L v. P, 2026

The petitioner-husband sought divorce alleging desertion and cruelty by the respondent-wife.

The wife was employed in government service and posted at another place due to her official duties.

The parties had been residing separately for around 27 years.

During this period, the husband entered into a Nata Marriage with another woman.

The husband claimed that the second relationship was with the consent of the respondent-wife.

He argued that despite efforts for reconciliation, the wife refused to resume cohabitation.

The Family Court dismissed the husband’s divorce petition.

Aggrieved by the dismissal, the husband approached the Rajasthan High Court.

The High Court examined whether separate residence due to government postings amounted to desertion and whether the wife’s conduct constituted cruelty.

The Court also examined the impact of the husband’s second marriage during subsistence of the first marriage.

The Rajasthan High Court held that mere separate residence due to government postings cannot by itself amount to desertion.

The Court observed that it is common for spouses employed in government services to reside separately due to official exigencies.

The Division Bench held that not every quarrel, harsh word, or disagreement amounts to cruelty under matrimonial law.

The Court emphasized that cruelty must be of such degree that continuation of matrimonial life becomes harmful or injurious.

The High Court observed that the petitioner-husband himself was the wrongdoer who had entered into another marriage during subsistence of the first marriage.

The Court termed the husband’s conduct as an attempt to take advantage of his own wrong.

It was held that the wife’s refusal to cohabit after the husband’s second marriage was a natural and justified consequence of his conduct.

The Court observed that no wife could reasonably be expected to share matrimonial life with a husband openly living with another woman.

The Bench further held that such circumstances constituted constructive desertion by the husband and not by the wife.

The Court rejected the allegations of cruelty against the wife and observed that her actions were direct consequences of the husband’s own conduct.

Accordingly, the High Court upheld the Family Court’s order rejecting the divorce petition.

The judgment reinforces the principle that matrimonial relief cannot be granted to a party taking advantage of his own wrong.

The Court clarified the legal distinction between ordinary marital disagreements and legally recognized cruelty.

The ruling is significant for government employees and working spouses who may be compelled to live separately due to service obligations.

The decision strengthens the doctrine of constructive desertion, where the wrongdoing spouse is treated as the deserter in law.

The judgment recognizes dignity and emotional rights of spouses affected by second marriages during subsistence of marriage.

The Court adopted a realistic and socially sensitive approach towards matrimonial disputes.

The ruling discourages misuse of divorce laws by parties responsible for breakdown of matrimonial relationships.