She lost the 'come back' case. Then she lost the divorce case. Twice.

She ignored a court order to return to her husband. Then she tried to argue she hadn't deserted him. The Supreme Court of India, in a July 2024 judgment, shut that door — and in doing so, settled a question that has haunted family courts for years: can a spouse fight the same desertion charge twice, once in a 'come back' case and again in a divorce case?

The answer, delivered by a bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, was a firm no. And the price of that lesson was a divorce decree — and Rs. 30 lakhs in alimony.

1999 to 2008: The marriage that broke

A couple married in Punjab in 1999. Two children followed. By 2006, the relationship had soured. In 2008, the wife left the matrimonial home. The husband, in December 2008, filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — a provision that allows a spouse to ask the court for a 'restitution of conjugal rights' (a court order directing the other spouse to return to the marriage).

The case moved slowly. On May 15, 2013, in the courtroom of an Additional Civil Judge in Barnala, the judge passed a decree directing the wife to return to her husband within three months. The judge made a specific finding: the wife had deserted the husband without reasonable cause. The wife appealed to the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which confirmed the decree on February 19, 2015. The 'come back' order was now final. The courtroom in Chandigarh fell quiet as the judgment was read out — the wife's appeal had failed. She did not return.

While the appeal was still pending, he filed for divorce

On August 23, 2013 — while the wife's appeal against the restitution decree was still alive — the husband filed for divorce. He cited two grounds under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act: cruelty (Section 13(1)(ia)) and desertion (Section 13(1)(ib)). The Family Court at Barnala granted the divorce on August 1, 2016, on both grounds. The judge's expression was stern as he read out the decree — the marriage was over, he said, on both counts.

The wife appealed again. This time, the High Court reversed the divorce decree on October 4, 2019. The High Court found that the grounds of cruelty and desertion had not been established. The husband then approached the Supreme Court.

The logic that collapsed

The Supreme Court's reasoning turned on a single, sharp point: the wife had already been found to have deserted her husband without reasonable cause in the restitution proceedings. That finding had been confirmed by the High Court in 2015. She could not re-argue the same issue in the divorce case.

The court held that where a decree for restitution of conjugal rights has been passed with a concluded finding that the respondent deserted the petitioner without reasonable cause, and the decree has been confirmed on appeal, the respondent cannot re-agitate the issue of desertion in subsequent divorce proceedings — unless they can prove some new event that prevented compliance with the restitution decree. The Supreme Court observed, in its judgment, that "non-resumption of cohabitation after a decree for restitution of conjugal rights, where the respondent demonstrates no inclination to resume cohabitation and does not show any intervening event preventing compliance, establishes continuous desertion for purposes of Section 13(1)(ib) of the HM Act." The words hung in the air — the wife had shown no such event. She had simply not returned. And her continued absence after the decree, the court said, established 'continuous desertion' for the purposes of Section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act (the provision that allows divorce on the ground of desertion).

The court's reasoning was methodical. It traced the procedural journey from the restitution petition filed in December 2008, through the decree on May 15, 2013, and the High Court's confirmation on February 19, 2015. The wife had been absent from the matrimonial home since 2008 — a period of over a decade by the time the Supreme Court heard the matter. The court noted that the wife had not pointed to any new event — no threat, no illness, no change in the husband's circumstances — that had prevented her from complying with the restitution decree. Her silence in the face of the court's order was, in itself, evidence of her intention to desert.

The cruelty ground survived — but it did not matter

The Supreme Court did not disturb the High Court's finding on cruelty. That ground remained unproven. But desertion alone was enough. The court restored the divorce decree on the ground of desertion, while requiring the husband to pay Rs. 30 lakhs as lump sum alimony — a condition attached to the divorce decree itself. The alimony cheque, when it came, was a heavy one — Rs. 30 lakhs, a sum that reflected the years of litigation and the wife's financial dependence.

The court also left untouched the wife's rights under other proceedings she had filed — including a maintenance claim under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the provision that allows a wife to claim monthly financial support from her husband), a criminal complaint under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (the provision that criminalises cruelty by a husband or his relatives), and a complaint under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code (the provision that deals with criminal breach of trust). These cases remained pending, untouched by the divorce decree.

The procedural journey in full

The case had wound its way through three levels of the judiciary over more than a decade. The first stop was the court of the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) in Barnala, which on May 15, 2013, passed a decree for restitution of conjugal rights directing the wife to join her husband's company within three months. The wife appealed to the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, which dismissed her appeal on February 19, 2015, confirming the restitution decree. Meanwhile, the husband had filed a divorce petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act on August 23, 2013, in the Family Court at Barnala, which granted the divorce on August 1, 2016, on grounds of cruelty and desertion. The wife appealed again to the High Court, which on October 4, 2019, set aside the divorce decree. Finally, the husband appealed to the Supreme Court of India, which on July 8, 2024, partly allowed the appeal, restoring the divorce decree on the ground of desertion with Rs. 30 lakhs as lump sum alimony.

The legal provisions at play

The case engaged several provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Section 9, dealing with restitution of conjugal rights, was the procedural vehicle that set the entire chain of events in motion. Section 13(1)(ia), which defines cruelty as a ground for divorce, was charged but ultimately left undisturbed by the Supreme Court — the High Court's finding that cruelty was not established remained intact. Section 13(1)(ib), which defines desertion as a ground for divorce, was the primary target of interpretation — the Supreme Court applied it to restore the divorce decree. Section 13(1A)(ii), which provides that a spouse can seek divorce if there has been no restitution of conjugal rights for one year after a decree, was left open by the court. The court also left undisturbed the wife's rights under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (maintenance), Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code (criminal breach of trust), and Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (cruelty by husband or relatives).

What the judgment means

A restitution decree is not a symbolic order. It carries real legal consequences. A spouse who ignores a 'come back' order cannot later claim they never left. The finding of desertion in the restitution case binds them in the divorce case — unless they can show a genuine change in circumstances that made compliance impossible. The Supreme Court's ratio decidendi was clear: where a decree for restitution of conjugal rights has been passed with a concluded finding that the respondent deserted the petitioner without reasonable cause, and the decree has been confirmed on appeal, the respondent cannot re-agitate the issue of desertion in subsequent divorce proceedings absent proof of any new event that prevented compliance with the RCR decree. Non-resumption of cohabitation after a decree for restitution of conjugal rights, where the respondent demonstrates no inclination to resume cohabitation and does not show any intervening event preventing compliance, establishes continuous desertion for purposes of Section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

THE PLAY: If you obtain a restitution decree with a finding of desertion, and the other spouse does not comply, file for divorce on the ground of desertion — the earlier finding will likely be conclusive, provided no new event has prevented compliance.

The court ended where it began: with a wife who ignored a court order, and a husband who waited sixteen years for an answer. The file on the judge's desk in the Supreme Court felt thin for a case that had spanned so many years — but the legal principle it established was weighty. The courtroom was silent as the operative order was read out: the appeal was partly allowed, the High Court's interference with the divorce decree on the ground of desertion was set aside, the marriage was dissolved by a decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, and the decree was conditional upon the payment of Rs. 30 lakhs as lump sum alimony. The wife's absence from the courtroom that day was, perhaps, the final confirmation of what the court had already found — she had left, and she had never truly come back.