S. 13(1)(ia) — Divorce — Cruelty — Mental and Physical Cruelty — Throwing away of Mangalasutra, abusive behavior, and false criminal litigation — Husband sought dissolution of marriage on grounds of cruelty alleging that the wife insulted him, used abusive language, threw away her 'Mangalasutra', broke household articles, falsely suspected his character, and voluntarily deserted him leaving behind an infant child — Wife filed multiple criminal proceedings under S. 498-A/363 IPC, Domestic Violence Act, and Human Rights Commission complaints, most of which were dismissed or non-prosecuted — Evidence of mediator (PW-2) confirmed holding mediations and advising the wife to wear 'Mangalasutra' after she threw it away — No specific cross-examination or denial was put to the husband regarding the incident of throwing 'Mangalasutra' — Maintenance petition filed by wife under S. 125 Cr.P.C. was previously dismissed holding she left the husband without justifiable cause — Held, unprovoked abusive conduct, public humiliation, throwing away 'Mangalasutra', abandonment of an infant child, combined with a barrage of false and unsubstantiated criminal litigation, amounts to mental cruelty — Family Court erred in dismissing the divorce petition — Decree of divorce granted.

 (TELANGANA HIGH COURT)

K. LAKSHMAN AND B.R. MADHUSUDHAN RAO, JJ.

F.C.A. No. 241 of 2011, D/- 31-10-2025.

HEADNOTES

(A) Hindu Marriage Act (25 of 1955), S. 13(1)(ia) — Divorce — Cruelty — Mental and Physical Cruelty — Throwing away of Mangalasutra, abusive behavior, and false criminal litigation — Husband sought dissolution of marriage on grounds of cruelty alleging that the wife insulted him, used abusive language, threw away her 'Mangalasutra', broke household articles, falsely suspected his character, and voluntarily deserted him leaving behind an infant child — Wife filed multiple criminal proceedings under S. 498-A/363 IPC, Domestic Violence Act, and Human Rights Commission complaints, most of which were dismissed or non-prosecuted — Evidence of mediator (PW-2) confirmed holding mediations and advising the wife to wear 'Mangalasutra' after she threw it away — No specific cross-examination or denial was put to the husband regarding the incident of throwing 'Mangalasutra' — Maintenance petition filed by wife under S. 125 Cr.P.C. was previously dismissed holding she left the husband without justifiable cause — Held, unprovoked abusive conduct, public humiliation, throwing away 'Mangalasutra', abandonment of an infant child, combined with a barrage of false and unsubstantiated criminal litigation, amounts to mental cruelty — Family Court erred in dismissing the divorce petition — Decree of divorce granted.

(Paras 3.1, 3.3, 20.3, 27.1, 35, 36, 37)

(B) Hindu Marriage Act (25 of 1955), S. 13(1)(ia) — Family Courts Act (66 of 1984), S. 19 — Divorce — Mental Cruelty — Prolonged separation and irreparable breakdown of marriage — Consideration as an auxiliary factor — Parties resided together for barely 2 years and 3 months and had been living separately for over 16 years (since 2008) — Wife filed a series of criminal proceedings but never sought restitution of conjugal rights under S. 9 of the Act, despite claiming willingness to join the husband — Held, although High Court/Family Court cannot dissolve a marriage solely on the ground of irretrievable breakdown, long continuous separation coupled with total absence of cohabitation, mutual acrimony, and failure to seek restitution can be considered as an auxiliary factor alongside proved acts of mental cruelty to hold that the marriage has broken down beyond repair — Order of Family Court set aside.

(Paras 14.1, 17, 31, 33, 38, 39, 40, 41)

Cases Referred:

1. Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh, (2007) 4 SCC 511 (Relied on) — Paras 3.4, 14.2

2. Rakesh Raman v. Kavita, AIR 2023 SC 2144 (Relied on) — Paras 3.4, 15

3. C. Sivakumar v. A. Srividhya, MANU/TN/5183/2022 (Referenced) — Para 3.4

4. Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli, (2006) 4 SCC 558 (Relied on) — Paras 3.4, 16

5. Prabin Gopal v. Meghna, MANU/KE/1505/2021 (Relied on) — Paras 3.4, 17

6. Durga Prasanna Tripathy v. Arundhati Tripathy, (2005) 7 SCC 353 (Relied on) — Para 18

Hindu Marriage Act (25 of 1955), S. 9, S. 13(1)(i-a) — Rejection of Plaint — Res Judicata — Ex-parte decree for Restitution of Conjugal Rights — Subsequent petition for Divorce on ground of cruelty — Maintainability — Husband obtained an ex-parte decree for restitution of conjugal rights — Wife subsequently filed a petition seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty — Husband filed an application under O. 7 R. 11(d) read with S. 11 CPC seeking rejection of the wife’s petition as barred by res judicata — Held, the reliefs sought, the issues framed, and the matters to be adjudicated in a petition for restitution of conjugal rights under S. 9 and a petition for divorce under S. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act are distinct and divergent — An ex-parte decree for restitution of conjugal rights does not operate as res judicata to bar a subsequent petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty — Application under O. 7 R. 11(d) rightly dismissed by Family Court.

 

2025 NC: 2025:KHC:26167

(HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU)

LALITHA KANNEGANTI, J.

Writ Petition No. 1456 of 2025 (GM-FC), D/- 15-7-2025.

HEADNOTES

(A) Code of Civil Procedure (5 of 1908), Order 7, Rule 11(d), S. 11 — Hindu Marriage Act (25 of 1955), S. 9, S. 13(1)(i-a) — Rejection of Plaint — Res Judicata — Ex-parte decree for Restitution of Conjugal Rights — Subsequent petition for Divorce on ground of cruelty — Maintainability — Husband obtained an ex-parte decree for restitution of conjugal rights — Wife subsequently filed a petition seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty — Husband filed an application under O. 7 R. 11(d) read with S. 11 CPC seeking rejection of the wife’s petition as barred by res judicata — Held, the reliefs sought, the issues framed, and the matters to be adjudicated in a petition for restitution of conjugal rights under S. 9 and a petition for divorce under S. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act are distinct and divergent — An ex-parte decree for restitution of conjugal rights does not operate as res judicata to bar a subsequent petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty — Application under O. 7 R. 11(d) rightly dismissed by Family Court.

(Paras 3, 10)

(B) Code of Civil Procedure (5 of 1908), S. 11 — Res Judicata — Cause of Action — Restitution of Conjugal Rights vs. Divorce on Ground of Cruelty — Distinction — Husband contended that the cause of action for both proceedings arose on the date of marriage and the date the wife left the matrimonial home, thus hitting the subsequent divorce suit by res judicata — Held, the contention is unsustainable — While a petition for restitution of conjugal rights centers on withdrawal from society without reasonable excuse, a petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty involves multiple, distinct factual instances constituting cruelty — The cause of action and issues directly and substantially in dispute in both proceedings have no nexus — Principles of res judicata are inapplicable.

(Para 10)

Cases Referred:

1. State of Maharashtra and Anr. v. M/s National Construction Company, Bombay and Anr., AIR 1996 SC 2367 (Referenced) — Para 4

2. Guda Vijayalakshmi v. Guda Ramachandra Sekhara Sastry, (1981) 2 SCC 646 (Referenced) — Para 5

3. C. Sarala v. K. Nalinakshan, AIR 1991 Ker 362 (Referenced) — Para 5

4. Balveer Singh v. Harjeet Kaur, AIR 2017 Uttarakhand 175 (Relied on) — Paras 7, 10

Child Custody & Repatriation — Custody of Vulnerable/Specially-abled Adult — Doctrine of Parens Patriae — Best Interests and Welfare Principle — Foreign Decrees and Comity of Courts — Pre-existing guardianship orders of Foreign Court (Idaho, USA) — Subject individual and parents were US citizens who resided in the US for nearly two decades — Individual was abruptly removed to India by the father during pendency of foreign guardianship proceedings — Held, under parens patriae jurisdiction, the supreme considerations are the overall best interests, welfare, and security of the vulnerable individual, to which foreign court decrees and principles of comity of courts must yield — Repatriation to the US served his best interests as he spent his formative years there, had access to specialized state-backed educational, vocational, and medical security programs, and shared a vital emotional bond with his specially-abled younger brother residing in the US — Sole custody granted to mother with directions to facilitate immediate repatriation to the USA.

2025 INSC 299

(SUPREME COURT OF INDIA)

SURYA KANT, DIPANKAR DATTA AND UJJAL BHUYAN, JJ.

Criminal Appeal No. _____ of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 17281 of 2024) with Contempt Petition (C) No. 9 of 2025, D/- 3-3-2025.

HEADNOTES

(A) Constitution of India, Art. 226 — Writs — Habeas Corpus — Custody and guardianship of adult with severe cognitive impairment — Scope of judicial inquiry — Summary oral interaction vs. Expert medical assessment — Implied or express consent — High Court dismissed Habeas Corpus petition solely based on a brief oral interaction with a 21-year-old US citizen diagnosed with Ataxic Cerebral Palsy and Mild Intellectual Disability, concluding he was consensually residing in India with his father — Held, Courts cannot discard multidisciplinary expert opinions without strong, valid reasons — Dismissing scientific evaluations in specialized medical domains following brief summary oral interaction was misconceived — Where expert medical evaluation conclusively establishes that the mental age of a vulnerable individual is well below the age of majority (8 to 10 years), no inference of express or implied consent can be drawn regarding acts having a substantive impact on their life or long-term residence — Judgment of High Court set aside.

(Paras 19, 20, 22, 23)

(B) Rights of Persons with Disabilities — Cognitive Capacity — Decision-making capability — Assessment by Expert Institutions — Detailed neuropsychological and adaptive behavior evaluations conducted by NIMHANS, Bengaluru revealed an IQ score of 53 and a socio-adaptive functioning age equivalent to an 8 to 10-year-old child (80% disability) — Held, while the individual demonstrates independent decision-making capability for basic, routine daily tasks, he lacks the cognitive capacity to make complex, informed, and legally binding decisions regarding financial, legal, social, or long-term residential matters without substantial external support, guidance, and oversight.

(Paras 11, 14, 15, 21, 23)

(C) Child Custody & Repatriation — Custody of Vulnerable/Specially-abled Adult — Doctrine of Parens Patriae — Best Interests and Welfare Principle — Foreign Decrees and Comity of Courts — Pre-existing guardianship orders of Foreign Court (Idaho, USA) — Subject individual and parents were US citizens who resided in the US for nearly two decades — Individual was abruptly removed to India by the father during pendency of foreign guardianship proceedings — Held, under parens patriae jurisdiction, the supreme considerations are the overall best interests, welfare, and security of the vulnerable individual, to which foreign court decrees and principles of comity of courts must yield — Repatriation to the US served his best interests as he spent his formative years there, had access to specialized state-backed educational, vocational, and medical security programs, and shared a vital emotional bond with his specially-abled younger brother residing in the US — Sole custody granted to mother with directions to facilitate immediate repatriation to the USA.

(Paras 24, 31, 32, 35, 36, 38, 39, 41)

Cases Referred:

1. Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M., (2018) 16 SCC 368 (Relied on) — Para 24

2. Sheoli Hati v. Somnath Das, (2019) 7 SCC 490 (Referenced) — Para 25

3. Vivek Singh v. Romani Singh, (2017) 3 SCC 231 (Referenced) — Para 25

4. Girish v. Radhamony K., (2009) 16 SCC 360 (Distinguished) — Paras 26, 27

5. Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Admn., (2009) 9 SCC 1 (Distinguished) — Paras 26, 28, 29

6. Nithya Anand Raghavan v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2017) 8 SCC 454 (Relied on) — Paras 30, 31

7. Elizabeth Dinshaw v. Arvand M. Dinshaw, (1987) 1 SCC 42 (Relied on) — Para 31

8. Dhanwanti Joshi v. Madhav Unde, (1998) 1 SCC 112 (Relied on) — Para 31

9. Rohith Thammana Gowda v. State of Karnataka, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 937 (Relied on) — Para 31

10. V. Ravi Chandran (Dr.) (2) v. Union of India, (2010) 1 SCC 174 (Relied on) — Para 32

11. Gaurav Nagpal v. Sumedha Nagpal, (2009) 1 SCC 42 (Relied on) — Para 32