The High Court of Jharkhand has dismissed a matrimonial appeal filed by a husband seeking divorce, ruling that leveling unsubstantiated accusations of adultery against a wife amounts to cruelty inflicted upon her. The Division Bench comprising Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Arun Kumar Rai upheld the Family Court’s decision, observing that the husband failed to prove the charges of adultery and desertion.
Case Background
The appeal (F.A. No. 190 of 2023) was filed by the appellant-husband against the judgment dated June 23, 2023, passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Seraikella Kharsawan in Original Suit No. 55 of 2021. The Family Court had dismissed his suit for a decree of divorce under Section 13(1), (i) & (i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
According to the pleadings, the couple was married on May 9, 2012, according to Hindu rites and rituals. They lived together for six months in a rented house at Dindli Basti, Adityapur, and a son was born out of the wedlock on June 8, 2016.
The appellant-husband alleged that the respondent-wife left the matrimonial home after six months to live with her parents. He claimed that after the birth of the child, he witnessed the respondent in a “compromising position” with a villager named Mintu Mahato in June 2020 at her parental house. He further alleged that when he confronted her family, he was threatened and assaulted. The appellant contended that the respondent was “unfaithful” and had a habit of establishing physical relationships with her alleged lover, constituting mental cruelty. He also claimed she had deserted him for two years.
Arguments of the Parties
The counsel for the appellant-husband argued that the Family Court failed to appreciate unequivocal evidence regarding the respondent’s illicit relationship. It was submitted that the wife’s extra-marital affair caused mental cruelty to the appellant, and the fact of living separately was established. The appellant contended that the impugned judgment suffered from perversity.
Per contra, the counsel for the respondent-wife submitted that the appellant failed to prove the charges of adultery or cruelty. The respondent denied the allegations, stating that her father had given jewellery and cash during the marriage, yet she was tortured for further dowry, specifically a demand for a motorcycle. She asserted that the allegations of a relationship with Mintu Mahato were “imaginary” and “wild,” pointing out that the appellant failed to provide any specific date or day for the alleged incident in his cross-examination. She claimed she was driven out of the matrimonial house on April 15, 2021.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The High Court meticulously examined the evidence and the legal definition of “cruelty” and “desertion.”
On the Allegation of Adultery: The Court noted that the appellant (P.W.4) failed to disclose the specific day or date of the alleged incident in June 2020. Other witnesses (P.W.1 and P.W.2) were found to be hearsay witnesses regarding the charge of adultery. The Court observed that no independent witness from the vicinity was examined.
The Bench observed:
“This Court is conscious with the fact that in the case of civil nature like matrimonial suits, the proof of the facts based on the principle of preponderance of probability but since herein a serious charge on the character of spouse has been leveled, and such serious issue cannot be decided on mere preponderance of probability.”
The Court concurred with the Family Court’s finding that there was no direct evidence of the charge of adultery.
On Cruelty: The Court referred to several Supreme Court judgments, including V. Bhagat vs. D. Bhagat (1994) and Vijay Kumar Ramchandra Bhate v. Neela Vijay Kumar Bhate (2003), to reiterate that making unfounded allegations of unchastity constitutes cruelty.
Significantly, the Bench held that the very act of the husband making unproven allegations of adultery against the wife amounted to cruelty towards her. The Court stated:
“The moment, the accusation of adultery was leveled by the appellant-husband upon the respondent-wife, the same itself amounts to cruelty meted out to the wife by the husband and in that view of the situation how can it be said that the respondent-wife at her own wish has left the company of her husband.”
On Desertion: Regarding the claim of desertion, the Court analyzed whether the wife had a “reasonable cause” to live separately. The Court noted that the respondent provided a specific date, April 15, 2021, when she was driven out of the matrimonial home due to dowry demands.
The Bench held:
“In the written statement it has been admitted by the respondent that on 15.04.2021, she was finally driven out from the matrimonial house and since then, she is residing in her parental house, which negates the assertion of the petitioner that his wife is living separately from him on her own will is not acceptable herein, rather from the factual aspect it appears that she was compelled to leave the matrimonial house due to constant demand of the dowry and harassment.”
Decision
The High Court concluded that the Family Court’s judgment did not suffer from any perversity. The Bench held that the appellant failed to prove the grounds of adultery, cruelty, or desertion. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the decree of the Family Court refusing the divorce was upheld.
