Allegations of Cruelty and Desertion Without Dates or Evidence Cannot Be Basis for Divorce: Patna High Court

No Specific Allegations, No Divorce, On 2nd September 2025, a Division Bench of the Patna High Court, comprising Acting Chief Justice P.B. Bajanthri and Justice S.B. Pd. Singh, dismissed Appeal filed by XXX, challenging the dismissal of his divorce petition by the Family Court, Supaul. The High Court upheld the Family Court's finding that general allegations of cruelty and desertion, unsupported by specific facts or evidence, are insufficient to grant divorce under Sections 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

“The appellant has no cause of action to sue,” the Court ruled, noting the complete absence of any specific incidents, dates, or corroborative evidence in either the divorce petition or the husband’s testimony.

“Mental Cruelty Must Be Grave and Substantial, Not Routine Marital Wear and Tear”: High Court Applies Apex Court Precedents

The appellant-husband alleged that his wife was medically unfit, suffered from reproductive disorders, displayed aggressive behaviour, and deserted him without cause. He further claimed that she exerted financial and emotional pressure by forcing him to part with his share of ancestral property. However, none of these allegations were supported by material evidence, and the Court found that even if assumed to be true, they would not meet the legal threshold of “cruelty”.

Citing the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh, (2007) 4 SCC 511, the Court reiterated:

“More trivial irritations, quarrel, normal wear and tear of the married life which happens in day-to-day life would not be adequate for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty.”

The Bench further quoted from Narayan Ganesh Dastane v. Sucheta Narayan Dastane, AIR 1975 SC 1534:

“What may be cruel to one person may be laughed off by another... The court has to deal, not with an ideal husband and wife, but with the particular man and woman before it.”

The Court thus held that “mere accusations, emotional discord, or medical complications of a spouse cannot be construed as cruelty unless it has a grave and injurious impact on the aggrieved party.”

“No Desertion Pleaded or Proven – Allegation Baseless”: Failure to Mention Date of Separation Defeats Divorce Claim

The Court rejected the appellant’s second ground—desertion—finding that no date, duration, or context of the alleged desertion was mentioned either in pleadings or evidence. The Family Court had noted the same, observing:

“Not even a single incident with reference to specific date of alleged cruelty has been urged in the plaint... the petitioner has no cause of action to sue.”

Justice S.B. Pd. Singh, writing for the Bench, emphasized that divorce on the ground of desertion under Section 13(1)(ib) requires the petitioner to establish wilful abandonment by the spouse for a continuous period of not less than two years, and this must be specifically pleaded and proven, which was not done in the present case.

Furthermore, the appellant did not initiate proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights, further weakening the claim of being wrongfully deserted.

The respondent, in turn, alleged that she was thrown out of the matrimonial home after dowry demands and had lodged Complaint Case No. 204C of 2015 under Sections 323, 324, 498A IPC against the appellant and his family.

“Appeal is Not a Platform to Re-Argue Unsupported Facts – No Error in Trial Court’s Appreciation of Evidence”

The High Court strongly emphasized the limited scope of interference in appeals, especially when the findings of the Trial Court are based on oral and documentary evidence.

Citing the judgment in Jagdish Singh v. Madhuri Devi, (2008) 10 SCC 497, the Bench held:

“When a finding of fact has been recorded by the trial court mainly on appreciation of oral evidence, it should not be lightly disturbed unless the approach... is erroneous, contrary to law or unreasonable.”

In the present case, the Family Court had examined four witnesses for the appellant and six for the respondent, and concluded that the appellant failed to discharge his burden of proof.

The High Court found no perversity or illegality in the Family Court's evaluation of evidence, observing:

“The Family Court has rightly dismissed the matrimonial case of the appellant seeking divorce. We find no merit in the present appeal warranting any interference.”

“Vague Allegations, No Medical Proof, and No Documentary Corroboration – Divorce Petition Based on Conjectures Rightly Dismissed”

While the appellant presented documents like certified copies of complaint petitions and medical references, the Court noted that these did not establish any act of cruelty or desertion with legal precision. The Bench cautioned against treating general dissatisfaction in marriage as a ground for divorce, stating:

“Flimsy acts or mere threats cannot constitute cruelty in the eyes of law. Petulance of manner and harshness of language may vary by background and temperament.”

Notably, the Court remarked that the husband’s second marriage, allegedly performed without dissolving the first, was a serious violation under the Hindu Marriage Act and further undermined his case.

No Cruelty, No Desertion, No Divorce – Patna High Court Affirms Family Court’s Reasoned Judgment

In sum, the High Court held that the appellant had:

• Failed to establish any specific, grave act of cruelty

• Failed to prove desertion by the respondent

• Failed to demonstrate any legal infirmity in the Family Court’s judgment

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the marriage between the parties continues to subsist and no ground for dissolution exists under the law.

“The present appeal is dismissed accordingly, affirming the impugned judgment.” – Justice S.B. Pd. Singh, concurring with Acting Chief Justice P.B. Bajanthri

Date of Decision: 2 September 2025