Mere Wish Of Wife That Husband Should Live As Gharjamai Won’t Constitute Cruelty Under Hindu Marriage Act: Jharkhand High Court

The appeal before the High Court was filed challenging the legality of the impugned judgment of the Family Court, whereby the Original Suit filed by the appellant-husband under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for a decree of divorce, was dismissed.

The Bench comprising Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Sanjay Prasad held,“The learned Family Judge has also observed that practice of Gharjamai is a very old custom prevailing in our society but it remains to be absolute choice of groom to agree or not and there is no case that the appellant was compelled or forced to live as Gharjamai. Mere wish of respondent-wife that the appellant-husband should live as Gharjamai will not constitute cruelty for the purpose of Hindu Marriage Act.”

Advocate Shekhar Prasad Gupta represented the Appellant while Amicus Curiae Atanu Banerjee represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The couple started their matrimonial life peacefully, but it was alleged that after a few days the respondent wife started going to Patna. The Respondent alleged that her parents wanted the appellant husband to leave his parents and wanted him to live with them at Patna. This was not accepted by the appellant as his parents were already old and ailing. It was alleged that in 2013, the wife went to Patna and never came to her matrimonial house.

The respondent allegedly did not want to live at her matrimonial house and was adamant that the appellant leave his parents and stay as a Gharjamai. Due to this act of the respondent, the appellant claimed that he had been under tremendous mental pressure and was also facing social stigma. The husband thus sought dissolution of the marriage under the provisions of section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act on the ground of cruelty.

Reasoning

The Bench 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.

Dealing with the aspect of cruelty, the Bench explained that the term “cruelty” under matrimonial law consists of conduct so grave and weighty as to lead one to the conclusion that one of the spouses cannot reasonably be expected to live with the other spouse. “It must be more serious than the ordinary wear and tear of married life”, it added.

The Bench further explained that 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. The cruelty practiced may be in many forms and it must be productive of an apprehension in the mind of the other spouse that it is dangerous to live with the erring party.

The Bench noticed that the Principal Judge, Family Court had concluded that visiting the parental house is as good as a right to every bride and it cannot be termed cruelty for divorce.

The Bench thus stated, “...the learned Family Judge has rightly observed that that visiting parental house is as good as a right to every bride and mere wish of respondent-wife that the appellant-husband should live as Gharjamai will not constitute cruelty for the purpose of Hindu Marriage Act and it cannot be termed cruelty for the purpose of divorce, at any stretch of imagination”

Thus, holding that the issue of cruelty as alleged by the appellant-husband against his wife could not be proved and refusing to interfere with the judgment of the Family Court, the Bench dismissed the appeal.

Cause Title: A v. B (Neutral Citation: 2026:JHHC:28010-DB)

Click here to read/download Order