Photocopies killed his divorce petition. The High Court revived it.

The Husband Who Paid for a Panchayat Divorce — And Still Had to Fight for One in Court

Ravindra Pratap Yadav was a police officer. In 1979, he married Asha Devi under Hindu rites. Seven years later, after the Gauna ceremony, she came to live with him. She refused to share his bed. She refused to share his home. She left. She went to her parents' house and never came back.

Sixteen years later, in 2001, Ravindra walked into the Family Court in Varanasi and filed for divorce. He had tried everything — a village Panchayat in 1994 where both sides agreed to a divorce and he paid Rs. 22,000 as alimony, even the wife's alleged remarriage and two sons from that union. The Family Court dismissed his petition. Not because the wife showed up to contest it — she didn't, despite service by publication — but because the court found that Ravindra had only filed photocopies of documents and hadn't proved the second marriage.

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad reversed that decision on 16 May 2023. In Ravindra Pratap Yadav v. Smt. Asha Devi And Others (2023:AHC:106512-DB), a Division Bench of Justice Rajendra Kumar-IV and Justice Suneet Kumar held that when a spouse refuses conjugal relations for years, walks out, and never returns, that is mental cruelty. And when the other side doesn't even show up to deny it, a court cannot dismiss the case on hyper-technical grounds.

What the Family Court Actually Saw

Ravindra's divorce petition — Marriage Petition No. 526 of 2001 — was filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. He pleaded two grounds: mental cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) and desertion. The story he told was straightforward.

After the Gauna ceremony in 1986, Asha Devi came to the matrimonial home but refused to maintain marital relations. She left for her parents' house and refused to return. Ravindra, being a police officer, tried to bring her back. She refused. She asked for a divorce by mutual consent. In 1994, a village Panchayat was convened. Both sides agreed to a divorce. Ravindra paid Rs. 22,000 as alimony. The wife then allegedly remarried and had two sons.

The Family Court proceeded ex-parte — Asha Devi did not appear despite service by publication. Ravindra led his evidence. It was uncontroverted. No one cross-examined him. No one filed a written statement denying his claims.

Yet the Principal Judge, Family Court, Varanasi dismissed the petition on 28 November 2005. The reasoning: the documents Ravindra filed were only photocopies, and he had not produced proof of the wife's second marriage. The court held that without original documents, the case could not be proved.

The Argument That Changed Everything

Ravindra appealed to the Allahabad High Court in First Appeal No. 405 of 2013. His counsel argued that the Family Court had erred fundamentally. The wife had not appeared. The evidence was uncontroverted. The court could not dismiss a case on hyper-technical grounds when the respondent had chosen not to contest it.

The High Court agreed. Justice Rajendra Kumar-IV, writing for the Bench, observed that the Family Court's approach was "hyper-technical." The court noted that the wife's conduct — refusing conjugal relations, leaving the matrimonial home, and never returning — was itself sufficient to establish mental cruelty. The photocopy issue was a red herring. The second marriage was additional evidence, not the core of the case.

The Bench cited two landmark Supreme Court decisions. In Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh (2007) 4 SCC 511, the Supreme Court had enumerated illustrative instances of mental cruelty, including "unilateral refusal to have intercourse for a considerable period without valid reason" and "sustained neglect or indifference affecting the other spouse." In Vinita Saxena v. Pankaj Pandit (2006) 3 SCC 778, the Court had held that mental cruelty can cause more serious injury than physical harm, and that cruelty must be determined on the whole facts of the matrimonial relations.

The High Court applied these principles. It found that Asha Devi's prolonged refusal of conjugal relations, her withdrawal from marital obligations, and her complete absence from the proceedings all pointed to one conclusion: the marriage had broken down irretrievably.

The Witness Rule the Supreme Court Applied

Here is the doctrinal move that matters. The High Court did not just say "mental cruelty exists." It laid down a clear rule for ex-parte matrimonial cases: when the respondent does not appear and the petitioner's evidence remains entirely uncontroverted, the court below cannot dismiss the case on hyper-technical grounds such as non-production of original documents.

This is not a minor point. Family Courts across India routinely dismiss ex-parte petitions on technicalities — missing originals, lack of corroboration, insufficient proof of second marriage. The Allahabad High Court has now said: if the substantive evidence supports the claim and the other side has chosen not to contest it, the court must decide on the merits, not on procedural perfection.

THE PLAY: In an ex-parte divorce petition, if the respondent has been duly served and does not appear, the court cannot reject the petition merely because the petitioner filed photocopies instead of originals — the uncontroverted evidence must be evaluated on its own weight.

Why the Trial Court Got It Wrong

The Family Court's error was not just technical. It was substantive. The court focused on the wrong question. It asked: "Has the husband proved the wife's second marriage?" The real question was: "Has the husband proved that the wife's conduct amounts to mental cruelty?"

The second marriage was a supporting fact, not the cause of action. The cause of action was the wife's refusal to maintain marital relations, her desertion, and her complete withdrawal from the marriage. These facts were proved by Ravindra's uncontroverted testimony. The Family Court should have accepted that testimony and granted the divorce.

The High Court also noted a deeper problem. The marriage had been dead for decades. The parties had lived separately since 1986 — that is 37 years by the time of the High Court judgment. The Panchayat divorce in 1994 had already recognised the breakdown. The wife had remarried and had children. Nothing was gained by keeping the parties tied to a marriage that had ceased to exist in fact.

Justice Rajendra Kumar-IV observed, in obiter: "Nothing is gained by trying to keep the parties tied forever to a marriage that has ceased to exist in fact; there is no acceptable view in which a spouse can be compelled to resume life with the consort." This reflects a judicial inclination toward recognising irretrievable breakdown as a ground for divorce, even though it is not yet a statutory ground under the Hindu Marriage Act.

What This Means for Practitioners

Three practical takeaways emerge from this judgment.

First, uncontroverted evidence is powerful. When the respondent does not appear, the petitioner's evidence stands unrebutted. The court must evaluate it on its merits. It cannot dismiss the case on technicalities like missing originals. If you are filing an ex-parte divorce petition, ensure your client's testimony covers the essential facts — the marriage, the breakdown, the cruelty, the desertion. The court must accept that testimony unless it is inherently improbable.

Second, mental cruelty can be proved by conduct alone. You do not need a string of abusive messages or physical violence. Prolonged refusal of conjugal relations, sustained neglect, and complete withdrawal from the marriage are sufficient. The Supreme Court's decision in Samar Ghosh is your best friend. Cite it. Use the illustrative instances. Show the court that the spouse's conduct fits the pattern.

Third, the second marriage is a bonus, not a requirement. Many lawyers think they must prove the respondent's second marriage to get a divorce. That is wrong. The second marriage is relevant for other reliefs — maintenance, custody, criminal proceedings — but for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia), the cruelty is the key. If you can prove cruelty, you do not need to prove the second marriage.

The Bottom Line

The Allahabad High Court has made it clear: when a spouse walks out, refuses conjugal relations, and never returns, that is mental cruelty. And when the other side does not even bother to show up, the court cannot hide behind technicalities. The marriage is over. The law should recognise it.