Cruelty Must Be Grave and Proven – Mere Allegations of Disobedience or Demand for Separate Residence Don’t Justify Divorce: Jharkhand High Court Rejects Husband’s Divorce Appeal

“Marital Discord Cannot Be Stretched into Cruelty”, a Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court, comprising Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Arun Kumar Rai, dismissed a husband’s appeal seeking divorce on grounds of cruelty under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, finding no perversity in the judgment of the Family Court, Dhanbad, which had earlier refused to dissolve the marriage, holding that the allegations of cruelty were neither grave nor substantiated.

The Family Court Appeal No. 26 of 2020, filed by XXX against his wife XXX, challenged the Family Court's decree dated 30.11.2019, which had rejected the divorce petition on the ground that the husband failed to establish the alleged acts of cruelty or desertion to the required degree.

“Cruelty Includes Grave Conduct, Not Marital Incompatibility” – Court Reiterates Legal Standard

The Court re-examined the concept of "cruelty" as judicially interpreted and firmly concluded that the husband had failed to establish any act—physical or mental—serious enough to amount to cruelty within the meaning of Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Act. Referring to a catena of Supreme Court judgments, the Bench observed:

“Cruelty must be of such a nature as to cause a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that it will be harmful or injurious to live with the other spouse. Mere incompatibility or ordinary wear and tear of married life does not amount to cruelty.” [Para 26–34]

Citing Dr. N.G. Dastane v. S. Dastane, Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi, and Joydeep Majumdar v. Bharti Jaiswal Majumdar, the Court held that minor quarrels, allegations about refusal to cook or cohabit, or pressure to live separately from parents do not constitute “grave” or “weighty” acts justifying divorce.

“Appellant Failed to Prove Allegations Even on Preponderance of Probabilities” – No Legal Error in Family Court’s Judgment

The husband had alleged that his wife quarreled frequently, refused to perform household work, and asked him to separate from his parents. He claimed she left the matrimonial home on 22.09.2015, threatened suicide, and later filed criminal complaints, including a dowry harassment case under Section 498A IPC and a maintenance case under Section 125 CrPC.

However, the High Court noted:

“The Family Court has meticulously evaluated the evidence and rightly concluded that the allegations lacked substance and were insufficient even on the test of preponderance of probabilities.” [Para 52]

“Desertion Must Be Wilful, Not Forced by Circumstances” – Wife’s Removal from Matrimonial Home Was Involuntary

The Court also rejected the husband's alternate claim of "desertion" as a ground for divorce, observing that desertion under the Act requires intentional abandonment without reasonable cause and without consent.

Relying on Debananda Tamuli v. Kakumoni Kataky (2022) 5 SCC 459, the Court emphasized:

“There must be animus deserendi on the part of the deserting spouse, and it must be established that the separation was without reasonable cause. In the present case, the wife was forced out and not a deserter.” [Para 50–51]

The Court noted that the wife had been ousted by the husband and his father after being physically assaulted, and even the police had to intervene. Despite this, she had expressed willingness to resume conjugal life, which further weakened the husband’s claims.

“The defendant is living separately not voluntarily, but under compelled circumstances, and has specifically stated she is still willing to lead conjugal life.” [Para 51]

“Perversity” Absent – Appellate Court Not to Interfere in Well-Reasoned Family Court Judgments

Rejecting the argument that the Family Court's judgment was “perverse,” the High Court reminded that appellate courts do not lightly interfere unless findings are so unreasonable as to defy logic, or ignore critical evidence.

Citing Arulvelu v. State, (2009) 10 SCC 206, the Court clarified:

“A perverse finding is one that is not only against the weight of evidence but altogether against the evidence itself. This is not such a case.” [Para 25]

On the contrary, the Family Court had appreciated both oral and documentary evidence, considered the criminal complaints and maintenance proceedings filed by the wife, and concluded there was no malice or falsehood proven.

Husband Withdrew Restitution Petition, Wife Willing to Reunite – Court Finds No Justification for Divorce

Interestingly, the husband had previously filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights, which he later withdrew, even though the wife was reportedly ready to return to the matrimonial home.

The Court found this sequence revealing:

“The plaintiff had earlier filed T.M.S. No. 746/2015 for restitution, but withdrew it despite the wife’s willingness. It reflects that he had no intent to reconcile and instead misused the legal process.” [Para 48–49]

: Appeal Dismissed – No Grounds Made Out for Dissolution of Marriage

Summarizing the case, the High Court concluded:

“The appellant has failed to establish any ground of cruelty or desertion under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The Family Court’s decision is based on sound legal principles and detailed evaluation of facts. There is no element of perversity or legal infirmity.” [Para 55–56]

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, and the Family Court’s judgment was affirmed. All pending interlocutory applications were also disposed of.

Date of Decision: December 2, 2025