“Typical Gender-Based Stereotypes”; Alleging Wife’s Friendship With Man Amounts to Cruelty: Jharkhand HC [Read Order]

Ranchi: The Jharkhand High Court has dismissed a husband’s appeal for divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion, holding that allegations that a wife talks to a male friend and has an extramarital relationship are “typical gender-based stereotypes” which themselves amount to cruelty towards the wife. 

A Division Bench of Chief Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Manoj Prasad, upheld the Family Court’s refusal of a decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) and (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

The appeal, First Appeal No. 23 of 2024, challenged the judgment dated 30.11.2023 and decree dated 07.12.2023 of the Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court, Bermo at Tenughat, Bokaro, which had dismissed the husband’s petition. The parties, who are referred to here only as husband and wife, were married on 30.04.2005 and have a son and a daughter. The husband alleged that the wife kept her distance, quarrelled with him and his family, talked continuously on his mobile phone with another man, and left the matrimonial home on 15.04.2015, after which she lived at her parental home.

The wife denied the allegations and said that she was tortured, that dowry was demanded, and that she was accused of an extramarital relationship while the husband himself had such a relationship with a colleague. She said that she left because of the torture, that the husband made no attempt to bring her back, that a case she filed under the Dowry Act and Section 498-A IPC was compromised to restore conjugal life, and that she remained willing to live with him and had not been allowed to meet the children.

The Family Court had held that cruelty was not proved, relying on Samar Ghose v. Jaya Ghose, since trivial irritations and the normal wear and tear of married life are not enough. It gave little weight to the evidence of the parties’ minor daughter, who said in cross-examination that her evidence was prepared at her father’s dictation, and noted that the compromise and the dowry complaint were not disputed.

Before the High Court, the husband argued that there had been no conjugal life since 2015, that the marriage had become a formality, that the daughter’s evidence showed the wife frequently quarrelled, and that desertion, though pleaded and covered by an issue, was not considered. He also argued that the criminal cases filed against him, which ended without a finding of guilt, amounted to cruelty. The wife’s counsel said that the separation was because of the husband’s conduct, and that she had been willing to restore conjugal life, including in mediation before the High Court.

On physical cruelty, the Court said that two of the husband’s witnesses were his colleagues and friends, whose evidence could not be accepted without suspicion, and that no family member, such as the mother who was said to be a victim of the quarrels, had been examined. It held that, where a minor child lives with only one parent, the possibility of poisoning of the child’s mind cannot be ruled out, and that, given the daughter’s admission, her evidence could not be relied on. It found the husband’s own statement uncorroborated, with no complaint to any authority and no effort at reconciliation.

On mental cruelty, the Court held that such allegations if proved may amount to mental cruelty in appropriate cases, but that the husband’s allegations about the wife’s talking to an unknown male over his phone were “typical gender-based stereotypes”, in which, if a woman talks to a man, even a friend, a charge of adultery is levelled, and that they amount to cruelty towards the wife. It said that counter-allegations of an extramarital relationship without proof may also amount to cruelty, but that, as here the allegations were the husband’s, no case of mental cruelty was made out.

On desertion, the Court held that failing to cite the specific provision is not fatal where the pleadings and issue cover it. It relied on the order of a Coordinate Bench of 05.05.2026, which recorded that the wife wished to restore conjugal life and the husband refused, and on the undisputed documents showing that the parties had compromised and lived together in 2015. It noted that the husband’s challenge to an interim maintenance order of just ₹3,000 under Section 24, though dismissed, spoke volumes about his conduct. It held that desertion was not established.

The Court accordingly decided both points against the husband and dismissed the appeal without costs. It did not pass any separate order on interim maintenance, as the Section 24 order had been affirmed, but gave the wife liberty to seek modification of that order on changed circumstances.

Appearances: For the Appellant (Husband): Mr. Atanu Banerjee, Advocate. For Respondent No. 1 (Wife): Mr. Ranjan Kumar, Advocate. For Respondent No. 2 (Indian Explosives Pvt. Ltd.): Mr. Ashwini Bhushan, AC to Sr.SC-II.

Case Title: Husband v. Wife and Another, First Appeal No. 23 of 2024

[Read Order]