Divorce Law | Permanent Abandonment of Marital Life Satisfies Grounds for Desertion: Andhra Pradesh High Court

The Andhra Pradesh High Court upheld a decree of divorce granted to the husband, Polisetty Srinivasarao, on the grounds of desertion under Section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The Court found that the couple’s prolonged separation of nearly 27 years, with no attempts at reconciliation, amounted to desertion by the wife, Polisetty Sripadmavati. In affirming the trial court’s decision, the High Court underscored that the lack of cohabitation and the wife’s unwillingness to resume marital life demonstrated a clear intent to permanently abandon the marriage.

The marriage between Polisetty Srinivasarao (respondent) and Polisetty Sripadmavati (appellant) took place in 1996, but they separated shortly thereafter. The husband filed for divorce in 2005 under Section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, asserting that his wife had deserted him without reasonable cause. The trial court granted the divorce in 2007, based on the wife’s prolonged separation and lack of intent to reconcile. The wife appealed this decision, challenging the finding of desertion and arguing that the trial court had failed to establish her intent to abandon the marriage (animus deserendi).

The appellant argued that the trial court erred in granting divorce without a specific finding of animus deserendi, or intent to desert. The High Court, however, held that in cases of prolonged separation without any efforts for reconciliation, the intention to abandon can be inferred from the circumstances.

“Desertion is not merely physical separation but an intentional and permanent forsaking of marital obligations. Here, the wife’s long absence from the matrimonial home, coupled with her unwillingness to reconcile, satisfies the grounds for desertion,” the Court noted [Paras 12-16].

Citing Bipin Chander Jaisinghbhai Shah v. Prabhavati and Savitri Pandey v. Prem Chandra Pandey, the Court reiterated that desertion involves both separation and an intention to permanently abandon the marriage. The absence of any reasonable cause for separation further supported the respondent's claim.

The Court observed that desertion could be inferred from continuous conduct that demonstrates a lack of intention to resume marital life. The Court emphasized that desertion, for purposes of matrimonial disputes, is not a single act but a continuous course of conduct reflecting the deserting spouse’s unwillingness to fulfill marital obligations.

“Desertion, as envisaged under the law, includes a continuous refusal to cohabit, especially when no attempts at reconciliation are made despite multiple opportunities,” the Court held [Paras 21-23].

The Court referenced several precedents, including G. Vamsi Mohan v. G. Aparna and Rakesh Raman v. Kavita, which established that long-term separation without efforts to reconcile amounts to constructive desertion. In cases where spouses have remained apart for an extended period, courts have been inclined to view such prolonged separation as evidence of the irreparable breakdown of the marital relationship.

“Continued separation, especially when no reconciliation efforts are made, constitutes cruelty and justifies a divorce. Forcing the parties to remain in such a marriage would only perpetuate mental suffering,” the Court observed, citing Rakesh Raman v. Kavita [Para 25].

The appellant contended that desertion requires an explicit demonstration of intent to abandon the marriage. The Court, however, clarified that intent can be inferred from conduct, especially in cases where the spouses have been separated for decades with no attempts to reunite. The Court held that requiring direct proof of intent in such cases would be impractical, as the facts themselves suggest a clear intent to end marital relations.

“Where there is an extended period of separation, the absence of any attempts at reconciliation itself speaks to the intention of permanent abandonment,” the Court noted [Para 17].

In its final order, the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the trial court’s decree of divorce on the grounds of desertion. The Court underscored that the wife’s long absence from the marital home, lack of cohabitation, and unwillingness to resume marital duties constituted desertion under Section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

Appeal Dismissed: The Court upheld the trial court’s decree of divorce on grounds of desertion.

Desertion as a Continuous Offence: The Court clarified that desertion is a continuing act and does not necessarily require explicit evidence of intent if separation is prolonged without reconciliation efforts.

Constructive Desertion Established by Long Separation: The Court reaffirmed that prolonged separation, with no intention to reconcile, suffices to establish desertion.

Extended Separation Implies Intent to Desert: The High Court clarified that when a spouse remains separated for an extended period without attempting reconciliation, an intention to permanently abandon the marriage can be inferred.

Desertion and Constructive Abandonment: Courts may view prolonged separation as constructive desertion, particularly when it reflects an absence of intent to fulfill marital obligations.

Judicial Precedent Favors Divorce in Irreparable Marriages: This ruling aligns with recent judgments where courts have prioritized the practical realities of matrimonial disputes, emphasizing that law should not enforce marriages that are effectively dead.

Date of Decision: October 25, 2024
Polisetty Sripadmavati v. Polisetty Srinivasarao @ Balaji