FAO-M-108-2015 (O&M) -1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-M-108-2015 (O&M) Reserved on:- 24.03.2025 Pronounced on:09.04.2025 Ravinder Singh ...Appellant Versus Kulwinderjit Kaur ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR Present:- Ms. Shruti Sharma, Advocate, and Mr. Kshitij Sharma, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Gourave Bhayyia Gilhotra, Advocate, and Mr. Akash Manocha, Advocate, for the respondent. SUDHIR SINGH, J. Challenge in the present appeal is to the judgment and decree dated 31.01.2015 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana (for short the ‘trial Court’), whereby the petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) filed by the appellant-husband, for dissolution of marriage on the grounds of cruelty and desertion, was dismissed. 2. The aforesaid petition had been filed by the appellant-husband, inter-alia, pleading therein that his marriage with the respondent-wife was solemnized on AJAY PRASHER 22.01.1999 as per Sikh rites and out of the said wedlock, 2025.04.22 11:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-M-108-2015 (O&M) -2 - two daughters, namely Sukhmani Kaur and Nimar Kaur were born on 09.12.2000 and 17.09.2004, respectively. It was averred by the appellant-husband that the respondent- wife was a short tampered lady. The behaviour of the respondent-wife towards him and his family members had been rude, arrogant and hostile and she had insulted the appellant-husband many times and in this way, had caused mental cruelty to him. It was further asserted that soon after the marriage, the respondent-wife started pressurizing the appellant-husband to live separately from his family members, as she did not like the joint family. She refused to perform the household chores. It was further the case of the the appellant-husband that he was a reputed Punjabi singer having good respect amongst the general public, but the respondent-wife had threatened to spoil his career. She used to insult his parents without any reason. She frequently left the matrimonial home without informing the appellant-husband and as and when, he asked her the reason for leaving the house, she had threatened to commit suicide. In the month of June, 2009, when the appellant- husband was abroad in connection with his programmes, the respondent-wife held a press conference and levelled false allegations against him and his family members. She had also turned the family members of the appellant- husband out of the house and they had to take shelter in the house of appellant’s friend. She had also filed false complaints before the M.D. Cell, Ludhiana in 2009. It was AJAY PRASHER 2025.04.22 11:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-M-108-2015 (O&M) -3 - further pleaded that the respondent-wife had been living separately from the appellant-husband since 2009 and there had been no cohabitation between the parties. Many Panchayats were convened to rehabilitate the respondent- wife in the matrimonial home, but to no avail. 3. Upon notice, the respondent-wife entered appearance and filed her written statement admitting the factum of marriage and the birth of two daughters. The respondent-wife had pleaded that it was a love marriage, but the parents of the appellant-husband were not happy with the said marriage. They got annoyed after the birth of two daughters. They wanted to throw the respondent-wife out of the matrimonial house. It was pleaded that it was the appellant-husband himself, who had deserted the respondent-wife without any reason under the influence of his parents and brother-in-law (jija), namely, Kamaljit Shahi. Accordingly, a prayer for dismissal of the petition was made 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the respondent subjected the petitioner to cruelty? OPP 2. Whether the respondent deserted the petitioner without any reasonsble cause? OPP 3. Whether the petition is not maintainable in the present form? OPR 4. Whether the petitioner has not come to the Court with clean hands? OPR 5. Whether the petitioner has no cause of action to file the present petition? OPR 6. Relief.” AJAY PRASHER 2025.04.22 11:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-M-108-2015 (O&M) -4 - 5. In evidence, the appellant-husband himself stepped into the witness box as PW-3 and examined PW-1 Sukhjinder Kaur, his mother, PW-2 Kamaljot Singh, PW-4 Karamjit Singh and PW-5 Amardeep Singh. On the other hand, the respondent-wife herself appeared as RW-1 and examined RW-2 Gurjit Singh. 6. The learned trial Court, after taking into consideration rival contentions of the parties and evidence on record, dismissed the petition filed by the appellant- husband, as noticed above. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant-husband has vehemently argued that the appellant-husband had proved by way of evidence on record that the respondent-wife had committed cruelty to him. It is further submitted that the appellant-husband had duly proved before the trial Court that the respondent-wife had put pressure upon him to reside separately from his parents. It is further argued that the respondent-wife had not only deserted the appellant- husband, but also treated him with cruelty. It is yet further argued that once the respondent-wife had withdrawn from all matrimonial obligations and responsibilities, the approach of the learned trial Court in denying the decree of divorce to the appellant-husband, is not justified in law. 8. It is further argued that the parties have been living separately since 2009 and during this long period of more than 15 years, there has been no resumption of marital ties between them and, thus, the matrimonial AJAY PRASHER 2025.04.22 11:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-M-108-2015 (O&M) -5 - alliance of the parties has reached the dead end and, accordingly, it is prayed that the decree of divorce may be granted on the ground of long separation. 9. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent-wife, while defending the impugned judgment and decree, has submitted that the allegations levelled by the appellant-husband in the divorce petition, were general and vague in nature and the same could not be proved by way of any cogent and convincing evidence. It is further submitted that in fact, it was the appellant-husband, who had committed cruelty upon the respondent-wife and she was forced to leave the matrimonial home. The appellant- husband had failed to narrate any specific date or event as regards the alleged cruelty committed to him. It is yet further argued that mere long separation between the parties, is no ground to dissolve the marriage. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case. 11. Indisputably, the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 22.01.1999. The parties have been living separately since 2009. The divorce petition was filed 2010 and the same was dismissed on 31.01.2015. 12. In view of the aforesaid factual position, in our opinion, the following questions would arise for adjudication in the present appeal:- “1. Whether a long separation between the parties, rendering the marital bond as unworkable and its having been AJAY PRASHER 2025.04.22 11:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-M-108-2015 (O&M) -6 - ruptured beyond repair, amounts to mental cruelty? 2. Whether the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court, requires any interference?” 13. The learned trial Court has found that the allegations levelled against the respondent-wife regarding the alleged cruelty committed upon him, were not proved on record. It was further found that the appellant-husband had also failed to prove that the respondent-wife had refused to live in her matrimonial home. Learned trial Court, further found that the respondent-wife had expressed her willingness to reside with the appellant-husband and that it was the appellant-husband, who had left the company of the respondent-wife without any rhyme or reason. 14. Although the appellant-husband was unable to provide evidence of physical/mental cruelty or desertion before the Family Court, we must examine, whether the marital relationship between the husband and wife has ruptured beyond repair, especially when the parties have been living separately for more than twelve years and during this period, there has been no resumption of their relationship and rather, on account of protracted litigation, the same has got worsened day by day. 15. In the present case, efforts have been made firstly to resolve the matrimonial dispute through the process of mediation, which is one of the effective modes of alternative mechanism in resolving the personal disputes, but the AJAY PRASHER 2025.04.22 11:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-M-108-2015 (O&M) -7 - mediation between the parties has failed. The report dated 14.10.2015 of the Mediator, reads as under:- “Parties have failed to settle their dispute by way of amicable settlement. As such, the case file be sent back to Hon’ble High Court for further adjudication.” 16. Vide order dated 09.03.2017, the matter was again referred to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court for an amicable settlement between the parties, but the same could succeed. The report of the Mediator dated 09/15.03.2017 reads as under:- “Despite the fact that mediation session was held for more than three hours, the parties expressed their unwillingness to continue further with the proceedings and eventually, both of them desired that the case be sent back to the Hon’ble Court for adjudication.” 17. Indisputably, the parties have been living separately since 2009. In the absence of any resumption of matrimonial obligation and cohabitation between the parties for a long period, there is no possibility of their reunion. The mediation proceedings before this Court, for an amicable settlement of the dispute between the parties, remained unsuccessful. This further speaks of the bitterness of their relationship. Undoubtedly, it is an obligation on the part of the Court that matrimonial bond should as far as possible, be maintained, but when the marriage has become unworkable and it has become totally dead, no purpose would be served by ordering the reunion of the parties. 18. It is well settled that in order to constitute cruelty, the party alleging the same must prove on record AJAY PRASHER 2025.04.22 11:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-M-108-2015 (O&M) -8 - that the behaviour of the party complained against, is or has been as such that it has made it impossible for the said party to live in the company of the party complained against. The acts of cruelty must be such from which it can be reasonably and logically concluded that there cannot be any re-union between the parties due to the said acts. The cruelty can either be physical or mental or both. Though there is no mathematical formula to devise the extent of cruelty alleged against, yet the facts and circumstances of each and every case must be examined in the light of the gravity contained in them. 19. In Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh, (2007) 4 SCC 511, it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme court that no uniform standard can be laid down as regards the cruelty, but certain instances of human behaviour, relevant in dealing with the cases of `mental cruelty’, were formulated. It was held by the Hon’ble Apex Court as under:- “101. No uniform standard can ever be laid down for guidance, yet we deem it appropriate to enumerate some instances of human behaviour which may be relevant in dealing with the cases of “mental cruelty”. The instances indicated in the succeeding paragraphs are only illustrative and not exhaustive: (i) On consideration of complete matrimonial life of the parties, acute mental pain, agony and suffering as would not make possible for the parties to live with each other could come within the broad parameters of mental cruelty. (ii) On comprehensive appraisal of the entire matrimonial life of the parties, it becomes abundantly clear that situation is such that the wronged party cannot AJAY PRASHER 2025.04.22 11:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-M-108-2015 (O&M) -9 - reasonably be asked to put up with such conduct and continue to live with other party. (iii) Mere coldness or lack of affection cannot amount to cruelty, frequent rudeness of language, petulance of manner, indifference and neglect may reach such a degree that it makes the married life for the other spouse absolutely intolerable. (iv) Mental cruelty is a state of mind. The feeling of deep anguish, disappointment, frustration in one spouse caused by the conduct of other for a long time may lead to mental cruelty. (v) A sustained course of abusive and humiliating treatment calculated to torture, discommode or render miserable life of the spouse. (vi) Sustained unjustifiable conduct and behaviour of one spouse actually affecting physical and mental health of the other spouse. The treatment complained of and the resultant danger or apprehension must be very grave, substantial and weighty. (vii) Sustained reprehensible conduct, studied neglect, indifference or total departure from the normal standard of conjugal kindness causing injury to mental health or deriving sadistic pleasure can also amount to mental cruelty. (viii) The conduct must be much more than jealousy, selfishness, possessiveness, which causes unhappiness and dissatisfaction and emotional upset may not be a ground for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty. (ix) Mere trivial irritations, quarrels, normal wear and tear of the married life which happens in day-to-day life would not be adequate for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty. (x) The married life should be reviewed as a whole and a few isolated instances over a period of years will not amount to cruelty. The ill conduct must be persistent for a fairly lengthy period, where the relationship has deteriorated to an extent that because of the acts and behaviour of a spouse, the wronged party finds it extremely difficult to live with the other party any longer, may amount to mental cruelty. AJAY PRASHER 2025.04.22 11:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-M-108-2015 (O&M) -10 - (xi) If a husband submits himself for an operation of sterilisation without medical reasons and without the consent or knowledge of his wife and similarly, if the wife undergoes vasectomy or abortion without medical reason or without the consent or knowledge of her husband, such an act of the spouse may lead to mental cruelty. (xii) Unilateral decision of refusal to have intercourse for considerable period without there being any physical incapacity or valid reason may amount to mental cruelty. (xiii) Unilateral decision of either husband or wife after marriage not to have child from the marriage may amount to cruelty. (xiv) Where there has been a long period of continuous separation, it may fairly be concluded that the matrimonial bond is beyond repair. The marriage becomes a fiction though supported by a legal tie. By refusing to sever that tie, the law in such cases, does not serve the sanctity of marriage; on the contrary, it shows scant regard for the feelings and emotions of the parties. In such like situations, it may lead to mental cruelty.” In Naveen Kohli v. Neetu Kohli, 2006 (4) SCC 558, the Hon’ble Apex Court was considering a case of irretrievable breakdown of marriage. In the said case, the wife had been living separately for a long time, but did not want divorce by mutual consent only to make life of her husband miserable. The Hon’ble Apex Court, while holding the acts and conduct of the wife as cruelty, has held as under:- "62. Even at this stage, the respondent does not want divorce by mutual consent. From the analysis and evaluation of the entire evidence, it is clear that the respondent has resolved to live in agony only to make life a miserable hell for the appellant as well. This type of adamant and callous attitude, in the context of the facts of this case, leaves no manner of doubt in our mind that AJAY PRASHER 2025.04.22 11:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-M-108-2015 (O&M) -11 - the respondent is bent upon treating the appellant with mental cruelty. It is abundantly clear that the marriage between the parties had broken down irretrievably and there is no chance of their coming together, or living together again. The High Court ought to have visualized that preservation of such a marriage is totally unworkable which has ceased to be effective and would be greater source of misery for the parties. xxx xxx xxx 67. The High Court ought to have considered that a human problem can be properly resolved by adopting a human approach. In the instant case, not to grant a decree of divorce would be disastrous for the parties. Otherwise, there may be a ray of hope for the parties that after a passage of time (after obtaining a decree of divorce) the parties may psychologically and emotionally settle down and start a new chapter in life. 68. In our considered view, looking to the peculiar facts of the case, the High Court was not justified in setting aside the order of the Trial Court. In our opinion, wisdom lies in accepting the pragmatic reality of life and take a decision which would ultimately be conducive in the interest of both the parties.” Still further, in K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa, 2013 (5) SCC 226 has observed that when a marriage is dead for all purposes, it cannot be revived by Court's verdict, if the parties are not willing since marriage involves human sentiments and emotions and if they have dried up, there is hardly any chance of their springing back to life on account of artificial reunion created by the Court’s decree. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in Amandeep Goyal Vs. Yogesh Rani, 2022(1) PLR 479, while considering the long separation of 10 years between the parties and the factum of wife not ready and willing to give AJAY PRASHER 2025.04.22 11:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-M-108-2015 (O&M) -12 - mutual divorce, held that the marriage was dead and it amounts to cruelty towards the husband. The relevant extract from the said judgment would read as under:- “20. In the present case, it is not in dispute that both the appellant and respondent are working as teachers on regular basis in Government departments. Further they are living separately since 27.07.2011. The elder son (Manav Goyal), who is suffering from cancer, is living with appellant- husband and the younger son (Rooham) is staying with the mother. After living separately from her husband for more than 10 years, the respondent- wife is still not ready to give divorce to him. 21. The issue for consideration in the present appeal would be whether the relationship of the husband and wife has come to an end and if the respondent-wife is not ready to give mutual divorce to the appellant- husband, whether this act of her, would amount to cruelty towards husband, keeping in view the fact that she is not staying with her husband for the last 10 years and there is no scope that they can cohabit as husband and wife again. xx xx xx 32. In the present case, the appellant-husband is looking after his son Manav Goyal since 27.07.2011 and has borne all the expenses incurred upon his son, who is suffering from Cancer. Thus, if the appeal filed by the appellant-husband is dismissed, he will face mental agony with his son, who is ill and requires repeated check ups and treatments from various hospitals. The appellant and the respondent are very sure that they cannot live together as husband and wife. The appellant-husband has shown that he also loves his second son i.e Rooham, as he brought gifts for him on 18.08.2021 and even respondent-wife also brought gifts for Manav Goyal. Both the appellant and the respondent are regular government teachers and are getting good salary and they are bringing up one child each. If the parents are not granted divorce, then both the children namely Manav Goyal and Rooham Goyal will not be able to meet each other in a positive environment. This will further result in cruelty AJAY PRASHER 2025.04.22 11:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-M-108-2015 (O&M) -13 - because of the rigid attitude in giving divorce. Further when the appellant and the respondent came to this Court on 18.08.2021, they expressed their love and affection to child, who is not staying with them. The element of marriage which has become dead will result in further loss to both the children. It is a right time if both the children meet with each other in a positive environment as the parents are finally independent. The element of silence between the parties will result into mental cruelty to the children, as both the siblings cannot meet with each other. Mental cruelty will blend with irretrievable and dead marriage is a good ground to grant divorce to the parties.” A Division Bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court in Duleshwari Sahu Vs. Ramesh Kumar Sahu, 2023 AIR (Chhattishgarh) 95, has held that where the wife had been residing separately from the husband for a long period without any justifiable cause, the same would amount to cruelty. It was held as under:- “15. In the present matter, on perusal of the pleadings of the respective parties and the evidence adduced by them in support thereof, as also the admission of the parties and their witnesses, it is found that the respondent wife is living separately from her husband at her parental home without any just and reasonable cause since May, 2014. She lodged a report on 17/09/2014 against the husband under Sections 498-A, 323, 294, 506 of IPC and after trial, he was acquitted of all the charges. This apart, the wife also made a report against the husband and his parents under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. It is also admitted position that the wife filed divorce petition under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act which was dismissed for want of prosecution. It is also admitted by the wife that no application under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights was filed by her. It is not disputed that the wife is working as Panchayat Secretary and is also getting Rs. 7,000/- per month as AJAY PRASHER 2025.04.22 11:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-M-108-2015 (O&M) -14 - maintenance. Therefore, in the given facts and circumstances of the case, the conduct of the wife, in light of the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court as mentioned above, the act committed by the wife against the husband amounts to cruelty and it stands proved that she is living separately from the husband since 2014 without any just and reasonable cause. They are seems to be no possibility of their re-union. In these circumstances, this Court finds no illegality or perversity in the impugned judgement of the Family Court granting decree of divorce in favour of the husband.” 20. If the facts of the present case are examined in the light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgments, it would come out that the parties, who have been living separately since 2009, if compelled to live together, would become a fiction supported by a legal tie and it would show scant regard for the feelings and emotions of the parties. This, it itself would amount to mental cruelty to both the parties. 21. Still further, there is nothing on record to indicate that since the date of filing of the divorce petition by the appellant-husband, the respondent-wife had made any effort to join his company or had filed any petition under Section 9 of the Act for restitution of conjugal rights. 22. In view of the above, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hold that the marriage between the parties has become unworkable and has reached the stage of beyond repair and if the parties are called upon to stay together, it may lead to mental cruelty to both of them. Question No.1 is answered in affirmative. AJAY PRASHER 2025.04.22 11:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-M-108-2015 (O&M) -15 - 24. Consequently, the present appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court, is set aside and the marriage between the parties is dissolved by a decree of divorce. Question No.2 is answered, accordingly. 25. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. 26. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 27. However, the respondent-wife will be at liberty to move an appropriate application for grant of permanent alimony before the learned trial/Family Court. We make it clear that if, any such application is moved, the same shall be decided by the learned Family Court in accordance with law, preferably within a period of six months. [ SUDHIR SINGH ] JUDGE [ SUKHVINDER KAUR ] 09.04.2025 JUDGE Ajay Prasher Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No AJAY PRASHER 2025.04.22 11:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document