Must Be Grave, Not Just Gripe: Jharkhand High Court Dismisses Husband’s Divorce Plea For Want of Substantiated Evidence

"Mere Trivial Disputes Cannot Be Stretched Into Grounds for Divorce" –  Jharkhand High Court comprising Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Arun Kumar Rai delivered a significant ruling upholding the dismissal of a husband's suit for divorce on the ground of cruelty under Section 27(1)(d) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954. The Court ruled that the Family Court’s judgment was sound, based on the correct application of law, and not suffering from any perversity, thereby reaffirming that divorce cannot be granted unless cruelty is proved to be grave, serious, and beyond the normal wear and tear of married life.

The husband’s appeal was dismissed on the finding that his allegations were vague, contradictory, and unsupported by evidence, while the trial court had undertaken a thorough assessment of pleadings, testimony, and statutory principles.

“Cruelty Must Be More Than a Mere Accumulation of Grievances” – Court Applies Dastane, Shobha Rani, Bhagat v. Bhagat, and Joydeep Majumdar

The Court began its analysis by reiterating the settled legal standard of matrimonial cruelty, relying extensively on landmark Supreme Court precedents. Citing Dr. N.G. Dastane v. S. Dastane [(1975) 2 SCC 326], the Bench reaffirmed that:

“The conduct charged as cruelty must be of such character as to cause in the mind of the petitioner a reasonable apprehension that it will be harmful or injurious to live with the other party.”

Referring to Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi, V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat, and Joydeep Majumdar v. Bharti Jaiswal Majumdar, the Court highlighted that cruelty cannot be defined with mathematical precision, but must consist of grave and weighty conduct, sustained over time, and not merely trivial incompatibilities.

The High Court reminded that: “Simple trivialities which can truly be described as a reasonable wear and tear of married life cannot amount to cruelty… such disharmony or incompatibility is not cruelty and will not furnish a cause for the dissolution of marriage.”

Appellant Failed to Substantiate Allegations – Contradictions in Testimony Undermine Claim

The appellant-husband, Vishwanath Prakash, had alleged that his wife became “cruel and arrogant” shortly after marriage in 2007, deserted the matrimonial home in 2011, and refused to return. He further alleged verbal abuse, threats of false criminal cases, denial of access to his son, and that the marriage had irretrievably broken down. However, on close scrutiny, the High Court found that his own evidence contradicted these assertions.

In cross-examination, the husband admitted to peaceful cohabitation till 2011, directly contradicting his claim of cruelty from 3–4 months after marriage. The Court observed: “The plaintiff has not brought any documentary evidence regarding the cruelty. Even his mother’s testimony is contradictory to his, and the other witnesses appear tutored. The entire case is built on assertions unsupported by reliable, specific or corroborated proof.”

Additionally, despite claiming total estrangement since 2011, the husband gave an undertaking before the High Court in 2021 stating that his wife still lived with him, exposing the internal inconsistency in his narrative.

Family Photographs and Police Complaints Undermine Allegations of Cruelty

Crucially, the respondent-wife produced 29 photographs, including family events and Grih Pravesh ceremonies from 2013 to 2018, which visibly refuted the claim that she left the matrimonial home permanently in 2011.

Furthermore, the wife placed on record multiple police complaints filed in 2020 and 2021, where she alleged cruelty by the husband, not the other way around. The Family Court also noted the pendency of a Section 498A IPC case, lodged by the wife after the husband filed for divorce, weakening his attempt to portray himself as the aggrieved spouse.

In its judgment, the Family Court had categorically concluded: “The plaintiff has not produced any documentary evidence regarding cruelty… the photographs also show that till 2018, the defendant visited her matrimonial house and appeared in family functions. The plaintiff has not been able to prove that the wife treated him with cruelty.”

The High Court found no reason to interfere with these findings.

No Perversity in Trial Court’s Reasoning – High Court Upholds Dismissal of Divorce Suit

The appellant attempted to invoke "irretrievable breakdown" of marriage as an argument, but the Court refused to accept this as a substitute for proven cruelty. Relying on the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence in Arulvelu v. State, the High Court held that the Family Court’s findings were neither perverse nor arbitrary.

“If a finding of fact is arrived at by ignoring or excluding relevant material or by taking into consideration irrelevant material… the finding is rendered infirm. However, in this case, the Family Court has appreciated every relevant aspect and there is no scope for interference.”

Ultimately, the Court held: “Cruelty must be of such a type which will satisfy the conscience of the Court that the relationship between the parties has deteriorated to such an extent that it has become impossible for them to live together without mental agony… in this case, no such cruelty has been proved.”

Divorce Denied – Ordinary Marital Discord Not Enough to Invoke Section 27(1)(d)

The High Court concluded that the appellant-husband had failed to establish even a prima facie case of cruelty, and that his evidence lacked consistency, credibility, and legal sufficiency. The Family Court’s findings were found fully in line with binding legal precedents, and not deserving of appellate interference.

The appeal was dismissed with the observation that the petitioner appeared to be "taking advantage of his own wrong", and that the marriage could not be dissolved merely on subjective perception of discomfort.

Date of Decision: 06 January 2026