REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.2012 OF 2013
SHRI RAKESH RAMAN           … APPELLANT
Versus
SMT. KAVITA      …RESPONDENT
J U D G M E N T
SUDHANSHU DHULIA, J.
1. This appeal arises out of a divorce proceeding initiated by
the   appellant   under   Section   13   of   the   Hindu   Marriage   Act,
1955,   (hereinafter   referred   to   as   the   “Act”),   in   the   Court   of
Additional District Judge (North), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. His
suit was decreed and the marriage was dissolved by the Order
of the Additional District Judge (North) dated 02.05.2009.  The
respondent/wife,   then,   filed   an   appeal   before   the   Delhi   High
Court   which   has   set   aside   the   order   of   the   Trial   Court   and
Page  1  of  17

dismissed   the   petition   of   the   husband.   Aggrieved   by   the   said
Order,   the   appellant/husband   has   filed   a   Special   Leave
Petition   before   this   Court,   in   which   leave   was   granted   on
26.02.2013.
 
2. The   appellant   and   the   respondent   were   married   under
Hindu   rituals   and   customs   in   Delhi,   on   16.04.1994.
Regrettably, it  did  not  take long  for  the  marital  discord  to set
in their marital life.   The appellant’s case is that his wife was
not   happy   in   their   small   dwelling,   and   used   offensive,   even
abusive language against him. It has also been alleged that in
September,   1994,   she   got   her   pregnancy   terminated,   without
any   prior   intimation   to   her   husband   (this   allegation   was
denied   by   the   wife   and   could   never   be   proved   against   her).   It
was   in   September   1994,   again  when   she   left   her  matrimonial
home,   but   due   to   the   efforts   made   by   the   well­wishers   and
relatives,   they   started   living   together   from   March   1995
onwards.   This  again  did  not   last  long,  as  on  16.02.1998 she
left   her   matrimonial   house,   and   lodged   a   complaint   with   the
local police on 16/17.02.1998.   In March 1998, she agreed to
Page  2  of  17

join   her   husband,   on   the   condition   that   the   appellant   would
take another accommodation and consequently  in April, 1998
another   house   was   taken   on   rent,   and   the   two   started   living
together   in   the   new   house.     But   then,   on   24.08.1998,   the
appellant   alleges   that   he   was   beaten   by   his   wife   and   her
brother.  On 29.11.1998, he was kept out of his own house for
the   entire   night.     On   17.12.1998   she   left   her   matrimonial
house   and   lodged   an   FIR   against   the   appellant   and   his
brother, under Section 498A/406 of the Indian Penal Code, at
Anand   Parbat   Police   Station,   New   Delhi.     The   appellant   and
his   brother   were   arrested   the   same   day,   while   they   were
attending   a   marriage   ceremony,   and   this   was   done   in   the
presence   of   15   to   20   of   his   friends.     Later   the   two   were
released on bail, though the wife persisted with the matter and
even   moved   an   application   for   cancellation   of   their   bail.   The
wife   then   filed   a   complaint   under   Sections   323   and   324   read
with   Section   34   IPC   against   the   appellant/husband   and   his
family   members, however, they   were subsequently   discharged
from   the   case.   The   respondent   also   initiated   proceedings
against appellant under Section 107 read with Section 150 of
Page  3  of  17

the   Code   of   Criminal   Procedure.   She   then   filed   a   petition,
under   Section   18   of   Hindu   Adoption   and   Maintenance   Act,
1956, for her maintenance. 
3. Left   by   his   wife   and   burdened   with   multiple   litigations
slapped   on   him,   the   appellant   took   the   decision   to   end   the
matrimonial   relations.   He   thus   moved   his   petition   for
dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1) (ia) & (ib) of Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955, before the Additional District Judge, North
Delhi on 20.09.2002,  inter alia,  on the facts, as narrated in the
preceding paragraph.
  
4. The   respondent   denies   that   she   ever   ‘deserted’   her
husband   or   inflicted   any   cruelty   on   him.   Her   counsel   would
submit  that  she   only   took   recourse  to   legal  avenues  available
to   her   under   the   law.   She   alleges   that   her   ornaments   which
were her ‘stridhan’, were taken away and were never returned,
and   how   she   was   forced   to   file   a   case   against   her   husband
under  Sections 498A & 406 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). It
was  also  her   case  that  she had  made every  possible  effort  for
reconciliation, but due to the non­cooperation of the appellant,
Page  4  of  17

all   efforts   towards   mediation   and   settlement   resulted   in
failure.   She   has   denied   that   she   had   terminated   her
pregnancy.
5. The   Family   Court   on   15.10.2003   framed   issues   on
cruelty   and   desertion.     The   Trial   Court   gave   the   findings   on
cruelty   as   well   as   desertion   in   favour   of   the   husband   and   a
decree for the dissolution of marriage was passed.
6. The   High   Court   in   appeal,   came   to   the   conclusion   that
the   mere   fact   that   the   respondent   did   not   allow   her   husband
to enter his house on 29.11.1998, would not prove that it was
her intention to bring cohabitation permanently to an end and
therefore   the   ground   of   dissolution   of   marriage   on   desertion
were not made out. As far as filing of various complaints under
Sections   323,   324   and   498A   IPC   are   concerned,   the   High
Court   was   of   the   view   that   mere   filing   of   such   complaints,   or
their   result   in   acquittal   would   not   amount   to   cruelty,   as   the
wife was only exercising her options available to her under the
law. Moreover, what has to be seen are also the circumstances
under which these complaints were filed.
Page  5  of  17

 
7. We have heard Mr. S.K. Rungta, learned Senior Advocate
for   the   appellant/husband   and   Mr.   S.K.   Bhalla   learned
Advocate   for   the   respondent/wife   at   length   and   perused   the
material on record.
 
8. This case has travelled from the Family Court to the High
Court and now finally to this Court. The decision of Delhi High
Court  is  of 08.04.2011,  which  goes back to  twelve years.    We
have   to   take   into   consideration   all   the   facts   which   are   before
us as of now.   To our mind the facts which we must take into
account   are:   (i)   that   the   “couple”   is   now   living   separately   for
the last almost 25 years, and all these years there has been no
cohabitation   between   them.     (ii)   That   there   is   no   child   out   of
the   wedlock,   and   the   couple   lived   together   as   husband   and
wife for barely 4 years.  (iii) That repeated efforts by the Courts
for reconciliation or settlement have resulted in failure.
9.             At   the   very   initial   stage   the   Trial   Court   had   sent   the
parties for mediation, which did not succeed.   This Court had
also   sent   the   two   for   mediation,   which   failed.     The   case   was
again sent for settlement in the Lok Adalat but with no results.
Page  6  of  17

On   11.04.2015,   this   Court   again   requested   the   parties   to
explore   possibilities   of   living   together,   but   nothing
materialised.     Then   on   09.05.2015,   this   Court   asked   the
parties   to   come   to   some   mutual   settlement,   but   in   vain.   In
other words, every single effort of the Court and the mediators,
towards   a   compromise   or   settlement   has   led   to   a   blind   alley.
Even   now,   before   giving   a   formal   hearing   to   the   parties   we
tried   to   gather   the   current   situation   from   the   parties.   The
appellant   has   unequivocally   stated   that   there   is   no   room   for
any compromise or settlement and he requests that a decision
be made in this case on its merits, whereas the counsel for the
respondent apprised this Court that the respondent would like
to   save   her   marriage   and   he   prays   for   mediation   once   again.
He   would   also   submit   that   no   ground   for   divorce   has   been
made out and the well­considered decision of Delhi High Court
should be upheld.
10.         The   husband   and   wife,   who   are   before   us   have   been
living separately since the last 25 years.  There is no child out
of   the   wedlock.     There   are   bitter   allegations   of   cruelty   and
Page  7  of  17

desertion from both the sides and multiple litigations between
the   two   in   the   last   more   than   25   years.   This   embittered
relationship   between   the   appellant   and   the   respondent   which
has not witnessed any moment of peace for the last 25 years is
a   marital   relationship   only   on   paper.   The   fact   is   that   this
relationship has broken down irretrievably long back.   
11.   The   High   Court   has   taken   a   view   that   mere   filing   of
criminal   cases   against   the   appellant­husband   would   not
constitute cruelty.  All the same, the number of criminal cases
filed by the respondent­wife against the appellant­husband are
far   too   many   which   have   been   discussed   above.     All   these
cases   have   either   resulted   in   discharge   or   acquittal   of   the
appellant­husband,   if   not   before   the   pronouncement   of   the
Judgment   of   the   Delhi   High   Court   but   definitely   after   the
pronouncement   of   the   Judgment   of   the   Delhi   High   Court.
Moreover, a three Judge Bench of this Court in  Naveen Kohli
v.  Neelu Kohli 1
  held that repeatedly filing of criminal cases by
one   party   against   the   other   in   a   matrimonial   matter   would
1   (2006) 4 SCC 558
Page  8  of  17

amount   to   cruelty   and   the   same   was   reiterated   by   a   Division
Bench of this Court in  K. Srinivas Rao  v . D.A. Deepa 2
.
12. Other aspect which we must consider is the fact that for
the   last   25   years   the   appellant   and   respondent,   are   living
separately,   and   have   not   cohabitated.   There   is   absolutely   no
scope of reconciliation between the parties. There is in fact no
bond between the two and as the Law Commission in its 71st
report said about such a marriage, which is a marriage which
has   de   facto   broken   down,   and   only   needs   a   de   jure
recognition   by   the   law.     The   same   was   reiterated   by   the   Law
Commission in its 217 th
 report.
13. Under   similar   circumstances,   this   Court   in   R.   Srinivas
Kumar   v . R. Shametha 3
,   Munish Kakkar   v.   Nidhi Kakkar 4
and   Neha   Tyagi   v.   Lieutenant   Colonel   Deepak   Tyagi 5
  has
held   that   an   irretrievable   marriage   is   a   marriage   where
husband   and   wife   have   been   living   separately   for   a
2   (2013) 5 SCC 226 
3   (2019) 9 SCC 409
4   (2020) 14 SCC 657
5   (2022) 3 SCC 86
Page  9  of  17

considerable period and there is absolutely no chance of their
living   together   again.   In   all   the   above   cited   three   cases,   this
Court   in   exercise   of   its   power   under   Article   142   of   the
Constitution of India has dissolved the marriage on the ground
of  irretrievable breakdown  as a  ground,  which  otherwise  does
not exist under the Hindu Marriage Act.
14. In   Naveen   Kohli   (supra),   a   strong   recommendation   has
been   made   by   this   Court   to   the   Union   of   India   to   consider
adding   irretrievable   breakdown   down   of   a   marriage   as   a
ground for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act.
15. The   multiple   Court   battles   between   them   and   the
repeated   failures   in   mediation   and   conciliation   is   at   least
testimony   of   this   fact   that   no   bond   now   survive   between   the
couple,   it   is   indeed   a   marriage   which   has   broken   down
irretrievably. 
  
16. Matrimonial   cases   before   the   Courts   pose   a   different
challenge,   quite   unlike   any   other,   as   we   are   dealing   with
human   relationships   with   its   bundle   of   emotions,   with   all   its
Page  10  of  17

faults   and   frailties.       It   is   not   possible   in   every   case   to   pin
point   to   an   act   of   “cruelty”   or   blameworthy   conduct   of   the
spouse.     The   nature   of   relationship,   the   general   behaviour   of
the parties towards each other, or long separation between the
two   are   relevant   factors   which   a   Court   must   take   into
consideration.     In   Samar   Ghosh   v .   Jaya   Ghosh 6
  a   three
judge Bench of this Court had dealt in detail as to what would
constitute   cruelty   under   Section   13   (1)   (ia)   of   the   Act.     An
important   guideline   in   the   above   decision   is   on   the   approach
of   a   Court   in   determining   cruelty.   What   has   to   be   examined
here is the entire matrimonial relationship, as cruelty may not
be   in   a   violent   act   or   acts   but   in   a   given   case   has   to   be
gathered   from   injurious   reproaches,   complaints,   accusations,
taunts,   etc.     The   Court   relied   on   the   definition   of   cruelty   in
matrimonial   relationships   in   Halsbury’s  Laws  of   England   (Vol
13,   4 th
  Edn,   Para   1269,   Pg   602)   which   must   be   reproduced
here:
“The   general   rule   in   all   cases   of   cruelty   is   that
the   entire   matrimonial   relationship   must   be
considered,   and   that   rule   is   of   special   value
when the cruelty consists not of violent acts but
of   injurious   reproaches,   complaints,
6  (2007) 4 SCC 511
Page  11  of  17

accusations   or   taunts.   In   cases   where   no
violence is averred, it is undesirable to consider
judicial pronouncements with a view to creating
certain   categories   of   acts   or   conduct   as   having
or   lacking   the   nature   or   quality   which   renders
them  capable or incapable in all circumstances
of amounting to cruelty; for it is the effect of the
conduct   rather   than   its   nature   which   is   of
paramount importance in assessing a complaint
of  cruelty.  Whether  one  spouse  has  been  guilty
of   cruelty   to   the   other   is   essentially   a   question
of  fact   and  previously   decided  cases  have  little,
if any, value. The court should bear in mind the
physical and mental  condition  of the parties as
well as their social status, and should consider
the   impact   of   the   personality   and   conduct   of
one   spouse   on   the   mind   of   the   other,   weighing
all  incidents   and   quarrels   between   the   spouses
from   that   point   of   view;   further,   the   conduct
alleged   must   be   examined   in   the   light   of   the
complainant's   capacity   for   endurance   and   the
extent   to   which   that   capacity   is   known   to   the
other   spouse.   Malevolent   intention   is   not
essential   to   cruelty   but   it   is   an   important
element where it exists.”
The   view   taken   by   the   Delhi   High   Court   in   the   present
case   that   mere   filing   of   criminal   cases   by   the   wife   does   not
constitute   cruelty   as   what   has   also   to   be   seen   are   the
circumstances under which cases were filed, is a finding we do
not   wish   to   disregard   totally,   in   fact   as   a   pure   proposition   of
law it may be correct, but then we must also closely examine
the entire facts of the case which are now before us.  When we
take   into   consideration   the   facts   as   they   exist   today,   we   are
Page  12  of  17

convinced   that   continuation   of   this   marriage   would   mean
continuation   of   cruelty,  which   each   now   inflicts   on   the   other.
Irretrievable breakdown of a marriage may not be a ground for
dissolution   of   marriage,   under   the   Hindu   Marriage   Act,   but
cruelty is.  A marriage can be dissolved by a decree of divorce ,
inter  alia ,  on   the  ground  when  the   other  party  “has,  after   the
solemnization   of   the   marriage   treated   the   petitioner   with
cruelty” 7
.     In   our   considered   opinion,   a   marital   relationship
which has only  become  more bitter  and  acrimonious  over   the
years, does nothing  but inflicts cruelty  on  both the  sides.   To
keep   the   façade   of   this   broken   marriage   alive   would   be   doing
injustice   to   both   the   parties.     A   marriage   which   has   broken
down   irretrievably,   in   our   opinion   spells   cruelty   to   both   the
parties,   as   in   such   a   relationship   each   party   is   treating   the
other   with   cruelty.     It   is   therefore   a   ground   for   dissolution   of
marriage under Section 13 (1) (ia) of the Act. 
17. Cruelty   has   not   been   defined   under   the   Act.     All   the
same,   the   context   where   it   has   been   used,   which   is   as   a
ground for dissolution of a marriage would show that it has to
7    Section 13 (1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Page  13  of  17

be seen as a ‘human conduct’ and ‘behavior” in a matrimonial
relationship.     While   dealing   in   the   case   of   Samar   Ghosh
(supra)   this Court opined that cruelty  can be physical as well
as mental: ­
  “46…If   it   is   physical,   it   is   a   question   of
fact   and   degree.     If   it   is   mental,   the
enquiry   must   begin   as   to   the   nature   of
the   cruel   treatment   and   then   as   to   the
impact   of   such   treatment   on   the   mind   of
the   spouse.     Whether   it   caused
reasonable apprehension that it would be
harmful   or   injurious   to   live   with   the
other,  ultimately,  is  a   matter   of  inference
to   be   drawn   by   taking   into   account   the
nature of the conduct and its effect on the
complaining spouse.
Cruelty can be even unintentional: ­
…The   absence   of   intention   should   not
make   any   difference   in   the   case,   if   by
ordinary   sense   in   human   affairs,   the   act
complained   of   could   otherwise   be
regarded   as   cruelty.     Intention   is   not   a
necessary   element   in   cruelty.     The   relief
to   the   party   cannot   be   denied   on   the
ground   that   there   has  been  no   deliberate
or wilful ill­treatment.”
This  Court   though   did   ultimately   give   certain
illustrations of mental cruelty.  Some of these are as follows: 
(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.
Page  14  of  17

(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.        
(emphasis supplied)
18. We   have   a   married   couple   before   us   who   have   barely
stayed  together  as   a  couple   for   four   years  and  who   have  now
been living separately for the last 25 years.   There is no child
out   of   the   wedlock.     The   matrimonial   bond   is   completely
broken   and   is   beyond   repair.     We   have   no   doubt   that   this
relationship must end as its continuation is causing cruelty on
both   the   sides.     The   long   separation   and   absence   of
cohabitation   and   the   complete   breakdown   of   all   meaningful
Page  15  of  17

bonds   and   the   existing   bitterness   between   the   two,   has   to   be
read   as   cruelty   under   Section   13(1)   (ia)   of   the   1955   Act.     We
therefore   hold   that   in   a   given   case,   such   as   the   one   at   hand,
where  the  marital  relationship  has   broken   down   irretrievably,
where   there   is   a   long   separation   and   absence   of   cohabitation
(as   in   the   present   case   for   the   last   25   years),   with   multiple
Court  cases between  the   parties;  then  continuation   of  such  a
‘marriage’   would   only   mean   giving   sanction   to   cruelty   which
each   is   inflicting   on   the   other.     We   are   also   conscious   of   the
fact   that   a   dissolution   of   this   marriage   would   affect   only   the
two parties as there is no child out of the wedlock.
19. Under   these   circumstances,   we   uphold   the   Order   of   the
Trial   Court,   though   for   different   grounds   given   by   us   in   our
order, and we set aside the Order of the High Court and grant
a decree of divorce to the appellant/husband.   Their marriage
shall stand dissolved.
20. However,   considering   the   fact   that   the
appellant/husband   is   an   employee   in   Life   Insurance
Corporation,   as   we   have   been   informed   at   the   Bar   and   his
Page  16  of  17

present salary is more than Rs.1,00,000/­ (One Lakh Rupees)
per month, we deem it fit and proper that he gives an amount
of Rs.30,00,000/­ (Thirty Lakh Rupees) to the respondent/wife
as permanent alimony. This amount of Rs.30,00,000/­ (Thirty
Lakh   Rupees)   shall   be   deposited   in   the   name   of   the
respondent, within a period of four weeks from today with the
Registry   of   this   Court.   The   decree   of   divorce   shall   be   made
effective only from the date of such a deposit. On the event of
such deposit, the Registry after verifying the credentials of the
respondent/wife   shall   disburse   the   amount   to   the
respondent/wife without further reference to this Court.
 
With the aforesaid directions, the appeal stands allowed. 
          ..……….………………….J.
 [SUDHANSHU DHULIA]
    ...………………………….J.
 [J. B. PARDIWALA]
New Delhi.
April 26, 2023.  
Page  17  of  17