Setting aside a Family Court order that had granted a divorce decree to a husband, a Division Bench of the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, comprising Justice Parth Prateem Sahu and Justice Sachin Singh Rajput, held that a wife residing separately due to her government employment obligations does not constitute desertion or cruelty under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, when her actions show a clear intention to preserve the matrimonial bond.
Background of the Case
The marriage between the parties was solemnized on February 21, 2019, at Bilaspur according to Hindu rites and rituals. Months after the solemnization, disputes arose between the couple.
The respondent-husband instituted a divorce suit (Civil Suit No. 7-A/2022) before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur, seeking dissolution of marriage on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. He alleged that the appellant-wife frequently quarrelled with him and his family, refused cohabitation, taunted him regarding his dark complexion and private job, and abandoned the matrimonial home on January 7, 2020. He further asserted that despite reconciliation efforts and social interventions, she failed to return and threatened to implicate his family in false dowry cases.
The appellant-wife resisted the divorce application, contending that she was always willing to reside with her husband and fulfill her matrimonial obligations. She alleged that her husband and in-laws subjected her to physical and mental harassment demanding Rs 5,00,000, her salary, and her ATM card. She highlighted that as a government nurse posted at Dhamdha, her job required her to live at her place of posting, a fact known to her husband prior to marriage. She also submitted that she resided at the matrimonial home from August 29, 2021, to September 29, 2021, to save the marriage, but the husband failed to cohabit.
To support his case, the husband examined himself (PW-1), Samaru Lal (PW-2), and Jayant Vastrakar (PW-3). The wife examined herself as DW-1. On December 12, 2023, the Family Court allowed the husband’s petition and dissolved the marriage. Aggrieved, the wife filed an appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984.
Arguments Before the High Court
Learned counsel for the appellant-wife argued that the Family Court overlooked material evidence. It was contended that the wife never voluntarily deserted the husband, as her stay at Dhamdha was dictated by her public service duties. Counsel emphasized that after receiving a legal notice, the wife visited the husband’s residence and even obtained a decree for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which the husband failed to comply with.
Learned counsel for the respondent-husband supported the Family Court judgment, arguing that the wife stayed away without justifiable cause for a prolonged period and refused cohabitation despite efforts. Counsel relied on Division Bench decisions of the Chhattisgarh High Court in Prashant Jha v. Isha Jha [F.A. (MAT) No. 41 of 2024] and Shailendra Kumar Chandra v. Smt. Bharti Chandra [First Appeal (M) No. 124 of 2017].
Court’s Analysis and Observations
Delivering the judgment, Justice Sachin Singh Rajput observed that the parties were acquainted before marriage and aware of each other’s status. Rejecting the husband’s allegation regarding his complexion and job status, the Court noted that if the wife had any such reservations, “she would not have entered into the wedlock by nipping the things at the bud itself.”
The Court noted that during a social meeting convened to resolve disputes, both parties were advised to stay at each other’s place for 15 days. However, there was no evidence that the husband made any effort in this direction. Conversely, when the wife visited his house after receiving a legal notice, the husband picked a quarrel, left the residence, and switched off his cell phone for nearly a month. The Bench observed that the husband “evidently appears to have evaded the company of the appellant-wife when she visited his house in a gesture to live with him.”
Examining the ground of mental cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, the High Court referenced the Supreme Court benchmark judgment in Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh [(2007) 4 SCC 511], highlighting the observation:
“Mere trivial irritations, quarrels, normal wear and tear of the married life which happens in day-to-day life would not be adequate for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty.”
Applying these principles, the High Court held that “mere trivial instances involving minor skirmishes between the spouses and would not amount to mental cruelty. Mere unhappiness and dissatisfaction of one party at the instance of other cannot by itself constitute cruelty warranting dissolution of marriage.”
Regarding desertion under Section 13(1)(ib), the High Court underscored that the husband must prove both physical separation and animus deserendi (intent to permanently abandon the marital relationship). The Court found that the wife’s actions—visiting the matrimonial home and initiating Section 9 proceedings for restitution of conjugal rights—clearly demonstrated her willingness to preserve the marriage rather than abandon it.
Decision of the Court
The High Court concluded that the Family Court’s findings were based on an erroneous appreciation of evidence and that the husband failed to prove the statutory elements of cruelty and desertion. Noting that the case laws cited by the husband did not support his stance under these facts, the High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the Family Court’s decree dated December 12, 2023.
