Case Brief: Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli

CASE NAME	NAVEEN KOHLI V. NEELU KOHLI
PETITONER	NAVEEN KOHLI
RESPONDENT	NEELU KOHLI
CITATION	AIR 2006 SC 1675
DATE OF JUDGEMENT	21/O3/2006
BENCH	JUSTICE B.N. AGRWAL, A.K. MATHUR & DALVEER BHANDARI

FACTS OF THE CASE

Naveen Kohli and Neelu Kohli were married on 20^th November 1975 and had three sons. Over time, their relationship deteriorated due to consent quarrels, allegation of infidelity, and mutual hostility. The appellant alleged that the respondent was short-tempered and abusive, frequently insulted him and his parents, and created an atmosphere of unbearable mental tenson. He also claimed that she frequently transferred property and business assets into her name.

In may 1994, after witnessing his wife in a compromising situation with another man, the appellant began living separately. He alleged that the respondent initiated numerous began living separately. He alleged that the respondent initiated numerous criminal proceedings against him under various sections of forgery, domestic violence, and theft. She allegedly tried to have him arrested multiple times and filed complaints with the Women’s cell and company law board. She also published a public notice in a national newspaper portraying the appellant as mere employee, which tarnished his reputation.

The appellant claimed to have suffered immense mental. Physical and financial cruelty due to these actions. Despite several attempts at reconciliation, the couple remained separated for over da ecade, the family court found the respondent guilty of treating the appellant with cruelty and granted a divorce, along with a direction for the appellant to pay 5 lakh as permanent maintaince 

The respondent challenged this decision in the Allahabad High Court, which reversed the decree, citing misconduct by the appellant, including an alleged live-in relationship with another woman named Shivangi. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court, claiming the marriage had irretrievably broken down due to long-term separation and continued cruelty inflicted by the respondent.

ISSUES INVOLVED:

1. What constitutes cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955?
2. Whether the marriage can be dissolved on the ground of irretrievable breakdown in the present case?

OBSERVATION:

The Supreme Court first analyzed the scope of “cruelty” as a ground for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. This ground was introduced through the 1976 amendment.

Referring to the landmark case of N.G. Dastane v. S. Dastane (1975), the court reiterated that the test for cruelty is whether the conduct of one spouse has created a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the other that it would be harmful or injurious to live with the other party.

The court emphasized that mental cruelty is inherently difficult to prove through direct evidence, as it concerns the internal emotional and psychological state caused by the spouse’s behavior.

Key principles laid down include:

Cruelty may be physical or mental, intentional or unintentional.

In case of mental cruelty, courts must assess:

1. The nature of conduct,
2. Its impact on the complaining spouse, and 
3. Whether it creates a genuine apprehension of harm.

The behavior must be more severe than the normal wear and tear of marital life.

Although irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not explicitly recognized as a ground for divorce under the Act, the court discussed its practical importance.

The court observed that it is the legislature’s prerogative to incorporate this ground formally. However, when spouses have been living separately for a prolonged and uninterrupted periods, and one of them seeks divorce, it can be presumed that the marriage has collapsed beyond repair.

In such cases, the legal bond exists only on paper and continuing the relationship serves no real purpose. Persisting with such a union shows disregard for the emotions and dignity of the parties.

JUDGMENT 

The Supreme Court granted a decree of divorce under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, holding that the respondent’s conduct amounted to cruelty, and acknowledging the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage based on prolonged separation and mutual hostility. 

The court directed the appellant, Naveen Kohli, to pay a total of 25,00,000 as permanent alimony to the respondent, Neelu Kohli. This sum includes the 5,00,000 already deposited pursuant to the family Court’s order.

The Court urged the Union of India to consider amending the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 by formally recognizing irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a statutory ground for divorce, in line with the evolving societal realties and recommendations of the 71^st law Commission Report.

CONCLUSION:

The SC held that the decision of HC could not be upheld and granted the decree of divorce, recognizing both mental cruelty and the factual irretrievable breakdown of the marriage.