Husband’s Unproved Affair Claims Over Wife’s Calls To A Man Were Cruel To Her, Jharkhand HC Says, Rejecting Divorce Bid

The parties married on 30 April 2005 and have two children.

The husband alleged that the wife subjected him to physical and mental cruelty and left the matrimonial home in April 2015.

The wife maintained that she left because of alleged dowry demands and physical and mental abuse, and stated that she remained willing to resume cohabitation.

The husband’s petition for divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA) was dismissed by the Family Court, which found cruelty and desertion unproved.

He appealed under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984.

Under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the HMA, cruelty may be physical or mental; the Court stated that it must be of a nature that makes matrimonial life incompatible and prevents restoration of conjugal life.

The Trial Court referred to Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh, applying the principle that ordinary marital irritations and isolated incidents do not, without more, amount to cruelty; the conduct must be sufficiently persistent and serious.

Section 13(1)(i-b) provides desertion as a ground for divorce; the Court considered the parties’ intention regarding separation, particularly whether the wife had the intention to desert.

A claim is not defeated merely because the party did not cite the specific statutory provision, where the relevant pleadings and issue are before the court.

The Court found the husband’s evidence of physical cruelty inadequately corroborated. The two supporting witnesses were his colleagues and friends, while the daughter’s testimony was treated cautiously because she was a minor living with the husband and said her evidence had been prepared at his dictation.

The husband’s allegation that the wife’s conversations with a man established an extramarital relationship was unsupported and, in the Court’s view, reflected a gender-based stereotype; the alleged relationship was not proved.

On desertion, the Court noted that the wife had expressed willingness to resume conjugal life, including during proceedings before the High Court, while the husband refused cohabitation. It also considered the parties’ compromise and related documents. The Court ultimately concluded that desertion was not established.

It dismissed the appeal, made no separate order concerning interim maintenance, and disposed of any pending interlocutory applications.