The Chhattisgarh High Court observed that mocking a husband for being unemployed and making unreasonable demands during a period of financial hardship, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, constitutes mental cruelty and can serve as valid grounds for divorce.
In the present case, the wife, employed as a school principal in Kurud, consistently taunted her husband—an advocate—about his lack of work during the pandemic. She further made unfounded demands, engaged in frequent quarrels over insignificant issues, and ultimately deserted both her husband and their son without any valid reason. These actions compelled the husband to approach the court seeking dissolution of the marriage.
In this context, Justices Rajani Dubey and Amitendra Kishore Prasad noted,
“It has been clearly deposed that after obtaining a Ph.D. degree and securing a high-paying job as a Principal, the respondent’s behavior towards the appellant changed significantly. She became disrespectful, frequently taunted him for being unemployed during the COVID-19 pandemic, and engaged in repeated verbal altercations over trivial matters. These acts, including insults and humiliation during a time of financial vulnerability, clearly amount to mental cruelty as recognized under law.”
“Her behavior, including instigating the daughter against the father, making unfounded demands during a financially unstable period, and leaving the home with the daughter while abandoning the son, demonstrates a pattern of mental harassment and disregard for the matrimonial bond.”, the Court stated.
Facts:
The matter arose from an appeal filed by the husband challenging the Family Court’s order, which had dismissed his divorce petition under Section 13(1)(i-a) and 13(1)(i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. In his petition, he had sought dissolution of marriage on the grounds of cruelty and desertion.
Although the couple had two children—a daughter and a son—marital discord surfaced after several years of marriage. It was alleged that the wife’s behavior towards her husband changed over time; she became arrogant about her professional position, frequently quarreled over trivial issues, and ridiculed him for his employment status. During the pandemic, when the husband lost work due to court closures, she verbally abused him for being unemployed and made unreasonable financial demands beyond his capacity. Eventually, she left the matrimonial home without any valid justification, taking only their daughter and abandoning both her husband and their son.
When the husband sought divorce, the wife did not appear before the Family Court, leading to the dismissal of his petition ex parte.
Aggrieved, the husband preferred an appeal before the High Court, asserting that his wife had neither appeared before the Family Court nor filed any written statement or evidence in her defense. He further contended that the Family Court had overlooked a letter written by her, wherein she explicitly acknowledged leaving the matrimonial home of her own volition, thereby proving voluntary desertion. The husband also argued that reliance on a counseling report—suggesting he was unwilling to live with her while she desired reconciliation—was misplaced, as the report had never been formally exhibited. Finally, he submitted that her consistent absence, including before the High Court, demonstrated her unwillingness to contest or deny his allegations.
Court’s Findings:
At the outset, the Court noted that mocking a husband for his unemployment during a period of financial hardship and engaging in constant quarrels over trivial matters constitutes mental cruelty. Furthermore, as the wife had neither filed a response nor produced any evidence in rebuttal, the Court observed,
“Her absence throughout the trial and appeal proceedings further strengthens the unrebutted nature of the appellant’s allegations. The Family Court failed to appreciate the legal implications of this uncontroverted evidence and wrongly concluded that cruelty was not established.”
The Court further observed that the wife had willfully deserted her husband and son, severing all ties without any justifiable cause or allegation against the husband, thereby evidencing animus deserendi (the intention to permanently abandon). As the desertion had continued since 16.09.2020, it fulfilled the statutory requirement of two years’ separation before the husband instituted divorce proceedings in 2022. Accordingly, the Court stated,
“Her conduct indicates a deliberate and willful decision to end cohabitation and abandon her matrimonial obligations, thereby justifying a decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.”
The Court further held that the Family Court had erred in placing reliance on a mediation report that had never been formally exhibited and had failed to appreciate the legal effect of an explicit and unambiguous act of desertion. Against this backdrop, the Court concluded:
“Since the parties have been living separately and there exists no likelihood of reconciliation, this Court is of the considered opinion that the marriage has suffered an irretrievable breakdown, leaving no scope for restoration. In view of these circumstances, the present appeal is allowed, and a decree of divorce is granted in favour of the appellant/husband, while setting aside the judgment and decree dated 25.10.2023 passed by the learned Additional Third Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg District Durg (C.G.) in H.M.A. No. 905/2022.”
