Court affirms that long separation and lack of spousal and paternal duties amount to mental cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act, dismisses husband's appeal
In a significant judgment dated October 14, 2026, the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court, comprising Justices Madhuresh Prasad and Partha Pratim Roy, dismissed the first appeal filed by Arup Kumar Sur challenging a matrimonial decree of divorce granted to his wife, Anandamoyee Sur. The trial court had decreed divorce on the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and the High Court upheld the same after a detailed examination of the facts and law.
The wife's case, as recorded, was that following their marriage in July 2010 and the birth of their son in 2011, the husband began demanding money from her, which she was unable to provide due to her father's poor financial condition. Subsequently, she alleged mental and physical cruelty including the husband's drunkenness, neglect, and forcible eviction from the matrimonial home. The parties have lived separately for over 14 years, during which the husband showed no concern for his wife or child, did not maintain them, nor attempted to reconcile.
The husband denied all allegations, claiming the wife was unwilling to reside with him and that he never tortured her or demanded money. The trial court, after considering the evidence, concluded that the husband's conduct constituted mental cruelty and decreed divorce.
On appeal, the husband contended that the wife failed to prove cruelty, especially since she did not lodge police complaints, and argued that irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not an independent ground for divorce under the Act.
The High Court, however, emphasized that the absence of cross-examination on material allegations regarding forcible eviction amounted to acceptance of those facts. The Court reiterated the legal position that cruelty includes any conduct making it unsafe or impossible to live together, which may be physical or mental in nature. The Court further observed that prolonged separation, where no effort to resume marital life is shown, may itself constitute cruelty.
Relying on Supreme Court precedents including Rakesh Raman v. Kavita (2023) and Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh (2007), the Court held that while irretrievable breakdown is not a standalone ground for divorce, a bitter and acrimonious marital relationship coupled with long separation may amount to cruelty. The Court found that the husband's admitted ignorance of his son's education and lack of maintenance demonstrated failure to discharge marital and parental duties, establishing cruelty.
Therefore, the High Court affirmed the trial court's decree of divorce, dismissing the appeal with no order as to costs. The judgment highlights the judiciary's recognition of mental cruelty and the impact of prolonged neglect and separation on marital relations under the Hindu Marriage Act.
Bottom Line:
Hindu Marriage Act - Divorce on ground of cruelty - Wife was forced to leave matrimonial home and parties lived separately for more than 14 years - Husband showed no care or concern for wife and son and made no effort to resume marital life - Failure to cross-examine wife on material allegations amounted to acceptance of her version - Though irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not an independent ground under Section 13, long separation and bitter matrimonial relationship can amount to mental cruelty - Decree of divorce affirmed.
Statutory provision(s):
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 Section 13(1)(ia)
Arup Kumar Sur v. Anandamoyee Sur, (Calcutta)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2997665
