Vague Allegations Like Demanding a Fridge or Calling Husband Impotent Cannot Constitute Cruelty: Jharkhand High Court Upholds Family Court’s Refusal to Grant Divorce

“Mere Discontent or Incompatibility Cannot Constitute Cruelty”, In a significant matrimonial ruling, the Jharkhand High Court dismissed a husband’s appeal seeking divorce on grounds of cruelty and desertion, observing that the alleged acts such as a demand for a fridge and accusations of impotency were neither grave nor proven. Division Bench of Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Arun Kumar Rai upheld the Family Court’s dismissal of the divorce petition under Section 13(1)(i-a) and (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

The Court declared that “mere dissatisfaction, incompatibility or trivial domestic disputes cannot amount to cruelty under law,” and further held that the appellant failed to prove any act of intentional abandonment by the wife sufficient to constitute desertion. The judgment reaffirms the legal position that cruelty and desertion must be proved with cogent, credible, and specific evidence and cannot rest on dated or exaggerated claims.

“Cruelty Must Be Grave and Sustained—Allegations Lacking Specificity and Contemporaneity Are Legally Insufficient”

The principal grievance of the appellant-husband was that the respondent-wife, within days of marriage, allegedly began demanding a fridge, destroyed household articles, refused to cook meals, and insulted him by calling him impotent. The alleged incident on “Chauthari” day (29.04.2013) formed the core of his claim of mental cruelty. He further contended that despite efforts to resume conjugal life, the wife refused to return and was instead running a beauty parlour in Hazaribagh.

However, the High Court categorically rejected these allegations as vague and stale. The Court observed, “The suit has been filed in the year 2022, while the primary allegation relates to an event of 2013. Such an incident, even if accepted at face value, is far too dated and disconnected to justify a claim of cruelty ten years later.” It noted that no specific date or context was provided for the alleged accusation of impotency, and no contemporaneous material or corroboration supported this claim.

Quoting from its analysis, the Bench ruled, “The allegation regarding impotency was neither elaborated nor supported by any instance. Mere emotional hurt or domestic incompatibility does not satisfy the legal test of cruelty under Section 13(1)(i-a).”

The Court drew on authoritative precedents, including Dr. N.G. Dastane v. Mrs. S. Dastane (1975) 2 SCC 326 and Joydeep Majumdar v. Bharti Jaiswal Majumdar (2021) 3 SCC 742, to hold that cruelty must be such as to create a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that it is not safe to continue the matrimonial relationship. “Cruelty must be evaluated within the context of sustained conduct which is grave, weighty, and causes deep mental pain,” the Court reiterated.

“Separation Without Animus Deserendi Is Not Desertion—Wife’s Willingness to Resume Matrimonial Life Undermines Husband’s Allegation”

On the issue of desertion, the husband asserted that the wife left the matrimonial home voluntarily in November 2016 and never returned, thus intentionally ending cohabitation. He claimed to have made repeated attempts for reconciliation, including visiting her parlour in June 2022, but she allegedly declined to return.

The wife, on the other hand, stated under oath that she had never refused to resume conjugal life. She claimed she was denied entry into the matrimonial home in December 2021 and was still willing to resume the relationship. The Court accepted her stand, noting that she continued to use vermilion, a sign of marital status, and had made no statement suggesting any intent to dissolve the marriage.

The Bench observed, “Desertion, as defined under Explanation to Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, requires both the factum of separation and the animus deserendi—the intention to permanently forsake the marriage. In the absence of the latter, mere physical separation does not amount to desertion.”

The Court further emphasized that no legal notice was issued by the husband for restitution of conjugal rights, nor were any serious social or personal efforts made to reconcile. “Mere one-time visits and unsubstantiated claims of refusal do not establish the essential elements of desertion. There is no credible evidence that the wife wilfully abandoned the marriage,” it held.

“No Perversity in Family Court's Findings—Well-Considered Judgment Based on Evidence Cannot Be Interfered With”

The appellant also challenged the Family Court’s decision as perverse, alleging that it failed to properly assess the evidence. However, the High Court strongly rejected this argument, reiterating the legal standard for what constitutes a perverse finding. Referring to Arulvelu v. State (2009) 10 SCC 206, the Court observed that a finding can only be termed perverse if it ignores material evidence, considers irrelevant facts, or defies logic to the point of irrationality.

The Bench stated, “The Family Court extensively examined the testimonies of all witnesses, including the husband, his relatives, neighbours, and the wife’s family members. It found no evidence of cruelty or desertion based on settled legal principles. Such a judgment cannot be called perverse.”

The Court further observed that none of the husband's witnesses could specifically state the dates of desertion, details of cruelty, or even confirm efforts at reconciliation. On the contrary, the wife’s testimony of willingness to cohabit remained unshaken.

“Allegations were made, but substantiation was lacking,” the Court concluded. “In matrimonial litigation, a decree of divorce cannot rest on mere conjecture or unilateral dissatisfaction. It must be based on grave acts proven with clarity and intention.”

Divorce Denied, Appeal Dismissed—Marital Discord Alone Is Not a Ground for Legal Dissolution

The Jharkhand High Court has, through this ruling, reaffirmed the well-established principle that marriage is not to be dissolved lightly and that cruelty or desertion must be proved through compelling and credible evidence. Allegations which are vague, non-contemporaneous, or rooted in isolated disputes of early years of marriage cannot support a divorce decree years later.

The Court held, “No perversity exists in the Family Court’s approach. The suit for divorce fails on both counts—cruelty and desertion—and the appeal, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed.”

The Court also disposed of all pending interlocutory applications, concluding the matter in full.

Date of Decision: 14 November 2025