MP High Court: Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage is a Form of Cruelty, Grants Divorce to Woman in Second Marriage

Jabalpur, MP – In a significant ruling, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that an irretrievable breakdown of marriage is a "species within the genus of cruelty" and that a husband's refusal to grant a divorce in such a situation amounts to cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

A division bench of Justice Vishal Dhagat and Justice B. P. Sharma set aside a Family Court order and granted a divorce to a woman who had already entered into a second, albeit invalid, marriage after years of separation from her first husband. The court dissolved the 20-year-old marriage, emphasizing the practical realities and emotional suffering of the parties over the wife's "fault" in committing bigamy.

---

Case Background

The case involved an appeal filed by Smt. Parvati Suryavanshi against a Chhindwara Family Court judgment dated May 13, 2022, which had dismissed her divorce petition. Smt. Suryavanshi had married Omprakash Suryavanshi in May 2002, and the couple had two daughters.

The appellant sought divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion, alleging dowry harassment, physical assault, and character assassination. She claimed to have been driven out of her matrimonial home in 2009 and again in 2016 after a failed reconciliation attempt. The marital relationship had been fraught with conflict, leading to a joint divorce petition in 2014, which was later withdrawn. Following their final separation in 2016, the appellant entered into a second marriage with another man in May 2018.

Arguments from Both Sides

• Appellant's Argument: The appellant's counsel argued that the trial court had ignored substantial evidence of cruelty, including dowry demands and physical abuse by the respondent-husband. It was contended that the marriage had completely broken down and forcing the parties to remain legally bound was unjust.

• Respondent's Argument: The respondent-husband's counsel countered that the appellant herself was cruel, had abandoned their two daughters, and had illegally entered into a second marriage. A criminal complaint under Section 494 of the IPC (bigamy) was also filed against her. He argued that granting her a divorce would be rewarding her for her own wrongdoing.

Court's Rationale: Cruelty in a Broken Marriage

The High Court acknowledged that the appellant was at fault for entering into a second marriage during the subsistence of the first. However, the bench chose to look beyond this single act to address the larger issue of the dead marriage.

The trial court had dismissed the divorce petition primarily because the appellant's second marriage suggested an "adulterous life," and granting a divorce would be like "granting premium on misdeeds."

The High Court disagreed with this narrow view. Justice Dhagat, writing for the bench, observed that the core issue was whether the respondent's conduct constituted cruelty, entitling the appellant to a divorce. The court introduced a broader interpretation of cruelty in the context of a completely failed marriage.

> "Court cannot shut its eyes to practical difficulties and problems of parties. If divorce is not granted in cases of irretrievable breakdown of marriage then it will amount to further pushing party towards continuous pain and suffering. Irretrievable breakdown of marriage is a species within the genus of cruelty."

The judgment further articulated a novel perspective on cruelty:

> "Whenever, there is Irretrievable or complete breakdown of marriage then both parties are under pain and suffers day to day cruelty... Other party opposes the prayer for divorce despite their being no possibility of their living together. Said conduct of party in deriving pleasure from difficulties and tension of other party also amounts to cruelty."

The court concluded that the respondent's act of opposing the divorce, when the marriage was evidently over and the appellant had moved on, was itself a form of cruelty. This deprived the appellant of her fundamental right to "live her life freely according to her choice."

Final Decision and Implications

The High Court allowed the appeal and dissolved the marriage dated May 24, 2002, on the grounds of cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

The bench stipulated that the appellant would not be entitled to any alimony or claim on the respondent's property. The ruling underscores a pragmatic judicial approach that prioritizes ending the suffering of individuals trapped in defunct marriages, even when one party is technically "at fault."