Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Jhk) 93

HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
Sujit Narayan Prasad, Rajesh Kumar, JJ
Neel Kamal Bauri – Appellant
Versus
Priya Kumari – Respondent
F.A. (DB) No. 238 of 2024

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Baibhaw Gahlaut, Subhneet Jha
For the Respondents: Sunil Singh

A petitioner cannot obtain a decree of divorce by alleging cruelty or desertion when the evidence demonstrates that the petitioner is the primary author of the matrimonial misconduct and is seeking to benefit from their own wrong under the law.

Headnote:(A) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Sections 13(1)(i-a) and (i-b) - Divorce - Cruelty and Desertion - Burden of proof lies on the petitioner to prove cruelty and the animus deserendi for desertion - A party cannot be allowed to take advantage of their own wrong (Section 23). (Paras 33, 36, 40, 46, 47)

(B) Appeal - Scope - Appellate courts should not interfere with findings of fact unless they are perverse or ignore relevant material - An appellate court does not substitute its own view simply because another view is possible. (Paras 23, 51)

Facts of the case:
The appellant husband sought a divorce on grounds of cruelty and desertion, alleging that the respondent wife was argumentative, failed to perform marital obligations, and abandoned the matrimonial home without cause. The respondent contested these claims, alleging domestic violence, demands for additional dowry, and digital character assassination through the creation of fake identities to circulate offensive content, resulting in criminal proceedings against the husband.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the appellant failed to produce credible evidence to substantiate his allegations of cruelty by the respondent. Conversely, the evidence supported the respondent's claims that she had been subjected to physical and mental cruelty, including the creation of fake online profiles to defame her. The court concluded that the appellant acted as the aggressor and therefore could not seek relief based on his own misconduct.

Issues: Whether the lower court erred in dismissing the petition for divorce; whether the petitioner successfully proved mental/physical cruelty and animus deserendi sufficient to warrant a decree of dissolution of marriage.

Ratio Decidendi: A divorce petition based on cruelty and desertion must be supported by cogent evidence. When the petitioner is shown to have committed acts of cruelty against the respondent, the court is precluded by statutory provisions from granting relief, as a party cannot benefit from their own wrongful conduct. Desertion requires a voluntary abandonment without cause, which is negated when the party is compelled to leave due to the conduct of the petitioner.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. divorce petition based on cruelty and desertion grounds. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
2. conflicting contentions regarding cruelty and desertion. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
3. evidence assessment determines existence of marital cruelty. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44)
4. parties cannot benefit from their own wrongdoings. (Para 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53)

06/Dated: 5^th January, 2026 Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

Prayer

1. The instant appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, is directed against the Judgment dated 14.08.2024 (Decree signed on 22.08.2024) passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bokaro in Original Suit No.07 of 2022, whereby and whereunder, the petition filed against the respondent-wife under Section 13(1), (i-a) & (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of marriage, has been dismissed.

Facts

2. The brief facts of the case, which required to be enumerated, needs to be referred as under:

3. It is the case of the petitioner appellant herein that his marriage with the respondent was solemnized on 08.03.2019 as per Hindu rites and customs. After marriage, they lived together as husband and wife. Out of their wedlock, they have been blessed with a female child namely Shreya Kumari, born on 28.11.2019. The respondent is a quarrelsome lady. She always used to quarrel with his blind father, mother and younger sister without any reasonable cause and she was saying to kill them by administering poison. He made a complaint to his Sasural but they instead of persuading the respondent, used to instigate her to quarrel with them. She retained his ATM Card, used to withdraw money against his permission and used to give to her parents. When he came to know about this fact and protested, she called her father. Her father and brother came to his house and they threatened to kill him and took the respondent with them after lodging a written complaint against him by the respondent in Mahila P.S., Bermo and taking away jewelleries worth Rs.3,00,000/- and cash amounting Rs.40,000/-. After that on 14.05.2020, he went to his Sasural and tried to persuade the respondent and her family members and anyhow brought her to his house on 15.05.2020. On being told her to ask her father and brother to bring jewelleries worth Rs.3,00,000/- and cash amounting Rs.40,000/-, on 18.05.2020 her father and two brothers came to his house and threatened to forget about such jewelleries and money, otherwise he would be sent behind the bars. On 19.05.2020 she went to her parental home. After that, he made several efforts to bring her back but she did not agree, so lastly, he had made a complaint to Mahila Police Station, Dhanbad. Being fed up due to their such behaviour, he had filed Original Suit No. 135 of 2020 u/S. 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 against the respondent for restitution of conjugal rights, in which during mediation, she clearly stated that she does not want to lead her conjugal life with him.

4. She stated that she does want to lead her conjugal life with a labour, so the mediation was unsettled and lastly, he had withdrawn that suit. She has deserted him since 19.05.2020 without any rhyme and reason and there is no relationship of husband and wife between them. There is no collusion in filing of this suit. Cause of action is said to be arisen on 08.03.2019, when their marriage was solemnized and on 19.05.2020 she left her matrimonial home.

5. The respondent by filing written statement has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner contending, inter-alia, that the instant suit is not maintainable either in law or in facts. There is no cause of action to file this suit. Due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry, she was subjected to cruelty and torture by various means by the petitioner and even he assassinated her character. He has no regard,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Jhk) 93

HIGH COURT OF JHARKHANDSujit Narayan Prasad, Rajesh Kumar, JJNeel Kamal Bauri – AppellantVersusPriya Kumari – RespondentF.A. (DB) No. 238 of 2024

A petitioner cannot obtain a decree of divorce by alleging cruelty or desertion when the evidence demonstrates that the petitioner is the primary author of the matrimonial misconduct and is seeking to benefit from their own wrong under the law.

Cases Referred (8)

HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
Sujit Narayan Prasad, Rajesh Kumar, JJ
Neel Kamal Bauri – Appellant
Versus
Priya Kumari – Respondent
F.A. (DB) No. 238 of 2024