Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, ARUN KUMAR RAI, JJ.
Diwakar Kumar Sharma, son of Ramchandra Sharma – Appellant
Versus
Safalta Sharma, w/o. Diwakar Sharma – Opp. Party
F.A. No. 155 of 2022
Decided On : 18-02-2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. divorce petition dismissed on adultery, cruelty, desertion. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. trial court ignored evidence of adultery, cruelty. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 3. no proof beyond suspicion for matrimonial grounds. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 4. witness testimonies lack specific adultery evidence. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 5. appellate court re-appreciates; reverses perverse findings. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31) |
| 6. adultery requires cogent proof, not mere suspicion. (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50) |
| 7. cruelty demands grave conduct causing apprehension. (Para 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67) |
| 8. desertion needs two-year continuous separation. (Para 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81) |
| 9. appeal dismissed; trial findings not perverse. (Para 82 , 83 , 84 , 85 , 86) |
JUDGMENT :
Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
1. The instant appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Court Act, 1984 is directed against the judgment dated 15.10.2022 and Decree dated 03.11.2022 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Godda in Original Suit No.75 of 2021, whereby and whereunder, the petition filed under Section 13(1)(i),(i-a),(i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 by the plaintiff (appellant herein) seeking a decree of divorce against his wife (respondent herein), has been dismissed.
Factual Matrix
2. The brief facts of the case leading to filing of the divorce petition by the appellant/ plaintiff needs to be referred herein as under:
The appellant/plaintiff and respondent/defendant are legally married husband and wife and their marriage has been solemnized in 08.12.2011 at Bhartikitta as per Hindu rites and customs in a simple ceremony.
The petitioner/husband (appellant herein) and the respondent/OP/wife lived together in relation of husband- wife since the date of marriage till 30.04.2021. The petitioner and the respondent got blessed with two children out of their wedlock namely, Aryan Raj (son) and Anshika Kumari (daughter) aged about 9 and 5 years old respectively. It has been stated that differences arose between the petitioner and the respondent/OP due to the misconduct and misdeeds of the respondent/OP. The respondent/OP used to flee from the house of the petitioner despite the objection made by the petitioner. It has been alleged that the respondent/OP developed illicit relationship with Sonu Sharma alias Sourav Kumar Sharma who used to visit the petitioner's house regularly. It has further been stated that the respondent has not made physical relation with the petitioner for more than a year.
It is alleged that the respondent/OP along with two children, fled away with Sonu Sharma alias Saurav Sharma on 0.04.2021 after taking all her ornaments and petitioner's golden chain and ring. The respondent also took Rs. 60,000/- kept by the petitioner for which Basantrai P.S. Case no. 34/2021 State Vrs- Sonu Sharma alias Saurav Sharma has been registered u/s-364, 379, 120(B)/34 of the I.P.C.
Thereafter being aggrieved with the conduct of respondent-wife, the appellant-husband had preferred a suit being Original Suit No. 75 of 2021 before the learned Family Court Godda.
3. Thereafter notice was issued on due address through Nazarat as well as through Registered Post and thereafter publication/advertisement of said notice in the local daily Hindi newspaper was made for appearance of respondent/OP's/defendant/wife, but she did not appear. Therefore, vide order dated 20.06.2022 the suit has been ordered to be proceeded ex-parte (in absence of defendant).
4. Based upon the pleading, the learned Family Court altogether has framed six issues which are as follows:
“I. Whether the Suit as framed is maintainable?
II. Whether the plaintiff has valid Cause of Action for the suit?
III. Whether the defendant/Opposite Party-wife, after her solemnization of marriage with plainti
Divorce grounds of adultery require high probability proof beyond suspicion; cruelty must be grave causing cohabitation impossibility; desertion needs two-year separation preceding petition. Absent p....
Husband failed to prove cruelty or desertion in divorce suit; unproved illicit relationship allegation itself constitutes cruelty to wife; appellate court upholds trial findings absent perversity, re....
Grounds for divorce under Hindu Marriage Act must be substantiated by convincing evidence; mere allegations of cruelty or adultery without proof do not warrant decree of divorce.
The court ruled that claims of cruelty and desertion must be substantiated with credible evidence, emphasizing that allegations alone are insufficient for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act.
The burden of proof lies with the appellant to establish claims of cruelty and desertion, which must be supported by credible evidence, and mere allegations without proof are insufficient for divorce....
The court held that allegations of adultery, cruelty, and desertion must be substantiated with cogent evidence, and mere claims are insufficient for divorce.
The appeal court found the Family Court's dismissal of divorce due to cruelty and desertion to be perverse, establishing that the husband's behavior justified dissolution of marriage.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
