Priyank Chauhan v. Mr. Aditya Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the

reflects that the parties have been living separately since February 2011, with no attempt of reconciliation. The respondent herself admitted that the appellant began living apart in a rented accommodation, which corroborates the prolonged separation. No plausible explanation or reasonable cause for such separation has been furnished by the respondent.

12. In Sukhendu Das v. Rita Mukherjee (2017) 9 SCC 632 and Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh [(2007) 4 SCC 511], the Supreme Court observed that long separation and complete emotional detachment between the parties indicators of mental cruelty and irretrievable breakdown of marriage, the same principle applies here, accordingly, the element of desertion stands established.

13. From the pleadings and evidence, undisputed that the parties have lived separately for over thirteen years and have had no communication during this period. All reconciliation efforts have failed. The respondent’s lack of willingness to resume cohabitation, even during pendency of the appeal, demonstrates that the marital bond has ruptured beyond repair. In Rajib Kumar Roy v. Smt. Shushmita Saha, (2023) 17 SCC 441, the Supreme Court held that long separation, emotional detachment, and mutual bitterness constitute irretrievable breakdown of marriage and amount to cruelty on both sides. Likewise, in Rakesh Raman v. Kavita, (2023) 17 SCC 443, it was held that continuation of a dead marriage only perpetuates cruelty, therefore, though irretrievable breakdown is not a statutory ground under Section 13 of the Act, the same may be considered as an instance of mental cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act.

14. In the considered opinion of this Court, the marriage between the parties has become emotionally lifeless and practically unworkable. The conduct of the respondent amounts to mental cruelty; the prolonged separation satisfies the ingredients of desertion; and the relationship stands irretrievably broken down. The allegation regarding illicit relationship has not been substantiated by any evidence by the respondent. The Family Court erred in disregarding these well-established principles and in dismissing the petition despite overwhelming evidence of incompatibility and mental agony.

15. Accordingly, the judgment and decree dated

31.08.2019 passed by the learned Additional Judge, Family Court, Rishikesh, District Dehradun, in Original Suit No. 133 of 2017, Priyank Chauhan v. Smt. Vinita Chauhan, is hereby set aside. The appeal is allowed. A decree of divorce is granted in favour of the appellant– husband under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The marriage solemnized on

20.04.2008 between the appellant and respondent is hereby dissolved.

16. There shall be no order as to costs. ( Ra v i n d r a M a i t h a n i , J.) ( A l o k M a h r a , J.) Mam t a MA MTA RANI RANI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=6a812005bebfcf46 f244f3e584af1449e430ef90 0bf09a6d67ebbd64267132 9b, postalCode=263001, st=Uttarakhand, serialNumber=5de1751a4f1 d9cabfd54852c9e68911ca8 b66dd26690a191648ab5d8 dd004ef0, cn=MAMTA RANI +05'30'