Court finds insufficient evidence of cruelty or desertion by wife; highlights importance of credible proof and absence of animus deserendi in marital disputes
In a significant judgment dated November 3, 2026, the Jharkhand High Court (Division Bench) dismissed the appeal filed by Surendra Kumar Thakur seeking a decree of divorce from his wife, Babita Devi @ Baby Devi, under Section 13(1)(i-a) and 13(1)(i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The appeal challenged the dismissal of the original suit by the Additional Family Court at Bokaro, which had rejected the husband's claims of cruelty and desertion by his wife.
The parties were married in 2005 and have two children. The husband alleged that the wife caused both physical and mental cruelty and deserted him in 2015 by leaving the matrimonial home for her parental house. He contended that the wife kept distance, frequently quarreled, and had an extramarital relationship, which he claimed amounted to cruelty. He also raised desertion as an alternate ground for divorce.
The wife denied these allegations, asserting that she was subjected to physical and mental torture, including unlawful dowry demands by the husband and his family. She claimed that she left the matrimonial home due to this cruelty but was willing to resume conjugal life, an offer the husband allegedly refused. She also pointed out that the husband was involved in an extramarital relationship himself and that the complaints she filed under the Dowry Prohibition Act and IPC Section 498A were compromised to restore marital harmony.
The Trial Court had earlier held that the husband failed to prove cruelty or desertion. The Court noted that the evidence presented by the husband, including testimonies from his colleagues and daughter, lacked credibility or corroboration. The daughter's evidence was found to be influenced by the father's dictation. Documents submitted by the wife showed prior compromises and efforts toward reconciliation. The Court emphasized that "mere trivial irritations, quarrels, normal wear and tear of married life" do not suffice for cruelty and that cruelty must be persistent and make cohabitation impossible.
The High Court bench, comprising Chief Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Manoj Prasad, affirmed the findings of the Trial Court after hearing arguments from both sides. The Court observed that allegations of the wife's extramarital relationship were based on stereotypical assumptions and lacked proof, which itself could amount to cruelty against the wife. Further, the wife's repeated willingness to restore the marriage negated any claim of desertion, as desertion requires the intent to abandon the marital relationship (animus deserendi), which was absent here.
The Court also referenced relevant Supreme Court precedents, including Samar Ghose v. Jaya Ghose, highlighting that isolated incidents of conflict do not constitute cruelty sufficient for divorce. It noted that the husband's challenge to interim maintenance orders and his conduct further undermined his case.
Ultimately, the High Court dismissed the husband's appeal without costs, holding that neither cruelty nor desertion was established. The wife remains entitled to seek modification of maintenance orders as per changed circumstances. The judgment underscores the judiciary's careful scrutiny of evidence in matrimonial disputes and the need to protect the dignity and rights of both spouses.
Bottom Line:
Hindu Marriage Act - Divorce - Cruelty and desertion - Husband failed to prove physical or mental cruelty by wife - Mere long separation by itself not sufficient where wife consistently expressed willingness to resume cohabitation - Absence of animus deserendi defeats plea of desertion - Unsubstantiated allegations of extramarital relationship made by husband against wife may themselves amount to cruelty towards wife.
Statutory provision(s):
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 Sections 13(1)(i-a), 13(1)(i-b), 24; Family Courts Act, 1984 Section 19(1); Indian Penal Code Section 498A
Surendra Kumar Thakur v. Babita Devi @ Baby Devi, (Jharkhand)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 3012729
