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 14:25
I 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
