Wife’s ₹2 Crore Divorce Demand and Refusal to Resume Matrimonial Life: Chhattisgarh High Court Upholds Divorce on Ground of Mental Cruelty

Case: Ayushi Ginoria (Agrawal) v. Sumit Agrawal
Court: Chhattisgarh High Court
Bench: Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal

Mental cruelty under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act has evolved considerably over the years. Courts have repeatedly held that cruelty is not confined to physical violence. Conduct that causes sustained mental pain, emotional suffering, or makes it impossible for spouses to continue living together may also constitute cruelty.

In a significant judgment, the Chhattisgarh High Court reaffirmed these principles while dismissing a wife’s appeal against a decree of divorce granted in favour of her husband. The Court held that the cumulative circumstances of prolonged separation, repeated refusal to resume matrimonial life despite reconciliation efforts, and a demand of ₹2 crore as a condition for agreeing to divorce established mental cruelty in the facts of the case. The Court also upheld the Family Court’s award of ₹10 lakh as permanent alimony. (The Times of India)

Background of the Case

The parties were married on 29 June 2020 according to Hindu rites. Differences arose within a relatively short period of the marriage. According to the husband, disputes developed between the wife and his family members. He alleged that she left the matrimonial home in February 2022 and never returned despite repeated requests, counselling sessions and mediation efforts.

The husband filed a petition for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. The Family Court accepted his case, granted a decree of divorce and awarded the wife permanent alimony of ₹10 lakh.

The wife challenged the decree before the Chhattisgarh High Court. She denied the allegations and argued that she was always willing to continue the marriage. She also alleged that the husband had uploaded his profile on a matrimonial website and had created a fake matrimonial profile in her name, regarding which criminal proceedings were pending. (Live Law)

What the High Court Considered

The High Court examined the oral and documentary evidence recorded before the Family Court. It noted that the parties had been living separately for a considerable period and that multiple attempts had been made to restore the marriage through counselling and mediation.

Despite these efforts, cohabitation never resumed.

The Court observed that the relationship had reached a stage where there was practically no possibility of reconciliation. The parties had also initiated multiple legal proceedings against each other, demonstrating that the matrimonial relationship had completely broken down. (Live Law)

The Significance of the ₹2 Crore Demand

One aspect that received considerable public attention was the wife’s statement during cross-examination that she would agree to divorce if she received ₹2 crore as a lump-sum settlement.

It is important to understand the judgment correctly.

The High Court did not hold that every demand for a high settlement amount amounts to mental cruelty.

Instead, the Court considered this demand as one factor among several while assessing the overall conduct of the parties. It treated the demand as reinforcing the conclusion that the wife had no genuine intention of resuming matrimonial life and that the marriage had irretrievably collapsed in practice. (Live Law)

Refusal to Resume Cohabitation

The Court placed significant emphasis on the wife’s continued refusal to return to the matrimonial home despite repeated requests and counselling.

Marriage is not merely a legal relationship but also one involving companionship, emotional support and consortium. When one spouse consistently refuses to resume cohabitation without restoration of the relationship despite sustained efforts, the resulting deprivation may amount to mental cruelty depending upon the facts of the case.

The Court found that the husband had been deprived of matrimonial companionship for years despite sincere attempts to save the marriage. (Live Law)

Mental Cruelty Is Evaluated Holistically

One of the most important aspects of this judgment is that it reinforces an established principle of matrimonial law.

Courts do not determine cruelty by looking at a single incident in isolation.

Instead, they assess:

• the overall conduct of the parties,
• the duration of separation,
• repeated attempts at reconciliation,
• litigation history,
• behaviour during matrimonial proceedings, and
• whether continuing the marriage has become practically impossible.

It is this cumulative assessment that ultimately led the Court to uphold the decree of divorce. (Live Law)

Permanent Alimony Still Awarded

An equally significant aspect of the judgment is that the High Court upheld the Family Court’s direction granting ₹10 lakh as permanent alimony.

This demonstrates an important distinction in matrimonial law.

A spouse may succeed in obtaining a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty, yet the other spouse may still be entitled to permanent alimony depending upon the financial circumstances of the parties and the discretion exercised under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

Success in the divorce petition does not automatically eliminate financial obligations arising under the statute. (The Times of India)

Practical Lessons for Matrimonial Litigation

For lawyers and litigants, the judgment offers several practical takeaways:

• Preserve documentary evidence of reconciliation efforts.
• Maintain records of counselling and mediation proceedings.
• Avoid assuming that a single statement or settlement demand will by itself establish cruelty.
• Build a case based on the cumulative conduct of the parties over time.
• Remember that permanent alimony is a separate issue requiring independent consideration.

What This Judgment Does Not Mean

This decision should not be interpreted as laying down a universal rule that:

• every refusal to return amounts to cruelty,
• every large settlement demand amounts to cruelty, or
• every long separation automatically entitles a spouse to divorce.

The High Court decided the case on its own facts after evaluating the entire matrimonial history between the parties. Future cases will continue to depend on their individual evidence and circumstances. (Live Law)

Conclusion

The decision in Ayushi Ginoria (Agrawal) v. Sumit Agrawal is another illustration of the settled principle that mental cruelty must be assessed through the cumulative effect of the parties’ conduct rather than isolated incidents.

The judgment recognises that prolonged denial of matrimonial companionship, repeated failure of reconciliation efforts, and conduct demonstrating an unwillingness to continue the marriage may collectively amount to mental cruelty. At the same time, it reiterates that financial relief under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act remains a separate statutory consideration.

For matrimonial practitioners, the case underscores the importance of meticulous documentation, careful presentation of evidence, and focusing on the overall course of conduct rather than relying on a single allegation to establish cruelty.