The Jharkhand High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by a husband seeking divorce on grounds of cruelty and desertion, affirming a lower court’s decision that mere allegations of being pressured to live separately from widowed parents do not constitute “cruelty” without cogent evidence. The Division Bench comprising Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Sanjay Prasad held that the appellant failed to substantiate specific instances of misconduct or intentional abandonment by the respondent-wife.
Background of the Case
The appellant and the respondent were married on April 27, 2008, in Hazaribagh according to Hindu rites and customs. A son was born to the couple in 2010. The appellant, who held a government job on compassionate grounds following his father’s death, alleged that his wife and her family constantly pressured him to live separately from his widowed mother and younger siblings.
He further alleged that upon his refusal, the respondent threatened to implicate his family in false dowry cases and threatened suicide. According to the appellant, the respondent left the matrimonial home on February 20, 2013, with cash and ornaments. Consequently, he filed a suit for divorce under Sections 13(1)(i-a) and (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, at the Family Court, Hazaribagh.
Arguments of the Parties
The appellant contended that the Family Court’s dismissal of his suit was perverse and contrary to the weight of evidence. He argued that the testimonies of PW-1, PW-2, and PW-3 established mental cruelty and desertion, which the respondent failed to effectively challenge by not producing any witnesses.
Conversely, the respondent-wife defended the Family Court’s judgment. She alleged that sufficient dowry had been given, including ₹6 lakh transferred to the appellant’s family, but she was subjected to further demands and cruelty. She maintained that she did not desert the appellant but was compelled to leave, and pointed out that the appellant was not paying the court-ordered maintenance.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The High Court conducted a detailed analysis of the legal definitions of “cruelty” and “desertion” based on established precedents.
On the Issue of Cruelty: The Court noted that while “cruelty” has no fixed definition, it must be conduct so grave and weighty that a spouse cannot reasonably be expected to live with the other. Referring to Dr. N.G. Dastane Vs. Mrs. S. Dastane, the Court observed:
“The Court is to enquire as to whether the charge as cruelty, is of such a character, as to cause in the mind of the petitioner, a reasonable apprehension that, it will be harmful or injurious for him to live with the respondent.”
Regarding the allegation of being pressured to live separately, the Court found the claims “quite non-specific and of quite omnibus nature.” It noted that the appellant’s mother did not come forward to support the allegation that the wife pressured him to transfer the family property in her name. On the threat of dowry cases, the Court stated:
“The mere filing of a case by the respondent-wife alleging torture on account of dowry demand cannot, by itself, amount to cruelty. Seeking legal remedy is a right available to her…”
On the Issue of Desertion: The Court examined the requirements for desertion: factum deseredni (fact of separation) and animus deserendi (intention to end cohabitation). Citing Debananda Tamuli vs. Kakumoni Kataky, the Court emphasized that desertion must be without reasonable cause and consent.
The Bench observed that the appellant filed for divorce within three months of the separation (May 7, 2013) without seeking the restitution of conjugal rights.
“Significantly, he did not initiate proceedings for restitution of conjugal rights, which casts doubt on the bona fides of his intention. This Court is inclined to observe that the conduct of the petitioner-husband appears directed towards severing the marital bond…”
The Court concluded that the respondent was likely “compelled to leave” rather than leaving on her own volition.
Final Decision
Finding no perversity in the Family Court’s judgment, the High Court held that the appellant failed to prove that the relationship had deteriorated to an extent where living together was impossible.
“The appellant has failed to substantiate the commission of alleged cruelty… and since the learned Family Court while negating the claim of cruelty has duly appreciated the evidences brought on record, therefore the finding of the learned Court… is not perverse,” the Bench ruled, dismissing the appeal.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Sanjeev Kumar Pandey vs. Vibharani Pandey
- Case No.: F.A. No. 178 of 2023
- Bench: Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Sanjay Prasad
- Date: April 16, 2026
