Uploading Semi-Nude Images, Creating Fake IDs, Inviting Strangers to Assault Wife – These Are Grave Forms of Cruelty: Jharkhand High Court

"Husband Cannot Seek Divorce by Turning Abuser into Deserted……When You Upload Your Wife’s Nude Photo and Call It a Marital Dispute, You Forfeit the Right to Claim Desertion", In a powerful affirmation of dignity, autonomy, and the rule of law in matrimonial disputes, the Jharkhand High Court dismissed a husband’s appeal seeking divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion, ruling that not only were his claims unsupported, but that the material on record overwhelmingly established cruelty on his part. The Division Bench of Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Rajesh Kumar held:

“The appellant-husband has failed to produce any material evidence to substantiate his claim of cruelty against the respondent-wife. Rather, it appears… that the appellant himself subjected the respondent to cruelty.”

What unfolded before the Court was not a case of estrangement born of misunderstanding, but a painful account of digital exploitation, dowry harassment, and psychological torture, all cloaked behind the petitioner’s carefully curated narrative of abandonment. The husband’s petition was not just dismissed; it was discredited, found to be riddled with fabrication, and directly contradicted by police records, cyber complaints, medical testimony, and unshaken oral evidence.

“Cruelty Cuts Both Ways – And This Time, It’s the Husband Who Stands Accused”

The appellant had filed a petition under Section 13(1)(i-a) and (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking dissolution of marriage on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. He alleged that his wife threatened to poison his blind parents, misused his ATM card, and left the matrimonial home on 19 May 2020 without cause.

But the Family Court, Bokaro, in its detailed judgment dated 14 August 2024, had rejected these claims, holding that they were unsubstantiated and failed the legal test for cruelty and desertion. The husband appealed to the High Court, claiming that the trial court's finding was “perverse”.

The High Court, however, noted that the evidence told a strikingly different story:

“The testimony of the respondent’s witnesses has been fully corroborated by documentary evidence, and none of them were cross-examined by the petitioner. The oral and written allegations made by the wife stood uncontroverted.”

The evidence included not only oral depositions from the wife’s mother, father, and brother, but also police records, cybercrime FIRs, and judicial orders which confirmed that the husband had:

– Created a fake online profile using his wife’s Aadhaar card,
– Uploaded semi-nude photographs of her on Facebook,
– Shared her number with others for harassment, and
– Invited anti-social persons to enter her room, triggering a complaint under Sections 376, 511, 354, 307 IPC.

"The Law Does Not Let You Torture a Woman and Then Accuse Her of Deserting You"

The husband’s narrative of desertion crumbled under judicial scrutiny. He claimed his wife had refused to return to the marital home and had walked away without reason. But the High Court rejected that argument, noting that: “If the party has been compelled to leave the house on the basis of cruelty which has been meted out to her, then the same will not come under the fold of desertion.”

Referring to Section 23(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, the Bench held that: “One cannot be allowed to take advantage of his own wrong.”

The Court referred to the seminal judgment in Lachman Utamchand Kirpalani v. Meena, reiterating that desertion must be voluntary, intentional, and without reasonable cause. It noted that: “The legal burden to prove that the wife left without cause lies upon the husband. That burden has not only not been discharged—it has been reversed by the evidence.”

The Court emphasized that when a woman is forced to leave due to safety concerns, repeated abuse, or social humiliation inflicted by her husband, the very foundation of a desertion claim collapses.

"Digital Abuse Is Still Abuse – And Courts Will Not Close Their Eyes to Online Violence Within Marriages"

Significantly, the High Court underscored the importance of recognizing digital violence within matrimonial cruelty, a still-evolving area of family law. It referred to the Dhanbad Cyber Police Case No. 11 of 2022, where investigation confirmed that the husband had uploaded semi-nude photos of his wife without her consent and circulated her number to acquaintances for harassment.

The Court remarked: “Uploading semi-nude images of your wife on social media is not a marital dispute—it is a grave and prosecutable offence, and it fundamentally violates the trust and dignity that marriage presumes.”

Also on record was Case No. 7064 of 2022, in which the husband was found prima facie liable under multiple IPC sections including Section 376 (rape attempt), Section 511 (punishment for attempting to commit offences), and Section 354 (assault on a woman’s modesty).

The Court did not shy away from acknowledging the gravity of these offences: “This is not a case of mere domestic discord. This is a case where the husband has weaponised social media and personal information to demean and destroy his spouse’s reputation.”

“Cruelty Is Not a Sword to Escape Matrimonial Duties – It Is a Shield Meant for the Oppressed, Not the Oppressor”

The High Court drew from long-standing jurisprudence on cruelty, including landmark decisions such as:

• Dr. N.G. Dastane v. Mrs. S. Dastane

• Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi

• V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat

• Joydeep Majumdar v. Bharti Majumdar

In reiterating the scope of cruelty under matrimonial law, the Court observed: “Cruelty must be real, grave, and established through material evidence. Trivial irritations, baseless allegations, and marital wear and tear do not amount to cruelty. In this case, it is the husband who has been found to have inflicted not only mental but also digital and reputational cruelty.”

It went on to say: “When a spouse fabricates a tale of victimhood while being the abuser, courts must carefully scrutinize the motive and the facts. Matrimonial courts are not to be turned into escape hatches for those who, after violating their marital obligations, seek legal separation under false pretenses.”

No Divorce, No Desertion, and No Perversity – Just a Clear Case of Rejected Fabrication

The Court finally addressed the husband’s argument that the Family Court judgment was “perverse”. It dismissed that challenge outright, stating: “There is no perversity in the Family Court’s judgment. The evidence has been meticulously analysed, and findings are supported by both oral and documentary materials.”

The appeal was therefore dismissed, and the Family Court’s judgment upheld.

“This Court finds that the appellant has failed to establish any error, much less perversity, in the impugned judgment. Accordingly, the instant appeal fails and is dismissed.”

Date of Decision: 5 January 2026