2026 Supreme(Jhk) 776

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, JJ.
Ravi Ranjan Kumar, S/o. Rajeshwar Roy - Appellant 
Versus 
Deepika Roy, W/o. Ravi Ranjan Kumar, D/o. Jagdish Prasad Roy – Respondent
F.A. No.135 of 2022
Decided On : 23-07-2026

Cruelty requires proof of specific, injurious conduct, while desertion necessitates establishing both the factum of separation and the intent to abandon. In the absence of cogent evidence, and when separation is forced by circumstances, a divorce petition on these grounds cannot be sustained.

Headnote:(A) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Sections 13(1)(i-a) and 13(1)(i-b) - Divorce - Cruelty and Desertion - Burden of proof rests upon the petitioner to establish specific instances of cruel conduct or intent to abandon - Vague or general allegations are insufficient to warrant the dissolution of marriage. (Paras 30, 58, 60, 86)

(B) Appellate Jurisdiction - High Court in a first appeal has the authority to reappraise and review both questions of law and fact, including re-appreciating oral and documentary evidence to reach an independent conclusion. (Para 25)

(C) Perversity - A finding of the lower court is deemed perverse only if it ignores relevant material, relies on irrelevant factors, or completely defies logic, and not merely because another reasonable view is possible. (Paras 36, 61)

(D) Desertion - Essential components include factum of separation and animus deserendi (intention to bring cohabitation permanently to an end) - Separation due to compelling circumstances or mistreatment does not constitute voluntary abandonment by the spouse leaving the matrimonial home. (Paras 73, 76, 83, 85)

Facts of the case:
The appellant sought a divorce alleging cruelty and desertion by the respondent. The appellant claimed the respondent was quarrelsome, threatened self-harm, and left the matrimonial home without cause. The respondent contested these claims, stating she was subjected to physical and mental abuse, stripped of her personal possessions, and forced to leave. The lower court dismissed the suit after finding no evidence to support the claims of cruelty or voluntary desertion, leading the appellant to challenge the order in the high court.

Findings of Court:
The court held that the appellant failed to provide specific dates, times, or clear instances of the alleged cruelty. Furthermore, the evidence indicated that the respondent's separation was necessitated by the appellant's behavior, negating the element of willful abandonment required to prove desertion. The lower court’s assessment of evidence was consistent with the material on record and not perverse.

Issues: The main issues were whether the lower court's refusal to grant a divorce was a perverse finding and whether the petitioner proved the grounds of legal cruelty and desertion by the respondent.

Ratio Decidendi: A divorce petition hinges on the petitioner establishing, through cogent evidence, that the respondent’s conduct rendered continued cohabitation injurious. Where allegations are unsubstantiated and the separation is found to be a consequence of the petitioner's own conduct rather than the respondent's fault, the statutory burden for granting a decree of divorce is not satisfied.

Result: Appeal dismissed.