The High Court of Jharkhand, in a significant matrimonial dispute ruling, has dismissed an appeal filed by a husband challenging a Family Court’s decision to grant a divorce to his wife on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. The Division Bench, comprising Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Arun Kumar Rai, upheld the judgment of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Godda, which dissolved the marriage and directed the husband to pay a permanent alimony of ₹25,00,000 to the wife.
The appeal, filed by the husband under Section 19(1) of the Family Court Act, 1984, contested the order dated August 28, 2023, and the subsequent decree dated September 16, 2023, passed in Original Suit No. 137 of 2021. The Family Court had also ordered the return of ‘stridhan’ and all gifts to the wife.
Case Background
The parties were married on June 24, 2012, according to Hindu rites. The wife initiated the original suit for divorce, alleging severe cruelty and desertion. She claimed that shortly after the marriage, her husband and his family began demanding ₹5 lakhs as dowry. Her father managed to pay ₹3 lakhs under pressure.
In her plea, the wife contended that she was subjected to continuous torture and that her husband had an illicit relationship with another woman. She stated that he “flatly refused to have sex with her saying that there was another option available for him which gave brutal mental anxiety and cruelty to her, which continued for four years.” This denial of physical relations, she argued, deprived her of motherhood. She was eventually ousted from her matrimonial home after confronting him about his drinking and alleged affair.
Despite attempts at mediation, no settlement was reached. The husband appeared before the Family Court but failed to file a ‘Written Statement’ despite being given sufficient opportunity, leading the court to debar him from doing so on July 2, 2022. The case proceeded with the wife’s evidence, while the husband did not adduce any.
The Family Court, after examining the wife’s witnesses, granted the divorce and awarded the permanent alimony, leading to the present appeal before the High Court.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant-Husband’s Submissions: Counsel for the husband argued that the permanent alimony was disproportionate to his client’s income. He contended that the wife was an earning lady, working as a teacher since 2013. He claimed the allegation of an extra-marital affair was baseless, citing the husband’s acquittal in a criminal case filed by the wife under Section 498A of the IPC. The husband asserted his annual income was between ₹4.25 lakhs and ₹4.77 lakhs, derived from a ₹40,000 monthly salary from his mother’s shop, and submitted ITRs for recent financial years to support this.
Respondent-Wife’s Submissions: Representing the wife, counsel countered that her life had been “thoroughly been spoiled by the appellant-husband who continued to torture her mentally and physically.” He argued that the husband deprived her of physical relations for years, leading to great mental trauma and depriving her of the “bliss of motherhood.” He maintained that while the wife is highly educated, she had to sacrifice job opportunities for the marriage and her current earnings were insufficient. He supported the Family Court’s finding that the husband earned around ₹5 lakhs per month from his business of cement and rod wholesale.
High Court’s Analysis and Decision
The High Court meticulously analyzed the grounds of cruelty and desertion based on the evidence on record. The bench noted that the husband did not produce any witnesses to rebut the wife’s claims, while the wife and her parents (P.W. 1, P.W. 2, and P.W. 3) consistently testified about the dowry demands, torture, and the husband’s alleged illicit relationship.
On Cruelty: The Court referenced several Supreme Court judgments, including Dr. N.G. Dastane vs. Mrs. S. Dastane and Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi, to define the scope of cruelty. The bench observed that cruelty is “conduct which adversely affects the spouse” and can be either “mental” or “physical.” The Court found that the wife’s allegations of dowry demand, torture, and the husband’s illicit relationship were supported by all her witnesses and remained unrebutted by the husband. The Court concluded, “So this Court is of the view that the factum of cruelty has been proved.”
On Desertion: The Court examined the legal definition of ‘desertion’ under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. It found that the wife did not leave the matrimonial home on her own accord but was forced out due to the husband’s conduct. The testimonies consistently pointed to torture and the husband’s non-cohabitation. The judgment stated, “Hence, it was appellant-husband, who forced his wife to leave the matrimonial house. Appellant has not led any evidence that any conduct of the respondent made him to desert her.” Based on this, the Court held that the Family Court’s order for dissolution of marriage “cannot be faulted with.”
On Permanent Alimony: The High Court then turned to the issue of permanent alimony, examining Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act and the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha. The bench noted the wife’s claim that the husband earns ₹5 lakhs per month from his business. In contrast, the husband produced ITRs for recent years showing a much lower income, claiming he worked in his mother’s shop.
The Court found the husband’s claims unconvincing, stating, “it is worthwhile to mention herein that the ITRS copy of which has been produced is not of the year when the suit was filed or before it i.e., before 2021-22 and untenable ground has been taken he is working in the shop of his mother.”
Considering that the wife, now aged about 40, has faced “the rigor of divorce and litigation for more than a decade,” the Court found the award of ₹25,00,000 as a consolidated amount to be just and reasonable.
Dismissing the appeal, the High Court concluded that the Family Court’s order required no interference.
