Back
2025 Supreme(Jhk) 2073
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, RAJESH KUMAR, JJ.
Arun Kumar son of Late Ram Dev Ram – Appellant
Versus
Raj Soni Devi wife of Arun Kumar – Respondent
F.A. No. 172 of 2024
Decided On : 24-04-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Om Prakash, Advocate
Divorce grounds of cruelty and desertion under the Hindu Marriage Act require substantial proof; mere allegations without evidence fail to establish a claim.
Headnote:(A) Family Court Act, 1984 - Section 19(1) - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Sections 13(1)(i-a)(i-b) - Appeal against dismissal of divorce petition - Appellant failed to establish grounds of cruelty or desertion; the Family Judge found no credible evidence supporting claims of misconduct or abandonment by the respondent. (Paras 1-44)
(B) Standard for Cruelty and Desertion - The court emphasized the necessity of evidence establishing the elements of cruelty and desertion in divorce proceedings, highlighting that accusations lacking support are considered insufficient. (Paras 22-42)
(C) Definition of Cruelty - Defined as conduct adversely affecting a spouse's well-being; it must be substantial, not trivial. (Paras 23-30)
(D) Definition of Desertion - Announced as the intentional abandonment of one spouse by another without consent or reasonable cause, necessitating proof of separation and intent to permanently end cohabitation. (Paras 31-36)
Facts of the case:
The appellant sought divorce citing cruelty and desertion, alleging the respondent's failure to fulfill marital obligations, while the respondent accused him of misconduct and abandonment. They married in 1996 and lived together until separation in 2016. The court found no substantial proof for the claims.
Findings of Court:
The Family Judge concluded that the appellant did not substantiate allegations of cruelty or desertion, leading to a dismissal of the suit.
Issues: Whether the grounds of cruelty and desertion were adequately established under the Hindu Marriage Act, and if the suit was maintainable.
Ratio Decidendi: The court maintained that allegations of cruelty must be supported by credible evidence, and the definition of desertion necessitates proof of intent to abandon, which was lacking in this case.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
ORDER :
1. The instant appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Court Act, 1984 is directed against the order/judgment dated 31.05.2024 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bokaro in Original Suit No. 179 of 2019, whereby and whereunder, the petition filed under Section 13(1)(i- a)(i-b) of the HINDU MARRIAGE ACT , 1955 by the appellant/petitioner seeking a decree of divorce against his wife, has been dismissed.
2. The brief facts of the case leading to filing of the divorce petition by the appellant/petitioner needs to be referred herein as under:
The marriage of the appellant/petitioner with the respondent was solemnized on 26.02.1996 as per Hindu rites and custom. After marriage, they lived together as husband and wife. Out of their wedlock, they have been blessed with three children. The respondent is never interested to live in his joint family. She never paid respect to her in-laws. His parents are ailing but the respondent never taken care of them. She always tried to create nuisance on trivial issues and wanted to live separately from his family, for which he remained upset. He had to take friendly loan of Rs.3,40,000/- for performing death ceremony of his parents. The respondent pressurized him to purchase ornaments, for which she tortured him by various means and used to create nuisance and quarrel in the family in presence of guest and he had purchased ornaments for her. In spite of that, there was no changes in her behaviour. Rather she had threatened him to get him killed through his son Ranjeet Kumar and one Awadhesh Yadav. He had listen the conversation between Ranjeet Kumar and Awadhesh Yadav about the conspiracy. The respondent wants to take his P.F., Gratuity and other benefit of his service after getting him killed. He had seen his wife/respondent to be an uncommon situation with Ranjit Kumar but due to insult in the society, he did not make hullah or made complaint anywhere. He is a simple Policeman and an ideal husband. Whereas, his wife/respondent always doubts about his character. She has abused him and assassinated his character with his sisters. The respondent has no interest with him. She is eager to get a heavy amount in her name and she always demanded money of Rs.20,00,000/- Their children namely Neha Kumar is aged about 23 years, Prince Raj is aged about 20 years and Riya Kumari is aged about 16 years and all are earning members. The son Prince Raj has given blow on his face and other children have insulted him in filthy languages. The wife/respondent is skilled in tailoring work and earn Rs.8,000-10,000 (approx.) per month. Despite that, he has managed to maintain them by giving Rs. 10,000-15,000/- per month besides other articles such as clothes, laptop and a scooty and household articles. The respondent never supported him to establish relationship of husband and wife between them since 15th November, 2016 and till date she has deserted him and since then there is no relationship of husband and wife between them. The respondent is too cruel and he apprehends his life to live with the respondent. Her cruelty and behaviour has defamed him in the society. She is indulged in voluntarily sexual intercourse with Ranjit Kumar. He tried to persuade her but in vain. On 15.11.2016, she left his company and started living with Ranjit Kumar. She came to Bokaro and lived at Sector-4, B.S.City to disturb him. Said Ranjit Kumar has also threatened to kill him. The respondent had given an application to his department levelling false and baseless allegations, which caused him torture, This suit is not presented in collusion with each other. The cause of action is said to be arisen on 26.02.1996 when their marriage was solemnized and on 15.11.2016 when they started living separately.
3. It is evident from the factual aspect that the appellant/petitioner had a motion by filing a petition under Section 13(1)(i-a)(i-b) of the HINDU MARRIAGE ACT , 1955 for decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and d
