The Chhattisgarh High Court held that ridiculing a husband for being unemployed and making unreasonable demands during a period of financial distress, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, amounts to mental cruelty and provides a legitimate ground for divorce.
In this case, the wife, who worked as a school principal in Kurud, repeatedly mocked her husband—an advocate—over his joblessness during the pandemic. She also raised baseless demands, quarreled over trivial matters, and eventually abandoned both her husband and their son without any justification, which ultimately led the husband to seek divorce.
In this context, Justices Rajani Dubey and Amitendra Kishore Prasad noted,
“It has been clearly deposed that after obtaining a Ph.D. degree and securing a high-paying job as a Principal, the respondent’s behavior towards the appellant changed significantly. She became disrespectful, frequently taunted him for being unemployed during the COVID-19 pandemic, and engaged in repeated verbal altercations over trivial matters. These acts, including insults and humiliation during a time of financial vulnerability, clearly amount to mental cruelty as recognized under law.”
“Her behavior, including instigating the daughter against the father, making unfounded demands during a financially unstable period, and leaving the home with the daughter while abandoning the son, demonstrates a pattern of mental harassment and disregard for the matrimonial bond.”, the Court stated.
Facts:
The case concerned an appeal filed by the husband against the Family Court’s impugned order, which had rejected his divorce petition under Section 13(1)(i-a) and 13(1)(i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, wherein he sought dissolution of marriage on the grounds of cruelty and desertion.
Although the couple had two children—a daughter and a son—marital discord arose after several years of marriage. It was alleged that the wife’s attitude towards her husband changed; she became arrogant about her professional status, frequently quarreled over trivial matters, and mocked him for his employment situation. When the husband lost work during the pandemic owing to court closures, she verbally abused him for being jobless and made unreasonable demands beyond his means. Eventually, she left the matrimonial home without any valid justification, taking only their daughter with her and abandoning the husband and their son.
When the husband filed for divorce, the wife failed to appear, leading the Family Court to dismiss the petition ex parte.
Dissatisfied, the husband appealed before the High Court, contending that his wife neither appeared before the Family Court nor submitted any written statement or evidence in her defense. He further argued that the Family Court overlooked a letter written by her, wherein she explicitly stated that she was leaving of her own accord, thereby establishing that the desertion was voluntary. The husband also pointed out that the Family Court had relied on a counseling report suggesting that he was unwilling to live with his wife while she wished to continue the marriage, but this report was never formally exhibited. Finally, he submitted that her repeated absence, including before the High Court, reflected her unwillingness to contest or refute his allegations.
Court’s Findings:
At the very beginning, the Court observed that ridiculing a husband for his unemployment during a financially difficult phase and repeatedly quarrelling over petty issues amounted to mental cruelty. Moreover, since the wife neither filed a rebuttal nor produced any counter-evidence, the Court remarked,
“Her absence throughout the trial and appeal proceedings further strengthens the unrebutted nature of the appellant’s allegations. The Family Court failed to appreciate the legal implications of this uncontroverted evidence and wrongly concluded that cruelty was not established.”
The Court further noted that the wife had voluntarily abandoned her husband and son, cutting off all relations without any valid reason or allegation against the husband, thereby demonstrating animus deserendi (the intention to permanently desert). Since the desertion had persisted from 16.09.2020, it satisfied the statutory requirement of a two-year separation before the husband filed for divorce in 2022. Accordingly, the Court remarked,
“Her conduct indicates a deliberate and willful decision to end cohabitation and abandon her matrimonial obligations, thereby justifying a decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.”
The Court also recognized that the Family Court had wrongly relied on a mediation report that was never formally exhibited and overlooked the legal significance of a clear and unequivocal act of desertion. In this backdrop, the Court concluded,
“Since the parties have been residing separately and there is no possibility of their reunion, this Court is of the view that there has been an irretrievable break-down of the marriage, beyond any scope of repair. Taking these facts into consideration, the present appeal is hereby allowed and a decree of divorce in favour of the appellant/husband is granted, while setting aside the judgment and decree dated 25.10.2023 passed by the learned Additional Third Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg District Durg (C.G.) in H.M.A. No. 905/2022.”