Her Claims of Desire for Cohabitation Ring Hollow in Light of the Evidence of Persistent Cruelty: Bombay High Court Upholds Divorce Decree, Dismisses Wife’s Restitution Plea

“Appellant’s Allegations Lack Credibility and the Marriage Has Completely Broken Down Beyond Repair” — Bombay High Court, through a division bench comprising Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice Dr. Neela Gokhale, delivered a significant judgment, upholding the decree of divorce granted by the Family Court, Pune, and dismissing the wife’s plea for restitution of conjugal rights. The Court meticulously examined the evidence and concluded that the marriage, solemnised on 12th December 2013, had irrevocably broken down within a year, leaving no scope for reconciliation.

“Her Claims of Desire for Cohabitation Ring Hollow in Light of the Evidence of Persistent Cruelty,” Observes High Court

The Bombay High Court on 17th July 2025 affirmed the Family Court's decision dissolving the marriage of Priya and Aashish Bodas under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The judgment is a critical reiteration of judicial principles on cruelty, desertion, and the breakdown of marital ties, highlighting the futility of enforcing a dead marriage through restitution petitions.

XXX (appellant) and XXX (respondent) entered into matrimony on 12th December 2013. Despite mediation efforts, both judicial and informal, the marriage fell apart within a year. The couple lived together barely for twelve months, separating on 14th December 2014. The matter saw multiple legal proceedings, including an initial mutual consent divorce petition under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, which was subsequently withdrawn by the appellant. Following the withdrawal, the appellant instituted proceedings for restitution of conjugal rights while the respondent counterclaimed for divorce on grounds of cruelty and desertion.

The Family Court, after a full trial, dismissed the appellant’s restitution petition and granted a decree of divorce in favour of the respondent on 28th November 2019. The appellant challenged this decree before the Bombay High Court.

The primary legal questions before the Court revolved around whether the appellant was entitled to restitution of conjugal rights, whether the respondent proved cruelty and desertion, and whether the appellant was entitled to maintenance.

The Court underlined the essential requirement under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act: the petitioner must show that the respondent withdrew from society without reasonable cause. The Court observed:

“There is no averment either in the Petition or in the evidence led by the Appellant alleging or suggesting such withdrawal by the Respondent. On the contrary, she proceeded to make allegations against the Respondent.”

Referring to the evidence on record, the Court noted contradictions in the appellant's claims. Despite alleging household harassment, she admitted to the presence of multiple domestic helps. Her allegations of being forced to consent to divorce were unsubstantiated, and the police complaints were filed only after the mutual consent proceedings failed, reflecting a vengeful motive rather than a genuine grievance.

Relying on settled legal principles, particularly the Supreme Court's decision in Roopa Soni v. Kamal Narayan Soni (2023) 16 SCC 715, the High Court reiterated that cruelty is subjective and must be contextually determined.

The Court concluded:

“The Respondent’s unrebutted evidence pertaining to the Appellant’s conduct — humiliating the Respondent, maltreating his specially abled sister, making unfounded accusations of infidelity, and refusing conjugal relations — cumulatively establishes cruelty.”

The Court further noted that the Appellant had deserted the Respondent by voluntarily leaving the matrimonial home in December 2014 without just cause and filing police complaints thereafter, which indicated animosity rather than a desire for reconciliation.

Rejecting the appellant's fresh claim for maintenance of ₹1,00,000 per month raised for the first time during the appellate proceedings, the Court held:

“There was neither any prayer nor application made before the Family Court for maintenance; no evidence led on this aspect. Hence, the prayer is untenable and rejected.”

The High Court observed that the Family Court's judgment was “meticulous and well-reasoned,” based on cogent appreciation of evidence, and called out the appellant’s conduct as reflective of cruelty. The bench noted:

“The marriage has broken down irretrievably, and the continuation of this litigation is nothing but a legal fiction prolonging the inevitable.”

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the appeal, upheld the divorce, and rejected the appellant's belated maintenance claim, while clarifying that she remains free to approach appropriate forums for maintenance in separate proceedings, if advised.

This judgment serves as a reminder of the judiciary's reluctance to enforce dead marriages and reaffirms the protective jurisdiction of courts to prevent misuse of restitution provisions when facts point to irretrievable breakdown. It reinforces that parties cannot selectively present grievances after failing to reach mutual settlements and highlights the judiciary’s role in preventing misuse of legal remedies to harass the other spouse.

Date of Decision: 17th July 2025