Cruelty | Non-Registration Of FIR Cannot Be Ground To Discredit Testimony Of Wife Seeking Divorce: Jharkhand High Court

"In matrimonial disputes, when either party adduces evidence to substantiate the element of cruelty particularly the wife, the mere fact of non-institution of a formal First Information Report cannot, by itself, be treated as a ground to discredit such testimony." Jharkhand High Court, in a significant ruling dated October 9, 2026, held that the absence of a formal police complaint or FIR does not automatically negate allegations of matrimonial cruelty, emphasizing that judicial scrutiny must prioritize the preponderance of probability in such sensitive relationships.

A bench of Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Sanjay Prasad observed that when a wife demonstrates that she was compelled to leave her matrimonial home due to persistent abuse, the court must recognize the reality of her circumstances rather than requiring the "beyond reasonable doubt" standard applied in criminal trials.

The appellant-wife sought a decree of divorce under Section 27(1)(b) and (d) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, alleging that her husband was a habitual drunkard who subjected her and their two children to physical and mental torture. She stated that she had been forced to abandon the matrimonial home in 2018 and has since been supporting herself and her children through her employment as a nurse. The trial court had dismissed the suit ex parte, primarily on the ground that the allegations of cruelty were not substantiated by any formal criminal case.

The primary question before the court was whether the judgment of the Family Court, which declined to grant a divorce despite the respondent-husband’s non-appearance and the wife's testimony of abuse, warranted appellate interference. The court was specifically tasked with determining whether the trial court’s finding—that cruelty and desertion were not proven due to the lack of a formal criminal record—suffered from the vice of perversity.

Appellate Jurisdiction and Standard of Proof

The Court underscored that in an appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, the High Court is empowered to re-appreciate both law and facts. Relying on Jagdish Singh v. Madhuri Devi, the bench reiterated that an appeal is a continuation of the suit, allowing for a comprehensive review of all evidence. The Court emphasized that civil proceedings, particularly those concerning delicate personal relationships, are governed by the rule of "preponderance of probability" rather than the criminal standard of "proof beyond a shadow of doubt."

Defining Perversity in Judicial Findings

The bench elaborated on the threshold for "perversity," noting that a judgment is perverse if it ignores relevant material or is based on an irrational assessment of evidence. The Court held that when a Family Court ignores the "vital circumstance" of a wife being forced to live in solitude and financial hardship, it commits a grave error. An order made in conscious violation of pleadings and established legal norms is inherently perverse and liable to be set aside.

The Nexus Between Cruelty and Desertion

The Court clarified that cruelty and desertion are often inter-related. Where a spouse is forced to flee the matrimonial home due to cruelty, the departure cannot be termed as "desertion" by the spouse leaving. Rather, it is a compelled act. The bench observed that the respondent-husband’s consistent non-appearance, despite valid service of notice, reflected a complete lack of interest in the marital bond and an animus deserendi on his part.

Court Rejects Insistence on FIR

Addressing the trial court's reliance on the absence of an FIR, the bench observed that matrimonial cruelty is often a private, sustained course of conduct that may not always result in a police record. The Court stated that a wife’s testimony regarding torture, when consistent and corroborated by her decision to live independently to ensure the safety of her children, is sufficient to establish cruelty.

"The pertinent question that arises is why she would voluntarily choose to live alone and endure the rigours of solitude and financial hardship, unless compelled by the cruelty meted out to her."

Concluding that the marriage had irretrievably broken down due to the respondent’s conduct since 2018, the Court quashed the lower court’s judgment. The appeal was allowed, and a decree of dissolution of marriage was granted. The High Court clarified that while the divorce was granted, the children's right to inheritance remains protected, and the appellant remains free to claim maintenance for her minor children in appropriate proceedings.

Date of Decision: 09 October 2026