The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that refusing divorce in a completely broken marriage only increases suffering for both spouses. The Court dissolved a 23-year-old marriage, stressing that irretrievable breakdown itself amounts to cruelty.
JABALPUR: The Madhya Pradesh High Court said that when a marriage has completely broken down and there is no chance of the couple living together again, denying divorce only pushes both spouses into more pain.
The Court observed that even though the Hindu Marriage Act does not list “irretrievable breakdown of marriage” as a ground for divorce, the courts cannot ignore real-life problems faced by couples trapped in dead relationships. According to the Court, an irretrievable breakdown of marriage itself results in cruelty because both parties continue to suffer every day.
The Division Bench of Justice Vishal Dhagat and Justice BP Sharma said:
“Court cannot shut its eyes to practical difficulties and problems of parties.”
It added that:
“If divorce is not granted in cases of irretrievable breakdown of marriage then it will amount to further pushing party towards continuous pain and suffering.”
The Bench also explained:
“Irretrievable breakdown of marriage is a species within genus of cruelty.”
When a marriage has completely collapsed and the couple cannot exercise their own choice to live freely or choose new partners, they suffer day to day cruelty as they were not permitted to exercise their choices and option to choose their partners in life.
The Court further noted that many times one spouse refuses divorce even when both know that the marriage is over.
According to the judgment:
“Other party opposes the prayer for divorce despite their being no possibility of their living together. Said conduct of party in deriving pleasure from difficulties and tension of other party also amounts to cruelty.”
This case came before the High Court after a woman challenged the Family Court’s order that had refused to grant her divorce. The couple married in 2002 and had two daughters, both living with the husband.
The wife alleged that the husband demanded dowry, assaulted her, harassed her, and threw her out of the house in 2009 and again in 2016. She said she had filed cases earlier, including a maintenance case, but had withdrawn some proceedings in the interest of her daughters.
Meanwhile, the husband claimed that the wife was cruel to their daughters, had left the home with jewellery and cash, and had filed a false Section 498A case against him. He also alleged that she had remarried in 2018 without getting a legal divorce first, and for this, he had filed a complaint under Section 494 IPC (bigamy).
The record showed that both husband and wife had earlier jointly filed a mutual consent divorce petition under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, stating they had no compatibility and lived in constant tension. The husband had also agreed to pay amounts under their settlement. But they later withdrew the petition in 2015 after a reconciliation attempt failed, and they again separated in 2016.
The trial court had refused divorce mainly because the wife had already done a second marriage, stating that her conduct showed she was living an “adulterous life.” But the High Court said that this was not the main issue before the trial court. The real issue was whether the husband had treated the wife with cruelty, which would entitle her to divorce.
After reviewing the full facts, the High Court found that the marriage had completely broken down.
It said:
“There is complete breakdown of marriage between appellant and respondent. No purpose will be served if petition is dismissed on ground of fault of appellant. Appellant had faulted in doing second marriage during subsistence of first marriage.”
However, it also clarified that the validity or invalidity of the second marriage was not the legal question before the lower court.
The Court allowed the divorce on the ground that the husband was not allowing her to live her life freely. It said the husband was treating her with cruelty by denying her the right to live according to her own choice, which the Court called her fundamental right.
The judgment stated:
“Respondent is treating appellant with cruelty in not giving her option to live her life freely according to her choice which is fundamental right of appellant and unnecessarily opposing petition for divorce when she is already living with another man though marriage between them is invalid.”
The Court finally ordered:
“Marriage dated 24.05.2002 between appellant and respondent is dissolved.”
However, it also made it clear that the wife would not receive any financial benefit or property share from the husband.
The Court concluded:
“Appellant will not have any right of alimony against respondent nor she can make any claim of property of respondent.”
Explanatory Table – Laws & Sections Used In The Case
| Law / Section | Full Name | Purpose in Law | How It Applied in This Case |
| Section 13(1)(ia) | Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 | Divorce on ground of cruelty | Wife sought divorce claiming cruelty; HC ultimately granted divorce holding husband’s opposition to divorce + marital breakdown = cruelty. |
| Section 13(1)(ib) | Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 | Divorce on ground of desertion | Wife alleged desertion; part of her divorce petition before the trial court. |
| Section 13-B | Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 | Mutual consent divorce | Couple filed a mutual consent divorce petition earlier, but later withdrew it after temporary reconciliation. |
| Section 19 | Family Courts Act, 1984 | Appeal provision against Family Court orders | Wife filed this first appeal under Section 19 challenging denial of divorce. |
| Section 125 CrPC | Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 | Claim for maintenance by spouse/children/parents | Wife had filed maintenance earlier, later withdrew it after second marriage. |
| Section 498-A IPC | Indian Penal Code | Cruelty by husband/relatives for dowry | Husband alleged wife filed a false 498A case against him. |
| Section 494 IPC | Indian Penal Code | Offence of bigamy (marrying again during subsistence of first marriage) | Husband filed case alleging wife remarried in 2018 while marriage still existed. |
| Article 142 (Referenced in discussion) | Constitution of India | Supreme Court’s power to do complete justice | Cited to show SC can grant divorce on irretrievable breakdown, but High Courts cannot. |
| Concept: Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage | Judicial doctrine | When marriage is dead with no chance of reunion | HC held that irretrievable breakdown is “a species of cruelty” and justified divorce. |
Case Title
AA vs BB
Case Number: First Appeal No. 789 of 2022
Neutral Citation: 2025:MPHC-JBP:58433
- Bench
- Hon’ble Justice Vishal Dhagat
- Hon’ble Justice B.P. Sharma
- Counsels
- For Appellant (Wife): Advocate Shri Sanjay Gupta
- For Respondent (Husband): Advocate Shri Yashovardhan Shukla
Key Factual Details From The Case
- Marriage & Family Background
- Marriage solemnised on 24.05.2002.
- Two daughters born; daughters living with the husband.
- Wife’s Allegations
- Dowry demand & harassment
- Physical violence; character assassination
- Forced removal from home in 2009 and again in 2016
- Husband’s drinking & assaulting behaviour
- Filed maintenance but withdrew considering daughters’ future
- Husband’s Allegations
- Wife treated daughters with cruelty
- Left home with jewellery + ₹1,50,000
- Filed false 498A case
- Wife remarried on 21.05.2018 without divorce → Complaint under Section 494 IPC
- Earlier Attempt at Divorce
- Both spouses earlier filed mutual consent divorce under Section 13-B.
- Settlement included ₹50,000 + ₹50,000 payment.
- Petition withdrawn in 2015 after temporary reconciliation.
- Trial Court’s Decision (2022)
- Dismissed divorce petition.
- Held wife’s second marriage proved “adulterous life.”
- Said granting divorce would reward her “misdeeds.”
- High Court’s Findings
- Marriage is completely broken since 2010 + 2016 separation.
- Wife’s second marriage is invalid but not the issue before court.
- Key issue: whether husband caused cruelty.
- Court held husband’s continued opposition to divorce = cruelty.
- Final Order of High Court
- Divorce granted.
- Wife not entitled to alimony or husband’s property.
- Appellant will not have any right of alimony against respondent nor she can make any claim of property of respondent.
Key Takeaways
- Courts must stop trapping men in dead marriages just because the law refuses to recognise irretrievable breakdown.
- Forcing a man to stay tied to a broken relationship is itself cruelty and lifelong suffering.
- Even when the wife remarries without divorce, the man still has to fight years just to exit the marriage.
- Opposing divorce only to control or punish the other spouse is cruelty, and courts should call it out.
- Men deserve the same freedom, dignity and right to rebuild their lives without being chained by outdated legal gaps.
This Could Change Your Case-Get FREE Legal Advice-Click Here!
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the Indian courts and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of “ShoneeKapoor.com” or its affiliates. This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content provided is not legal advice, and viewers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Viewer discretion is advised.