Wife’s Visits To Parental Home Alone Didn’t Prove Cruelty Or Desertion; Jharkhand HC Sets Aside Divorce Decree

The parties married on 9 May 2006 and had two children.

The husband alleged that the wife frequently stayed at her parental home, left the matrimonial home on 14 August 2019, and did not return; he sought divorce on grounds of cruelty and desertion under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

The Family Court proceeded ex parte and granted a divorce decree.

The wife appealed, disputing the allegations and asserting that she had been subjected to dowry-related cruelty and forced to leave; a related criminal case was pending.

Under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, cruelty must be assessed contextually; the conduct must be sufficiently grave and weighty, rather than mere trivial irritation or ordinary marital discord, to make continued cohabitation unreasonable.

Under Section 13(1)(ib), desertion requires both the factum of separation and *animus deserendi*, without reasonable cause and against the other spouse’s wish, continuing for the statutory period.

*Lachman Utamchand Kirpalani v. Meena*, AIR 1964 SC 40, discussed at para. 70; *Debananda Tamuli v. Kakumoni Kataky*, (2022) 5 SCC 459, discussed at para. 70.

An ex parte proceeding does not relieve the court of its duty to test the evidence for legal sufficiency, and a restitution-of-conjugal-rights decree does not by itself establish a ground for divorce.

Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 permits an appeal on fact and law, allowing the High Court to reappraise the evidence.

The husband’s allegations that the wife stayed at her parental home and that her family wanted him to live as a “Gharjamai” were general and did not identify specific acts establishing cruelty; the two supporting witnesses substantially repeated his account.

The wife’s pending dowry-related criminal case did not establish that the allegations against the husband were true, but neither could its mere filing be treated as proof that the wife had deserted him or acted cruelly.

The husband did not establish that the wife left without reasonable cause or with an intention permanently to end cohabitation.

The Court also found that the Family Court had not adequately addressed effective service or independently assessed whether the unchallenged evidence met the statutory requirements.

It quashed and set aside the Family Court’s judgment dated 5 December 2023 and allowed the appeal; any pending interlocutory application was disposed of.