2026 Supreme(Jhk) 725

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, JJ.
Dhananjay Kumar Pandey, son of Late Chitranjan Kumar Pandey – Petitioner
Versus 
Vidyawati Devi, Daughter of Sri Sidheswar Pandey – Respondent 
First Appeal No.121 of 2019
Decided On : 23-07-2026

Divorce on grounds of cruelty and adultery requires specific, cogent evidence rather than mere suspicion. Unfounded allegations of illicit relationships made in pleadings constitute mental cruelty. Appellate intervention is restricted to instances of perversity, as the trial court is best positioned to assess the reliability of testimonial evidence.

Headnote:(A) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 13(1)(i) and (ia) - Divorce - Cruelty and Adultery - Allegations of cruelty and adultery must be proved by cogent evidence - Unsubstantiated claims of illicit relationships in pleadings amount to mental cruelty to the spouse - Standard of proof for adultery requires high degree of probability, and the alleged paramour should ideally be impleaded to adhere to principles of natural justice. (Paras 62, 64, 85, 89, 99)

(B) Appellate Jurisdiction - Scope - Power of the appellate court to interfere is limited to instances of perversity, illegality, or irrationality in the lower court's findings - Appellate court cannot substitute its own view simply because another interpretation is possible, as the decision must be based on a reasonable assessment of evidence. (Paras 53, 55, 56)

Facts of the case:
The appellant sought a decree of divorce against the respondent on the grounds of cruelty and adultery. The appellant alleged that the respondent treated him and his family with cruelty, refused conjugal relations, and engaged in adulterous behavior. The respondent denied these allegations, contending that the appellant and his family subjected her to harassment for dowry, neglected her, and ultimately forced her out of the matrimonial home. The respondent had initiated separate criminal proceedings under dowry prohibition laws against the appellant and his family. The trial court dismissed the suit, finding the allegations of the appellant to be baseless and noting that the appellant himself had entered into a second marriage.*

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the appellant failed to provide any evidence to substantiate the allegations of cruelty or adultery. The appellant admitted to not having filed any complaints regarding the supposed threats or illicit behavior. The respondent's testimony regarding dowry-related harassment was consistent and supported by other legal proceedings. The court further noted that the appellant's own conduct, including his act of remarrying, undermined his case. The trial court's decision was found to be well-reasoned and free from perversity.

Issues: The central issues were whether the evidence sufficiently established grounds for cruelty and adultery, and whether the trial court’s dismissal of the divorce petition was based on a proper appreciation of evidence.

Ratio Decidendi: Cruelty is defined by the conduct in relation to matrimonial obligations and is highly context-dependent. Allegations regarding adultery are of a serious nature and must carry a high degree of probability; lack of specific evidence and failure to implead the alleged paramour makes such claims unsustainable. Furthermore, a party cannot benefit from their own wrongful conduct, such as suppressing the fact of a second marriage while leveling unproven allegations against a spouse.

Result: Appeal dismissed.