Compelling Couple To Live Together After 30 Yrs Of Separation Amounts To Mental Cruelty: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court observed that when either of spouses have chosen to live "apart for over three decades without even a show of reconciliation or cohabitation, the very essence of marriage stands eroded."

The Court opined that, "What remains is only a legal bond without any substance. To compel the parties to reside together after such a prolonged separation would be unrelaistic and infact, would inflict further mental cruelty on both sides."

While noting that the couple is living separately since 1994, Justice Gurvinder Singh Gill and Justice Deepinder Singh Nalwa said, "It is true that the Court bears the solemn duty to safeguard the sanctity of marriage and to encourage the preservation of matrimonial ties wherever feasible. However, this obligation cannot be stretched to compel the continuation of a relationship that has become wholly unworable and devoid of substance. When a marriage has broken down, has lost all vitality and has become nothing more than a dead formality, insisting upon reunion would not only be futile but would also amount to prolonging the suffering of both the parties."

Speaking for the bench Justice Nalwa said, "It is an undisputed fact on record that the parties have been residing separately since 1994. For more than three decades, there has been a complete cessation of marital obligations and cohabitation between them, which clearly demonstrates that the very foundation of their matrimonial relationship has collapsed. The long passage of time without any effort or inclination on either side to restore companionship leaves no real possibility of reunion."

The Court added that, even the mediation proceedings conducted before the Family Court and this Court ended in failure. "These unsuccessful attempts at reconciliation is reflective of the deep-seated biterness, resentment and lack of mutual trust that has come to define their relationship."

 These observations were made while hearing an appeal against an a Family Court order, whereby the petition filed by husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking divorce on ground of cruelty was rejected.

The divorce plea before the Family Court was filled by the husband stating that they married in 1986 and had lived together for a period of six months.

It was further pleaded by the appellant-husband that since the entrance of respondent-wife to her matrimonial house, her behavior and conduct towards him was quite strange and usually behaved in a very rude and arrogant manner with appellant-husband and his old aged parents.

The Family Court while dismissing the divorce petition filed by the appellant-husband, held that since the appellant-husband and respondent-wife have admittedly been residing separately since 1994, and that there has been no cohabitation during this time, as such, question of physical cruelty committed by the respondent-wife upon the appellant-husband did not arise.

 It noted that other a criminal complaint alleging that the appellant-husband had contracted a second marriage and fathered two children from second wife does not amount to any cruelty as it is the avail legal remedies before a court of law.

After hearing the submissions, the Court noted that It is an admitted fact on record that the parties have been living separately since the year 1994 and despite the long passage of time, there has been no reconciliaion or effort to restore matrimonial harmony.

It is also undisputed that no child has been born out of the wedlock. During the hearing, a specific question was put to the respondent-wife who is present in person, whether she is willing for One Time Settlement with the appellant-husband as they only cohabit for a short period of 06 months and have been living apart for more than 31 years. However, she remains adamant for not settling the matter either way, the Court added.

In the light of the above, the Court allowed the plea and dissolved the marriage of the parties.

While disposing of the plea, the Court granted liberty to "respondent-wife to move an appropriate application before the learned Family Court, for permanent alimony."

The case falls under the restricted category as per the High Court Rules; therefore, the order cannot be uploaded

Mr. Aman Arora, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr. Veer Imaan Singh Gill, Advocate for the respondent.

Title: XXX v. XXX