Post-Mediation Separation And Rent Dispute Didn’t Prove Wife Deserted Husband; Jharkhand HC Upholds Divorce Denial

The parties married on 25 November 2007 and have two daughters. The husband sought divorce under Sections 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, alleging cruelty and desertion. The wife denied the allegations and maintained that she had been assaulted and compelled to leave the matrimonial home.

After an earlier Section 9 restitution-of-conjugal-rights proceeding was settled in mediation, the parties lived in rented accommodation for a period but their disputes continued. The Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi dismissed the husband’s divorce petition on 2 May 2025. The husband appealed under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984.

Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 permits an appeal to the High Court on facts and law, enabling it to reappraise the evidence as a first appellate court.

Under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, cruelty is assessed contextually, by considering whether the established conduct, individually or cumulatively, meets the threshold of grave conduct that makes continued matrimonial life unreasonable; ordinary discord and the normal wear and tear of marriage are insufficient. *Dastane v. Dastane*, (1975) 2 SCC 326; *Joydeep Majumdar v. Bharti Jaiswal Majumdar*, (2021) 3 SCC 742

Under Section 13(1)(ib), desertion requires separation, an intention permanently to end cohabitation, absence of the deserted spouse’s consent, and absence of reasonable cause for the deserting spouse’s departure; separation alone is not enough. *Debananda Tamuli v. Kakumoni Kataky*, (2022) 5 SCC 459

A finding is perverse where it ignores or excludes relevant material, relies on irrelevant material, or is so irrational that no reasonable person could have reached it; a different view of the evidence or its alleged inadequacy does not, by itself, establish perversity. *Arulvelu v. State*, (2009) 10 SCC 206; *Damodar Lal v. Sohan Devi*, (2016) 14 SCC 197

The Court considered the husband’s allegations of physical and verbal abuse, threats of suicide, opposition to his family members living in the home, false complaints, and removal of jewellery. It found that key allegations—including the alleged consumption of sleeping pills and the removal of the deceased mother’s jewellery—were not sufficiently substantiated, and that the complaints to authorities were not shown to have been knowingly false. The wife’s alleged insistence on separate accommodation did not, without proof of accompanying oppressive conduct, establish cruelty.

On desertion, the evidence showed that the parties’ separation followed continuing disputes and a mediated attempt at reconciliation, during which they lived in rented accommodation. The husband also admitted that he stopped paying rent and ceased meeting the wife. These circumstances did not establish that the wife had, without reasonable cause, intended permanently to end cohabitation.

The Court therefore found no perversity or other basis to disturb the Family Court’s assessment.

The appeal was dismissed; pending interlocutory applications, if any, were disposed of.