Supreme Court Grants Divorce Citing Desertion Based on Non-Compliance with Restitution Decree After Decades-Long Separation

New Delhi: In a significant ruling concerning matrimonial disputes, the Supreme Court of India has granted a decree of divorce to a husband, overturning a Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment. The Court held that the wife's failure to comply with a decree for restitution of conjugal rights, coupled with a prolonged period of separation spanning over 16 years, conclusively established the ground of desertion under Section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

The judgment was delivered by Justice Abhay S. Oka , highlighting the unfortunate nature of the case where the couple, married in 1999 and having two adult children, had been separated since at least 2008.

Background of the Case

The matrimonial discord began in 2006, leading the husband (appellant) to file a petition for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the HM Act in December 2008. A civil court in Barnala decreed this petition in May 2013, directing the wife (respondent) to rejoin the husband's company.

When the wife did not comply, the husband filed for divorce under Section 13 of the HM Act in August 2013, citing cruelty and desertion. Meanwhile, the wife's appeal against the restitution decree was dismissed by the High Court in February 2015, confirming the civil court's finding that she had left the husband's company without reasonable cause.

The Family Court granted the divorce decree to the husband in August 2016. However, the High Court, in October 2019, set aside the divorce decree, concluding that the ground of desertion was not made out, attributing the separation to the husband's alleged neglect.

Parallel litigations included the wife's maintenance plea under Section 125 CrPC (partially allowed for children but denied for the wife due to her refusal to live with the husband without sufficient cause) and a criminal complaint under Sections 406/498A IPC (dismissed by the Magistrate and upheld in revision).

Arguments Presented

The appellant's counsel argued that the wife's persistent denial to resume the matrimonial relationship despite the confirmed decree for restitution of conjugal rights amounted to desertion and mental cruelty, justifying the divorce.

The respondent's counsel contended that the High Court had correctly assessed the evidence and found that the husband failed to prove the grounds for divorce, and its findings should not be disturbed.

Supreme Court's Analysis

The Supreme Court noted the undisputed fact of continuous separation since 2008. The Court placed significant reliance on the findings in the restitution of conjugal rights proceedings. Both the Trial Court (in 2013) and the High Court (in 2015) had unequivocally found that the wife had left the husband's company without reasonable cause and had deserted him.

The Court observed that the divorce petition was filed in August 2013, shortly after the RCR decree was passed, and the High Court confirmed the desertion finding in February 2015. There was no evidence to suggest that the wife made any effort or showed any inclination to resume cohabitation after the RCR decree was confirmed by the High Court up until the Family Court granted divorce in 2016, or even thereafter until the High Court set aside the divorce in 2019.

Citing Section 13(1)(ib), which defines desertion as abandonment without reasonable cause for a continuous period of not less than two years, and Section 13(1A)(ii), which allows divorce if there has been no restitution of conjugal rights for one year or more after a decree, the Court clarified that although the divorce petition was filed before the one-year period under Section 13(1A)(ii) expired, the continuous desertion from 2008, confirmed by the courts in the RCR proceedings, persisted without interruption.

The Court held, "Therefore, a decree for divorce on the ground of desertion under Section 13(1)(ib) ought to have been passed." It concluded that the High Court's finding setting aside the divorce on the issue of desertion was unsustainable, especially given the "concluded finding" of desertion in the prior RCR proceedings. The Court characterized the case as one of a complete breakdown of marriage spanning over 16 years.

Decision and Alimony

The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's interference with the divorce decree on the ground of desertion. The marriage was dissolved by a decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(ib) of the HM Act. The Court explicitly stated that its decision did not disturb the High Court's finding on the ground of cruelty, but the divorce was granted based on desertion.

Recognizing the appellant's offer of Rs. 30 lakhs as lump sum alimony, the Court deemed this amount reasonable. The decree of divorce was made conditional on the appellant paying this sum to the respondent. The Court directed the respondent to provide bank details and the appellant to transfer the amount within three months, failing which the appellant could deposit the sum with the Supreme Court Registry. This payment was declared to be in full and final settlement of the wife's claim for maintenance.

The divorce decree will come into effect only upon proof of payment or deposit of the Rs. 30 lakhs.

Case Title: [Masked Names for Privacy] Bench: Justice Abhay S. Oka