RAJASTHAN<\/em>: A Jaipur Family Court<\/strong> has granted divorce<\/strong> to a husband<\/strong> after finding mental cruelty<\/strong> and desertion<\/strong> by the wife<\/strong>, based on her conduct on social media and evidence placed on record. The case shows how digital behaviour and unexplained actions can legally impact matrimonial <\/a>disputes<\/strong> under Indian law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The order was passed on April 17 by Presiding Officer Aarti Bhardwaj<\/strong> of Family Court<\/a> No. 1, Jaipur Metropolitan-First, in a petition filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act<\/strong>, 1955. The court granted divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) for cruelty and Section 13(1)(i-b) for desertion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n As per the husband\u2019s case, the marriage took place on November 27, 2015 in Jaipur as per Hindu rituals<\/strong>. He stated that disputes started soon after marriage, mainly due to the wife insisting on living separately from his family. According to him, the couple last lived together as husband and wife on October 21, 2017.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The court examined<\/strong> whether the wife\u2019s conduct amounted to cruelty<\/strong>. It was found that even after marriage, her social media profile continued to show her marital status as \u201cunmarried<\/em><\/strong>\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n During cross-examination, she admitted that she had mentioned herself as \u201cunmarried<\/em><\/strong>\u201d. She tried to explain this by saying that an e-mitra operator<\/strong> had made the entry, but she failed to produce that person as a witness to support her claim. The court treated this unexplained conduct seriously and held that such representation can cause mental cruelty to the husband.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The matter did not stop there. The husband also alleged that the wife was in a relationship with another man, who was known to him. In support, he submitted photographs and chat messages as Exhibit-6. During cross-examination, the wife admitted that she had uploaded personal photographs with that man on social media. She attempted to justify this by calling him her brother-in-law (jijaji<\/strong>), but the court did not accept this explanation based on the available evidence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The court noted that the wife\u2019s conduct, including her online representation and association shown through chats and photographs, created a situation that went beyond normal matrimonial disputes.<\/strong> When such actions remain unexplained or unsupported by evidence, they legally strengthen allegations of cruelty.<\/p>\n\n\n\n On the issue of desertion, the court accepted that the parties had been living separately since 2017 without any reasonable cause attributable to the husband. This satisfied the legal requirement for desertion under the Hindu Marriage Act.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Based on the overall material on record, the court concluded that the husband had successfully proved both cruelty and desertion. Accordingly, the marriage was dissolved. Both parties were directed to bear their own legal costs, and the decree was ordered to be formally drawn as per procedure.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n This case highlights an important legal reality \u2014 in matrimonial disputes, even indirect conduct like social media declarations, unexplained relationships, or failure to support claims with evidence can significantly affect the outcome.<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\nExplanatory Table \u2013 Laws & Sections Involved<\/h3>\n\n\n\n