PAB vs ARB, 2025
The bench balanced individual dignity and societal norms, highlighting the seriousness of false allegations and public humiliation in intimate relationships.
Judgement Details
Court
Bombay High Court
Date of Decision
18 July 2025
Judges
Justice Revati Mohite-Dere ⦁ Justice Dr. Neela Gokhal
Citation
Acts / Provisions
Facts of the Case
-
The parties were married on 12 December 2013 and separated by 14 December 2014.
-
A mutual consent divorce was filed in April 2015, but the wife later withdrew her consent, alleging coercion.
-
The husband filed for divorce citing mental cruelty, while the wife sought restitution of conjugal rights.
-
Allegations included the wife refusing physical intimacy, publicly humiliating the husband, misbehaving with employees, and showing indifference toward his specially-abled sister.
-
The husband even shifted to a rented flat to make the relationship work, but the wife did not join him.
Issues
-
Whether the conduct of the wife amounted to mental cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act?
-
Whether the husband deserted the wife, justifying her plea for restitution of conjugal rights?
-
Whether the marriage had irretrievably broken down, warranting dissolution?
Judgement
-
The Family Court’s decree of divorce in favor of the husband was upheld.
-
The wife’s appeal was dismissed. The court recognized multiple instances of mental cruelty inflicted by the wife.
- "The husband is a part of his family's business. The unrebutted evidence pertaining to the wife's behaviour with his employees is sure to cause agony to him. Similarly, humiliating him in front of his friends is also 'cruelty' to him. Moreover, apathetic and indifferent behaviour with his specially abled sister is also sure to cause pain to him and his family members. Refusal to have a physical relationship and making allegations of extra-marital relations is also cruelty by the wife," the judges held.
-
Mediation attempts failed over the years, and the court observed that the marriage had irretrievably broken down.
- "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. It is also an admitted fact that the husband made an attempt to work on their relationship by moving out of his family home to a rented flat. He invited the wife to live there and gave her the key to the said flat. Despite this, she did not show up at the new flat. This evidence of the husband is also unchallenged, further refuting the assertion of the wife regarding him deserting her," the judges said.
-
The husband's efforts to save the marriage were accepted as genuine and unrebutted.
Held
The Bombay High Court dismissed the wife’s appeal and confirmed the divorce, stating:
-
The wife’s actions amounted to cruelty. In their order, the bench described the instant case as an "unfortunate" one, where despite the parties undergoing mediation innumerable times, the matter was not resolved.
-
The marriage had collapsed beyond repair. The husband's version remained unchallenged and credible. The relationship no longer survived in substance or spirit.
- Matrimonial proceedings between the parties commenced in the year 2015 before the Family Court, Pune and they continued to meander before reaching this Court by way of this Appeal. In an endeavour to put an end to prolonged agony of the parties and as a penultimate attempt to resolve their disputes, we placed the matter in chambers.
- We held marathon sessions, to bring the parties to an amicable settlement, but regrettably, we were not able to break the deadlock between the parties. This has brought upon us the duty to decide the fate of the matrimonial tie between the parties," the bench explained.
- Further, the judges added, "For more than a decade, the parties have been living separately. The marriage does not survive any longer and the relationship is terminated and confirmed as such legally as well, by the Family Court. This appeal simply continues the status quo awaiting an order of this Court."
Analysis
-
The judgment reinforces that mental cruelty need not be physical or violent — humiliation, refusal of intimacy, and false accusations suffice.
-
The court applied a pragmatic approach, looking at the long separation (over 10 years) and failed reconciliation attempts.
-
The emphasis on emotional well-being, respect within marriage, and genuine intent to reconcile is notable.
-
It showcases judicial recognition of irretrievable breakdown, although not yet a statutory ground, as a practical reality.
-
The bench balanced individual dignity and societal norms, highlighting the seriousness of false allegations and public humiliation in intimate relationships.