Jharkhand HC: Cruelty for Divorce Must Be by Spouse, Not Adult Sons; Unpleaded Grounds Render Decree Perverse (S.13(1)(i-b) HMA) - 2025-05-09

Jharkhand High Court Quashes Divorce Decree, Cites Perverse Findings and Reliance on Unpleaded Grounds

Ranchi, Jharkhand – The Jharkhand High Court, in a significant ruling, has quashed and set aside a divorce decree granted by the Family Court, Latehar, deeming its findings "perverse." The High Court held that cruelty, as a ground for divorce under Section 13(1)(i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, must be directly attributable to the spouse and cannot be inferred merely from the actions of adult children, even if allegedly influenced by the spouse. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that a judgment cannot be based on grounds not pleaded by the petitioner.

The division bench, comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Kumar , allowed the appeal filed by the wife, Shakuntala Devi , against the judgment dated 21.12.2021 and decree dated 06.01.2022, which had dissolved her marriage with Mahabir Prasad . The matter has been remitted back to the Family Court for fresh consideration.

Case Background

The respondent-husband, Mahabir Prasad , had filed for divorce in Original Suit No.24 of 2017, primarily alleging cruelty by his wife, Shakuntala Devi . The couple married in 1987 and have two adult sons. The Family Court, Latehar, granted the divorce, leading to the present appeal (First Appeal No.12 of 2022) by the wife.

The husband claimed that since 2012, his wife's behaviour changed; she allegedly abused him, accused him of illicit relationships, vandalized his electronics shop, and lodged false complaints. He stated this compelled him to live separately. He also alleged she poisoned the minds of their sons, who then created disturbances at his shop.

The appellant-wife denied these allegations, contending that it was the husband who deserted her and their sons, was living with a concubine, and failed to provide for them.

Key Arguments Presented

For the Appellant-Wife (Shakuntala Devi ): * The Family Court erred in finding cruelty based on the alleged actions of the adult sons at the husband's shop, as there was no substantive evidence of cruelty committed directly by the wife. * The husband’s own testimony indicated that the disturbances were caused by the sons. Attributing this to the wife as cruelty was incorrect. * The Family Court improperly considered desertion (parties living separately since 2013) as a ground, although it was not the basis of the husband's divorce petition, which was filed on cruelty.

For the Respondent-Husband ( Mahabir Prasad ): * The Family Court correctly found that the wife poisoning the minds of their sons, leading to disturbances, constituted cruelty. * The wife's own allegation of him keeping a concubine (made in her evidence) was also considered by the Family Court. * The long period of separation (since 2013) justified the dissolution of the marriage.

High Court's Scrutiny and Reasoning

The High Court meticulously analyzed the pleadings, evidence, and the Family Court's judgment, highlighting several critical errors.

On Cruelty: The Court noted that the husband's primary allegation of cruelty in his plaint was the wife creating disturbances at his shop. However, his evidence suggested that the wife "poisoned the mind of their two adult sons who have created disturbances in the shop."

The High Court observed: > "The individual attributability is to be there upon either of the parties for the purpose of considering the element of cruelty for taking the ground for dissolution of marriage... The evidence which has been laid by the husband has not come out with a specific case by taking the instance of committing cruelty upon him save and except the aforesaid version..."

It further stated: > "This Court is of the view that the aforesaid consideration as has been given by the learned Family Judge cannot be said to be proper since cruelty is to be taken into consideration at the end of the wife and if anything has been committed by the sons, it is by the sons and the same cannot be attributed upon the wife to have the ground of cruelty for the purpose of divorce."

The Court referred to landmark Supreme Court judgments like Dr. N.G. Dastane vs. Mrs. S. Dastane and Joydeep Majumdar v. Bharti Jaiswal Majumdar , emphasizing that cruelty must be grave and weighty, rendering cohabitation miserable.

On Pleadings and Unpleaded Grounds: The High Court found that the Family Court had deviated from the pleadings by considering the wife's allegation of the husband keeping a concubine (which was part of her defence, not the husband's plea for divorce) and the fact of separation (desertion) as grounds for divorce, when the husband's suit was based on cruelty.

Citing Akella Lalitha v. Konda Hanumantha Rao & Anr. , the Court reiterated: > "It is well settled that the decision of a case cannot be based on grounds outside the pleadings of the parties and it is the case pleaded that has to be found. Without an amendment of the plaint, the Court was not entitled to grant the relief not asked for..."

On Desertion: The Family Court had noted the parties were living separately since 2013. The High Court found this insufficient to establish desertion as legally defined. It referred to Debananda Tamuli vs. Kakumoni Kataky and the explanation to Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, stating: > "...all types of separation cannot come under the fold of desertion... rather the desertion is required to be proved and the same can only be said to be proved if evidence to that effect has come that it is the wife, who on her own will, has left the matrimonial house or the house of the husband."

The Court concluded that the Family Judge had not properly considered whether the legal requirements for desertion, such as animus deserendi (intention to desert), were met.

Perversity of Judgment: The High Court concluded that the Family Court's judgment suffered from perversity. It defined a "perverse" finding, referencing Arulvelu and Anr. vs. State , as one not supported by evidence, based on erroneous consideration of evidence, or outrageously defying logic. > "This Court is of the view that it is a case where consideration is to be required to be there on the ground of perversity and, according to our considered view, the judgment impugned cannot be said to be well based upon the consideration of the element of cruelty..."

Final Decision and Implications

The Jharkhand High Court, after a thorough examination, found the Family Court's judgment unsustainable due to its reliance on misattributed acts of cruelty and consideration of unpleaded grounds.

The Court ruled: > "As such, the impugned judgment needs interference and, accordingly, the judgment dated 21.12.2021 and the decree dated 06.01.2022 passed in Original Suit No.24 of 2017 by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Latehar is hereby quashed and set aside."

The case (First Appeal No.12 of 2022) was allowed, and the matter was remitted to the Family Court for a fresh decision, adhering strictly to the pleadings and principles of law. This judgment underscores the necessity for trial courts to base their decisions solely on pleaded facts and established legal definitions of matrimonial offences like cruelty and desertion.