Patna High Court sets aside divorce decree, rules isolated incidents don't constitute cruelty

A Division Bench of the Patna High Court has overturned a Family Court decree of divorce, holding that scattered, unspecified incidents of domestic friction spread over eleven years fail to meet the legal threshold of "cruelty" under the Hindu Marriage Act. The Bench also ruled that WhatsApp messages produced without the mandatory Section 65B certificate are wholly inadmissible as evidence.

The judgment, delivered on August 6, 2026, by Justice Bibek Chaudhuri (with Justice Rana Vikram Singh concurring) in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 32 of 2024, allowed the appeal of Jyoti Rani and dismissed the matrimonial suit filed by her husband, Nishant Kumar, who had sought dissolution of marriage on grounds of cruelty.

A Marriage Strained Across a Decade

The couple married on February 12, 2010, at Muzaffarpur according to Hindu rites. The husband, an officer with the State Bank of India, was posted in Gujarat at the time; the wife remained in Bihar, and the couple maintained a long-distance arrangement for much of their married life. Two daughters were born — Nehal Shreya in 2010 and Navya in 2014.

In October 2021, the husband filed Matrimonial Suit No. 68 of 2021 before the Family Court at Lakhisarai, alleging a sustained course of cruelty: refusal of conjugal relations, verbal abuse, public humiliation during family functions including a Chhath Puja in 2012 and his father's Shraddha ceremony in 2015, and refusal to attend his mother's last rites in March 2022. The wife denied all allegations and counter-claimed physical and mental abuse, alleging the suit was motivated by a desire to remarry.

When the wife failed to lead evidence — her counsel stating he had no instructions — the Family Court accepted the husband's case and granted a divorce, while directing him to continue maintaining the wife and children.

Appellate Scrutiny Reveals Vague, Scattered Allegations

On appeal, the wife's counsel argued that the Family Court erred by relying solely on the uncorroborated testimony of the husband and his two interested witnesses — his sister and a long-time friend. The High Court agreed. Re-appreciating the evidence, the Bench found the alleged incidents "scattered across different years, lack precise dates, particulars of time, place and surrounding circumstances," and failed to form "a continuous or sustained course of conduct ."

Crucially, the Court noted that the couple continued to cohabit for substantial periods between 2010 and 2018, that two children were born in that interval, and that the husband himself admitted to occasional physical relations prior to 2018. Even a temporary cohabitation undertaken under a counselling order in June 2022, though it later failed, undermined any claim of an unbroken chain of cruelty.

Electronic Evidence Fails the Statutory Test

The husband relied on WhatsApp messages marked as Exhibit-1 to support his claims. The High Court found this evidence fundamentally defective: no certificate under Section 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, had been produced. Citing Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal , (2020) 7 SCC 1, the Bench held that such a certificate is "a condition precedent to the admissibility of evidence by way of electronic record," and that "oral evidence in the place of such certificate cannot possibly suffice."

A Question of Legal Standard, Not Just Fact

The Court applied the settled legal framework on mental cruelty. Recognising the guidance in Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh , (2007) 4 SCC 511, the Bench reiterated that "mere trivial irritations , quarrels, normal wear and tear of the married life which happens in day-to-day life would not be adequate for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty ."

More decisively, the Court relied on Suman Singh v. Sanjay Singh , (2017) 4 SCC 85, holding that isolated incidents occurring years before the petition cannot furnish a subsisting cause of action . The Court quoted: "The incidents alleged should be of recurring nature or continuing one and they should be in near proximity with the filing of the petition."

Key Observations

  • "The incidents relied upon are scattered, lack necessary particulars, and do not form a sustained course of conduct ."
  • "A petition seeking divorce on some isolated incidents alleged to have occurred 8-10 years prior to filing of the date of petition cannot furnish a subsisting cause of action ."
  • "The certificate required under Section 65-B(4) is a condition precedent to the admissibility of evidence by way of electronic record."
  • "Mere trivial irritations , quarrels, normal wear and tear of the married life which happens in day-to-day life would not be adequate for grant of divorce."

Another Blow to Hasty Divorce Petitions

The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Family Court's judgment and decree, and dismissed the husband's divorce petition. The Bench ordered that both parties "shall continue to discharge their parental obligations toward the two minor daughters," leaving any future disputes over custody, visitation, or maintenance to be resolved by the competent court.

The ruling reinforces a key principle for matrimonial litigation: a divorce on grounds of cruelty cannot be built on a patchwork of isolated, long-past episodes, particularly where the parties continued to live together and build a family in the interim. It also sends a clear message on evidentiary standards — electronic records must be properly authenticated under the Evidence Act before they can be relied upon in any proceeding.