Employment-Related Separation Cannot Be Labelled as Desertion: Jharkhand High Court Dismisses Husband’s Divorce Appeal

“Wife’s decision to stay near her workplace due to commuting constraints is a compulsion, not cruelty” –  In a nuanced matrimonial ruling, the Jharkhand High Court dismissed an appeal filed by a husband seeking divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion, holding that the wife's stay at her parental home due to employment constraints could not be treated as intentional abandonment or mental cruelty.

A Division Bench of Justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay and Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava upheld the Family Court’s refusal to grant divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, observing:

“What has been construed by the petitioner as ‘reluctance’ is, in the facts and circumstances of the case, a ‘compulsion’… The wife's continued stay at her parental home was dictated by the practical impossibility of daily commuting, not by any intent to desert or inflict cruelty.”

“Cruelty is Not Established by Mere Marital Discord or Physical Separation Arising from Work”

The husband had approached the Family Court in Jamtara alleging that his wife, a government school teacher, insisted on separating from his parents, created frequent quarrels at home, and eventually left the matrimonial house on 15.03.2018, never to return. He claimed she had deserted him and inflicted mental cruelty by refusing to live with him, despite prior settlements under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights.

However, the High Court, after analysing the entire marital conduct, declined to entertain the petition, holding that mere inconvenience or tension arising from occupational arrangements cannot amount to cruelty.

“Cruelty must be grave and weighty—mere coldness, rudeness, or practical difficulties in marital life do not meet the legal threshold. There is no evidence of wilful, unjustifiable conduct adversely affecting the petitioner’s life or health,” the Court held, relying on Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh [(2007) 4 SCC 511] and A. Jayachandra v. Aneel Kaur [(2005) 2 SCC 22].

The Court further observed that the petitioner failed to prove any single incident rising to the standard of mental cruelty as defined in law.

“Wife Sent Money Regularly and Sought Transfer Near Matrimonial Home—Conduct Inconsistent with Desertion”

The Court dismissed the claim of desertion, holding that the wife's actions demonstrated her intention to maintain the marital bond, despite physical distance. The respondent, Mamta Kumari, a government teacher posted 75 km away, had repeatedly applied for a transfer and, unable to commute daily, stayed at her parental home to attend duties. Notably, she transferred substantial portions of her salary to her husband’s account to support household expenses.

“Such conduct reflects an active effort to contribute to the marriage and cannot be equated with wilful abandonment,” the Court noted.

The High Court found merit in the Family Court’s observation that the husband had knowledge of the wife’s employment prior to marriage and had voluntarily agreed to the arrangement. The husband’s income was found to be modest, and the financial support from the wife strengthened her claim of continuing commitment to the marriage.

“Settlement in Earlier Restitution Case Cannot Be Twisted into Proof of Desertion”

The Court also rejected the argument that the wife’s failure to resume cohabitation after a previous settlement in a restitution petition amounted to desertion. It found that efforts were indeed made by the wife, including participating in family trips and panchayati arrangements. However, lack of cooperation and medical complications led her to return to her father’s house.

“The Court cannot ignore the real-world limitations imposed by employment, health, and household dynamics. To brand such adjustments as desertion or cruelty is legally unsound,” it held.

Affirming the Family Court’s dismissal of the divorce petition, the High Court concluded that neither cruelty nor desertion had been proved on record, and the appeal was devoid of merit.

“In matrimonial law, isolated disagreements, employment obligations, or logistical separations do not, by themselves, rise to the level of cruelty or desertion. A holistic appreciation of conduct is necessary, and the respondent’s actions in this case reflect continued willingness to sustain the marital relationship.”

The appeal was accordingly dismissed, and all pending interlocutory applications stood closed.

Date of Decision: 27 January 2026