Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shivendra Singh vs Akanksha Singh on 25 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26338
1 FA-1220-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR NIRANKARI
ON THE 25th OF MARCH, 2026
FIRST APPEAL No. 1220 of 2025
SHIVENDRA SINGH
Versus
AKANKSHA SINGH
Appearance:
Shri Prateek Singh Baghel - Advocate for the appellant.
None for the respondent though served.
JUDGMENT
Per: Justice Vivek Kumar Singh
This first appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 has
been filed by the appellant/husband being aggrieved by the judgment and
decree dated 12.07.2025 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Satna
(M.P.) in Regular Civil Suit No.HM-35/2022, whereby the application under
Section 13(A) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for brevity ‘HM Act, 1955‘)
filed by the appellant/husband seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground
of ‘cruelty’ has been dismissed.
2. Despite service of notice on the respondent, she did not turn up,
therefore, the Court is constrained to proceed ex-parte.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the marriage between
the appellant and the respondent was solemnized on 24.02.2018 as per Hindu
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
LILHARE
Signing time: 07-04-2026
17:24:44
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26338
2 FA-1220-2025
Rites and Customs. After marriage, the respondent came to the house of
appellant and resided 12 days but no cohabitation took place between them.
Thereafter, on 08.03.2018, the respondent went back to the parental home for
D-Pharma Examination. After completion of her examination, the father of
the appellant went to the respondent’s home to take her back and she came
back with him. Thereafter, appellant came home to take her along with him
to his work place at Bhilai, District Durg (Chhatisgarh) but she refused to go
along with him and stated that she will not go with him because she was
forcefully married with him, then she went back to her parental home on
18.12.2019 by giving excuse for preparation of B.Sc. and did not come back
again. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the respondent has lived
with him at his home for about 3 months only. Thereafter, the appellant filed
a divorce application under Section 13(A) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, Chhattisgarh. The
respondent filed her reply under Order 18 Rule, 4 of C.P.C. in which she has
stated that she does not want to live with the appellant and her marriage was
solemnized against her will. Thereafter, appellant filed application for
disposal of the case on the ground of compromise between the parties. After
disposal of that case, the respondent again started fighting with him and
refused to live with him. Thereafter, the appellant again filed a divorce
petition before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Satna on the ground of
mental cruelty and the respondent filed an application under Section 125 of
Cr.P.C. As a result, the trial Court passed an order dated 03.03.2025 to pay
Rs.3,000/- per month as an interim maintenance to the respondent. The trial
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
LILHARE
Signing time: 07-04-2026
17:24:44
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26338
3 FA-1220-2025
Court after hearing both the parties, came to the conclusion that no ground of
cruelty has been proved by the appellant, therefore, vide order dated
12.07.2025, the Principal Judge, Family Court, Satna has dismissed the
Divorce Petition.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the trial Court
has not appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence and dismissed
the divorce petition without considering the fact that the respondent is not
residing along with the appellant for more than seven years. To substantiate
his arguments learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the judgments
passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Shilpa Sailesh Vs. Varun
Sreenivasan, (2023) AIR (SC) Civil 2212, Rajib Kumar Roy Vs. Sushmita
Saha, (2023) SCC Online SC 1221, R. Srinivas Kumar Vs. R.Shametha,
(2019) 4 SCC 409, Munish Kakkar Vs. Nidhi Kakkar, AIR 2020 SC 111 and
Neha Tyagi Vs. Lieutenant Colonel Deepak Tyagi, (2022) 3 SCC 86 . He
further submitted that the judgment and decree passed by the Family Court is
perverse, illegal and against the principle of law, therefore, by allowing this
appeal the judgment and decree passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court,
Satna be set aside.
5. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.
6. After considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the
appellant, it is apposite to refer to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in
the case of Samar Ghosh vs. Jaya Ghosh, (2007) 4 SCC 511 , in which the
Apex Court has illustrated the instances of human behaviour, relevant for
dealing with the cases of ”mental cruelty” and has also considered the aspect
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
LILHARE
Signing time: 07-04-2026
17:24:44
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26338
4 FA-1220-2025
of ”irretrievable breakdown” and observed that the same can be made a
ground for divorce, which are as under:-
”(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.
(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 must 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, quarrels, normal wear and
tear of the married life which happens in day to day lifeSignature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
LILHARE
Signing time: 07-04-2026
17:24:44
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26338
5 FA-1220-2025
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 difficult to live with the other party any
longer, may amount to mental cruelty.
(xi) If a husband submits himself for an operation of
sterilization without medical reasons and without the
consent or knowledge of his wife and similarly if the
wife undergoes vasectomy 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 physical
incapacity or valid reason may amount to mental cruelty.
(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, 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 shows
scant regard for the feelings and emotions of the parties.
In such like situations, it may lead to mental cruelty.
7. Further, in the case of Shri Rakesh Raman Vs. Smt. Kavita, (2023)
SCC Online SC 497, the Hon’ble Apex Court has manifestly observed that
long separation, in absence of cohabitation and complete breakdown of all
meaningful bonds and existing bitterness between husband and wife, has to
be read as ”cruelty” under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the HM Act.
8. Also, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Shilpa Sailesh Vs. Varun
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
LILHARE
Signing time: 07-04-2026
17:24:44
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26338
6 FA-1220-2025
Sreenivasan, (2023) AIR (SC) Civil 2212 has clearly observed that grant of
divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage by the Court is
not a matter of right, but a discretion which is to be exercised with great care
and caution, keeping in mind several factors ensuring that ‘complete justice’
is done to both the parties. It is obvious that this Court should be fully
convinced and satisfied that the marriage is totally unworkable, emotionally
dead and beyond salvation and, therefore, dissolution of marriage is the right
solution and the only way to look forward. That the marriage has
irretrievably broken-down is to be factually determined and firmly
established. For this, several factors are to be considered such as the period of
time the parties had cohabited after marriage; when the parties had last
cohabited; the nature of allegations made by the parties against each other
and their family members; the orders passed in the legal proceedings from
time to time, cumulative impact on the personal relationship; whether, and
how many attempts were made to settle the disputes by intervention of the
Court or through mediation, and when the last attempt was made, etc. The
period of separation should be sufficiently long, and anything above six years
or more will be a relevant factor.
9. After taking into consideration the submissions made by learned
counsel for the appellant and findings given by the Court below, it is apparent
that the Court below while giving the findings was aware of the fact that after
their marriage, the appellant and respondent had lived together only for a
very short period and thereafter, they are living separately till date.
10. From evidence available on record, it is clear that the relations
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
LILHARE
Signing time: 07-04-2026
17:24:44
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26338
7 FA-1220-2025
between the parties have evidently grown sour beyond the point of return and
such a long period of separation has turned these differences irreconcilable. It
is unfortunate that the parties have already spent a large number of years of
their adult lives fighting marital battles in the courtrooms. The parties still
have a considerable natural life ahead of them to look forward to. It is evident
that in the instant case, marital discord has reached to a point of no remedy
and there is a complete irretrievable breakdown of marriage. Therefore, no
purpose would be served by insisting the parties to continue their marital
relationship which is already dead and we are, accordingly, inclined to allow
the appeal preferred by the appellant and grant divorce on the ground of
irretrievable breakdown of marriage, which also falls within the ambit of
mental cruelty in the terms of Section 13(1)(ia) of HM Act, 1955. In these
circumstances, this Court deems it fit and proper to dissolve the marriage
solemnized between the appellant and the respondent on 24.02.2018.
11. Resultantly, the first appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and
decree dated 12.07.2025 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Satna in
Regular Civil Suit HM No. 35/2022 is hereby set aside.
12. Decree be drawn accordingly.
13. Parties to bear their own costs.
14. Record of this case be sent back to the concerned trial Court.
(VIVEK KUMAR SINGH) (AJAY KUMAR NIRANKARI)
JUDGE JUDGE
AL
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
LILHARE
Signing time: 07-04-2026
17:24:44
