BILASPUR<\/em>: The Chhattisgarh High Court<\/strong> has upheld a 2019 Family Court order<\/strong> granting divorce<\/strong> to a 39-year-old bank employee, holding that his wife\u2019s repeated demand that he separates from his parents<\/strong> amounted to mental cruelty<\/strong> under matrimonial law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n While confirming the divorce, Justice Rajani Dubey and Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad<\/strong> also directed the husband to pay \u20b95 lakh as permanent alimony to his wife<\/strong>, a 34-year-old government school teacher earning \u20b946,941 per month.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The parties were married on June 28, 2009, and a son was born on June 5, 2010. The child is presently living with the mother in Bilaspur. The husband approached the court stating that soon after marriage, his wife began provoking him against his parents and continuously pressured him to live separately<\/strong>. According to him, this pressure was not occasional but persistent, creating constant mental stress and conflict within the household.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In his testimony, the husband stated that his wife insulted him by calling him a \u201cPaaltoo Chooha\u201d<\/em><\/strong> for listening to and respecting his parents. He further alleged that she became aggressive<\/strong> on several occasions, physically assaulted him in front of his mother<\/strong>, and even tried to harm herself during pregnancy. These incidents, he claimed, caused him deep mental trauma and fear, not only as a husband but also as a son responsible for his aging parents.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The husband also told the court that after the birth of their child, he was deliberately excluded from important family ceremonies. He stated that in August 2010, his wife went to her parental home in Bilaspur for the Teej festival and never returned. During the trial, a text message sent by the wife was placed on record, in which she told him that if he wanted her to come back, he must first leave his parents\u2019 house<\/strong>. During cross-examination, the wife admitted that she had sent this message.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n On the other hand, the wife denied all allegations of cruelty. She argued that she was never accepted by her in-laws and accused her husband of neglecting her, using abusive language, and consuming alcohol. She claimed that she had made efforts to resume matrimonial life by seeking restoration of conjugal rights, but according to her, the husband refused to take her back.<\/p>\n\n\n\n After examining the evidence, the High Court found that the husband\u2019s version remained consistent and was supported by documentary proof and admissions made by the wife herself.<\/strong> The Court observed that demanding a husband to sever ties with his parents and making the marital relationship conditional upon such separation strikes at the mental peace of the spouse and amounts to mental cruelty<\/strong>. The Court also noted that the wife\u2019s prolonged absence from the matrimonial home clearly established desertion for more than two years before the divorce petition was filed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The bench concluded that both cruelty and desertion were proved. While affirming the divorce decree, the Court considered the financial status of both parties, including the wife\u2019s regular government income<\/strong> and the husband\u2019s obligation toward their minor child. Taking these factors into account, the Court fixed permanent alimony at \u20b95 lakh<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The judgment once again highlights how repeated humiliation, forced isolation from parents, and sustained mental pressure within a marriage can legally amount to cruelty<\/strong>. At the same time, it reflects the complex balance courts attempt to maintain, where even a working husband facing proven cruelty continues to shoulder long-term financial responsibility after the marriage ends.<\/p>\n\n\n\nExplanatory Table: Laws and Legal Principles Applied<\/h3>\n\n\n\n