2026 Supreme(Jhk) 351

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, ARUN KUMAR RAI, JJ.
Deepak Kumar Singh S/o Umesh Prasad Singh – Appellant
Versus
Sunita Devi D/o Late Haldar Singh – Respondent
First Appeal No. 150 of 2024
Decided On : 03-02-2026

Husband's unproven allegations of wife's religious insistence, cohabitation refusal, and separate living demand do not constitute cruelty; his rebuff of her reconciliation efforts bars divorce as own wrong.

Headnote:(A) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 13(1)(i-a) - Family Courts Act, 1984 - Section 19(1) - Divorce petition on ground of cruelty dismissed by Family Court and upheld in appeal - Husband alleged wife refused consummation due to discipleship in religious sect requiring permission and diksha, demanded separate living from parents, donated monthly to sect - Wife denied involvement, claimed consummation occurred, sought to return but rebuffed - Husband's witnesses claimed concealment of facts, wife's insistence; wife's witnesses affirmed her willingness, husband's refusal - No proof of cruelty as conduct not grave/weighty to make cohabitation impossible; mere adherence to sect within Hinduism not conversion or cruelty unless causing extreme mental agony/abandonment of obligations - Husband's refusal to accept wife despite her efforts constitutes his own wrong under Section 23(1)(a), barring relief - Judgment not perverse as based on evidence appreciation, not ignoring material or irrational - Irretrievable breakdown not ground under Section 13. (Paras 3, 21, 36, 42-55, 58-62, 65-72)

(B) Cruelty - Mental cruelty requires conduct sustained over time rendering life miserable, unreasonable to live together; grave/weighty, not trivial wear/tear - Depends on social strata, culture, values; no straitjacket formula - Proof by preponderance of probabilities, not beyond doubt - Appellate court interferes only if finding perverse (no evidence, irrelevant material, defies logic). (Paras 39-55, 63-64)

Facts of the case:
Marriage solemnized per Hindu rites; wife stayed two days, allegedly refused consummation citing religious sect discipleship needing permission/diksha, later demanded husband's initiation/separate living; returned briefly, took ornaments, left again refusing return without demands met - Husband claimed cruelty, concealment of qualifications/sect; wife countered with dowry payments, consummation, husband's dispatch to parents' home, refusal of return despite letters/visits - Reconciliation/mediation failed; Family Court dismissed suit holding no cruelty proved, husband at fault.

Findings of Court:
Husband failed to prove cruelty; evidence showed wife's efforts to restore marriage rebuffed by husband/family - Conduct alleged not amounting to cruelty; husband taking advantage of own wrong.

Issues: Whether wife meted cruelty via religious insistence/cohabitation refusal/separate living demand making conjugal life impossible; whether Family Court judgment perverse warranting interference; entitlement to divorce.

Ratio Decidendi: Cruelty not established as husband's allegations unproved, wife's denial corroborated, her reconciliation attempts rejected by husband - Religious sect adherence within Hinduism insufficient for divorce absent proven extreme mental cruelty/detachment from obligations - Lower court properly appreciated evidence; finding not perverse.

Result: Appeal dismissed; impugned judgment/decree upheld.