Punjab-Haryana High Court
Xxxxxxxxxxxx vs Xxxxxxxxxxxx on 1 April, 2026
Author: Gurvinder Singh Gill
Bench: Gurvinder Singh Gill
(1) FAO-2923-2018 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
FAO-2923-2018 (O&M)
Reserved on : 26.02.2026
Date of Decision:
Decision:01.04.2026
Manoj Kumar ............... Appellant
vs.
Parveen Kumar
Kuma ............ Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMARI
Present: Dr. Anmol Rattan Sidhu, Senior Advocate assisted by
Mr. Virender Kumar, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Yowan Sharma, Advocate for the respondent.
* * * * *
RAMESH KUMARI, J.
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant appellant-husband (hereinafter referred to as 'husband') being aggrieved by the ju judgment dated 26.02.2018 passed by learned District Judge, Family Court, Bhiwani, vide which a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'HMA'), filed by him, has been dismissed.
2. Admitted facts are that marriage of the parties was solemnised on 07.12.2004 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. The marriage was duly consummated and one daughter was born out of their lawful VIMAL KUMAR 2026.04.07 14:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (2) FAO-2923-2018 (O&M) wedlock. The daughter is residing with the respondent (hereinafter referred as 'wife').
3. The case of the husband is that marriage was simple and no dowry was exchanged as both the parties belong to different castes and it was a love marriage, which was solemnized against the wishes of their parents. The husband nd always made efforts to keep his wife happy and provided all the amenities to lead a comfortable life. After birth of the child, the behaviour of the wife changed. She never tried to adjust herself in the family of the husband. The husband tried to reason out with her but in vain. The wife was of quarrelsome nature and short tempered. She used to pick up quarrels on trivial matters. She used to insult the husband in the presence of his hospital staff members as well as other senior doctors. She did not like like the family of the husband and pressurised the husband to live separately from his family. After birth of the their daughter, the parents of the husband accepted the marriage and allowed both husband and wife to reside and live comfortably in their house. Th The wife never tried to adjust herself in the humble set up of the parents of the husband. She pressurised the husband to get the property of his father transferred in her name. When the husband expressed his inability, she left her matrimonial home. On 03.01.2013,
03. the father of husband underwent surgery but the wife did not take care of his ailing father, rather, on 23.01.2013, she filed a false complaint in Police Station, Civil Lines, Hisar, levelling false allegations of harassment and illicit relations of the husband with another woman. On 09.05.2013, she filed a complaint to the Director General, VIMAL KUMAR 2026.04.07 14:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (3) FAO-2923-2018 (O&M) Health Department, against him and because of that complai complaint, he had been facing difficulties in discharge of his official dut duties. The husband is a respectable person of the society and a good doctor. The wife never performed her marital obligations. When husband used to sleep on the bed, the wife used to give beatings beatings and throw him down from the bed by giving kick blows. Her behaviour was not good towards her minor daughter. She did not serve meals to him and the minor daughter. The husband tried to reason out with her to adjust in her matrimonial home, but she made ade lame excuses. The said act of the wife amounted to mental as well as physical cruelty to husband and due to the act and conduct of the wife, the relations between the parties had deteriorated to such an extent that it had ha become impossible for them to live together. The husband, thus prayed for dissolution of his marriage on grounds of cruelty.
4. The wife contested the divorce petition and denied all the allegations levelled in the petition. She pleaded that dowry was given in marriage including cash amount of Rs.2,50,000/- and twenty tolas of gold in the shape of ornaments. The act and conduct of husband and of his parents was very rude and rough towards her for not bringing dowry as per their expectations. The husband and his father were addicted to liquor. Under the influence of liquor, they used to beat her. She was continuously harassed and tortured in the matrimonial home. The husband raised demands of a luxury car make TATA Siera and cash amount. She tolerated the atrocities with the hope that one day good sense may prevail. VIMAL KUMAR 2026.04.07 14:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
(4) FAO-2923-2018 (O&M) On 08.07.2005, she gave birth to a daughter, but thereafter, the behaviour of her husband and his parents became more cruel. She was ousted her from her matrimonial matrimonial home and her daughter was snatched from her. She was threatened that in case, their demands were not fulfilled, the husband would not allow the wife to live at her matrimonial home. Her father, in the chhuchhak ceremony, gave cash amount of Rs.5, Rs.5,00,000/- to the husband and his parents and the husband took the wife to matrimonial home. There was no change in his behaviour and he used to beat her mercilessly. Thereafter, the wife came to know that the husband was living in adultery. The father of the the wife convened a panchayat and husband admitted his guilt and assured that he would keep the wife in home peacefully in future. He again started raising demands of a car and cash amount of Rs.20 Lacs. In 2009, her father handed over cash amount to the husband husband for the purchase a plot on her name, but the husband forced the wife to sell the said plot for Rs.12 Lacs and thereafter, kept the said amount with him. In the month of November, 2012, he went to Sonepat without informing her. She came to know about tthe abovesaid fact, when she asked him to return back, but the husband told her that he wanted to pursue the Post Graduate Course, for which, he was in need of amount of Rs.20 Lacs. He also told her that in case, she wanted to live in the company of the husband, hus she has to arrange the said amount for him. The wife informed her father, who then convened a panchayat and the matter was got resolved. In the month of December, 2012, the parents of the husband visited the house of the wife. She did her best effor efforts to VIMAL KUMAR 2026.04.07 14:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (5) FAO-2923-2018 (O&M) please them but the he husband and his parents harassed and humiliated her on account of non-fulfilment non of their demands. On 23.01.2013, she filed a complaint before the Police Station, Civil Lines, Hisar, but no action had been taken. She also filed complaint complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Hisar. The husband did not provide her with money to look after their daughter. She filed a complaint before the Director General, Health Department, Haryana. The husband and his parents admitted their guilt and the husband took her back to his parents' house at Hisar and thereafter, wife withdrew those complaints. However, the husband and his parents did not keep her peacefully and beat her mercilessly. She was ousted from her matrimonial home along with her minor daughter and since then she has been residing in her parental house with daughter. She alleged that the husband treated her with mental as well as physical cruelty and he had withdrawn himself from the society of the wife and he is, thus, not entitled to seek the divorce, whereas the wife was and is always ready and willing to join the society of the husband.
5. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed vide order dated 03.04.2014:-
03.04.2014:
1. Whether the respondent harassed and humiliated the petitioner to the extent for seeking the divorce by the petitioner on the grounds of cruelty as alleged in the petition?
OPP.
2. Whether the respondent has deserted the petitioner for a continuous periodd of more than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition? OPR VIMAL KUMAR 2026.04.07 14:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (6) FAO-2923-2018 (O&M)
3. Whether the petition is not maintainable in its present form? OPR
4. Whether the petitioner has no locus standi or cause of action to file the petition? OPR
5. Whetherr the petitioner has not come to the Court with clean hands and has suppressed true and material facts from the Court? OPR
6. Relief.
6. The husband examined himself as PW1 and also examined Dr. Rohit Kapoor, his friend as PW2, Dr. Rajesh Singhal, his another friend as PW3, Deepak Kumar, Assistant in the office of the Director General, Health Services, Panchkula, Haryana as PW4, Abhilash, Branch Sales Officer, H.D.F.C., Bhiwani as PW5. and also tendered various documents in evidence.
7. The wife, herself stepped into the witness witness-box as RW1 and examined Anand Parkash, her relative as RW2 and Dr.Sunil Dhull as RW3 and also led documentary document evidence.
8. Learned trial Court while dismissing the petition for divorce inter alia held that the husband is trying to take advantage of his own wrong wrongs and as such is not entitled to relief as sought by him. It was further observed as under:-
"The instances as quoted ed by the petitioner are mere trivial and normal wear and tear of married life which happens in day to day life and it appears that the petitioner is spinning story to get divorce from the wife by one way or the other, VIMAL KUMAR 2026.04.07 14:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (7) FAO-2923-2018 (O&M) which is not permissible from the fac facts so pleaded in the petition."
9. Mr. Anmol Rattan Sidhu, learned senior enior counsel assisted by Mr. Virender Kumar, Advocate, representing the husband submitted that it is a case of love marriage solemnised against the wishes of parents of both the parties wherein no dowry was exchanged and it was simple marriage. However, the t wife could not adjust with the appellant/ appellant/husband and used to insult him and later lodged a false FIR No.54 dated 04.02.2014, under Section 498-A 498 IPC, at Police Station tion Civil Lines Bhiwani, against the husband and his parents. He has since been acquitted in that case vide judgment dated 08.12.2018, Annexure P-
P-8. The wife had also filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, Act, 2005, which was dismissed by learned trial Court vide order dated 09.02.2015, Annexure P-7.
P 7. However, in appeal, vide order dated 13.09.2017, the wife was granted Rs.22,000/ Rs.22,000/- per month i.e. Rs.12,000/ to the wife and Rs.10,000/- to the daughter and Rs.2 Rs.12,000/- Rs.20,000/-
as compensation. In application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., on the basis of his statement, amount of Rs.12,000/- and Rs.10,000/ Rs.10,000/- per month were awarded as maintenance to the wife and daughter. He is regularly paying maintenance and till date, he had paid total amount of Rs.14.50 lacs acs to the wife. The plot, which was purchased by the husband in favour of wife and sold by the wife for Rs.12 lacs, is liable to be adjusted towards the maintenance dues and by including the said amount, Rs.26.50 lacs acs has since been paid by the husband. The wife also VIMAL KUMAR 2026.04.07 14:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (8) FAO-2923-2018 (O&M) got lodged another FIR No.1470 dated 02.12.2013 alleging fabrication of signatures in income tax returns, but in fact the said FIR was a counter blast to the divorce petition filed by husband and the po police, upon investigation, did not find anything incriminating and chose not to file challan in the Court and the said FIR has since been quashed in CRM-M-40224 40224-2021 2021 vide order dated 12.12.2023. The wife had repeatedly filed false complaints against the hus husband. She filed one false complaint to Director General, Health Department, against the husband. She levelled false allegations that husband is living in adultery. She filed false dowry case against the husband. The learned senior counsel, thus submitted that t filing iling of false case by the wife amounts to torturing him and his parents and depriving the husband of marital bliss which amounts to cruelty. It has further been submitted that the w wife had left the matrimonial home without any reasonable cause or exc excuse and the learned trial Court failed to appreciate these factors.
10. Learned counsel for the husband further submitted that the wife is presently posted as District Attorney vide appointment letter dated 07.04.2019, Annexure P-12 P and has sufficient means to support herself. The learned senior counsel for the husband further submitted that all previous efforts for reconciliation had failed and that in case the wife is agreeable for amicable resolution, the husband is willing to pay an amount of Rs. 16 Lacs in favour of the wife and daughter as past and future maintenance and another amount of Rs. 30 Lacs as permanent VIMAL KUMAR alimony. 2026.04.07 14:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (9) FAO-2923-2018 (O&M)
11. The learned counsel for the appellant, in support of his contentions made above, above placed reliance upon following judgments:
judgments:-
(i) K. Srnivas Rao Vs. D.A. Deepa (2013)5 SCC 226
(ii) Sivasankaran Vs. Santhimeenal, (2022)15 SCC 742
(iii) Harpinder Kaur Vs. Gurpreet Singh, FAO FAO-M-108-2018, decided on 07.02.2022.
12. Per contra, Mr. Yowan Sharma, learned counsel for the wife submitted that the husband cannot be given benefit of his own wrong wrongs. Husband is in arrears of maintenance amount of more than Rs.16 Lacs. He cannot take benefit of judgment of acquittal and quashing of FIR in his favour because he neglected his wife and daughter. Acquittal in a criminal case does not ipso facto amount to cruelty to the husband. Husband is responsible for breaking the matrimonial tie and forcing the wife to live separately. Long separation cannot automatically be treated as irretrievable breakdown of marriage. Irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not one of the grounds recognized under HMA. Marriage cannot be dissolved on the mere allegations, conjuncture or normal wear and tear of married life. A finding of irretrievable breakdown of marriage may entail serious consequences especially for the children. The divorce cannot be granted merely on unverified or allegation of one party without proper evaluation ev tion of entire evidence. Under Section 23(1)(a) of HMA, the Court cannot grant matrimonial relief to the party, who is taking advantage of his own wrong. It has been submitted that the appellant/husband appellant/h has in fact solemnized marriage with a nurse VIMAL KUMAR namely, Sheela, and is residing with her and that iin the birth certificate 2026.04.07 14:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document ( 10 ) FAO-2923-2018 (O&M) of her son, the name of the father is mentioned as Dr. Manoj. It has further been submitted submitte that in the departmental inquiry dated 10.10.2025, it is concluded that possibility of a livee-in relationship between Dr. Manoj and nurse Sheela, cannot be ruled out and that under these circumstances, granting granting divorce to husband would legitimize his illicit relationship and reward his wrong doing doings. The learned counsel for respondent, while supporting the impugned judgement placed reliance upon following judgments:-
judgments:
(i) Civil Appeal No. 13616 of 2025 (Arising Out of SLP (Civil) No. 24920 of 2019). D/d.14.11.2025. Dr. Anita vs Indresh Gopal Kohli
(ii) Mangayakarasi vs. M.Yuvaraj (2020) 3 SCC 786,
(iii) Ravi Kumar vs. Julmidevi (2010) 4 SCC 476.
(iv) Prabhavathi @ Prabhamani Vs. Lakshmeesha M.C., 2025(1) RCR (Civil) 649
(v) Chetan Dass Versus Kamla Devi, D (2001)4 SCC 250
(vi) Rajnesh Versus Neha and another, (2021)2 SCC 324.
13. We have considered rival submissions addressed before this Court.
Although 'cruelty' is a ground for seeking divorce in terms of section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 but the t word 'cruelty' has not been defined in the Act. The said term has however been explained and interpreted by Hon'ble Supreme Court in various of its judgements judgements. In Shobha Rani v.
Madhukar Reddi, (1988) 1 SCC 105, 105 Hon'ble Apex Court held that:
"4. "Section 13(1)(i-a) 13(1)(i a) uses the words "treated the petitioner with cruelty". The word "cruelty" has not been defined. Indeed it VIMAL KUMAR 2026.04.07 14:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document ( 11 ) FAO-2923-2018 (O&M) could not have been defined. It has been used in relation to human conduct or human behaviour. It is the conduct in relation to or in respect of matrimonial duties and obligations. It is a course of conduct of one which is adversely affecting the other. The cruelty may be mental or physical, intentional or unintentional. If it is physical the Court will have no problem to determine it.
it. It is a question of fact and degree. If it is mental the problem presents difficulty. First, the inquiry must begin as to the nature of the cruel treatment. Second, the impact of such treatment in the mind of the spouse. Whether it caused reasonable apprehension apprehension that it would be harmful or injurious to live with the other. Ultimately, it is a matter of inference to be drawn by taking into account the nature of the conduct and its effect on the complaining spouse. There may, however, be cases where the conduct conduct complained of itself is bad enough and per se unlawful or illegal. Then the impact or the injurious effect on the other spouse need not be enquired into or considered. In such cases, the cruelty will be established if the conduct itself is proved or admitted."
a
14. In V. Bhagat vs. D. Bhagat 1994(1)SCC 337 337, Hon'ble Apex Court examined the concept of 'mental cruelty' and observed as under:
"16. Mental cruelty in Section 13(1) (i-a)
a) can broadly be defined as that conduct which inflicts upon the other party such mental pain and suffering as would make it not possible for that party to live with the other. In other words, mental cruelty must be of such a nature that the parties cannot cannot reasonably be expected to live together. The situation must be such that the wronged party cannot reasonably be asked to put up with such conduct and continue to live with the other party. It is not necessary to prove that the mental cruelty is such as to cause injury to the health of the petitioner. While VIMAL KUMAR arriving at such conclusion, regard must be had to the social status, 2026.04.07 14:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document ( 12 ) FAO-2923-2018 (O&M) educational level of the parties, the society they move in, the possibility or otherwise of the parties ever living together in cas case they are already living apart and all other relevant facts and circumstances which it is neither possible nor desirable to set out exhaustively. What is cruelty in one case may not amount to cruelty in another case. It is a matter to be decided in each ccase having regard to the facts and circumstances of that case. If it is a case of accusations and allegations, regard must also be had to the context in which they were made."
15. The term 'cruelty' 'c as existing in Section 13(1 13(1)(ia) of HMA has been discussed in Praveen Mehta vs Inderjit Mehta (2002) 5 SCC 7706 by Hon'ble Apex Court as under:
"....... ...... A feeling of anguish, disappointment and frustration in one spouse caused by the conduct of the other can only be appreciated on assessing the attending facts and circumstances in which the two partners of matrimonial life have been living. The inference has to be drawn from the attending facts and circumstances taken cumulatively. In case of mental cruelty, it will not be a correct approach to take an instance of misbehaviour in isolation and then pose the question whether such behaviour is sufficient by itself to cause mental cruelty. The approach should be to take the cumulative effect of the facts and circumstances emerging from the evidence on record and then draw a fair inference whether the petitioner in the divorce petition has been subject to mental cruelty due to conduct of the other."
16. In case of Naveen Kohli Versus Neelu Kohli, (2006) 4 SCC 558, in para Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
under:-VIMAL KUMAR 2026.04.07 14:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
( 13 ) FAO-2923-2018 (O&M) "The word 'cruelty' has to be understood in the ordinary sense of the term in matrimonial affairs. If the intention to harm, harass or hurt could be inferred by the nature of the conduct or brutal act complained of, cruelty could be easily established. But the absence of intention should not make any difference in the case. There may be instances of cruelty by unintentional but inexcusable conduct of any party. The cruel treatment may also result fr from the cultural conflict between the parties. Mental cruelty can be caused by a party when the other spouse levels an allegation that the petitioner is a mental patient, or that he requires expert psychological treatment to restore his mental health, that he is suffering from paranoid disorder and mental hallucinations, and to crown it all, to allege that he and all the members of his family are a bunch of lunatics. The allegation that members of the petitioner's family are lunatics and that a streak of insanity insanity runs though his entire family is also an act of mental cruelty."
17. A three Judges Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court, Samar Ghosh v.
Jaya Ghosh, (2007) 4 SCC 511, 511, while referring to a plethora of judgements for the purpose of defining 'cruelty held as under:
"98. On proper analysis and scrutiny of the judgments of this Court and other courts, we have come to the definite conclusion that there cannot be any comprehensive definition of the concept of "mental cruelty" within which all kinds of cases of mental cruelty cann be covered. No court in our considered view should even attempt to give a comprehensive definition of mental cruelty.
99. Human mind is extremely complex and human behaviour is equally complicated. Similarly human ingenuity has no bound, therefore, to assimilate assimilate the entire human behaviour in one definition is almost impossible. What is cruelty in one case may not amount to VIMAL KUMAR 2026.04.07 14:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document ( 14 ) FAO-2923-2018 (O&M) cruelty in other case. The concept of cruelty differs from person to person depending upon his upbringing, level of sensitivity, educational, family and cultural background, financial position, educational, social status, customs, traditions, religious beliefs, human values and their value system.
100. Apart from this, the concept of mental cruelty cannot remain static; it is bound to change with the passage of time, impact of modern culture through print and electronic media and value system, etc. etc. What may be mental ental cruelty now may not remain a mental cruelty after a passage of time or vice versa. There can never be any straitjacket formula or ffixed parameters for determining mental cruelty in matrimonial matters. The prudent and appropriate way to adjudicate the case would be to evaluate it on its peculiar facts and circumstances while taking aforementioned factors in consideration.
101. No uniform uniform standard can ever be laid down for guidance, yet we deem it appropriate to enumerate some instances of human behaviour which may be relevant in dealing with the cases of "mental cruelty". The instances indicated in the succeeding paragraphs are only illustrative illustrative and not exhaustive:
(i) On consideration of complete matrimonial life of the parties, acute mental pain, agony and suffering as would not make possible for the parties to live with each other could come within the broad parameters of mental cruelty.
(ii) On comprehensive appraisal of the entire matrimonial life of the parties, it becomes abundantly clear that situation is such that the wronged party cannot reasonably be asked to put up with such conduct and continue to live with other party.
(iii) Mere coldness or lack of affection cannot amount to cruelty, frequent rudeness of language, petulance of manner, indifference and neglect may reach such a degree that it makes the married life for the other spouse absolutely intolerable.VIMAL KUMAR 2026.04.07 14:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
( 15 ) FAO-2923-2018 (O&M)
(iv) Mental cruelty is a state of mind. The feeling of deep anguish, disappointment, frustration in one spouse caused by the conduct of other for a long time may lead to mental cruelty.
(v) A sustained course of abusive and humiliating treatment calculated to torture, discommode or render miserable life of the spouse.
(vi) Sustained unjustifiable conduct and behaviour of one spouse actually affecting physical and mental health of the other spouse. The treatment complained of and the resultant danger or apprehension mustt be very grave, substantial and weighty.
(vii) Sustained reprehensible conduct, studied neglect, indifference or total departure from the normal standard of conjugal kindness causing injury to mental health or deriving sadistic pleasure can also amount to mental cruelty.
viii) The conduct must be much more than jealousy, selfishness, possessiveness, which causes unhappiness and dissatisfaction and emotional upset may not be a ground for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty.
(ix) Mere trivial irritations, irritations, quarrels, normal wear and tear of the married life which happens in day day-to-day life would not be adequate for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty.
(x) The married life should be reviewed as a whole and a few isolated instances over a period of years will not amount to cruelty. The ill conduct must be persistent for a fairly lengthy period, where the relationship has deteriorated to an extent that because of the acts and behaviour of a spouse, the wronged party finds it extremely diff difficult to live with the other party any longer, may amount to mental cruelty.
(xi) If a husband submits himself for an operation of sterilisation without medical reasons and without the consent or knowledge of his wife and similarly, if the wife undergoes vasectomy asectomy or abortion without medical reason or without the consent or knowledge of her husband, such an act of the spouse may lead to mental cruelty.
(xii) Unilateral decision of refusal to have intercourse for considerable period without there being any pphysical incapacity or valid reason may amount to mental cruelty.VIMAL KUMAR 2026.04.07 14:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
( 16 ) FAO-2923-2018 (O&M)
(xiii) Unilateral decision of either husband or wife after marriage not to have child from the marriage may amount to cruelty.
(xiv)Where there has been a long period of continuous separation separation, it may fairly be concluded that the matrimonial bond is beyond repair. The marriage becomes a fiction though supported by a legal tie. By refusing to sever that tie, the law in such cases, does not serve the sanctity of marriage; on the contrary, it showss scant regard for the feelings and emotions of the parties. In such like situations, it may lead to mental cruelty."
18. Now coming to the judgements relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent/wife In Civil Appeal No. 13616 of 2025 (Arising Out of SLP respondent/wife.
(Civil) No. 24920 of 2019). D/d.14.11.2025. Dr. Anita vs Indresh Gopal Kohli, the marriage between the parties was solemnised on 20.05.2009. A male child was born on 07.03.2010. The husband filed petition seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty, cruelty, which was withdrawn by him. Soon thereafter, husband filed another divorce petition, which was dismissed by learned trial Court on 15.02.2018. Inn appeal, the High Court dissolved the marriage and granted divorce.
divorce. Hon'ble Apex Court observed that the High Court primarily accepted the oral narrative of the husband with respect to alleged mental cruelty suffered by him. The High Court had not considered the plea of wife that she was thrown out of matrimonial home and was forced to live separately. The child was living with the wife from the very beginning. Hon'ble Apex Court held that it was imperative upon the High Court to firstly determine as to whether the appellant was was thrown out of the matrimonial home or she herself voluntarily deserted the respondent and as to whether cruelty was committed by the respondent in not allowing the appellant to join the VIMAL KUMAR 2026.04.07 14:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document ( 17 ) FAO-2923-2018 (O&M) matrimonial home and/or by denying any maintenance, love, affection, and care to the minor child of the parties.
parties. Hon'ble Apex Court allowed the appeal in part part and remitted the matter to High |Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law. In Mangayakarasi, case (supra), Hon'ble Apex Court held that the the decision to dissolve the marriage apart from the grounds available, will have to be taken on case to case basis and there cannot be a straightjacket formula. In Ravi Kumar' s case (supra) Hon'ble Apex Court held that the general and vague allegations cannot constitute cruelty. It is observed that "there are some vague allegations egations but no allegation with specific particulars has been given about the alleged cruelty". In Prabhavati alias Prabhamani Prabhamani's case (supra), Family Court passed the decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty. On appeal the High Court set aside the judgment and reminded the matter to the Family Court. Again a decree of divorce was granted by the Family Court on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage. On appeal, High Court set aside the decree of divo divorce and case was again remanded to the Family Court. The Family Court again passed a decree of divorce in favour of the husband and awarded Rs.25 lacs as permanent alimony to wife. On appeal, Hon'ble High Court reduced the permanent alimony to Rs.20 lacs. Wife challenged the order before Hon'ble Apex Court regarding reduction of permanent alimony. In the cited case (supra), the husband's own mother had been staying with her daughter daughter-in-
law/appellant and also deposed against him him. Hon'ble Apex Court held VIMAL KUMAR 2026.04.07 14:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document ( 18 ) FAO-2923-2018 (O&M) that it was the husband who subjected the wife to extreme cruelty all these years.
19. In Chetan Dass's case (supra), Hon'ble Apex Court held that irretrievable breakdown of marriage cannot be applied as a straight jacket formula for grant of divorce particularly particularly where the husband himself is responsible for matrimonial discord. In Rajnesh case (supra), Hon'ble Apex Court had issued general guidelines and directions regarding payment of interim and permanent maintenance, criteria for determining quantum of main maintenance, date from which maintenance is to be awarded and enforcement of orders of maintenance. Hon'ble Apex Court has also given the particulars which are to be disclosed and the proforma of affidavits regarding assets and liabilities of parties to be submitted to the Court for the purpose of grant of interim and permanent maintenance.
20. It can thus be culled out that while 'mental ental cruelty cruelty' can broadly be defined as such conduct which inflicts upon th the other party such mental pain and suffering as would make it not possible for that party to live with the other but there is no straight jacket formula to determine the same and each case has to be examined individually to assess as to whether a particularr act or conduct of a spouse amounts to 'mental cruelty' to the aggrieved spouse.
21. Now reverting to the facts of appeal in hand, the marriage of husband and wife was solemnized on 07.12.2004 and they were blessed with one daughter on 08.07.2005 and were living separately since 2012. The VIMAL KUMAR 2026.04.07 14:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document ( 19 ) FAO-2923-2018 (O&M) husband filed divorce petition on 30.07.2013, which was decided vide impugned judgment dated 26.02.2018. FIR No.54 dated 04.02.2014, has been registered under Section 498-A 498 A IPC, at Police Station Civil Lines Bhiwani, against the husband and his parents. Husband and his parents have since been acquitted in that case vide judgment dated 08.12.2018, Annexure P-8.
P 8. The abovesaid FIR is stated to have been counter blast of the divorce petition filed by the husband. Petitio Petition filed by wife under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, had been dismissed. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, while in appeal, vide order dated 13.09.2017 ordered the husband to pay Rs.12,000/ Rs.12,000/- to wife and Rs.10,000/-
Rs.10,000/ to daughter besides payment of Rs.20,000/ Rs.20,000/- as compensation. Same amount of maintenance is awarded to the wife and daughter in proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on the basis of statement of husband.
22. The he husband has specifically alleged in the petition as well as in his affidavit supported by two friends that his wife treated him with cruelty. It was their love marriage against the wishes of their parents. He specifically stated that wife used to pick up quarrels over trivial matters and tried to insult him in the presence of the hospital staff as well as senior Doctors. He also alleged that wife pressurised him to live separately. She threatened him to implicate him in a false dowry case. Wife never tried to adjust herself in the humble set up of the fam family of the husband. She pressurised the husband to transfer the property of his father in her name and when he expressed his inability, she left the matrimonial VIMAL KUMAR 2026.04.07 14:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document ( 20 ) FAO-2923-2018 (O&M) home. On 23.01.2013 she moved a false complaint against husband at Police Station Civil Lines, Hisar levelling allegation of harassment and illicit relations of husband with other ladies. On 09.05.2013 she also filed a complaint to the Director General, Health Department against the husband due to which husband faced difficulties in discharge of his official duties. She used to throw her down from the bed and used to give kick blows.
23. The he allegation of the wife that husband treated her with cruelty on the ground of bringing dowry has already been disbelieved by the Criminal Court as the husband and an his family members had since been acquitted of the charges in case arising out of FIR No. 54 dated 04.02.2014, under Section 498-A 498 A IPC, at Police Station Civil Lines Bhiwani Bhiwani.
24. Wife has also got lodged FIR No. 1470 dated 02.12.2013 (Annexure P P-6) under Section 420, 465, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station City Hisar. The contents of FIR No. 1470, above dated are in Devnagri script. The same when translated in Engl English makes the following reading:-
reading:
" I have matrimonial discord for the last 88-9 months with my husband Dr. Manoj. Dr. Manoj was running business on my name in a company, company namely, "Dauphin-Touch Touch Networking Company".
My husband has filed a divorce petition against me in December- 2013.. Before Before that the transaction of business was done with my consent. I have also filed case under D.V. Act and maintenance in August 2013 against Dr. Manoj at Bhiwani Court. Taking August-2013 advantage of the litigation, my husband had forged mine VIMAL KUMAR 2026.04.07 14:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document ( 21 ) FAO-2923-2018 (O&M) signatures and filed forged written income tax statement in the Income Tax Department. The signatures on the income tax statement are forged either by Dr. Manoj or got done by him from someone else. The case forr committing forgery be registered against him. Dr. Manoj is presently posted on deputation at Dublbhan Majra, PHC District Jhajjar and his phone number is xxxxxxxxxxxx."
25. It is undisputed fact that in case arising out of FIR No. 1470 dated 02.12.2013 (Annexure P-6)
6) under Section 420, 465, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station City Hisar, the Police did not file any charge sheet against the husband.
husband The he allegation of the wife that the husband had forged her signatures in the Income Tax Statement were found false and the said FIR has since been quashed in CRM CRM-M No.40224 of 2021 vide order dated 12.12.2023 12.12.2023. Therefore, allegation regarding demand of dowry and her cruelty on the ground of bringing less dowry are not the solitary allegations against the husband and his family. Learned counsel for the wife has also drawn attention of the Court towards case arising out of FIR No. 188 dated 20.06.2013 registered under Sections 363, 366, on the basis of statement of one Dalbir Singh son of Ram Singh Singh alleging that his daughter Sheela Devi, who is a Nurse and working on contract basis in PHC had left the home on 15.06.2013 and he expressed apprehension that his daughter has been enticed away by Dr. Manoj. It is undisputed fact that no further action was taken in the said criminal case because Sheela Devi in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. absolved Dr. Manoj and denied that VIMAL KUMAR Dr. Manoj enticed her or misbehaved with her her.
2026.04.07 14:25I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
( 22 ) FAO-2923-2018 (O&M)
26. The wife has also alleged that the husband has solemnized the second marriage with one Nurse, namely, Sheela, and mother of husband is taking care of her male child. On the basis of complaint filed by the wife, preliminary enquiry was conducted by Superintendent (Medical) ADA, Deputy C.S. cum Enquiry Officer c/o CS Panchkula and enquiry report Annexure A1/1 dated 10.10.2025 was submitted to Civil Surgeon, Panchkula. No action was taken by Civil Surgeon, Panchkula because the Committee noted that "the matter pertains to Dr. Manoj's private life, it is advisable that that he maintains discretion and decorum to avoid circumstances that may invite adverse perception or complaints. However, there is no legal or disciplinary basis to initiate punitive proceedings, as no violation of Rule 27 or act of moral turpitude has been proved". The complaint of the wife was for initiation of departmental enquiry against the husband for violation of Rule 27 of the Haryana Civil Services (Government Employees Conduct) Rules, 2016. The allegations of the wife were that the husband had sole solemnized a second illegal marriage with one Nurse, Sheela, posted at PHC Sector 1, Old Panchkula, and a child Aditya was the issue of alleged improper relationship while having his first subsisting marriage with the complainant. Her request for DNA test of the child of Nurse Sheela with Dr. Manoj was declined. In the birth Certificate Annexure A1/2 of son of Sheela, father's name is recorded as Manoj Kumar and his date of birth is recorded as 17.11.2019. In the affidavit dated 28.05.2024, copy of which Annexure Annexure A1/3, Smt. Sheela, had applied for Child Care VIMAL KUMAR 2026.04.07 14:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document ( 23 ) FAO-2923-2018 (O&M) Leave stating the date of birth of her son is 17.11.2019, she needs to care of him during summer vacations as there is no other person to look after him and child care leave for 30 days be granted to her. H Her statement Annexure A1/4 was recorded in (Devnagri script) during enquiry proceedings admitting therein the birth certificate of her son and that father's name is written as Manoj Kumar and in affidavit dated 28.05.2024 (Annexure A1/3), her address is A2 A2/25, DLF Valley, Panchkula and she stated that she and her son have been living in the house of Dr. Manoj for one year on rent. On the basis of the enquiry proceedings, birth certificate of son of Smt. Sheela and from her affidavit as well as statement, it cannot be concluded that Dr. Manoj is biological father of the son of Smt. Sheela or that Dr. Manoj/husband is living in adultery with Smt. Sheela. On the other hand, she suffered a statement before the Enquiry Officer that she is living in the house of Dr. Manoj for the last one year.
27. In any case, even if it is held that the husband was having some adulterous relationship, but still if the conduct of the wife reveals cruelty on her part which is unrelated to such adultery, his right to seek divorce on ground of cruelty can not be said to have been forfeited or ousted. While adulterous relationship of husband can furnish a ground to wife to seek divorce but the same may not furnish defence to the wife in every situation to oppose divorce particularly when the alleged cruelty of wife is not in response or retaliation of his adulterous relationship. VIMAL KUMAR 2026.04.07 14:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
( 24 ) FAO-2923-2018 (O&M)
28. Now the question arises whether the acquittal of husband in case arising out of FIR No. 54 dated 04.02.2014, under Section 498 498-A IPC, at Police Station Civil Lines Bhiwani, amounts to cruelty and whether this fact can be taken into consideration. Reference can be made hereto the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Rani Narasimha Sastry Vs. Rani Suneela Rani, (2020) 18 SCC 247, 247, wherein the upon the wife's allegations of her husband being cruel having been found false, her such conduct of levelling false allegations was held to constitute 'cruelty'. The relevant extract from said judgement is reproduced herein herein-under:-
"14. ...... ....... ....... It is true that that it is open for anyone to file complaint or lodge prosecution for redressal for his or her grievances and lodge a first information report for an offence also and mere lodging of complaint or FIR cannot ipso facto be treated as cruelty.
cruelty But when a personn undergoes a trial in which he is acquitted of the allegation of offence under Section 498 498-A of IPC, levelled by the wife against the husband, it cannot be accepted that no cruelty has meted on the husband.
husband. "
29. A reference eference may also be made to another judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court laid down in K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa (2013) 5 SCC 226 226, wherein the Hon'ble Court, while while dealing with the instances of mental cruelty, held as under:
"Making unfounded indecent defamatory allegations against the spouse or his or her relatives in the pleadings, filing of complaints or issuing notices or news items which may have adverse impact on the business prospect or the job of the spouse and filing repeated false complaints and cases in the court against the spouse VIMAL KUMAR 2026.04.07 14:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document ( 25 ) FAO-2923-2018 (O&M) would, in the facts of a case, amount to causing mental cruelty to the other spouse."
30. Hon'ble Apex Court in a recent judgement in Amutha vs A.R.Subramanian 2025(2) RCR(Civil) 20, in somewhat similar circumstances, upheld the judgement of High Court granting divorce , while observing as under:
"27. One of the primary grounds for the dissolution of the marriage is the appellant's conduct, which constitutes mental cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) 13(1)(ia) of HMA. The respondent has provided sufficient evidence to show that the appellant was engaged in a pattern of behavior that caused him immense mental and emotional distress. This included filing false and baseless criminal complaints against the respondent and his family, which not only strained their relationship but also caused significant damage to his reputation and peace of mind.
28. In N.G. Dastane (Supra), this Court laid down the principle that cruelty is not confined to physical violence but also encompasses actions that inflict mental pain and suffering that creates a reasonable apprehension of harm or injury to the aggrieved spouse from the conduct of the other spouse so as to make it impossible for them to stay together. In the present case, the appellant's conduct, including the initiation of frivolous legal proceedings, falls squarely within the definition of mental cruelty. The respondent's claim is further supported by this Court's judgment in Samar Ghosh (Supra), wherein it was recognized that actions causing sustained emotional torment and loss of trust in the marital relationship constitutes cruelty.
29. Moreover, the evidence suggests that the appellant's actions VIMAL KUMAR were not isolated incidents but formed a pattern of behavior 2026.04.07 14:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document ( 26 ) FAO-2923-2018 (O&M) that made cohabitation impossible. In V. Bhagat vs. D. Bhagat (1994)1 SCC 337, this Court emphasized that sustained and deliberate acts of cruelty make it unreasonable to expect one spouse to continue living with the other.
30. The fact that the parties have been been living separately for two decades now further reinforces the conclusion that the marriage is no longer viable. Prolonged separation, as observed in K. Srinivas Rao vs. D.A. Deepa (2013)5 SCC 226, creates a presumption of the marriage having irretrievab irretrievably broken down.
In this case, the parties have not shared a marital life since 2004, and all attempts at reconciliation have failed.
31. Marriage is a relationship built on mutual trust, companionship, and shared experiences. When these essential elements are missing for an extended period, the marital bond becomes a mere legal formality devoid of any substance. This Court has consistently held that prolonged separation, coupled with inability to reconcile, is a relevant factor in deciding matrimonial disputes.
disputes. In the present case, the length of separation and the evident animosity between the parties make it clear that there is no possibility of the marriage being revived.
32. Although irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not a statutory ground for divorce divorce under the HMA, this Court has, in appropriate cases, invoked its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to grant relief where the marriage is beyond repair. In Naveen Kohli (Supra), this Court observed that when a marriage has irretriev irretrievably broken down, forcing the parties to remain together serves no purpose and only prolongs their misery.
VIMAL KUMAR 2026.04.07 14:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
( 27 ) FAO-2923-2018 (O&M)
33. The evidence in the present case points unequivocally to an irretrievable breakdown of the marriage. The appellant and the respondent have been embroiled embroiled in legal disputes for years, with no signs of reconciliation. The respondent has expressed his desire to move on with his life, while the appellant, despite her assertions to the contrary, has failed to demonstrate any genuine willingness to repair repair the relationship. As held by this Court in Ashok Hurra vs. Rupa Bipin Zaveri (1997)4 SCC 226 and Shilpa Sailesh vs. Varun Sreenivasan (2022)15 SCC 754, prolonging a dead marriage serves no interest and only perpetuates the agony of the parties involved involved.
34. It is evident from the record that continuation of the marriage would only lead to further animosity and litigation, causing harm to both parties. The appellant's insistence on reconciliation appears to be more of a strategy to prolong the proceedings rather than a genuine effort to revive the proceedings relationship. In matrimonial disputes, this Court has emphasized the need to prioritize welfare and dignity of both parties. Forcing a marriage to continue when it has become a source of unhappiness and confli conflict undermines the very purpose of the institution of marriage. In the present case, the interests of both the parties are best served by allowing both parties to move on with their lives independently.
35. In view of the above, this Court upholds the judgm judgment of the High Court granting a decree of divorce to the respondent. The appellant's submissions are rejected as lacking in merit, both on procedural and substantive grounds. This Court reiterates that cruelty, long separation, and irretrievable breakdown of marriage, as established in this case, and thus, provide sufficient justification for dissolving the marriage." VIMAL KUMAR 2026.04.07 14:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
( 28 ) FAO-2923-2018 (O&M)
31. In the present case also, the wife has filed repeated complaints against the husband. She has levelled unproven allegations of adultery against the husband. She also filed a complaint against husband to the Director General, Health Department, Department Haryana.. The complaint filed under Sectionn 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, had been dismissed on 09.02.2015 vide Annexure P P-7 and the learned Magistrate held that wife failed to prove that the husband and his parents have committed any domestic violence upon the wife. It is another matter that on appeal, appeal the Court ourt of learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 13.09.2017 awarded maintenance to the wife and daughter. The wife has also referred to FIR No. 59 dated 13.07.2000 under Section 357-A 357 A of the Indian Penal Code (Annexure R-13)
13) got registered against the husband and that vide enquiry report Ex.R14, dated 16.07.2000 the husband was found guilty of sexual harassment against female employee. The wife has also referred to copy of FIR No. 392 dated 17.07.2020 17.07.2020 under Section 147, 149, 323, 325 and 506 of IPC got registered by the husband alleging that he got lodged this FIR to pressurise the complainant of FIR No. 59 (Annexure A A-13) to get the compromise effected. However, the final outcome of these criminal cases cases is not brought on record and for this reason both these FIRs cannot be considered for the purpose of deciding the appeal in hand.
32. Wife is working as a District Attorney since 2019 and well conversant with the intricacies of law. Acquittal of husband in case arising out of VIMAL KUMAR 2026.04.07 14:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document ( 29 ) FAO-2923-2018 (O&M) FIR No. 54 dated 04.02.2014, under Section 498 498-A IPC, at Police Station Civil Lines Bhiwani, and quashing of FIR No. 1470 got lodged by the wife, filing repeated complaints against the husband to the Department where husband is working, are legal proof of the fact that the wife treated the husband with cruelty particularly in light of ratio of Rani Narasimha Sastry's case(supra) and Amutha's case(supra). The filing of false criminal cases and complaints also shows that their marriage has broken down irretrievably. Grant of ddecree of divorce in the present case would not amount to giving benefit to the husband of his own wrongs.
wrong
33. In view of the above discussion, the present appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree of learned trial Court is set aside and while accepting the petition u/s 13 of Hindu Marriage Marriage Act 1955, on grounds of cruelty, the marriage between the parties is ordered to be dissolved.
34. Since the husband is willing illing to deposit an amount of Rs. 16 lacs as maintenance for his wife and daughter and also another amount of Rs.30 lacs acs as permanent alimony for the wife wife, he is directed to deposit Rs.16 lacs acs as maintenance in the Family Court within six weeks of passing of this judgment. The abovesaid amount shall be released in the ratio of 60% and 40% in favour of the wife and daughter, res respectively.
The husband is also directed to deposit Rs.30 Lacs in the Family Court in the name of wife as part alimony/part alimony/part permanent maintenance within the above said period of six weeks, and she shall be entitled to VIMAL KUMAR withdraw the same after two months of deposit of the said amount and 2026.04.07 14:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document ( 30 ) FAO-2923-2018 (O&M) such receipt of Rs.30 Lacs shall be adjusted against permanent alimony/maintenance /maintenance,, if any, awarded by the Family Court, in case, wife prefers prefer to file petition under Section 25 of HMA.
35. Pending miscellaneous miscella applications also stand disposed of.
( GURVINDER SINGH GILL ) ( RAMESH KUMARI )
JUDGE JUDGE
01.04.2026
026
pooja saini/ravinder/Vimal
saini/ravinder
Whether speaking/Reasoned √Yes/No
Whether Reportable √Yes/No
VIMAL KUMAR
2026.04.07 14:25
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document