The case involved a resident of Bemetara district who sought dissolution of marriage under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The husband alleged that his wife was quarrelsome, subjected him to mental cruelty, and had been living with their daughter and son-in-law for the past 14–15 years, amounting to desertion. He appealed after the Bemetara Family Court rejected his petition in July 2023.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Agrawal and Justice Arvind Kumar Verma upheld the Family Court’s decision, emphasizing that in a marriage spanning more than three decades, courts must exercise heightened scrutiny. The Bench observed that vague assertions and generalized accusations are insufficient to establish cruelty or desertion, especially when the marital bond has endured for decades.
The wife contested the allegations, stating that she was compelled to live with her daughter due to ill-treatment at home. She alleged verbal abuse, physical harassment, and suspicion cast on her character by the husband. She also told the court that she suffers from hypertension and diabetes and that her medical expenses were not supported by her husband, leaving her with no option but to seek refuge with her children.
After examining the record, the High Court found that the husband failed to establish either cruelty or intentional desertion for the statutory period. The court noted that the evidence presented by the husband’s witnesses was general in nature and lacked specificity. By contrast, materials on record, including counseling reports from the women’s cell, lent greater credibility to the wife’s version.
The Bench also referred to settled Supreme Court jurisprudence, reiterating that divorce—being a serious civil consequence—cannot be granted on conjecture or routine allegations. The court underscored that cruelty must be demonstrated through definite acts and circumstances, while desertion requires proof of both physical separation and the intention to permanently abandon the marital relationship.
Concluding that the Family Court’s findings were neither perverse nor contrary to the record, the High Court dismissed the husband’s appeal and affirmed the earlier order. The ruling reinforces judicial caution in dissolving long-term marriages and underscores the evidentiary threshold required to prove matrimonial offences under the law.
