It is in the fitness of things and entirely in order that the Chhattisgarh High Court at Bilaspur in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled X vs Y in FA(MAT) No. 316 of 2023 that was reserved on 01.08.2025 and then finally pronounced on 18.08.2025 has minced absolutely just no words to hold in no uncertain terms that taunting a husband for being unemployed and making unreasonable demands when he is going through financial hardship amounts to mental cruelty. It must be noted that a Division Bench comprising of Hon’ble Smt Justice Rajani Dubey and Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad made the key observation while granting divorce to a man from his wife. The Court also further observed that the wife’s conduct turning the daughter against the father, making unreasonable demands during financial strain, and leaving home with the daughter while abandoning her son reflected mental harassment and disregard for the marriage. Hence, it very rightly set aside a Family Court’s refusal to allow the husband’s plea for divorce. No denying it!

At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore for a Division Bench comprising of Hon’ble Smt Justice Rajani Dubey and himself sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that, “This first appeal under Section 28 of Hindu Marriage Act read with Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 has been preferred by the appellant-husband against the judgment and decree dated 25.10.2023, passed by the learned Additional Third Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg District Durg (C.G.) in H.M.A. No. 905/2022, whereby the learned Family Court dismissed the suit/application filed by the appellant-husband under Section 13(1)(1-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for decree of divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion.”

To put things in perspective, the Division Bench envisages in para 3 while elaborating on the facts of the case stating that, “Brief facts of the case are that the marriage between the applicant-husband and non-applicant-wife was solemnized on 26/12/1996 according to Hindu rituals and customs at Sector-6, Bhilai. After the marriage, both parties maintained their conjugal rights and were blessed with two children, a daughter namely Phalguni, aged about 19 years, and a son namely Aniket, aged about 16 years. According to the plaint, disputes arose between the parties after some years of marriage, during which the non-applicant allegedly began threatening to live separately. The non-applicant, who obtained a Ph.D degree and secured a position as a principal in Kurud with the applicant’s assistance, is said to have changed her behavior, becoming proud of her position and frequently quarreling over trivial matters, taunting the applicant regarding his job. During the COVID-19 pandemic, when the applicant’s income ceased, the non-applicant allegedly verbally abused him, calling him unemployed and demanding unnecessary things which the applicant could not fulfill, thereby subjecting him to cruelty. On 02/08/2020, the non-applicant left the matrimonial home with their daughter and went to her sister’s home, taking her belongings along. The applicant, along with his son, visited the non-applicant’s sister’s home on 08/08/2020 to bring her back, but she refused and allegedly ousted the applicant after a quarrel. Despite several efforts by the applicant, the non-applicant did not return. After about a month, the non-applicant returned with the applicant but left again after five days on 16/09/2020, leaving a letter stating that she is leaving the matrimonial home of her own will and intended to sever all relations with the applicant and her son, Aniket. Since 16/09/2020, the non-applicant has deserted the applicant without sufficient reason, prompting him to inform the Mahila Cell at Sector-6, Bhilai. The applicant and his son made multiple attempts to contact the non-applicant, who has not responded to calls, leading the applicant to file for dissolution of the marriage.”

As it turned out, the Division Bench enunciates in para 4 that, “The record reveals that the non-applicant-wife was duly served with summons and the paper publication was also made. Despite service, she did not appear before the Family Court on any of the dates of hearing. The matter was adjourned on multiple occasions, but the non-applicant failed to avail herself of those opportunities. Ultimately, the learned Family Court, Durg proceeded ex-parte, framed one issue and decided the matter based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the applicant-husband, thereby dismissing the application.”

As things stands, the Division Bench discloses in para 5 that, “Aggrieved by the ex-parte decree, the applicant-husband has filed the present appeal, contending that the non-applicant-wife neither appeared before the Trial Court nor filed any written statement, and also did not enter the witness box to record her evidence. Therefore, the applicant-husband has prayed that the ex-parte decree be set aside and the matrimonial relationship be dissolved.”

Most significantly and so also most forthrightly, the Division Bench encapsulates in para 13 what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment postulating precisely that, “The appellant-husband has made detailed and consistent allegations of mental cruelty against the respondent-wife, supported by his own affidavit (PW-1), corroborated by the testimony of PW-2, and further substantiated by documentary evidence (Exhibits P-1 to P-4). It has been clearly deposed that after obtaining a Ph.D. degree and securing a high-paying job as a Principal, the respondent’s behavior towards the appellant changed significantly. She became disrespectful, frequently taunted him for being unemployed during the COVID-19 pandemic, and engaged in repeated verbal altercations over trivial matters. These acts, including insults and humiliation during a time of financial vulnerability, clearly amount to mental cruelty as recognized under law.”

While citing a renowned and relevant case law, the Division Bench observes in para 14 that, “In the matter of V. Bhagat vs D. Bhagat (Mrs) reported in (1994) 1 SCC 337, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that mental cruelty in Section 13(1) (i-a) can broadly be defined as that conduct which inflicts upon the other party such mental pain and suffering as would make it not possible for that party to live with the other. In other words, mental cruelty must be of such a nature that the parties cannot reasonably be expected to live together. The situation must be such that the wronged party cannot reasonably be asked to put-up with such conduct and continue to live with the other party. It is not necessary to prove that the mental cruelty is such as to cause injury to the health of the petitioner. While arriving at such conclusion, regard must be had to the social status, educational level of the parties, the society they move in, the possibility or otherwise of the parties ever living together in case they are already living apart and all other relevant facts and circumstances which it is neither possible nor desirable to set out exhaustively. What is cruelty in one case may not amount to cruelty in another case. It is a matter to be determined in each case having regard to the facts and circumstances of that case. If it is a case of accusations and allegations, regard must also be had to the context in which they are made.”

Most rationally, the Division Bench propounded in para 17 holding succinctly that, “From the aforesaid evidence coupled with the above decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this Court, it is quite vivid that in the present case, the conduct of the respondent-wife falls squarely within this definition. Her behavior, including instigating the daughter against the father, making unfounded demands during a financially unstable period, and leaving the home with the daughter while abandoning the son, demonstrates a pattern of mental harassment and disregard for the matrimonial bond. It is also pertinent to note that no rebuttal or counter-evidence has been filed by the respondent-wife. Her absence throughout the trial and appeal proceedings further strengthens the unrebutted nature of the appellant’s allegations. The Family Court failed to appreciate the legal implications of this uncontroverted evidence and wrongly concluded that cruelty was not established.”

It is worth noting that the Division Bench notes in para 18 that, “The appellant has also alleged and established that the respondent-wife deserted him without any justifiable cause on 16.09.2020. The letter (Exhibit P-2) written by the respondent before leaving clearly indicates that she left the matrimonial home on her own will and volition, without attributing any reason or allegation against the appellant. She expressly stated that she would sever all ties with the appellant and her son Aniket, thereby proving animus deserendi.”

Notably, the Division Bench points out in para 23 that, “The Family Court erred in relying on a non-exhibited mediation report and failed to appreciate the legal effect of a clear, unambiguous act of desertion. The unavailability of the respondent for cross-examination and her decision to remain ex parte further support the appellant’s claim that the desertion was unjustified and deliberate.”

It would be instructive to note that the Division Bench hastens to add in para 24 noting that, “Since the parties have been residing separately and there is no possibility of their reunion, this Court is of the view that there has been an irretrievable break-down of the marriage, beyond any scope of repair. Taking these facts into consideration, the present appeal is hereby allowed and a decree of divorce in favour of the appellant/husband is granted, while setting aside the judgment and decree dated 25.10.2023 passed by the learned Additional Third Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg District Durg (C.G.) in H.M.A. No. 905/2022.”

As a corollary, the Division Bench holds in para 25 that, “In view of the foregoing discussion, the marriage solemnized between the parties is hereby dissolved.”

Finally, the Division Bench then very rightly concludes by holding in para 26 that, “Let a decree be drawn accordingly. No order as to cost(s).”