Resumption of conjugal relations condones prior cruelty. Irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not a standalone ground for divorce in High Courts and cannot be claimed by a spouse who is responsible for the breakdown of the marriage.

Judgment

Date of Conclusion of Arguments :: 16.01.2026

Date on which judgment was reserved :: 16.01.2026

Whether the full judgment or only

the operative part is pronounced :: Full Judgment

Date of Pronouncement :: 30.01.2026

1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-husband under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for brevity to be referred as ‘the Act of 1955’), assailing the judgment and decree dated 16.07.2010 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Bandikui, Distt. Dausa, (hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Court’) whereby the divorce petition filed by the appellant for seeking dissolution of marriage, was dismissed.

2. Briefly stating, the facts of the case are that the marriage between the appellant-husband and the respondent-wife was solemnized on 04.05.1998 and out of the said wedlock, a daughter born to respondent.

2.1 A divorce petition was filed by the appellant-husband against the respondent on 31.05.2006 on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. It was alleged in the divorce petition that the appellant is a handicapped person and limps while walking and is partially bald as well. He raised a grievance that due to being handicapped and partially bald, respondent used to harass him and pass sarcastic taunts and insults him in front of everyone. It was further alleged in the petition that when his father attempted to intervene, she behaved abusively with his father and also threatened the appellant and his father, to implicate them in false and fabricated dowry related cases.

2.2 It was stated in the petition that the mother of the appellant had died long back, and after marriage of appellant, he lived with his wife in the government quarter allotted to his father at Phalaudi. But, since, respondent neglected her domestic responsibilities and was not willing to take care of or to prepare food, for appellant’s father, as much as on account of repeated threats, by respondent, to implicate appellant and his father in false dowry litigation, appellant was compelled to shift in a rented residence at Phalaudi along with the respondent and had to leave his father alone in government quarter. Appellant further averred that despite making several efforts by appellant, respondent expressed her dissatisfaction and she was in habit of casting aspersions on his masculinity on account of his low income and limpness. It was also alleged that the respondent openly said that she would not live with the appellant and will marry a person of superior financial status.

2.3 It was further alleged that during the respondent’s pregnancy, her parents took her to her parental home at Ashapura on the pretext of customs and rituals. It was stated that on 14.02.1999, the appellant went to her parents’ home to bring the respondent back; where he was insulted and physically assaulted by the respondent’s parents. Despite the assault and facing humiliation, he managed to bring respondent back to her matrimonial home. But after a short period of stay, respondent once again voluntarily abandoned respondent and went to her parents’ home. Appellant and his father on 15.10.2001, once again, went to Ashapura to bring the respondent back, but her father misbehaved with appellant and openly threatened them that any further attempt for asking respondent’s return, would lead them to face the brunt of false cases.

2.4 It was stated that under the said circumstances, the appellant filed an application under Section 9 of the Act of 1955. During the pendency of t