Yes, but the route changes completely. Mutual consent under Section 13B needs both spouses. A contested divorce does not. What it needs instead is a recognised ground, and proof of it.
The trade-off you are making
A mutual consent divorce is short, cheap and predictable because nobody is contesting anything. A contested divorce is none of those things. You are now running a trial: pleadings, documents, examination and cross-examination of witnesses, arguments. Realistically that is years rather than months, and appeals extend it further.
You must plead a ground, not just unhappiness
Under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act the grounds include cruelty, desertion for two years or more, adultery, conversion to another religion, unsoundness of mind, virulent and incurable disease, and renunciation of the world. Parallel provisions exist under the Special Marriage Act, the Indian Divorce Act and Muslim personal law. In practice, cruelty and desertion carry the overwhelming majority of contested petitions.
Mental cruelty is a well-developed head: sustained humiliation, false criminal complaints, refusal of conjugal relations without cause, and conduct that makes cohabitation genuinely intolerable have all been accepted. It is judged on the cumulative effect of conduct, not one incident.
Evidence decides it
The court cannot act on your account alone. Messages, emails, medical records, police complaints, witnesses, and a clear chronology are what convert an allegation into a finding. Start collecting before you file, not after.
Mediation is not a formality
Family courts will refer the matter to mediation, and a large share of contested petitions convert into mutual consent once maintenance and custody are settled. That is not a failure. It is usually the fastest exit available, and it lets you control the terms rather than have them imposed.