Husband Circulated Her Objectionable Photos: Jharkhand High Court Grants Divorce To Wife
The Jharkhand High Court was considering an appeal filed against the judgment of the Family Court, whereby the suit filed by the appellant wife for dissolution of marriage was dismissed.
Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad, Justice Arun Kumar Rai, Jharkhand High Court
The Jharkhand High Court has set aside an order of the Family Court denying divorce to a woman after noting that the husband, to humiliate his own wife, transferred her objectionable photographs and showed them to the family members. The High Court held that mental cruelty was meted out to the wife.
The High Court was considering an appeal filed under Section 19(1) of the Family Court Act, 1984 against the judgment of the Family Court whereby the suit filed by the petitioner-appellant (wife) for dissolution of marriage by decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 against the respondent husband was dismissed.
The Division Bench of Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Arun Kumar Rai held, “From the discussions made hereinabove, it is evident that by showing those objectionable photographs to his family members by the respondent-husband and on the basis of that she was being humiliated by the family members of the respondent-husband, which is nothing but the character assassination of the wife by her own husband.”
“On the basis of the aforesaid settled position of law, it is considered view of this Court that in the case at hand, it is mental cruelty that has been meted out to the appellant wife so that it is next to impossible to live together with her respondent/ husband”, it added.
Advocate Sanjay Prasad represented the Appellant while Advocate Abhijeet Kr. Singh represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The appellant was legally married with the respondent and their marriage was solemnized according to Hindu Rites and Customs. After the marriage both the appellant and respondent lived together as wife and husband. It was stated that after one day of marriage when the appellant wife was sleeping in her bedroom, the respondent husband started checking the mobile phone of the petitioner-appellant and while checking some objectionable photographs were seen by the husband which by mistake the wife could not remove from her google drive. It was further stated that the objectionable photo was transferred by the respondent husband in his mobile phone from the wife’s mobile phone without her knowledge.
It was alleged that the respondent husband started threatening the wife that he would put objectionable photos on social media platforms and started brutally assaulting her. When the petitioner-appellant opposed it, the respondent showed the objectionable photos to his parents and family. It was also alleged that the respondent and his family members snatched the Stridhan of the petitioner-appellant and threw the petitioner-appellant from the matrimonial house. It was on such grounds that the appellant/wife made a prayer to pass an order for dissolution of marriage. The suit was dismissed, against which the appeal came to be filed before the High Court.
Reasoning
The Bench, at the outset, took note of the fact that the suit for divorce was filed on the ground of cruelty under Section 13 (1) (i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The Bench also reiterated that the High Court in a First Appeal can examine every question of law and fact which arises in the facts of the case and has powers to affirm, reverse or modify the judgment under question.
On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the conduct of the respondent husband assassinated the dignity and reputation of the appellant-wife by divulging her past conduct to her in-laws and on the ground, she was being tortured. The Court found that the respondent-husband, to humiliate his own wife, transferred those photographs to his WhatsApp and showed them to his father and other family members. In turn, the family members of the respondent-husband used to humiliate and torture her. It was noticed that the father of the appellant-wife was called, and the respondent-husband and his family members also humiliated him.
“It is well settled that spouse’s chastity and extra-marital relationships are a grave assault on the spouse’s honour and dignity”, the Bench held.
The Bench explained that mental cruelty can take various forms, such as constant humiliation, verbal abuse, harassment, neglect, threats, or persistent indifference towards the well- being of the other spouse. As per the Bench, in the case at hand, mental cruelty was meted out to the appellant/wife.
Thus, quashing the order denying the decree of divorce in favour of the appellant-wife on the ground of cruelty, the Bench allowed the appeal.
Cause Title: A v. B (Neutral Citation: 2026:JHHC:286-DB)
Appearance
Appellant: Advocate Sanjay Prasad
Respondent: Advocates Abhijeet Kr. Singh, Shashank Kumar, Harsh Chandra