Wife’s Education And Job Were No Favour From Husband: Jharkhand HC Grants Divorce On Unrebutted Cruelty Evidence

The parties married in 2004 and had a daughter in 2007.

Renuka sought divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, alleging dowry demands and physical and mental cruelty.

Dileep denied the allegations in his written statement but did not give evidence at trial.

Renuka, her father and a neighbour testified in support of her case; the Family Court dismissed the suit, relying in part on its view that the husband had supported her education and employment and that she was over-ambitious.

Renuka appealed.

Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act permits divorce where a spouse has treated the petitioner with cruelty.

Under Order VIII Rules 3–5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, denials must be specific; vague denials do not suffice, and facts not specifically denied may be treated as admitted.

Pleadings are not a substitute for proof: facts pleaded must be proved by evidence.

Additional documents at the appellate stage cannot be relied upon merely by annexing them to an affidavit; the requirements of Order XLI Rule 27 CPC must be met.

The Court also affirmed that spouses are equal partners in marriage and that a wife’s pursuit of education or employment is not a favour granted by her husband or a basis for gender-stereotyped adverse conclusions.

The appellant’s evidence of dowry demands and physical and mental cruelty was substantially unchallenged: the respondent neither adduced evidence nor cross-examined the appellant and her witnesses.

The alleged contradiction between the appellant’s account of abuse in April 2015 and her father’s account of an assault in June 2015 concerned separate incidents, not inconsistent testimony.

The Family Court therefore erred in dismissing the claim on vague denials and in treating the appellant’s education and employment as privileges reflecting the husband’s “liberal” or “accommodating” nature.

Those observations relied on gender stereotyping and did not rebut the evidence of cruelty.

As no alimony or maintenance application was before it, the Court made no such order but reserved the appellant’s and daughter’s right to seek maintenance before a competent court.