In a significant matrimonial ruling, 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, overturning the Family Court’s refusal to grant divorce.
Keyword: Mental cruelty under Section 13 Hindu Marriage Act
Tags: #RajasthanHighCourt #HinduMarriageAct #Section13 #MentalCruelty #MaintenanceDefault #FamilyLaw #DowryHarassment #DomesticViolenceAct #Section125CrPC #DivorceLaw
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 notable observation, the Bench ruled that such conduct results in a “forfeiture of his right to contest the matter.”
Brief Facts of the Case ;
The appellant 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 both physical and mental cruelty.
Following the birth of their daughter on 17 February 2021, the situation allegedly worsened. The wife contended that she was harassed for not bearing a male child and that the respondent and his family even expressed an intention to arrange a second marriage.
Subsequently:
-
A criminal case was registered under Sections 498-A, 406, 323, and 34 IPC.
-
Proceedings were initiated under Section 125 CrPC.
-
Relief was sought under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
An interim maintenance order directing payment of ₹5,000 per month was passed. However, the respondent allegedly defaulted repeatedly, leading to recovery warrants.
Meanwhile, his petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights was dismissed. Yet, the Family Court also dismissed the wife’s divorce petition, holding that cruelty was not established. Aggrieved, she approached the High Court.
Appellant’s Submissions
The appellant argued that the Family Court failed to properly evaluate overwhelming evidence of continuous mental cruelty.
Key points included:
-
Repeated non-appearance by the respondent in multiple judicial proceedings.
-
Persistent non-compliance with maintenance orders.
-
Financial neglect extending over years.
-
Judicial records showing recovery warrants and ex-parte proceedings.
It was emphasized that her sworn testimony remained unshaken in cross-examination and that the cumulative effect of the respondent’s conduct clearly attracted Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Act.
Respondent’s Conduct
Although initially represented, the respondent later disengaged counsel and failed to contest the appeal. His earlier defence before the Family Court included denial of cruelty and pursuit of restitution of conjugal rights. However, he did not effectively defend himself in appellate or related proceedings, prompting the High Court to proceed ex-parte.
Observations of the High Court
The Court undertook a holistic examination of the record and sharply criticised the Family Court for evaluating incidents in isolation.
Reaffirming settled principles, the Bench held that:
Mental cruelty must be assessed on the “totality of circumstances.”
The Court noted that the respondent’s conduct — including persistent absence from proceedings, prolonged failure to pay court-ordered maintenance, and disregard of judicial directions — reflected not minor lapses but a continuous and calculated pattern of indifference and neglect.
The Bench observed that the appellant had produced “clear, consistent, and cogent evidence establishing a continuous course of mental cruelty,” and that her testimony remained “wholly unshaken in cross-examination.”
Significantly, the Court held that the respondent’s deliberate abandonment of proceedings amounted to:
“A forfeiture of his right to contest the matter.”
The Family Court was found to have committed a “manifest error in appreciation of evidence” by rejecting unimpeached testimony without legally sustainable reasons.
Decision and Ratio
Allowing the appeal, the High Court:
-
Set aside the judgment and decree dated 20.08.2024 of the Family Court, Pokaran.
-
Granted a decree of divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Emerging Legal Principle
The ratio 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.
Broader Significance
The judgment strengthens matrimonial jurisprudence by affirming that:
-
Economic abandonment is a form of mental cruelty.
-
Litigation conduct can have substantive consequences.
-
Cruelty must be assessed cumulatively, not incident-wise.
By recognising sustained neglect and procedural indifference as grounds for divorce, the Rajasthan High Court has reaffirmed that marriage entails enforceable responsibilities — and persistent disregard of those obligations may justify dissolution under law.
By KANISHKSOCIALMEDIA For more updates on environmental regulations, public health policies, and developments in India’s governance, follow Kanishk Social Media for comprehensive and timely coverage of critical issues. If you found this article helpful, share it with others interested in India’s environmental efforts and policy innovation
0 Comments