Levelling Un-Chastity Allegations Against Wife Without Proof Amounts To Cruelty, Not Ground For His Divorce: Jharkhand HC [Read Order]

Jharkhand: The Jharkhand High Court has upheld the dismissal of a husband's divorce petition under Section 27(1)(b) and (d) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, holding that unsubstantiated allegations of 'un-chastity' levelled by him against his wife amounted to cruelty on his own part, and that he had failed to establish either cruelty or desertion on her part.

A Division Bench of Justices Sujit Narayan Prasad and Sanjay Prasad was hearing a first appeal filed by the husband, XXX, against a judgment of the Family Court, Sahibganj, which had dismissed his suit seeking dissolution of marriage against his wife, XXX.

The parties had solemnised their marriage in 2008 under the Special Marriage Act. The husband's case was that the wife had instituted a false criminal case against him shortly after the marriage, left the matrimonial home, and refused to resume cohabitation despite his efforts, and that there had been no cohabitation between the parties for about ten years, amounting to cruelty and desertion. He also relied on an earlier restitution of conjugal rights petition filed by him, which had been dismissed.

The wife, contesting the suit, denied the allegations and stated that the husband had established a physical relationship with her prior to marriage on the assurance of marrying her, that she had conceived before the marriage, and that he had initially refused to marry her upon learning of the pregnancy, prompting her to file a criminal case, before the marriage was eventually solemnised through the intervention of relatives. She also pointed out that the earlier restitution petition had been dismissed on a finding that she had valid grounds for not joining the husband's company, and that this finding had attained finality.

During trial, evidence emerged that the husband was in an extra-marital relationship with another woman, with whom he reportedly had a son, and was allegedly residing with yet another woman. The Family Court had also recorded, in the earlier restitution proceedings, a finding that the husband had an extra-marital relationship, which constituted valid grounds for the wife to live separately.

Before the High Court, the husband contended that the impugned judgment was perverse, having ignored documentary and oral evidence establishing cruelty and desertion, including the 'false' criminal case filed by the wife (in which he was later acquitted) and her prolonged refusal to cohabit with him.

The Court undertook an extensive review of the law on 'cruelty' and 'desertion' under matrimonial jurisprudence, referring to a line of Supreme Court precedents including Dr. N.G. Dastane v. Mrs. S. Dastane, Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi, V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat, Vijaykumar Ramchandra Bhate v. Neela Vijay Kumar Bhate, Joydeep Majumdar v. Bharti Jaiswal Majumdar, and Debananda Tamuli v. Kakumoni Kataky, among others, on the meaning and scope of these grounds for divorce.

The Bench noted that baseless allegations of infidelity or 'indecent familiarity' cast on a spouse constitute a grave assault on character and reputation and are themselves sufficient to establish cruelty in law.

“It is settled position of law that levelling disgusting accusations of indecent familiarity with a person outside wedlock and allegations of extra-marital relationship constituted grave assault on the character, honour, reputation, status of the spouse and therefore, such aspersions amounted to worst form of insult and cruelty, which itself was sufficient to substantiate cruelty in law.”

On the question of desertion, the Court explained that the essential elements are the factum of separation coupled with an intention to permanently bring cohabitation to an end ('animus deserendi'), and that the burden lies on the spouse alleging desertion to prove both. The Bench found no evidence that the husband had made any genuine effort, through notice or otherwise, to bring the wife back to the matrimonial home, while the material on record indicated that it was his own conduct, including extra-marital relationships, that had led the wife to reside separately.

“If the husband had ill-treated the wife and having extra marital relationships with another lady and, therefore, the wife takes shelter at her parental house, it is not possible to hold that there was separation with intention to bring co-habitation permanently to an end.”

Concurring with the findings of the Family Court, the High Court held that the husband had 'miserably failed' to establish either cruelty or desertion, and that, if anything, the cruelty in the relationship stemmed from his conduct in neglecting the wife and child and levelling unfounded allegations of un-chastity against her.

Reiterating the settled meaning of 'perversity' as explained by the Supreme Court in Arulvelu v. State, the Bench held that the Family Court's judgment reflected a conscious consideration of both oral and documentary evidence and could not be termed perverse.

The appeal was accordingly dismissed, and the judgment of the Family Court refusing divorce was upheld.

Appearances:

For the Appellant: Mr. Gautam Kumar, Advocate; Mr. Ashutosh Kr. Sinha, Advocate; Mr. Savita Kumari, Advocate

For the Respondent: Mr. Pankaj Srivastava, Advocate; Mr. Ashish Gautam, Advocate

Case Title: XXX v. XXX, First Appeal No. 64 of 2023

[Read Order]