Keeping broken marriage alive unjust to both parties: HC

The court observed that the couple’s ship of reconciliation had sailed, saying, “The marital relationship has only become more bitter and acrimonious over the years. To keep the facade of this broken marriage alive would be doing injustice to both parties.”

Mumbai Observing that prolonged separation can, in itself, amount to mental cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA), the Bombay High Court has set aside a 2019 family court order refusing to grant a man divorce from his wife. The couple had been living separately for the past 12 years.

Keeping broken marriage alive unjust to both parties: HC

The court observed that the couple’s ship of reconciliation had sailed, saying, “The marital relationship has only become more bitter and acrimonious over the years. To keep the facade of this broken marriage alive would be doing injustice to both parties.”

The 31-year-old Mankhurd man, who challenged the family court’s order before the High Court, had married the 25-year-old woman in 2013 following Buddhist rituals. He told the court that while the first six months of their marriage were cordial, their relationship soon deteriorated.

According to the husband, his wife blamed him for her miscarriage. He also alleged that she deserted him in September 2014 and returned to her parents’ home.

Alleging cruelty, the husband told the court that his wife had informed him on Valentine’s Day that she loved another man, cancelling the celebration plans he had made. She later denied it, he said. He also alleged that when he questioned her about lengthy phone conversations, she claimed to be speaking to a female friend named Neha, which he said turned out to be untrue. The court noted that there were “diametrically opposite versions” of the wife’s claims regarding her alleged extramarital relationship.

As a last resort, the woman’s father referred the matter to the Buddhist Panchayat in Kamothe. “Despite meetings involving the parties as well as the elders of the family, there was no positive outcome,” the court said.

A division bench comprising Justices Bharati Dangre and Ashish Chavan held that the husband had established cruelty and desertion on the wife’s part, observing that the marriage was “beyond repair”.

The bench said, “The prolonged separation in itself is mental cruelty as can be seen from the various judicial pronouncements.”

The court held that the wife’s separation from her husband, her contradictory statements regarding her alleged relationship with another man, her refusal to resume cohabitation, and the “vexatious and vindictive criminal proceedings” initiated against him amounted to cruelty under the HMA.