2025:UHC:10372-DB Reserved on 10.11.2025 Delivered on 19.11.2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL First Appeal No. 187 of 2019 (Under Section 19(1) of the Family Court Act) Priyank Chauhan …………..Appellant Versus Smt. Vinita Chauhan ………….Respondent ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Aditya Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the appellant. Ms. Vinita Chauhan-respondent, is present in person. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram: Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J. (Per) The present First Appeal, filed under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, has been preferred by the appellant–husband assailing the judgment and decree dated 31.08.2019 passed by the learned Additional Judge, Family Court, Rishikesh, District Dehradun, in Original Suit No. 133 of 2017, Priyank Chauhan v. Smt. Vinita Chauhan, whereby the suit under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (‘the Act’) filed by the appellant seeking dissolution of marriage on the grounds of cruelty and desertion was dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the case, as per record are that the marriage between the appellant and respondent was solemnized on 20.04.2008 according to Hindu rites and 2025:UHC:10372-DB customs and two children—a son and a daughter—were born out of the said wedlock. The appellant alleged that soon after marriage, differences arose due to the respondent’s hostile behaviour towards him and his parents. It was pleaded that for nearly nineteen months prior to filing of the suit, there had been no cordial marital relationship; that the respondent deprived him of conjugal companionship, frequently insulted him before relatives and colleagues, and subjected his aged parents to mental distress, resulting in their deteriorating health. The appellant sought dissolution of marriage on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. 3. Upon notice, the respondent–wife entered appearance and filed her written statement denying all allegations. She alleged that soon after marriage, the appellant and his family demanded a house at Dehradun and, upon her refusal, subjected her to harassment. It was further alleged that her parents had already given ₹1,00,000 at the time of marriage, yet the appellant again demanded the same amount for his sister’s marriage. On her inability to meet this demand, the appellant became abusive and hostile. She further claimed that the appellant’s parents were influencing him to divorce her and remarry for dowry, and that despite her efforts to maintain harmony, the appellant abandoned her and the 2025:UHC:10372-DB children without maintenance. 4. On the basis of the pleadings, the learned Family Court framed the following issues: (i) Whether the respondent–wife committed cruelty towards the appellant? If so, its effect? (ii) Relief? 5. Both parties led oral and documentary evidence. The respondent examined herself as DW1 along with four witnesses—her children, domestic help, and a milk vendor—to support her version. Upon consideration, the Family Court held that the appellant failed to substantiate his allegations of cruelty or desertion and found that occasional visits and interaction between the parties indicated partial cohabitation, consequently, the suit was dismissed by judgment and decree dated 31.08.2019. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the judgment of the Family Court suffers from serious perversity, as it ignored material evidence demonstrating mental cruelty by the respondent. It was submitted that the respondent consistently quarreled with the appellant, deprived him of marital comfort, made baseless allegations of illicit relationships, and threatened to implicate him and his family in false criminal cases— acts which, cumulatively, constitute cruelty within the meaning of Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act. It was further 2025:UHC:10372-DB urged that the parties have been living separately for several years, and the marriage has irretrievably broken down. 7. The respondent, appearing in person, supported the judgment of the Family Court. She alleged that the appellant had developed an extra-marital relationship, failed to maintain her and the children since 2016, and left the matrimonial home of his own accord. She asserted that she has been raising the two minor children single-handedly while serving as a lecturer in Government Polytechnic, Kotdwar. She contended that the appellant’s petition was a ploy to evade his moral and legal obligations. 8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, this Court finds that the appellant has alleged persistent mental cruelty by the respondent in the form of quarrels, denial of conjugal relations, humiliation before friends and colleagues, and false accusations of infidelity. The evidence of DW1 and DW2–DW5 does not rebut these allegations but rather indicates prolonged estrangement between the parties. The Family Court appears to have erred in overlooking the settled principle that cruelty may be physical or mental and is to be assessed on the cumulative effect of conduct, not isolated instances. 2025:UHC:10372-DB 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vijaykumar Ramchandra Bhate v. Neela Vijaykumar Bhate [(2003) 6 SCC 334] and Manisha Tyagi v. Deepak Kumar [(2010) 4 SCC 339] has held that unfounded, defamatory, and reckless allegations by one spouse against the other constitute grave mental cruelty, particularly when such allegations touch upon character or fidelity. The respondent’s repeated accusations regarding the appellant’s alleged illicit relationships, unsubstantiated by any evidence, are sufficient to cause mental agony and loss of reputation. 10. Further, in V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat (Mrs.) [(1994) 1 SCC 337], the Apex Court held that sustained allegations of immorality or indecent conduct amount to mental cruelty, rendering it impossible for the aggrieved spouse to live with the other. Applying this principle, the appellant’s uncontroverted evidence demonstrates that his mental peace and dignity were seriously affected. This Court, therefore, holds that the appellant has successfully established mental cruelty within the meaning of Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 11. On the question of desertion, the desertion implies both the factum of separation and the animus deserendi—an intention to permanently abandon the 2025:UHC:10372-DB other spouse without reasonable cause. The record reflects that the parties have been living separately since February 2011, with no attempt of reconciliation. The respondent herself admitted that the appellant began living apart in a rented accommodation, which corroborates the prolonged separation. No plausible explanation or reasonable cause for such separation has been furnished by the respondent. 12. In Sukhendu Das v. Rita Mukherjee (2017) 9 SCC 632 and Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh [(2007) 4 SCC 511], the Supreme Court observed that long separation and complete emotional detachment between the parties are indicators of mental cruelty and irretrievable breakdown of marriage, the same principle applies here, accordingly, the element of desertion stands established. 13. From the pleadings and evidence, it is undisputed that the parties have lived separately for over thirteen years and have had no communication during this period. All reconciliation efforts have failed. The respondent’s lack of willingness to resume cohabitation, even during pendency of the appeal, demonstrates that the marital bond has ruptured beyond repair. In Rajib Kumar Roy v. Smt. Shushmita Saha, (2023) 17 SCC 441, the Supreme Court held that long separation, emotional detachment, and mutual bitterness constitute 2025:UHC:10372-DB irretrievable breakdown of marriage and amount to cruelty on both sides. Likewise, in Rakesh Raman v. Kavita, (2023) 17 SCC 443, it was held that continuation of a dead marriage only perpetuates cruelty, therefore, though irretrievable breakdown is not a statutory ground under Section 13 of the Act, the same may be considered as an instance of mental cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act. 14. In the considered opinion of this Court, the marriage between the parties has become emotionally lifeless and practically unworkable. The conduct of the respondent amounts to mental cruelty; the prolonged separation satisfies the ingredients of desertion; and the relationship stands irretrievably broken down. The allegation regarding illicit relationship has not been substantiated by any evidence by the respondent. The Family Court erred in disregarding these well-established principles and in dismissing the petition despite overwhelming evidence of incompatibility and mental agony. 15. Accordingly, the judgment and decree dated 31.08.2019 passed by the learned Additional Judge, Family Court, Rishikesh, District Dehradun, in Original Suit No. 133 of 2017, Priyank Chauhan v. Smt. Vinita Chauhan, is hereby set aside. The appeal is allowed. 2025:UHC:10372-DB A decree of divorce is granted in favour of the appellant– husband under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The marriage solemnized on 20.04.2008 between the appellant and respondent is hereby dissolved. 16. There shall be no order as to costs. ( Alok Mahr a, J.) ( Ravindr a Mait han i, J.) Mamta MA MTA RANI Digitally signed by MAMTA RANI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=6a812005bebfcf46 f244f3e584af1449e430ef90 0bf09a6d67ebbd64267132 9b, postalCode=263001, st=Uttarakhand, serialNumber=5de1751a4f1 d9cabfd54852c9e68911ca8 b66dd26690a191648ab5d8 dd004ef0, cn=MAMTA RANI Date: 2025.11.20 17:27:47 +05'30'