Refusal to acknowledge the irretrievable breakdown of marriage can itself inflict daily mental cruelty on spouses who have no real chance of rebuilding their relationship.
This view has now been articulated with clarity by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which held that blocking a divorce petition in a dead marriage only prolongs the suffering of the parties involved.
Court’s Stand on Breakdown and Cruelty
The Division Bench of Justices Vishal Dhagat and BP Sharma underscored that the Hindu Marriage Act may not expressly recognise the irretrievable breakdown of marriage, yet courts cannot pretend that modern matrimonial realities do not exist.
The Bench noted that when matrimonial ties have collapsed beyond repair, compelling parties to stay bound only deepens distress.
The Court observed that persistent opposition to divorce, despite total separation and incompatibility, can itself amount to cruelty because it deprives an individual of the freedom to live life with dignity and choice.
Background of the Case
The appeal came from a woman seeking dissolution of marriage on grounds of cruelty and desertion. Married in 2002, the couple had two daughters, both residing with the husband. The wife alleged dowry demands and physical abuse. The husband accused her of remarrying without obtaining divorce and claimed she was cruel to their children.
In 2022, the family court had dismissed her petition, presuming adultery based on her second marriage.
High Court’s Findings
Scrutiny of the record showed that the couple had earlier filed a joint divorce plea but withdrew it in 2015 after a short reconciliation. The Bench noted that the woman was allegedly turned out of her matrimonial home in 2016 and later entered into another marriage.
The Court acknowledged her fault in remarrying during subsistence of the first marriage but held that this issue was not determinative in deciding cruelty by the husband. The real question before the Court was whether the marriage had collapsed beyond repair, and if the husband’s conduct amounted to cruelty.
The Bench concluded that the marriage had completely broken down and that opposing divorce in such circumstances, especially when reconciliation was impossible, amounted to deriving satisfaction from the other spouse’s distress. This, the Court said, was a form of mental cruelty.
Final Order
Emphasizing individual autonomy, the Court dissolved the marriage dated May 24, 2002. However, it clarified that the wife would not be entitled to alimony or a share in the husband’s property due to her own conduct.
Parties and Bench Details
- Appellant: Wife
- Respondent: Husband
- Bench: Justice Vishal Dhagat and Justice BP Sharma, Jabalpur Bench, Madhya Pradesh High Court
- Counsel for Appellant: Advocate Sanjay Gupta
- Counsel for Respondent: Advocate Yashovardhan Shukla
Follow Mahamana News For More Recent Judgments
