Jharkhand HC Upholds Family Court’s Rejection Of Divorce Plea | Husband Failed To Prove Cruelty, Desertion, Or Mental Illness | Marriage Not Wrecked Beyond Salvage
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Jharkhand Division Bench of Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Rajesh Kumar has upheld the judgment of the Family Court declining to grant divorce to the petitioner-husband. The Division Bench concluded that the petitioner had failed to establish the grounds of cruelty, desertion, or mental illness under Section 13(1) (i-a), (i-b), and (iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The appeal was dismissed in its entirety.
The Court held that no interference was warranted with the impugned judgment dated 30.06.2022 and the decree dated 08.07.2022 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Chatra. It recorded that the plaintiff-husband had "miserably failed to prove the grounds of alleged cruelty and desertion pleaded by him in his petition and as well as his wife’s status of being an individual having an unsound mind." The Court further held that no cogent, convincing, or concrete evidence had been adduced to substantiate the allegations and that the Family Court rightly refused to grant a decree of divorce.
The case arises from an appeal filed by the petitioner-husband against the judgment and decree rendered by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Chatra. The appellant had instituted Original Suit No. 29 of 2019 seeking a decree of divorce under Section 13(1) (i-a), (i-b), and (iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The suit was dismissed, leading to the filing of the current First Appeal.
The petitioner-husband alleged that his marriage with the respondent-wife was solemnized on 16.02.2017 according to Hindu rites and customs. Post-marriage, the respondent began residing with him at his matrimonial house. Soon thereafter, the respondent-wife began complaining of abdominal pain, which she admitted had existed prior to marriage. An MRI conducted in Delhi revealed a tumour in the womb. Despite medical advice, the wife’s father and brother refused treatment in Delhi and undertook to get her treated themselves.
The petitioner contended that this act of concealment of her illness prior to marriage amounted to fraud. He further alleged that the respondent would threaten suicide, inflict physical abuse upon him, and create disturbances in the household. He claimed that she once disappeared from their Delhi residence for two days without informing him. He brought her back to Chatra and left her in the care of his parents, where she allegedly continued to behave rudely, abused his parents, and attempted self-immolation. The respondent-wife eventually returned to her parental home and did not resume cohabitation thereafter.
According to the appellant, their marital relationship had completely broken down within six months of the marriage, and they had not had any physical relations for over one and a half years. He further alleged that the wife and her family members demanded money for medical treatment and threatened to implicate him and his family in a dowry case if the demands were not met. He stated that he transferred Rs. 15,000 and later facilitated her operation at Hill View Hospital, Ranchi using an insurance claim.
The wife allegedly accused the petitioner of performing a second marriage, a claim the petitioner denied. The appellant concluded that due to the persistent cruel behaviour, the marriage had become unsalvageable, and he had spent nearly Rs. 1,30,000 on her medical treatment.
The Family Court referred the matter twice to mediation, both of which failed. Thereafter, the respondent filed a written statement denying all allegations and asserting her willingness to continue the marital relationship. She claimed she was a woman of good character and had been neglected by the petitioner. She alleged that she was subjected to dowry-related harassment by the petitioner and his family, and after her parents failed to meet their demands, she was ousted from her matrimonial home.
The Family Court framed six issues for determination:
- Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form?
- Whether the petitioner has a valid cause of action?
- Whether the respondent treated the petitioner and his family with cruelty?
- Whether the respondent refused to develop physical relationship with the petitioner?
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to a decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a), (i-b), and (iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955?
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to relief(s) as prayed for?
The Family Court, upon appreciation of evidence, decided all issues against the petitioner.
Three witnesses were examined by the petitioner, including himself. PW-1, a neighbour, deposed that the respondent concealed her illness, misbehaved with the appellant, and threatened to commit suicide. However, in cross-examination, he admitted that he had been tutored by the appellant. PW-2, the appellant's father, repeated similar allegations but admitted he would have no objection if the parties stayed together. He could not specify dates of key events and acknowledged that no police report was filed when the respondent went missing in Delhi.
PW-3, the appellant, reiterated the contentions of cruelty, threats of suicide, and non-cohabitation. In cross-examination, he admitted that even if the respondent wished to reconcile, he would not accept her due to lack of trust. He admitted to having no documentary proof of the cruelty or threats alleged.
The respondent-wife adduced six witnesses, including herself. OPW-1, her cousin, stated that dowry demands were made and that she was ousted for failing to meet them. In cross-examination, he admitted he had no direct knowledge of the dowry demands.
OPW-2 also deposed about alleged dowry harassment and supported the respondent’s claim of willingness to reconcile. OPW-3, another cousin, supported the same version and denied any mental illness on the part of the respondent. OPW-4 affirmed these claims.
OPW-5, the respondent’s father, deposed that Rs. 10,00,000 and other valuables were given in dowry and that further demands led to harassment and ousting of his daughter. He also stated he filed a dowry harassment case. He denied the existence of any illness or mental condition.
OPW-6, the respondent, testified that she was always willing to cohabit with the petitioner and denied all allegations of cruelty, illness, or erratic behaviour. She affirmed her fitness to conceive and lead a married life and asserted that the case was falsely instituted to get rid of her after dowry demands were not met.
The Division Bench examined the evidence and stated: "though cruelty, desertion as well as his wife’s status of being an individual having an unsound mind has been pleaded by him in his petition, but no cogent evidence has been produced by him to prove these allegations."
Referring to the testimony of the appellant-husband, the Court noted: "except the vague and omnibus allegations made by husband against his respondent-wife, no cogent convincing, clinching evidence, no concrete documentary evidence has been led to substantiate the charges of cruelty, desertion and mental illness."
On the issue of cruelty, the Court considered various Supreme Court precedents. It cited Dr. N.G. Dastane v. Mrs. S. Dastane [(1975) 2 SCC 326] which held: "Court is to enquire as to whether the charge as cruelty, is of such a character, as to cause in the mind of the petitioner, a reasonable apprehension that, it will be harmful or injurious for him to live with the respondent."
It further cited Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi [(1988) 1 SCC 105]: "Cruelty is the conduct which adversely affects the spouse. Such cruelty can be either mental or physical, intentional or unintentional."
In this context, the Court recorded: "the issue of cruelty as has been alleged by the appellant-husband against his wife could not be proved because no concrete evidence to that effect has been produced by the appellant."
On desertion, the Court stated the legal definition: "desertion means the intentional permanent forsaking and abandonment of one spouse by the other without that other's consent, and without reasonable cause." It found that the respondent expressed her willingness to live with her husband and that the petitioner failed to prove otherwise.
On the allegation of mental illness, the Court invoked Section 13(1)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act and noted: "From perusal of record as well as impugned order it is evident that no concrete evidence like psychiatrist opinion or prescription of continuous treatment has been led by the appellant husband in this regard."
The Court further quoted Kollam Chandra Sekhar v. Kollam Padma Latha, (2014) 1 SCC 225: "Section 13(1)(iii) of the Act does not make a mere existence of a mental disorder of any degree sufficient in law to justify the dissolution of marriage."
It concluded: "the ground of mental illness has been raised by the appellant husband on the flimsy ground and taking in to consideration the aforesaid factual aspect the learned Family Court has rightly decided the said issue against the plaintiff husband."
The Division Bench issued the following final directions:
"Accordingly, issue as framed by this Court is decided against the appellant-husband and it is held that the learned Family Court had rightly not granted the decree of divorce in favour of the appellant husband on the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act or on the ground of desertion under Section 13(1)(ib) or even on the ground of mental illness under Section 13(1)(iii) of the Act 1955, as such same is requires no interference by this Court."
The Court further recorded: "This Court, on the basis of discussions made hereinabove, is of the view that the judgment passed on 30.06.2022 and decree signed on 08.07.2022 by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Chatra, whereby and whereunder the Original Suit No. 29 of 2019 filed by the petitioner-appellant-husband under Section 13(1), (i-a), (i-b) & iii of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for a decree of divorce has been dismissed, requires no interference by this Court."
The appeal was disposed of with the conclusion: "Accordingly, the instant appeal fails and is dismissed."
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Appellant: Mr. Ankit Vishal, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Satish Kumar Keshri, APP
Case Title: XXX v YYY
Neutral Citation: 2025: JHHC:14956-DB
Case Number: F.A. No. 74 of 2022
Bench: Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad, Justice Rajesh Kumar
