In Ayushi Ginoria (Agrawal) v. Sumit Agrawal, Chhattisgarh HC upheld Family Court’s decree granting divorce to husband on grounds of mental cruelty and desertion, and affirmed the award of ₹10 lakhs as permanent alimony.

Court held that a spouse who persistently refuses to resume cohabitation, deprives other spouse of matrimonial companionship and consortium, and demands an exorbitant amount of ₹2 crores as a precondition for consenting to divorce causes mental cruelty within the meaning of Section 13(1)(i-a) HMA.

The parties were married on 29 June 2020 and had no children. Husband alleged that his wife frequently quarrelled with his family members, insisted on living separately, misbehaved with his grandmother, and left matrimonial home in Feb 2022, taking ancestral jewellery and other valuables worth ₹35 lakhs.

According to him, despite repeated requests and counselling before Mahila Thana and One-Stop Sakhi Centre, she never returned to matrimonial home, compelling him to seek divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion.

The wife denied all allegations and claimed that she had been subjected to harassment by husband and his family. She contended that she was willing to continue the marriage and accused husband of creating a matrimonial profile describing himself as "Awaiting Divorce." She further alleged that husband created a fake matrimonial profile in her name, following which she lodged an FIR u/s 419 IPC and 66 IT Act.

After examining the evidence, High Court found that wife had consistently refused to resume matrimonial life despite repeated requests by husband, his family members, and multiple counselling efforts. Court observed that parties had reached a stage of complete breakdown where reconciliation was no longer possible and had been living separately since Feb 2022. It concluded that such prolonged refusal to cohabit amounted to both desertion and mental cruelty.

Court also noted wife's admission during cross-examination that she was willing to consent to divorce only if husband paid her a lump sum of ₹2 crores. It observed that even mediation proceedings before it failed because of this exorbitant demand, demonstrating that she had no genuine intention to preserve the matrimonial relationship.

Court further concluded that her conduct, including initiating multiple proceedings after earlier complaints had already been made, caused husband severe mental pain and made continuation of the marriage intolerable.