Recently, the Rajasthan High Court allowed a wife’s appeal under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and dissolved her marriage on the ground of mental cruelty, setting aside the Family Court’s refusal to grant divorce. The Court held that persistent non-payment of maintenance, repeated absence from court proceedings, and deliberate abandonment of matrimonial responsibilities constitute sustained mental cruelty. In a significant observation, the Bench ruled that such conduct amounts to a “forfeiture of his right to contest the matter.”
Brief Facts:
The appellant-wife married the respondent on 29 June 2018 according to Hindu rites. She alleged that soon after marriage, she was subjected to dowry-related harassment and physical and mental cruelty. Matters worsened after the birth of their daughter on 17 February 2021, when, according to her, the respondent and his family intensified harassment for not bearing a male child and even expressed intent for a second marriage. A criminal case was registered under Sections 498-A, 406, 323, and 34 IPC, and multiple proceedings followed, including cases under Section 125 CrPC and the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
Despite interim maintenance orders, including a direction to pay Rs.5,000 per month, the respondent allegedly defaulted, leading to recovery warrants. Meanwhile, his petition for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act was dismissed, yet the Family Court also dismissed the wife’s divorce plea on the ground that cruelty was not proved. Aggrieved, she approached the High Court in appeal.
Contentions of the Appellant:
Counsel for the Appellant contended that the Family Court had failed to appreciate the overwhelming evidence demonstrating continuous mental cruelty. It was argued that the respondent’s repeated non-appearance in judicial proceedings, deliberate non-compliance with maintenance orders, and prolonged financial neglect established a consistent pattern of harassment. The appellant emphasized that her sworn testimony remained unshaken in cross-examination and was corroborated by judicial records showing issuance of recovery warrants and ex-parte proceedings. The cumulative effect of these acts, counsel argued, clearly attracted Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act.
Contentions of the Respondent:
Whereas, the Respondent, though initially represented, ultimately disengaged counsel and failed to contest the appeal. His earlier stance before the Family Court included denial of cruelty and pursuit of restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Act. However, he did not effectively defend himself either in the appellate proceedings or in related criminal and maintenance cases, leading the High Court to proceed ex-parte against him.
Observations of the Court:
The Court undertook a holistic examination of the record and sharply criticised the Family Court’s approach of evaluating incidents in isolation. It reaffirmed the settled principle that mental cruelty must be assessed on the “totality of circumstances.” The Bench noted that the respondent’s conduct, persistent non-appearance, failure to pay court-ordered maintenance for years, and disregard of judicial directions, was not a series of minor lapses but a continuous pattern of indifference and calculated neglect.
The Court observed that the appellant had led “clear, consistent, and cogent evidence establishing a continuous course of mental cruelty,” and that her testimony remained “wholly unshaken in cross-examination.” Importantly, the Bench held that the respondent’s deliberate abandonment of proceedings amounted to “a forfeiture of his right to contest the matter,” reflecting implied consent to the appeal being allowed. The Court found that the Family Court had committed a “manifest error in appreciation of evidence” by rejecting unimpeached testimony without legally sustainable reasons.
The decision of the Court:
The High Court allowed the wife’s appeal, set aside the judgment and decree dated 20.08.2024 of the Family Court, Pokaran, and granted a decree of divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The ratio emerging from the ruling is clear: persistent non-compliance with maintenance orders, repeated desertion of legal proceedings, and sustained neglect of matrimonial obligations collectively constitute mental cruelty sufficient to dissolve a marriage.
Case Title: Smt. Khusboo W/o Manohar Lal, Vs. Manohar Lal S/o Shri Baina Ram, and anr.
Case No.: D.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2708/2024,
Coram: Hon'ble. Justice Arun Monga, Hon'ble. Justice Yogendra Kumar Purohit
Advocate for the Petitioner: Adv. Rahul Vyas
Advocate for the Respondent: None.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
