MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

Decade-Long Separation Can't Sustain Marriage: Allahabad High Court Declares Bond Beyond Repair

08 September 2024 3:58 PM

By: sayum


The Allahabad High Court, sitting at Lucknow, has granted a divorce in the case of Apoorva Gupta vs. Vandana Gupta, overturning a previous judgment by the Family Court, Hardoi. The court recognized that the decade-long separation between the couple, combined with the mental agony it caused, amounted to "mental cruelty," justifying the dissolution of their marriage. The judgment, delivered on August 30, 2024, underscores the significance of prolonged separation as a ground for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

Apoorva Gupta and Vandana Gupta were married on April 14, 2012. The couple’s relationship faced significant challenges, leading to multiple legal disputes. Vandana filed a complaint against Apoorva and his family under various sections of the IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act in 2013, from which they were acquitted in 2014. Despite attempts at reconciliation, Vandana left Apoorva's house on May 9, 2014, and the two have lived separately since then.

Apoorva filed for divorce on grounds of cruelty and desertion, but the Family Court dismissed his plea in February 2022, leading to this appeal.

The High Court critically examined the couple’s prolonged separation and its impact. It emphasized that while minor disputes in a marriage do not constitute cruelty, the circumstances of this case—where the parties had lived apart for over a decade—clearly met the threshold for mental cruelty.

The court noted that the prolonged separation caused significant mental pain and suffering, making it impossible for the parties to continue their marital relationship. Citing the Supreme Court's precedent in Rakesh Raman v. Kavita (2023), the bench reiterated that mental cruelty can manifest through sustained emotional distress, even without physical abuse.

"The long period of continuous separation of a decade establishes that the matrimonial bond is beyond repair," the court observed, adding that the marriage had become a legal fiction, devoid of any real emotional or physical connection.

The court also addressed the issue of desertion, citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Debananda Tamuli v. Kakumoni Kataky (2022). It found that Vandana's decision to leave Apoorva in 2014 and her lack of interest in resuming the marriage indicated a clear intention to abandon the marital relationship. The court ruled that this constituted desertion, further justifying the divorce.

The High Court underscored that under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, cruelty and desertion are valid grounds for divorce. It reasoned that the decade-long separation coupled with Vandana's refusal to contest the appeal demonstrated a breakdown of the marriage, both legally and emotionally. The Family Court’s earlier dismissal of the divorce petition was deemed unsustainable in law.

"The prolonged separation of the parties, leading to a decade of mental agony, falls within the broad parameters of mental cruelty, making the marriage beyond repair," the judgment reads. It further adds, "By refusing to sever the marital tie, the Family Court failed to recognize the emotional and psychological toll that prolonged separation has inflicted on both parties."

The Allahabad High Court's ruling in Apoorva Gupta vs. Vandana Gupta sets a significant precedent in matrimonial law, particularly regarding the recognition of prolonged separation as a form of mental cruelty. This judgment reaffirms the judiciary’s commitment to acknowledging the emotional realities of marital breakdowns, emphasizing that the sanctity of marriage should not override the mental well-being of the parties involved.

Date of Decision: August 30, 2024

XXX Vs. XXX

Latest Legal News