower court set aside. Divorce granted.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual history regarding the breakdown of marriage and allegations of cruelty. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. parties' conflicting contentions regarding divorce and restitution of conjugal rights. (Para 3 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. legal precedents on defining mental cruelty and irretrievable breakdown of marriage. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 4. application of legal principles to the evidence, establishing persistent cruelty. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 5. final order granting divorce and setting aside the lower court judgment. (Para 27 , 28) |
JUDGMENT
Per: Justice Binod Kumar Dwivedi
These appeals under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act of 1984’) have been preferred by the appellant – wife against impugned common judgment and decree dated 30.07.2020 passed in HMA Case No.104 of 2015 and HMA Case No.153 of 2018 by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Mandsaur, District Mandsaur (MP), whereby a petition filed by the appellant – wife for a decree of divorce under Sections 13 (1) (1-a) and 13 (1) (1-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (herein after referred to as the HMA) has been dismissed; and a petition filed by the respondent - husband for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the HMA has been allowed.
Since both these appeals have arisen from the common order / judgment and decree passed between the common parties, therefore, they are being disposed off by this common judgment.
2. It is admitted that the marriage between the appellant – wife and respondent – husband was solemnized on 30.11.2010 as per Hindu rites and customs at Mandsaur. They have no issue.
2.1 The case of the appellant – wife in a petition for relief of divorce is that she has been 'deserted' by the respondent – husband since 21.01.2013; and since then they have not lived as husband and wife. She is residing with her parents and is in a private service at Indore. The respondent – husband has not fulfilled his marital obligations. The appellant and members of her family made several attempts for resuming family life between the appellant – wife and respondent – husband, but no solution could be found. After marriage, she was residing in a joint family of the respondent – husband with her mother-in law, father-in-law, Jeth, Jethani and Devar, but their behaviour towards her was not proper. When on 03.12.2010, she was allowed to go with her father, the respondent meted out very cruel, inhumane and inappropriate behaviour. Despite being of sound economic condition, she was sent with her father by train.
2.2 After marriage, she went on honeymoon with respondent to Shimla, where also behaviour of the respondent was inappropriate. Under threat, he demanded an amount of Rs.25,00,000/- (rupees twenty five lakhs only) to be handed over to his father to meet out expenses incurred in marriage. On 22.12.2010, birthday of appellant, both of them were returning to Ratlam. Her father was in service at Ratlam at that time, but the respondent did not allow her to meet her parents. She never complained to her parents about cruel behaviour of the respondent. Ultimately, when she did not found any change in inhuman and cruel behaviour of the respondent, then she informed about it to her father (Paramanand Agrawal), Tauji – elder brother of father (Ashok Agrawal) and Phupha (Banwarilal) who sitting with relatives of matrimonial family Vinod Ji Garg, Asha Ji Garg, Navneet Ji Garg and Shikha Ji Garg and other reputed members discussed the matter to find out a solution wherein the respondent – husband accepted his fault and assured not to repeat it in future and on assurances from the elders and reputed members, she came to live with the respondent. On 21.01.2013, there was inauguration ceremony of paper factory of her Devar. On that day also, the respondent assaulted her where her father-in-law Vinod Garg intervened stating that he cannot allow her to live with bad mannered (Nalayak) undignif
