Refusal To Have Physical Relationship & Making Allegation Of Extra-Marital Relation Is Cruelty: Bombay High Court Upholds Divorce Decree

In this case, before the Bombay High Court, despite the parties undergoing mediation innumerable times, the matrimonial matter was not resolved.

The Division Bench of Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice Neela Gokhale observed, “The Respondent is a part of his family’s business. The unrebutted evidence pertaining to the Appellant’s behavior with his employees is sure to cause agony to him. Similarly, humiliating the Respondent in front of his friends is also ‘cruelty’ to him. Moreover, apathetic and indifferent behavior with the Respondent’s specially abled sister is also sure to cause pain to the Respondent and his family members. Refusal to have a physical relationship and making allegations of extra-marital relations is also cruelty by the Appellant and established as such for want of any cross-examination on that aspect. That the marriage has broken without any possibility of being mended is quite clear even from the fact of the parties filing a mutual consent divorce petition as early as in 2015.”

Advocate Usha Tanna represented the Appellant while Advocate Vikramaditya Deshmukh represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The marriage of couple took place in the year 2013. The parties resided together for a total period of about 12 months and have been separated since December 14, 2014. As a penultimate attempt to resolve their disputes, the matter was placed in chambers, and marathon sessions were held but the deadlock between the parties could not be broken. The Appellant-wife challenged the judgment passed by the Family Court whereby her Petition filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA) for Restitution of conjugal rights was dismissed and the counterclaim of the Respondent husband for divorce was allowed. Thus, the marriage between the parties stood dissolved by a decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib).

Reasoning

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the Appellant alleged that she was made to do all the housework in the Respondent’s house. Despite this allegation, the Appellant’s evidence revealed her admissions that there was one servant in the house for 24 hours, another servant for house-cleaning, washing utensils, etc and another servant for cooking. As per the Bench, this allegation was correctly held as not proved by the Family Court.

The Bench also noted, “The Family Court in paragraph No.19 of the impugned judgment and order has correctly assessed the interpretation of Section 9 of the HMA. The Appellant seeking restitution of conjugal rights was required to demonstrate withdrawal by the Respondent, from the society of the Appellant without reasonable excuse. There is no averment either in the Petition or in the evidence led by the Appellant alleging/suggesting such withdrawal by the Respondent.On the contrary, she has proceeded to make allegations against the Respondent as mentioned in paragraph No. 5 herein above. Thus, the Family Court has raised a genuine doubt as to the bona fide desire of the Appellant to resume cohabitation. Her claims of the Respondent demanding divorce from her during their cohabitation are not substantiated by cogent evidence.”

It was also noticed that the Appellant made a police complaint against the Respondent and his family members only after she withdrew her consent to the divorce petition. The unchallenged and unrebutted testimony of the husband demonstrated attempts made by him to save their marriage. Thereafter, the filing of the mutual consent petition established the fact that even the Appellant was inclined to end the marital tie, especially in the absence of any testimony to show that she was forced to sign the petition.

In light of such aspects and the fact that the parties have been living separately for more than a decade, the Bench found no infirmity in the impugned order. On the claim made by the Appellant seeking maintenance of Rs 1,00,000 from the Respondent, the Bench found that there was neither any prayer nor any application made by the Appellant seeking permanent alimony and maintenance before the Family Court. Thus, rejecting the plea for maintenance, the Bench dismissed the appeal.

Cause Title: X v. Y (Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-AS:29580-DB)

Appearance:

Appellant: Advocates Usha Tanna, Hemal Ganatra, Rushda Patel

Respondent: Advocates Vikramaditya Deshmukh, M. S. Khadilkar, Chinmay Page, Ashutosh Pawar

Click here to read/download Order