The case arose from the husband’s plea before the family court under Section 13(1)(i-a) and 13(1)(i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, citing cruelty and desertion.
He claimed that he had supported his wife in completing her Ph.D. and becoming a school principal.
However, after her employment, her attitude changed drastically. She allegedly became arrogant, often quarreled with him, insulted him about his joblessness during the COVID-19 pandemic, and mentally harassed him.
The husband further alleged that the wife influenced their daughter to turn against him and later left the matrimonial home with her daughter on August 2, 2020, while abandoning the son. She even informed him in writing that she was leaving voluntarily and cutting ties with both husband and son.
Despite repeated efforts by the husband and his son to bring her back, she refused to return. Later, even after being served notices in court proceedings, she chose not to appear or contest the claims.
The family court still dismissed the husband’s divorce petition despite his affidavit, witness statements, and documentary proof, including her written letter of desertion.
The High Court disagreed with this finding and ruled that her actions clearly showed both cruelty and desertion. Relying on settled legal precedents, the Court observed that the marriage had broken down beyond repair.
Since the wife did not participate in the case, gave no explanation for her conduct, and even admitted in her own letter that she was severing ties, the Court finally granted a decree of divorce in favour of the husband.
A Bench of Justice Rajani Dubey and Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad made this observation while setting aside the family court’s refusal to grant divorce.
The court observed:
“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.”
