The Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur has allowed a woman’s appeal seeking divorce, holding that compelling estranged spouses to continue a failed marriage can itself amount to cruelty under law. The division bench delivered its judgment after closely examining years of separation, litigation, and the conduct of both parties.
Background of the Case
The case arose from a matrimonial dispute where the appellant-wife had sought dissolution of marriage under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The Family Court in Bikaner had earlier dismissed her plea in November 2021.
As noted in the record, the marriage was solemnised in 2010, and a child was born out of the wedlock. The wife later alleged that she faced harassment and emotional distress during her stay abroad with her husband. She returned to India in 2013 and has been living separately since then.
The husband denied the allegations but admitted obtaining an ex parte divorce decree from a court in California in 2015. Multiple proceedings, including maintenance and criminal cases, were also initiated between the parties over the years.
The bench Justice Arun Monga and Justice Sunil Beniwal examined whether cruelty was made out and whether the marriage had irretrievably broken down. It noted that while “irretrievable breakdown” is not a statutory ground for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, the surrounding circumstances can still be relevant in assessing cruelty.
The bench referred to several Supreme Court rulings on mental cruelty and observed that matrimonial relationships must be assessed in their entirety, not through isolated incidents.
“The relationship between the parties has turned irretrievably sour, and there is no visible possibility of reconciliation,” the court observed.
A key factor considered was the husband’s act of obtaining a foreign divorce decree without effectively involving the wife. The court noted that this unilateral step reflected a clear intention to sever marital ties.
It further held that insisting on continuation of such a marriage would be unrealistic and harmful.
“To compel the parties to cohabit at this juncture would not merely be impracticable, but would, in fact, inflict cruelty upon both,” the bench stated.
The court also observed that prolonged separation, repeated litigation, and failed reconciliation efforts indicated that the marital bond had broken beyond repair.
Allowing the appeal in part, the High Court set aside the Family Court’s findings on cruelty and granted a decree of divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
The court concluded that the circumstances of the case justified dissolution of the marriage, noting that continuation of the relationship would only deepen hardship for both parties.
