High Court holds husband's habitual drunkenness, assault, and neglect as sufficient cruelty; wife compelled to leave matrimonial home, not voluntary desertion-marriage dissolved under Special Marriage Act, 1954
In a significant judgment dated October 9, 2026, the Jharkhand High Court (Division Bench comprising Justices Sujit Narayan Prasad and Sanjay Prasad) allowed an appeal filed by Rekha Kumari, dissolving her marriage with Rakesh Kumar on grounds of cruelty and desertion under Sections 27(1)(b) and 27(1)(d) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954. The High Court set aside the ex parte dismissal of her divorce petition by the Additional Family Court, Jamshedpur, which had earlier rejected her claims despite her husband's habitual absence in court proceedings.
The appellant, Rekha Kumari, had married Rakesh Kumar in 2010 under the Special Marriage Act, with two minor children born from the wedlock. She alleged that after the birth of their son in 2015, the respondent husband became a habitual alcoholic who physically assaulted her, abused her verbally, neglected family responsibilities, and terrorized their children. Despite her silent endurance initially, the situation worsened after the death of her father-in-law in 2015, with the husband ceasing employment and financial support.
In March 2018, due to escalating cruelty and threats, the wife was forced to leave the matrimonial home with her children and took shelter at her parental residence. She maintained herself and her children through employment as a nurse and sought legal dissolution of marriage on cruelty and desertion grounds.
The Family Court had dismissed her petition ex parte, despite the husband's non-appearance and valid service of notice. The Court took the absence of a formal First Information Report (FIR) for the alleged assaults as a reason to disbelieve the cruelty claims.
On appeal, the High Court re-examined the evidence and held that the mere absence of a formal FIR in matrimonial disputes does not discredit the wife's testimony of cruelty, especially when corroborated by police complaints and consistent oral evidence. The Court emphasized that the standard of proof in civil matrimonial matters is the preponderance of probabilities rather than proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Critically, the Court distinguished between voluntary desertion and forced departure from matrimonial home due to cruelty. It held that since the wife was compelled to leave on account of the husband's drunkenness, assault, and neglect, the separation constituted desertion attributable to the husband, not voluntary abandonment by the wife.
The Court further noted that the husband's persistent non-appearance in both Family Court and High Court proceedings, despite valid service of notices, amounted to conscious disregard of the judicial process and indicated no desire to preserve the marriage.
Accordingly, the High Court found the Family Court's dismissal of the divorce petition to be perverse, based on failure to consider material evidence and misapplication of law. The Court quashed and set aside the Family Court's order and decree, allowing the petition for divorce.
The judgment also clarified that the dissolution of marriage would not affect the children's right to inheritance and that the wife could seek maintenance for the minor children before the appropriate forum, though she herself had not sought maintenance, being employed.
This ruling reiterates the judiciary's approach to matrimonial cruelty and desertion, underscoring that cruelty includes mental and physical conduct that makes cohabitation unreasonable, and that a spouse driven away by such cruelty cannot be held liable for desertion.
Bottom Line:
Special Marriage Act, 1954 - Divorce - Cruelty and desertion - Wife driven out of matrimonial home due to husband's drunkenness, assault and neglect - Mere absence of formal FIR does not discredit wife's testimony in matrimonial proceedings - Ex parte dismissal of divorce petition by Family Court held perverse for non-consideration of material evidence - Marriage dissolved - Wife left free to claim maintenance for minor children before appropriate forum.
Statutory provision(s):
Special Marriage Act, 1954 Sections 27(1)(b), 27(1)(d); Family Courts Act, 1984 Section 19(1)
Rekha Kumari @ Rekha v. Rakesh Kumar, (Jharkhand)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2994263
