The Jharkhand High Court has set aside a decree of divorce granted by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Jamshedpur, ruling that the lower court’s judgment suffered from “perversity” as it failed to properly appreciate the evidence regarding cruelty and desertion. The Division Bench of Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Arun Kumar Rai observed that a wife being compelled to leave the matrimonial home due to torture does not amount to desertion on her part.
Case Background
The appeal was filed by the wife (Appellant) against the judgment dated October 7, 2021, passed in Original Suit No. 548 of 2015, whereby the Family Court had dissolved the marriage on the grounds of cruelty and desertion under Section 13(1)(i)(i-a)(i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
The parties were married on April 27, 2009, in Jamshedpur. The respondent-husband, a practicing advocate, suffers from a physical deformity in his right hand and left leg. The husband alleged that the wife was infuriated by his deformity, refused to cohabit, and attempted suicide by drinking mosquito repellent to threaten his family. He further alleged that she demanded a separate house and eventually left the matrimonial home in September 2011 with their daughter, never to return.
The wife, in her written statement, denied the allegations. She contended that she was subjected to cruelty and harassment for dowry. She alleged that her husband and in-laws forced her to drink mosquito repellent and later drove her out. She stated that she gave birth to a female child on November 10, 2010, but neither the husband nor his family visited them or provided financial support. She maintained that she was willing to live with her husband.
Arguments of the Parties
Counsel for the appellant-wife, Mr. Rahul Kumar, argued that the Family Court committed an error by failing to appreciate that the wife did not desert the husband voluntarily but was compelled to leave due to torture. He submitted that the husband failed to prove cruelty and that the criminal case lodged under Section 498A IPC is pending and does not, by itself, prove cruelty.
Conversely, Mr. Anurag Kashyap, counsel for the respondent-husband, supported the lower court’s decision. He argued that the wife deserted the husband without reasonable cause in 2011 and that her behavior constituted cruelty.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The High Court scrutinized the evidence and found the Family Court’s findings to be “perverse,” defined as findings not supported by evidence or ignoring relevant material.
On Cruelty
The Court observed that the husband’s allegation regarding the wife’s suicide attempt was not substantiated by consistent evidence. The Court noted:
“Thus, from the statement of the aforesaid witnesses who have been examined on behalf of respondent husband the factum of attempt to commit suicide by the appellant/wife has not been corroborated and it has also admitted herein that the said incident has not been reported by the respondent or his family members.”
Furthermore, the Bench highlighted the husband’s neglect of his child. The respondent (PW1) admitted in cross-examination that he did not know his daughter’s date of birth. His father (PW2) also admitted not knowing the granddaughter’s name. The Court remarked:
“It is evident that after birth of the baby child no expenses were incurred by the respondent/husband or his family members… which shows that they never visited to see the baby child after her birth or incurred any expenditure on her birth and, thus, neglected to maintain them.”
The Court concluded that the Family Court failed to appreciate that the wife was willing to live with the husband, while it was the husband who meted out cruelty.
On Desertion
Referring to Supreme Court precedents, including Debananda Tamuli v. Kakumoni Kataky (2022) and Lachman Utamchand Kirpalani v. Meena (1964), the Court reiterated that desertion requires animus deserendi (intention to abandon) and must be without reasonable cause.
The Court held that if a wife is forced to leave the matrimonial home due to torture, it does not constitute desertion. The Bench observed:
“The wife if left the house of the husband on the ground of alleged torture and cruelty, then such type of separation will not come under the definition of desertion, but the learned Family Judge has not taken into consideration the aforesaid aspect of the matter.”
The Court found that the wife was compelled to leave and lodge complaints due to non-fulfillment of dowry demands and the husband’s refusal to take her back. The Court stated:
“It is the respondent-husband who deserted the appellant-wife and compelled her to live in her maike.”
Decision
The High Court held that the Family Court’s judgment was not based on a proper consideration of the evidence and the legal definitions of cruelty and desertion.
“This Court, therefore, is of the view that the judgment dated 07.10.2021 and the decree dated 01.11.2021 passed in Original Suit No. 548 of 2015 by the learned Family Judge needs to be interfered with and, accordingly, it is quashed and set aside.”
The appeal was allowed.
