Spousal refusal to resign employment for relocation does not constitute matrimonial cruelty or desertion.

The parties married on December 18, 2011, and registered it in 2012

The husband is a Central Government employee (Intelligence Bureau) posted in Odisha, while the wife is a Jharkhand State Government employee posted in Dumka

In 2016, the husband filed a suit (O.S. 113/2016) for Restitution of Conjugal Rights (RCR), which was decreed in 2018, directing the wife to join him permanently

Subsequently, the husband filed O.S. 118 of 2019 for divorce on grounds of cruelty and non-compliance with the RCR decree

Conversely, the wife filed O.S. 135 of 2019 for RCR, alleging that despite her efforts to join him (supported by rail tickets and hotel bills in Odisha), the husband blocked her entry and mistreated her due to her physical disability

The Family Court, Dumka, dismissed the divorce suit and allowed the wife’s RCR suit. The husband appealed both decisions

1. Whether the husband established "cruelty" (mental or physical) by the wife as a ground for divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

2. Whether the husband was entitled to a divorce under Section 13(1-A)(ii) for non-restitution of conjugal rights following the 2018 decree.

3. Whether the wife was entitled to a decree of restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

The Court applied Section 9 (Restitution of Conjugal Rights), Section 13(1)(i-a) (Divorce on grounds of cruelty), and Section 13(1-A)(ii) (Divorce for non-compliance of RCR decree) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

It relied on Dr. N.G. Dastane v. Mrs. S. Dastane to define cruelty as conduct causing reasonable apprehension of harm

It cited Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi and Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh to establish that "mental cruelty" is contextual and lacks a straitjacket formula

Regarding RCR, it applied Suman Singh v. Sanjay Singh, holding that the party who withdraws from society without reasonable excuse is liable to an RCR decree

Finally, it used Arulvelu v. State to define "perversity" in judicial findings as those ignoring relevant evidence

The Court found no evidence of cruelty by the wife.

It noted that the husband's allegations regarding a previous criminal case were beyond his original pleadings and thus inadmissible

Critically, the husband admitted to cohabiting with the wife during his leaves in Dumka, which negated claims of total desertion

Regarding non-restitution, the Court observed that the wife provided documentary evidence (Exts. A, B, C, D), including rail tickets and guest house bills, proving she visited the husband in Odisha to resume cohabitation

The husband, however, failed to facilitate her stay and switched off his phone

The Court deduced that the husband was using the 2018 decree merely to create a ground for divorce while simultaneously preventing restitution, which violates Section 23(1)(a) (prohibition of taking advantage of one's own wrong)

The Court further noted the husband's refusal to accommodate the wife's state-bound career and her physical handicap

It held that the husband failed to prove cruelty or a valid ground for divorce under Section 13(1-A)(ii) because the failure to restitute was caused by his own conduct

The Court upheld the decree for Restitution of Conjugal Rights in favor of the wife, finding that she was bona fide in her intent to maintain the marriage while the husband had withdrawn from her society without reasonable excuse

All pending interlocutory applications were disposed of