The Court made the comments while dismissing a woman’s appeal against the trial court judgment allowing her husband’s petition for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act.

The couple had married in 1999 but the husband in 2016 filed for divorce. His plea was allowed by a court in Haryana’s Palwal in 2019.

Considering their submissions in appeal, the Court at the outset noted that the woman along with her two daughters had been residing separately from husband since 2016. 

It also found that the woman, despite knowing that she had a 75-year-old mother-in-law and a sister-in-law with unsound mind, refused to live in the village with them and instead asked her husband to move out.

“When the afore-mentioned circumstance namely, expectation/obdurateness of the appellant that the husband should live with her after leaving his old aged mother and un-sound mind sister; is considered in the light of the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court , the same would indeed constitute an “act of cruelty”,” the Division Bench said.

The Court also found that the woman had joined Brahma Kumaris, a spiritual organisation where celibacy is practised by women.

“The Family Court below has considered the afore-said factum of appellant having joined `Braham Kumari’ i.e. a spiritual organization with the foundation to maintain celibacy; as a circumstance to hold that the appellant does not seem to be interested in any conjugal bliss. It is well settled and as observed in the case of Samar Ghosh (supra), unilateral decision of refusal to have intercourse for considerable period without there being any physical incapacity or valid reason, may amount to mental cruelty.”

Having considered that the couple have separated in 2016 with no efforts to reunite since then, the Court said there was every reason to assume that their matrimonial relationship is emotionally dead and beyond repair

It thus opined that setting aside the divorce decree would amount to compelling them to live together in complete disharmony, mental stress and strain which only will perpetuate cruelty.

While upholding the divorce, the Court, however, noted that the family court had not granted any alimony to the woman. 

Though it found that the wife herself had not filed any application for it, the Court said,

“Be that as it may, Section 25 of the 1955 Act itself envisages that the wife can initiate proceedings for grant of permanent alimony even after the decree of divorce. Therefore, the Court does not become functus officio with the passing of the decree and continues to have jurisdiction to award alimony even thereafter.”

Therefore, while keeping it open for the wife to claim permanent alimony, the Court directed her husband to pay ₹5 lakh towards interim permanent alimony to her within three months.