The Jharkhand High Court ruled that long separation and pending dowry cases alone do not prove cruelty or desertion. The husband’s divorce appeal was dismissed for lack of evidence.
RANCHI: The Jharkhand High Court has made it clear that a long period of separation between husband and wife, or the mere existence of a dowry harassment case, cannot automatically become a legal ground for divorce. The court held that such factors, by themselves, do not amount to cruelty or desertion under the Hindu Marriage Act.
This observation was made while dismissing a divorce appeal filed by a husband against his wife. The Division Bench of Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Arun Kumar Rai upheld the 2018 judgment of the Additional Family Court, Dhanbad, which had earlier refused to dissolve the marriage under Section 13(1)(i-a) and Section 13(1)(i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act.
The High Court agreed with the Family Court that the husband failed to prove any act of cruelty by the wife. It also found that he did not bring any evidence to show that the wife had voluntarily left the matrimonial home with the intention to permanently end marital life. The court concluded that the allegation of “perversity” raised by the husband was not established, and therefore, the Family Court judgment did not require any interference.
The marriage between Dukhi Ram Mandal and Pratima Mandal took place in 2007. The couple has a son, who has been living with his mother since 2013. During the pendency of the appeal, both parties initially showed willingness to reconcile.
The High Court accordingly directed them to appear personally in April and May 2025. However, after interacting with both sides, the bench recorded that the husband “was bent upon not residing with the wife,” following which the court decided to hear the matter on merits.
The husband, who is a railway employee, had approached the Family Court in 2016. He alleged that his wife abused him and his parents, refused to do household work, frequently quarrelled, and forced him to bathe and wash clothes before touching her or their child. He also claimed that in 2013 she assaulted him at their railway quarter in Baraut, Uttar Pradesh, and thereafter refused to live with him. According to him, the wife and her father filed false police complaints, and she deserted him without any reasonable cause.
The wife strongly denied all allegations. She stated that she was subjected to dowry harassment, physical violence, and repeated abandonment by her husband and in-laws. She claimed that her father had borne all expenses related to the birth of their child because her husband did not come to see her at the hospital.
In her testimony, she described several incidents where she was beaten, denied medical treatment, and left at her parental home along with her small son. She also relied upon the complaint filed by her father under Section 498A IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act, as well as the maintenance case filed by her, in which she was granted maintenance of Rs. 9,000 per month.
While examining the case, the High Court referred to the husband’s own admissions during cross-examination. He admitted that he had not met his son since 2013, had not visited his wife’s parental home for the last ten years, and did not even know where his son was studying. The court observed that these admissions showed a clear failure on the husband’s part to perform his marital and parental responsibilities, rather than any cruelty committed against him.
On the issue of cruelty, the bench observed that the allegations made by the husband related only to routine marital disputes and “normal wear and tear” of married life. The court held that such allegations were not serious or grave enough to make it impossible for the parties to live together. It agreed with the Family Court that no specific incident of cruelty was proved through reliable and convincing evidence.
Regarding desertion, the High Court reiterated that two essential conditions must be satisfied: actual separation and an intention by the spouse to permanently end cohabitation. The court noted that the wife’s leaving the matrimonial home was connected to allegations of dowry harassment, physical assault, and police complaints, which were supported by the evidence of her parents. The court found that the wife did not leave the house voluntarily, but was compelled by circumstances. It also pointed out that the husband failed to show any genuine effort made by him to bring his wife back to the matrimonial home.
After examining the entire record, the High Court found no legal error or improper appreciation of evidence by the Family Court. It concluded that neither cruelty nor desertion was proved in the case.
Accordingly, the appeal filed by the husband was dismissed, and the Family Court’s refusal to grant divorce was affirmed.
Explanatory Table: Laws & Sections Involved In The Case
| Law / Provision | Section | Purpose | How It Was Applied in This Case |
| Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 | Section 13(1)(i-a) | Provides divorce on the ground of cruelty | The husband alleged cruelty, but the court held that routine marital disputes and daily disagreements fall under “normal wear and tear” and do not amount to legal cruelty |
| Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 | Section 13(1)(i-b) | Provides divorce on the ground of desertion | The court held that desertion requires both separation and intention to permanently end cohabitation, which the husband failed to prove |
| Indian Penal Code, 1860 | Section 498A | Penal provision for cruelty by husband or relatives | The wife relied on an existing complaint under this section to show dowry harassment and explain why she left the matrimonial home |
| Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 | Relevant provisions (DP Act) | Prohibits giving or taking dowry | The wife cited proceedings under the DP Act to support her allegation that she was forced out due to dowry demands |
| Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 | Section 125 (Maintenance proceedings) | Provides maintenance to wife and children | Maintenance of Rs. 9,000 per month awarded to the wife was considered while assessing conduct and responsibility of the husband |
Case Summary
- Case Title: Dukhi Ram Mandal vs Pratima Mandal
- Court: Jharkhand High Court
- Bench: Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad & Justice Arun Kumar Rai
Key Takeaways
- Long separation alone is not cruelty or desertion; courts still demand strict legal proof.
- Dowry or 498A cases cannot be used as an automatic weapon to secure divorce.
- Normal wear and tear of marriage is not cruelty, no matter how emotionally framed.
- Desertion requires intention to permanently end marriage, not just living apart.
- Courts will scrutinize conduct and responsibility, not narratives built for litigation advantage.
This Could Change Your Case-Get FREE Legal Advice-Click Here!
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the Indian courts and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of “ShoneeKapoor.com” or its affiliates. This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content provided is not legal advice, and viewers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Viewer discretion is advised.