After Husband Contracted Second Marriage, Jharkhand HC Rejects Divorce Bid, Raises Wife And Daughter’s Maintenance To Rs 30,000 Monthly

In brief

The question

1. Whether the husband established cruelty by the wife sufficient to dissolve the marriage under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

The court held

The Court answered both issues against the husband, dismissed the appeal, and declined to grant a decree of divorce.

It also directed

It enhanced maintenance payable to the wife and daughter from Rs. 15,000 to Rs. 30,000 per month with effect from November 2026, directed payment of any arrears by 31 December 2026, and awarded the wife costs of Rs. 25,000.

The maintenance order does not preclude either the wife or daughter from seeking further relief before a competent court.

01Facts

The husband appealed under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, against dismissal of his petition for divorce under Sections 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, on grounds of cruelty and desertion.

¶ 2–4, 12

The parties married in 1988 and have a daughter.

¶ 6, 9, 22

The husband alleged that the wife had lived separately for many years and failed to resume cohabitation despite a 2000 settlement in earlier matrimonial proceedings.

¶ 6, 9, 22

The wife alleged cruelty and the husband’s extra-marital relationship; it was admitted before the High Court that he had contracted a second marriage during the subsistence of the first and had a son from it.

¶ 10, 17, 21, 23–24

The Family Court found that the wife’s separation was justified and dismissed the divorce petition.

¶ 11–12

02Issues

i.1. Whether the husband established cruelty by the wife sufficient to dissolve the marriage under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

¶ 16

ii.2. Whether the wife’s separate residence amounted to desertion under Section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

¶ 16, 27–29

03Law Applied

Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act permits divorce for cruelty, which must be established as conduct sufficiently serious to justify dissolution of the marriage.

¶ 11

Section 13(1)(ib) permits divorce for desertion; separation for a valid cause is not desertion, while unjustified separation without an intention to restore conjugal life may constitute desertion.

¶ 11, 27

The Court also referred to Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324, in connection with the parties’ affidavits of assets and liabilities relevant to maintenance.

¶ 18–20, 31–32

Provisions in the judgment · 2 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Family Courts Act, 1984 Section 19

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 Section 13

04Reasoning

The husband failed to prove cruelty by the wife.

¶ 23–26

The admitted second marriage, contracted while the first marriage subsisted, supported the wife’s pleaded case of an extra-marital relationship and provided a valid reason for her to live separately.

¶ 23–26

The husband also failed to show that he had taken sincere steps to restore cohabitation after the 2000 settlement; accordingly, the wife’s continued separate residence did not amount to desertion.

¶ 27–29

The Court therefore found neither statutory ground established.

¶ 29–30