RANCHI<\/em>: The Jharkhand High Court<\/a><\/strong> has rejected a husband\u2019s divorce appeal after ruling that his wife applying kajal and lipstick at night could not, by itself, prove that she had a mental illness.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A Division Bench<\/strong> of Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad<\/strong> and Justice Sanjay Prasad<\/strong> upheld the decision of the Giridih Family Court<\/strong>, which had earlier refused to grant divorce to the husband.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The couple had married according to Hindu customs on January 30, 2015. The husband claimed that a few days after the marriage, he saw his wife applying kajal and lipstick in front of a wardrobe at around 2 am. He said this behaviour frightened him and made him suspect that she was suffering from a mental disorder.<\/p>\n\n\n\n He alleged that the wife\u2019s family had hidden her medical condition before the marriage<\/strong>. He further claimed that she had been examined by doctors at different places, including Bengaluru, Gaya, Ranchi, Jamshedpur and Durgapur, but her condition was said to be incurable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n On these grounds, the husband sought divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act<\/a><\/strong>, alleging mental disorder and desertion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The wife denied that she had any mental illness. She alleged that the claim was created after her family failed to fulfil further dowry demands.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to her statement before the court, she initially lived happily in her matrimonial home. She claimed that her husband and his family later started demanding money from her parents.<\/p>\n\n\n\n She stated that her father transferred \u20b91 lakh to the husband\u2019s bank account through RTGS. She alleged that when a further demand of \u20b92 lakh was not met, she faced physical and mental cruelty and was eventually left at her parental home.<\/p>\n\n\n\n These remained allegations made by the wife during the matrimonial proceedings. The High Court primarily examined whether the husband had produced legally reliable evidence<\/strong> to establish the grounds on which he was seeking divorce.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The court found that although the husband claimed to possess documents concerning his wife\u2019s treatment, he did not produce any reliable medical records before the court. He also failed to examine a psychiatrist, doctor, hospital employee or other medical expert<\/strong> to support his claim.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Bench said that a spouse cannot be declared mentally ill merely because the other spouse suspects unusual behaviour. For mental disorder to become a legal ground for divorce, the condition must be proved through credible evidence and must be serious enough that the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to continue the marital relationship.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The High Court also considered the circumstances before the marriage. The husband admitted that he had met and spoken to the wife in the presence of both families before agreeing to marry her.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The court observed that he had sufficient opportunity to interact with her. However, no unusual behaviour was noticed or recorded during that meeting.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The records also showed that the wife stayed in her matrimonial home for nearly two and a half years. On July 10, 2017, the husband took her to her parental home. He filed the divorce petition on the following day.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Under matrimonial law, desertion must normally continue for at least two years immediately before a divorce petition is filed on that ground. Since the petition was filed only one day after the separation, the husband could not establish the required period of desertion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The court further noted that during the reconciliation proceedings, the wife repeatedly expressed her readiness to return and continue the marriage. The husband, however, refused to take her back.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Bench concluded that the husband had failed to prove that the wife had voluntarily deserted him. It held that a person seeking matrimonial relief cannot take advantage of a situation created by his own conduct.<\/p>\n\n\n\n At the same time, the ruling underlines an important rule applicable to every spouse: serious allegations made in a matrimonial case must be supported by proper evidence. Suspicion, assumptions and isolated incidents cannot replace medical records, expert testimony or proof meeting the legal standard.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The court recorded:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cSo far as the mental disorder of the respondent is concerned, the petitioner in his cross-examination at para-12 has stated that he noticed abnormal behaviour when the respondent applied kajal and lipstick while standing in front of the wardrobe at night, which frightened him. However, the deposition nowhere indicates that the respondent behaved or acted like a mentally ill person,\u201d the court order stated.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n \u201cIt is a general phenomenon for a newly married wife to adorn herself at any time after marriage,\u201d it said.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The High Court ultimately found that the husband had not proved either mental disorder or desertion. It therefore dismissed his appeal and upheld the Giridih Family Court\u2019s refusal to grant divorce.<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\n
EXPLANATORY TABLE OF LAWS AND SECTIONS<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
LAW AND PROVISION<\/strong><\/td> WHAT THE PROVISION MEANS<\/strong><\/td> HOW IT APPLIED IN THIS CASE<\/strong><\/td><\/tr><\/thead> Section 19(1), Family Courts Act<\/a>, 1984<\/strong><\/td> Allows an appeal to the High Court against most judgments or orders passed by a Family Court, except certain excluded orders such as interlocutory orders.<\/td> The husband used this provision to challenge the Giridih Family Court\u2019s judgment and decree refusing divorce.<\/td><\/tr> Section 13(1)(i-b), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955<\/strong><\/td> Permits divorce when one spouse has deserted the other continuously for at least two years immediately before the divorce petition is filed.<\/td> The husband alleged desertion. However, evidence showed that the wife was left at her parental home on July 10, 2017, and the divorce case was filed on July 11, 2017. Therefore, the mandatory two-year period was not established.<\/td><\/tr> Explanation to Section 13(1), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955<\/strong><\/td> Defines desertion as separation without reasonable cause, without consent or against the wish of the petitioner. It also includes wilful neglect. Desertion requires both separation and an intention to permanently end cohabitation.<\/td> The wife repeatedly showed willingness to return to the matrimonial home. The court found no intention on her part to permanently abandon the marriage.<\/td><\/tr> Section 13(1)(iii), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955<\/strong><\/td> Allows divorce where a spouse is incurably of unsound mind or suffers from a mental disorder of such nature and degree that the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with that spouse.<\/td> The husband had to prove not merely unusual conduct, but a serious mental condition meeting the statutory threshold. He produced no reliable medical record, psychiatrist or expert witness.<\/td><\/tr> Explanation (a) to Section 13(1)(iii), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955<\/strong><\/td> Defines \u201cmental disorder\u201d to include mental illness, incomplete or arrested development of mind, psychopathic disorder and other disorders or disabilities of mind, including schizophrenia.<\/td> The court found no evidence proving that the wife suffered from any legally recognised mental disorder. Applying kajal and lipstick at night did not satisfy this definition.<\/td><\/tr> Explanation (b) to Section 13(1)(iii), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955<\/strong><\/td> Defines \u201cpsychopathic disorder\u201d as a persistent mental disorder resulting in abnormally aggressive or seriously irresponsible conduct, whether or not it can be medically treated.<\/td> No such persistent, aggressive or seriously irresponsible conduct was proved against the wife.<\/td><\/tr> Section 23, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955<\/strong><\/td> Requires the court to ensure that the person seeking matrimonial relief is not taking advantage of his or her own wrong.<\/td> The court held that the husband had himself left the wife at her parental home and refused to take her back. He could not rely upon the resulting separation to obtain divorce.<\/td><\/tr> Section 9, Family Courts Act, 1984<\/strong><\/td> Places a duty on the Family Court to make reasonable efforts to help the parties settle their matrimonial dispute.<\/td> During reconciliation on February 21, 2023, the wife expressed willingness to resume cohabitation, while the husband refused to take her back. This weakened his allegation of desertion.<\/td><\/tr> Section 45, Indian Evidence Act<\/a>, 1872<\/strong><\/td> Makes expert opinion relevant when the court has to form an opinion on specialised subjects, including medical or psychiatric matters. Expert opinion assists the court but does not automatically bind it.<\/td> A psychiatrist could have given evidence based on examination, symptoms, treatment and medical records. No psychiatrist or proper medical evidence was produced by the husband.<\/td><\/tr> Section 146, Indian Evidence Act, 1872<\/strong><\/td> Permits questions during cross-examination to test a witness\u2019s truthfulness, credibility and reliability.<\/td> The judgment noted that a psychiatrist, like any other witness, may be cross-examined and his credibility tested. However, no psychiatric expert was examined in this case.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n CASE DETAILS<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
PARTICULAR<\/strong><\/td> VERIFIED DETAIL<\/strong><\/td><\/tr><\/thead> Case title<\/strong><\/td> Prabhat Kumar v. Smt. Neelam Kumari<\/td><\/tr> Court<\/strong><\/td> High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi<\/td><\/tr> Case number<\/strong><\/td> First Appeal No. 98 of 2023<\/td><\/tr> Appellant<\/strong><\/td> Prabhat Kumar, husband<\/td><\/tr> Respondent<\/strong><\/td> Smt. Neelam Kumari, wife<\/td><\/tr> Bench\/Coram<\/strong><\/td> Hon\u2019ble Mr. Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad<\/strong> and Hon\u2019ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Prasad<\/strong><\/td><\/tr> Counsel for appellant-husband<\/strong><\/td> Mr. Arvind Kumar Choudhary, Advocate<\/td><\/tr> Counsel for respondent-wife<\/strong><\/td> Mr. Shailendra Jit, Advocate<\/td><\/tr> Neutral citation<\/strong><\/td> 2026:JHHC:21720-DB<\/td><\/tr> Original proceeding<\/strong><\/td> Original Suit No. 09 of 2019<\/td><\/tr> Original court<\/strong><\/td> Principal Judge, Family Court, Giridih<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n KEY TAKEAWAYS<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n