This husband paid Rs. 30 lakhs for a divorce — and won it on a decade-old order.

The Decree She Never Obeyed: How a Restitution Order Became the Key to a Divorce

When the husband filed for divorce in Barnala, he was not starting from scratch. He was building on a foundation laid years earlier — a court order that his wife return to him, which she never followed. The Family Court granted him a divorce in 2016. The Punjab and Haryana High Court took it away in 2019. By the time the matter reached the Supreme Court of India in July 2024, sixteen years of separation had passed, two children were grown, and the only question left was whether a decree for restitution of conjugal rights, defied for years, could itself prove desertion.

The stakes were simple: a marriage that had functionally ended in 2008, but legally remained intact. The husband wanted out. The wife wanted the marriage preserved — or at least, not dissolved on terms that blamed her.

The marriage that broke in 2006

The couple married in 1999. They had two children. By 2006, the relationship had soured. In 2008, the wife left the matrimonial home. The husband moved an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — restitution of conjugal rights — before the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Barnala.

On 15 May 2013, the trial court decreed the petition. It found that the wife had deserted the husband without reasonable cause. She was directed to join his company within three months. She did not comply. The wife appealed to the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, which dismissed her appeal on 19 February 2015, confirming the finding that she had left without reasonable excuse.

Still, she did not return.

The divorce petition and the Family Court's finding

Armed with a confirmed restitution decree and years of non-compliance, the husband filed a divorce petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. He pleaded two grounds: cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia), and desertion under Section 13(1)(ib).

The Family Court, Barnala, heard the matter. On 1 August 2016, it granted a decree of divorce on both grounds. The court held that the husband had proved that the wife had not resumed cohabitation despite the restitution decree, and that her conduct amounted to both cruelty and desertion.

The wife appealed again.

The High Court's reversal: a different story

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana took a different view. On 4 October 2019, it set aside the divorce decree. The High Court held that desertion was not proved. It found that the husband had neglected his duties as a husband, and that the wife had no choice but to leave. The court effectively blamed the husband for the breakdown, not the wife.

The husband appealed to the Supreme Court.

What the Supreme Court saw

Justice Abhay S. Oka, writing for the Bench that also included Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, examined the record. What the Court found was a trail of judicial findings that the High Court had, in its view, overlooked.

The restitution decree of 15 May 2013, confirmed on 19 February 2015, contained a specific finding: the wife had deserted the husband without reasonable cause. That finding was final. It had not been challenged further. The wife had not complied with the decree. She had not even attempted to resume cohabitation.

The Court noted that the wife had brought no material on record to show any effort to return, or any event that prevented her from doing so. The continuous desertion, the Court held, stood proved from the date originally found by the court granting restitution until the date of filing the divorce petition.

The Bench observed that this was "a case of a complete breakdown of marriage for last 16 years and more."

The doctrine that mattered: a restitution decree as proof of desertion

The core legal question was this: can a decree for restitution of conjugal rights, with a finding of desertion, be used to establish the ground of desertion in a subsequent divorce petition?

The Supreme Court answered with a clear yes.

Where a decree for restitution of conjugal rights has been passed with a finding that the respondent deserted the petitioner without reasonable cause, and the decree has been confirmed on appeal, and the respondent has not resumed cohabitation or shown any inclination to do so, the ground of desertion under Section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act stands established for purposes of a subsequent divorce petition.

The Court also noted that Section 13(1A)(ii) of the Act provides a separate route — a divorce petition can be presented on the ground that there has been no restitution of conjugal rights for one year or more after the decree. But the one-year period was not complete when the husband filed his divorce petition. That did not matter, the Court held, because the desertion ground under Section 13(1)(ib) could independently succeed.

The High Court's finding on cruelty was left undisturbed. The Supreme Court did not disturb it, but it did not need to. The desertion ground was enough.

THE PLAY: A confirmed restitution decree with a finding of desertion, followed by continued non-compliance, is itself sufficient to prove desertion under Section 13(1)(ib) — even if the Section 13(1A)(ii) route is unavailable.

The price of freedom: Rs. 30 lakhs

The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal. It set aside the High Court's judgment insofar as it interfered with the divorce decree on the ground of desertion. The marriage was dissolved by a decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

But the decree came with a condition. The husband was directed to pay Rs. 30 lakhs as lump sum alimony to the wife within three months. The decree would become effective only upon payment. The wife's advocate was directed to provide bank details within three weeks; if not provided, the husband could deposit the amount with the Supreme Court. The Rs. 30 lakhs was in full and final settlement of the wife's maintenance claim.

The Court also noted the procedural history: the wife had filed a criminal complaint under Sections 406 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code, and a maintenance petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The maintenance petition was partly allowed in 2013 — the wife was denied maintenance for herself (on the ground that she had refused to live without sufficient cause), but maintenance was granted to the children. The criminal complaint largely failed.

Even mediation at the Supreme Court level had failed. The marriage was beyond repair.

Why this matters in practice

For advocates handling matrimonial disputes, this judgment offers a clear strategic lesson. A decree for restitution of conjugal rights is not just a procedural step — it is a weapon. If you obtain a restitution decree with a finding of desertion, and the other party does not comply, you have a powerful foundation for a subsequent divorce petition on the ground of desertion.

The key is to ensure that the restitution decree contains an explicit finding that the respondent deserted without reasonable cause. That finding, once confirmed on appeal, becomes binding. The respondent's continued non-compliance then becomes the evidence of continuous desertion.

For CFOs and founders, the takeaway is simpler: a marriage that has functionally ended for over a decade can be legally ended, but not without cost. The Rs. 30 lakhs alimony is a reminder that the court will balance the equities. The husband got his freedom, but he paid for it.

The bottom line: If you have a confirmed restitution decree with a finding of desertion, and the other party has not complied for years, you have a strong case for divorce under Section 13(1)(ib) — and the Supreme Court will enforce it, even if the High Court says otherwise.