Jharkhand HC Sets Aside Ex-Parte Divorce: Husband’s Unproved Claims Of Wife’s Mental Illness And Medication Refusal Could Not Alone Establish Cruelty

The parties married in 2019.

The husband alleged that the wife quarrelled with his family, had schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and seizures, and refused prescribed medication.

He sought divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

The wife did not appear before the Family Court, which proceeded ex parte and granted a divorce decree, treating her alleged refusal to take medication as mental cruelty.

On appeal, the wife challenged the decree, including on the grounds that the medical allegations were unsupported by expert evidence and that the proceedings had been conducted without proper service.

The High Court noted that the husband had called three witnesses, but no treating doctor or medical expert.

Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 permits an appeal to the High Court on both facts and law; the appellate court may reappraise the evidence.

Under Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, a fact is proved on the applicable civil standard of preponderance of probabilities.

Under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, cruelty must be assessed in context and must be conduct of sufficient gravity and effect; ordinary marital discord is insufficient.

The court relied on Dr. N.G. Dastane v. S. Dastane, (1975) 2 SCC 326; Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi, (1988) 1 SCC 105; and Joydeep Majumdar v. Bharti Jaiswal Majumdar, (2021) 3 SCC 742, among other authorities, on the contextual nature and required seriousness of cruelty.

Under Ram Narain Gupta v. Smt. Rameshwari Gupta, (1988) 4 SCC 247, a diagnosis or label of mental disorder alone does not justify dissolution under Section 13(1)(iii); its nature and degree must be established.

Mental disorder under Section 13(1)(iii) is distinct from cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia).

Even in ex parte proceedings, the petitioner must prove the statutory ground for relief; non-appearance does not make the petition’s allegations admitted.

The Family Court substantially based its decree on the husband’s account that the wife had a mental illness and refused medication, without examining the doctor or other medical evidence to establish the diagnosis, severity, or impact on the marital relationship.

The High Court held that refusal or inability to take medication cannot, by itself, establish cruelty, particularly where the underlying condition and circumstances of the alleged refusal have not been proved.

The ex parte nature of the proceedings did not relieve the husband of proving cruelty through legally acceptable evidence.

By treating the allegations as established without adequate scrutiny, the Family Court’s conclusion was perverse and warranted appellate interference.

It allowed the appeal and quashed and set aside the judgment dated 5 January 2026 and decree signed on 17 January 2026 in Original Suit No. 68 of 2025.