The High Court concluded that the evidence clearly established prolonged separation, repeated unsuccessful attempts at reconciliation and conduct that caused mental cruelty to the husband. (AI image for representative purpose)The Chhattisgarh High Court has upheld a decree of divorce granted in favour of a husband, holding that prolonged separation, the wife's continued refusal to resume cohabitation despite repeated reconciliation efforts, and the overall conduct of the parties established mental cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act. The Court also affirmed the award of Rs 10 lakh as permanent alimony, finding no reason to interfere with the Family Court's exercise of discretion.A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal observed that the matrimonial relationship had reached a stage where there was no possibility of reconciliation and compelling the parties to remain married would only prolong their suffering.Observing that the marriage had completely broken down in practical terms, the Court held:"Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is evident that the matrimonial bond between the parties has irretrievably broken down, and the relationship has reached a stage where there remains no possibility of the parties resuming cohabitation."BackgroundThe dispute arose from a marriage solemnised on 29.06.2020 according to Hindu rites and customs. No child was born from the marriage. According to the husband, differences emerged soon after the marriage because the wife insisted on living separately from his joint family and had strained relations with his family members. He claimed that after leaving the matrimonial home in February 2022 for her brother's marriage, she never returned despite repeated requests and counselling efforts.The husband also claimed that the wife had taken ancestral jewellery and other valuables while leaving the matrimonial home. Relying on email correspondence, complaints before the Mahila Thana and counselling proceedings conducted at the One Stop Sakhi Centre, he argued that she was unwilling to resume the matrimonial relationship and sought dissolution of the marriage on the grounds of cruelty and desertion under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.The wife denied all allegations. She maintained that she had been subjected to harassment by the husband and his family members and asserted that she was always willing to continue the marriage. She also claimed that the husband had uploaded his profile on a matrimonial website describing himself as "Awaiting Divorce" even before filing the divorce petition. According to her, he had also created a fake matrimonial profile in her name, leading her to lodge complaints with the police and the website, following which an FIR was registered under the Indian Penal Code and the Information Technology Act.After considering the evidence, the Family Court granted a decree of divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion and awarded the wife permanent alimony of Rs 10 lakh. Challenging that decision, the wife filed the present appeal before the High Court.Parties' SubmissionsThe appellant-wife argued that the Family Court had failed to properly appreciate the evidence and had accepted the husband's allegations without adequate corroboration. She submitted that the husband had failed to establish either cruelty or desertion as required under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act.According to her, she had consistently expressed her willingness to resume cohabitation, whereas the husband had shown no genuine intention to preserve the marriage. She further argued that the Family Court wrongly treated her complaints under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act as acts of cruelty without any judicial finding that those proceedings were false or malicious.The wife also challenged the award of permanent alimony, arguing that the Family Court had failed to determine the husband's actual income and assets in accordance with the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha. She submitted that the respondent was engaged in a profitable business and that the award of Rs 10 lakh had been made without proper financial disclosure by the parties.Supporting the Family Court's judgment, the husband argued that the wife had deserted the matrimonial home in February 2022 and had consistently refused to return despite repeated requests by him, his family members and several reconciliation efforts. He contended that the prolonged separation and the wife's conduct amounted to mental cruelty, making continuation of the marriage impossible. He also defended the award of Rs 10 lakh as permanent alimony, submitting that it was fair and justified in the circumstances of the case.The principal question before the High Court was whether the Family Court had correctly concluded that the wife's conduct amounted to cruelty and desertion warranting dissolution of the marriage, and whether the award of Rs 10 lakh as permanent alimony required interference in appeal.Wife's Conduct and Refusal to Resume Cohabitation Caused Mental CrueltyAfter reappreciating the evidence on record, the High Court found no error in the Family Court's conclusion that the wife's conduct amounted to mental cruelty under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act.The Court observed that the parties had been living separately since February 2022 and that repeated efforts by the husband, his family members and various counselling authorities to restore the marriage had failed. It noted that the evidence showed the wife had consistently refused to return to the matrimonial home despite these attempts.Agreeing with the Family Court, the Bench held that the wife's prolonged refusal to resume cohabitation deprived the husband of matrimonial companionship and consortium, causing him mental pain and emotional distress. It held that, viewed cumulatively, her conduct constituted mental cruelty.The High Court also attached significance to the mediation proceedings conducted during the pendency of the appeal.It noted that, in an attempt to resolve the dispute amicably, the matter had been referred to mediation, particularly to explore the possibility of settlement regarding permanent alimony and dissolution of marriage. However, despite sincere efforts by the mediator, no settlement could be reached.According to the Court, the failure of mediation further demonstrated that the matrimonial relationship had completely broken down and that there was no realistic possibility of the parties resuming their marital life.The Court observed that the mediation failed primarily because of the appellant's "exorbitant" monetary demand, which the respondent was unwilling to accept.Demand for Rs 2 Crore Also ConsideredWhile examining the evidence, the High Court referred to the wife's cross-examination, where it recorded that she had stated she would agree to a divorce if she received a lump sum of Rs 2 crore from the husband.The Court observed that this statement, coupled with her refusal to resume cohabitation despite repeated reconciliation efforts, indicated that she had no genuine intention of continuing the matrimonial relationship. It also noted that the parties had remained separated for more than three years, further reducing any possibility of reconciliation.Court Finds No Reason to Disturb Family Court's FindingsThe Bench rejected the wife's arguments that the Family Court had ignored her evidence or wrongly shifted the burden of proof.It held that the Family Court had properly appreciated both the oral and documentary evidence and that its findings were supported by the material available on record. The appellant, the Court observed, had failed to demonstrate any perversity, illegality or material irregularity warranting appellate interference.The High Court further noted that the Family Court had relied upon the parties' depositions, documentary evidence and the surrounding circumstances before concluding that the matrimonial relationship had become irretrievably strained in practical terms.No Interference With Permanent AlimonyThe appellant also challenged the Family Court's award of Rs 10 lakh as permanent alimony.Rejecting this argument, the High Court observed that the respondent had placed material regarding his business before the Family Court, while the appellant herself was a graduate in Fine Arts and worked as an artist.Considering the overall facts and circumstances, the Bench held that the appellant had failed to establish that the amount awarded was arbitrary or contrary to the settled principles governing permanent alimony. It therefore found no justification to interfere with the Family Court's exercise of discretion.The High Court concluded that the evidence clearly established prolonged separation, repeated unsuccessful attempts at reconciliation and conduct that caused mental cruelty to the husband.Observing that continuation of the marriage would only prolong the suffering of both parties, the Court held that no interference with the decree of divorce was warranted.Accordingly, it dismissed the appeal, affirmed the Family Court's decree dissolving the marriage and upheld the award of Rs 10 lakh as permanent alimony. The Court further directed the husband to deposit the decretal amount before the Family Court within four weeks, leaving the wife at liberty to withdraw the same in accordance with law.FA(MAT) No. 287 of 2025Ayushi Ginoria vs Sumit AgrawalFor Appellant: Mr. Manoj Paranjape, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr.Arpan Verma, Advocate For Respondent: Mr.Trivikram Nayak, Advocate(The author of this article, Vatsal Chandra is a Delhi-based Advocate practicing before the courts of Delhi NCR.)