Case at a Glance
A husband whose wife left the matrimonial home in May 2014 sought divorce on grounds of cruelty and desertion, but the Family Court at Bandra dismissed his petition in 2019 even though the wife had not filed a written statement. On appeal, a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court held that the uncontested evidence of cruelty, together with about 12 years of continuous separation, showed a bond “beyond repair”. It set aside the Family Court’s order and dissolved the marriage under Sections 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
The parties married in Mumbai on 28 April 2013 under Buddhist rites. According to the husband, about six months into the marriage the wife became pregnant and later suffered a miscarriage, for which she blamed him, and the rift between them widened. On 13 May 2014 she left the matrimonial home and has lived at her parents’ home since. In September 2014 the husband received a letter from the Special Cell for Women and Children, CBD Belapur, about a complaint made by the wife.
In 2016 the husband filed a divorce petition (Petition No. A-795 of 2016) before the Family Court, Bandra, alleging cruelty and desertion. The wife did not file a written statement, yet on 23 September 2019 the Family Court dismissed the petition. The husband appealed, and the appeal was admitted on 28 June 2024. Before the High Court, the wife’s counsel stated that she had nothing to say and left the matter to the Court, while also making clear that she did not want a divorce by mutual consent.
The Key Question Before the Court
Had the husband proved cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) and desertion under Section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, so that the Family Court’s refusal to grant divorce should be set aside?
How the High Court read 12 years of separation
The husband argued that the wife’s conduct stood uncontroverted: her unexplained withdrawal from the marriage, contradictory statements, refusal to reconcile despite repeated efforts and the criminal complaints she lodged. He also pointed to about 12 years of separation as desertion. The Bench, in a judgment authored by Justice Ashish S. Chavan, examined the law on cruelty through Jorden Diengdeh v. S.S. Chopra, (1985) 05 SC CK 0013, (1985) 3 SCC 62, Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh, (2007) 03 SC CK 0016, (2007) 4 SCC 511, Rakesh Raman v. Kavita, (2023) 04 SC CK 0103, (2023) 17 SCC 433, and Sonal Talpada v. Veerbhan Singh, (2026) 06 SC CK 0092, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1063.
Quoting Rakesh Raman that “A marriage which has broken down irretrievably, in our opinion spells cruelty to both the parties”, the Court held that the uncontested cruelty, together with 12 years of continuous separation, showed that the bond was “beyond repair”, observing that “the marital relationship has only become more bitter and acrimonious over the years”. It treated the prolonged separation itself as a form of mental cruelty and found that desertion for the last 12 years satisfied Section 13(1)(ib). The Family Court’s dismissal of the petition could therefore not stand.
What the Court Actually Held
- Family Court Appeal No. 11 of 2022 was allowed and the Family Court, Bandra’s order dated 23 September 2019 in Petition No. A-795 of 2016 was set aside.
- The uncontested evidence of cruelty, combined with about 12 years of continuous separation, established cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia).
- Desertion for the last 12 years satisfied Section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
- The marriage solemnised on 28 April 2013 was dissolved and a decree was directed to be drawn up accordingly.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It shows appellate courts will correct a Family Court that refuses divorce despite unrebutted evidence and no written statement from the other side.
- It applies the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Rakesh Raman that an irretrievably broken marriage can itself amount to cruelty to both parties.
- It confirms that long, continuous separation can support both cruelty and desertion grounds under the Hindu Marriage Act.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Spouses
- A spouse’s refusal to file a defence does not automatically secure a divorce, but unrebutted evidence carries real weight on appeal.
- Years of living apart, along with refusal to reconcile, can be relied on as mental cruelty.
- Refusing mutual consent does not prevent a court from granting divorce on proved grounds.
For Counsel
- Plead and prove specific incidents of cruelty, not just the length of separation.
- Cite Samar Ghosh, Rakesh Raman and Sonal Talpada on prolonged separation and mental cruelty.
- Where the respondent does not contest, ensure the evidence affidavit fully covers each ground.
Key Takeaways
- The Bombay High Court granted divorce on both cruelty and desertion after about 12 years of separation.
- The wife had filed no written statement before the Family Court and left the appeal to the Court.
- Prolonged separation was treated as a form of mental cruelty, following Rakesh Raman v. Kavita.
- The Family Court’s 2019 dismissal order was set aside and a decree of divorce directed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can long separation alone get you a divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act?
Irretrievable breakdown is not by itself a statutory ground, but in this case the Bombay High Court, relying on Supreme Court precedent, treated about 12 years of continuous separation, together with uncontested cruelty, as amounting to mental cruelty and desertion.
What if the other spouse does not file a reply in divorce proceedings?
Here the wife filed no written statement. The Family Court still dismissed the petition, but the High Court found the uncontroverted evidence sufficient and granted divorce on appeal.
Which provisions were applied?
Sections 13(1)(ia) (cruelty) and 13(1)(ib) (desertion) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Conclusion
The judgment underlines that courts look at the reality of a marriage. Where one spouse has stayed away for over a decade, refuses reconciliation and does not contest the allegations, keeping the marriage alive on paper serves no purpose, and the law on cruelty and desertion can provide relief.
Practical takeaway: In a contested divorce built on long separation, lead clear evidence of the separation date, attempts at reconciliation and specific conduct, and rely on Rakesh Raman and Samar Ghosh to frame prolonged separation as mental cruelty.
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com