While dissolving a marriage by passing a decree of divorce, the Jharkhand High Court has observed that a husband’s insistence that his wife should accept his affair and live with the other woman as a “younger sister” amounts to mental cruelty of the gravest kind.

The High Court was considering an appeal filed under Section 19(1) of the Family Court Act, 1984, directed against the order passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Hazaribagh in an Original Suit, whereby the petition filed by the appellant/wife under Section 13(1) (i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, seeking a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty, was dismissed.

The Single Bench of Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava held, “The petitioner’s testimony establishes that soon after the gauna ritual, the respondent began to ill-treat her, denied her cohabitation at Dhanbad, and subsequently subjected her to repeated physical assaults with household implements, resulting in serious medical conditions such as slip-disc and traumatic osteoarthritis. Her evidence further discloses the respondent’s illicit relationship with one widow, **, which, despite family intervention and execution of a bond of assurance, continued unabated. The respondent’s insistence that the petitioner should accept such relationship and live with ** as a “younger sister” amount to mental cruelty of the gravest kind.”

Factual Background

The petitioner solemnised marriage with the respondent-husband in accordance with Hindu rites and customs. No issue was born of the said wedlock. The parties cohabited at Dhanbad and both were medical practitioners. Since September 5, 2019, the parties had been residing separately. The respondent-husband, in the first instance, instituted a suit for restitution of conjugal rights before the Family Court, Dhanbad. As the petitioner-wife did not enter appearance to contest the said proceeding, the suit was decreed ex parte. In the interregnum, the petitioner-wife instituted a suit for dissolution of marriage invoking Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, on the ground of cruelty.

The petitioner wife alleged that the respondent-husband had developed an illicit relationship with a widow. The petitioner-wife asserted that upon her protest against such relationship, and subsequent family intervention, the respondent-husband executed a bond undertaking that there would be no repetition of such conduct. Notwithstanding the said assurance, the petitioner-wife averred that she was thereafter subjected to physical cruelty on account of her protest, resulting in grievous assault. The Family Court proceeded to dismiss the suit and held that the petitioner-wife (appellant) had disclosed regarding no cause of action for instituting the proceeding and the suit was not maintainable for the relief sought.

Reasoning

The Bench explained that Sub-section (1) to section 19 of the Family Courts Act provides that an appeal shall lie from every judgment or order not being an interlocutory order of a Family Court to the High Court "both on facts and on law" and section 19 of the Family Courts Act is parallel to section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The Bench further explained that the word "cruelty" under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Act has no static connotation, and therefore, gives a very wide discretion to the Court to apply it liberally and contextually. What is cruelty in one case may not be the same for another and has to be applied from person to person while taking note of the attending circumstances. “Harm or injury to health, reputation, the working-career or the like, would be important considerations in determining whether the conduct of the defending spouse amounts to cruelty. It has to be shown that the defending spouse has treated him with cruelty to cause reasonable apprehension in his/her mind that it will be harmful or injurious to live with the contesting spouse”, it added.

The Bench held that the respondent’s insistence that the petitioner should accept his alleged illicit relationship and live with the widow as a “younger sister” amounted to mental cruelty of the gravest kind. The Bench was of the view that the Family Court appreciated the evidence in piecemeal and its finding was perverse, inasmuch as the pleadings and evidence clearly disclosed cruelty.

“On the basis of the discussion made hereinabove, this Court is of the considered view that the conduct of the respondent- husband has showed that it is the mental cruelty caused by him by having illicit relationship with another women and has forced appellant-wife to leave her matrimonial house as it was almost impossible for the appellant-wife to live with the respondenthusband where the thread of trust has already been broken. Relationship of wife and husband is based on the trust and respect to have upon each other and if it is broken it is non- repairable as the trust is the foundation of marriage. Marriage is a relationship built on mutual trust, companionship and shared experiences”, it held.

Thus, allowing the appeal, the Bench dissolved the marriage between the appellant-wife and the respondent-husband by a decree of divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

Cause Title: A v. B (Neutral Citation: 2026:JHHC:28726-DB)

Appearance

Appellant: Advocates Abhishek Thakur, Pratyush Navneet

Respondent: Advocate Soumitra Baroi

Click here to read/download Order



Jharkhand High CourtJustice Sujit Narayan PrasadJustice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.