The Jharkhand High Court has held that a husband who insisted his wife accept his extramarital relationship and live with the other woman as a “younger sister” committed mental cruelty of the gravest kind. Setting aside a Family Court order, the Court granted the wife a decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
A Division Bench of Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava found that the Family Court had appreciated the evidence in a piecemeal manner and that its finding on cruelty was perverse.
Background
The couple, both medical practitioners, married on 24.02.2018 at Charhi in Hazaribagh district and later lived together in Dhanbad. They have no children and have lived separately since 05.09.2019.
The husband filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights on 18.01.2022, which was decreed ex parte on 17.01.2023 as the wife did not appear. Meanwhile, on 05.04.2022, the wife filed for divorce on the ground of cruelty.
She alleged that the husband had an illicit relationship with a widow, and that after family intervention he executed a bond promising not to continue it. She said that despite this, he assaulted her repeatedly, beating her with a mop stick and a broom, which left her with a slip-disc and traumatic osteoarthritis. The husband denied the allegations and claimed the wife’s medical documents were frivolous and obtained from a nursing home owned by her father.
The Principal Judge, Family Court, Hazaribagh dismissed the suit on 17.11.2023, holding that the wife had failed to prove cruelty.
Arguments
Advocates Abhishek Thakur and Pratyush Navneet, appearing for the wife, argued that the Family Court had not considered the evidence on record. They submitted that it wrongly ignored the FIR in Charhi P.S. Case No. 64 of 2019 and the testimony of the wife, her father and her uncle without giving any cogent reason. They also pointed out that the Family Court had itself recorded that the parties had been living apart since 05.09.2019.
Advocate Soumitra Baroi, appearing for the husband, argued that the Family Court had decided the matter correctly on the material on record. He submitted that the wife’s medical documents came from her father’s nursing home, and that she had not contested the restitution suit and instead filed for divorce.
Court’s Findings
The Bench found that the wife’s testimony showed a marriage marked by persistent cruelty, including repeated physical assaults and a relationship that continued despite the bond of assurance. It held that the husband’s insistence that she accept the relationship and live with the other woman as a “younger sister” would “amount to mental cruelty of the gravest kind.”
The Court noted that the wife’s account was supported by her father, uncle and brother, and that the FIR further substantiated her allegations. Rejecting the Family Court’s reasons for disregarding the medical records, it held, “The settled principle is that the source of medical documentation does not ipso facto render it unreliable, unless specific infirmities are demonstrated.”
Faulting the Family Court’s approach, the Bench said it “has appreciated the evidence in piece meal and has ignored the principle of preponderance of probability”, and so its finding was perverse. The Court also held that the Family Court failed to address the parties’ admitted separation since 2019, contrary to Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh (2007) 4 SCC 511, which held that prolonged separation itself constitutes mental cruelty.
Given the long separation and the wife’s clear unwillingness to resume conjugal life, the Court found that the marriage had broken down beyond repair. It observed, “The respondent-husband’s professed desire to continue cohabitation cannot override the appellant’s right to live free from cruelty”.
Outcome
The High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the Family Court’s judgment dated 17.11.2023. The marriage solemnised on 24.02.2018 was dissolved by a decree of divorce. The wife was given liberty to approach the Family Court for alimony under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
Case No.: F.A. No. 82 of 2024
