“Silent Desertion” as Conclusive Proof of Animus Deserendi
A Detailed Commentary on Anil Kumar Sonmani @ Anil Swami v. Smt. Shradha Tiwari (2025 CGHC 41430-DB)

1. Introduction

In August 2025, the Division Bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Rajani Dubey J. & Amitendra Kishore Prasad J.) delivered a judgment that crystallises a practical rule of evidence for matrimonial litigation: where the deserting spouse leaves a contemporaneous written declaration of permanent departure and subsequently remains ex parte, the letter—coupled with unrebutted testimony—can by itself satisfy both limbs of desertion and also constitute mental cruelty.

The judgment arose from an appeal filed by the husband, Anil Kumar Sonmani, after his divorce petition had been dismissed by the Family Court, Durg. The wife, Shradha Tiwari, despite service of summons and paper publication, chose neither to appear nor to file any written statement. The appellate court reversed the Family Court, granted a decree of divorce, and in doing so articulated what is likely to be cited hereafter as the “Silent Desertion” principle.

2. Summary of the Judgment

• The High Court held that the wife’s conduct amounted to (a) mental cruelty under section 13(1)(i-a) and (b) desertion under section 13(1)(i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA).
• A letter written by the wife on 16-09-2020 expressing her intention to sever all relations, together with her continuous absence and non-participation in the proceedings, was treated as decisive evidence of animus deserendi.
• Reliance placed by the Family Court on an un-exhibited counselling report was repudiated as a manifest error.
• Observing an irretrievable breakdown of the marriage, the Bench dissolved the marriage, thereby setting aside the Family Court’s decree.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

1. V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat (1994) 1 SCC 337 – Defined mental cruelty broadly to include conduct rendering cohabitation impossible. The Bench imported this definition and aligned the facts to it.
2. K. Srinivasa Rao v. D. A. Deepa (2013) 5 SCC 226 – Emphasised that long separation may itself amount to cruelty and reflect irretrievable breakdown. The court used this to underscore the futility of reunion after five years of separation.
3. Bipinchandra Jaisinghbhai Shah v. Prabhavati AIR 1957 SC 176 – Classic two-element test for desertion (factum of separation + animus deserendi). The High Court measured the facts directly against this matrix.
4. Dr. Nirmal Singh Panesar v. Paramjit Kaur Panesar (2025) 3 SCC 790 & Debananda Tamuli v. Kakumoni Kataky (2022) 5 SCC 459 – Recent restatements of the four-condition test for desertion. By citing them, the Bench signalled doctrinal continuity while refining application to ex-parte scenarios.
5. Smt. Vijaya Laxmi Soni v. Raj Kumar Soni 2009 (2) CGLJ 72 (DB) – Chhattisgarh precedent approving divorce where reunion is “impossible.” Used to justify dissolution once cruelty and desertion co-existed.

3.2 Legal Reasoning in Depth

The Bench’s reasoning proceeds in three concentric layers:

1. Evidentiary Layer: Unrebutted affidavit evidence (Order 18 Rule 4 CPC) and corroborating PW-2 testimony established the husband’s narrative. The wife’s ex-parte status deprived the court of any counter-narrative.
2. Doctrinal Layer:
   • Mental cruelty: The wife’s taunts during the husband’s financial hardship, manipulation of the daughter, and unilateral withdrawal from the relationship surpassed the threshold described in V. Bhagat.
   • Desertion: The 16-09-2020 letter manifested clear intention (animus). Continuous separation satisfied the factum. Thus both statutory elements under Section 13(1)(i-b) were met.
3. Policy Layer (Irretrievable Breakdown): Although not a statutory ground, the court invoked Supreme Court dicta allowing breakdown to serve as a persuasive factor. Five years of separation confirmed the marriage’s “death for all purposes.”

3.3 Impact on Future Litigation and Family Law

1. Elevated Evidentiary Value of Departure Letters: Matrimonial practitioners can now cite this case to argue that a spouse’s contemporaneous, self-authored letter of exit—if unrebutted—can singularly satisfy desertion’s mental element.
2. Guidance for Ex-Parte Situations: The decision clarifies that where the respondent remains ex-parte, the petitioner’s burden is discharged once credible evidence is adduced; the court should not invent hypothetical defences.
3. Warning Against Reliance on Non-Exhibited Documents: Trial courts are reminded that material not formally proved cannot be the basis of a finding.
4. Reinforcement of Breakdown Doctrine: State High Courts, though lacking power to directly grant divorce on this ground, may rely on breakdown as a determinative factor in cruelty or desertion analyses.
5. Custodial Aspects: The court noted without deciding that the daughter stayed with the mother and the son with the father, hinting at a tacit judicial acceptance of split custody where parties are at loggerheads—an area ripe for future clarification.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

• Mental Cruelty: Psychological or emotional behaviour by one spouse that causes serious anguish to the other, making continued cohabitation unreasonable. Physical violence is not necessary.
• Desertion (Section 13(1)(i-b) HMA): Two elements must coexist for at least two years:
  1. Factum of separation – the spouses actually live apart.
  2. Animus deserendi – the deserting spouse intends to end marital cohabitation permanently.
• Animus Deserendi: Latin for “intent to desert.” It can be inferred from conduct; express words are not mandatory but, as in this case, a written declaration is near-conclusive.
• Irretrievable Breakdown: A judicially evolved doctrine recognising that where marriage is “dead,” forcing parties to stay married serves no purpose. Not expressly in the HMA, but used by courts as a compelling circumstance to grant divorce on existing statutory grounds.
• Ex-Parte Proceedings: Hearings where one party is absent despite service of notice. The present party must still prove its case but faces no cross-examination.

5. Conclusion

The Chhattisgarh High Court’s decision in Anil Kumar Sonmani v. Shradha Tiwari advances family-law jurisprudence by formulating the “Silent Desertion” rule: a spouse’s contemporaneous written renunciation, when followed by prolonged silence in the litigation, suffices to establish both desertion and mental cruelty. The court’s meticulous alignment with Supreme Court precedent, combined with a pragmatic evidentiary approach, renders the judgment a persuasive authority for similar matrimonial disputes across India. In practical terms, the ruling empowers aggrieved spouses to rely on tangible contemporaneous documents and discourages dilatory tactics by absentee respondents. Ultimately, it underscores the legal system’s commitment to substantive justice over procedural formalities where the marital bond has irremediably perished.