JHARKHAND:<\/em> The Jharkhand High Court<\/a><\/strong> has dismissed a husband\u2019s appeal seeking divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion<\/strong>, holding that the acts alleged by him were not serious enough to justify dissolution of a marriage lasting almost 35 years.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A Division Bench of Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Sanjay Prasad<\/strong> was hearing the husband\u2019s challenge against the Family Court order, which had rejected his divorce petition.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The couple had married in 1989 according to Hindu customs and ceremonies<\/strong> and had three children. According to the husband, they lived together in his house for around 31 years in a cordial environment<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n He alleged that his wife\u2019s behaviour changed after June 2020 and that she eventually threw him out of his own house. The husband claimed that he was thereafter forced to live in rented accommodation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n He also alleged several acts of cruelty, including that his wife would lock the toilet, sometimes disconnect the bathroom water connection and would not allow him to keep a cow in the house.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The High Court, however, was not satisfied that these allegations crossed the legal threshold required to dissolve such a long marriage. It observed:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThough the petitioner during his evidence on affidavit stated that his wife tortured him on several time by locking door of toilet (lavatory) and sometimes by disconnecting water connection of the bathroom and that she did not allow him to keep cow in the house, but it is considered view of this court that these alleged specific acts and conduct are not of such nature as to dissolve long marital relationship of almost 35 years,\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The husband had also stated that the parties had earlier lived \u201cin a very cordial environment\u201d<\/strong> before the matrimonial relationship deteriorated.<\/p>\n\n\n\n He further claimed that his wife had instituted a maintenance proceeding<\/strong> and wanted to end the marriage. He therefore sought divorce on the grounds of both cruelty and desertion<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Family Court rejected his divorce petition in 2024. The husband then approached the Jharkhand High Court<\/strong>. The High Court also referred the parties to mediation, but the attempt at settlement failed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Appearing for the husband, advocate Jitesh Kumar<\/strong> argued that the Family Court judgment was \u201cunsustainable\u201d<\/strong> and had failed to properly appreciate the evidence showing the alleged cruelty suffered by the husband. It was also argued that the matrimonial relationship had broken down beyond reconciliation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The High Court noted the husband\u2019s contention that his wife\u2019s behaviour had made it \u201cdangerous and injurious\u201d<\/strong> for him to continue living with her.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court explained that matrimonial cruelty has no fixed definition<\/strong>. An act which constitutes cruelty in one marriage may not necessarily constitute cruelty in another. The Court has to examine the parties\u2019 lifestyle, social background, relationship, temperament and the complete circumstances of the marriage.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court further explained that cruelty does not necessarily require physical violence. A continuing lack of respect or understanding may also gradually \u201cembitter\u201d<\/strong> a matrimonial relationship.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Bench observed:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cHarm or injury to health, reputation, the working career, or the like, would be important considerations in determining whether the conduct of the defending spouse amounts to cruelty.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n However, on the facts before it, the Court did not find the husband\u2019s allegations sufficient to dissolve a marriage which had continued for decades.<\/p>\n\n\n\n On desertion<\/strong>, the High Court also clarified that merely living separately is not enough. There must be an intention to permanently bring the marital relationship to an end. Leaving the matrimonial home because of anger or disgust, without such permanent intention, would not by itself establish desertion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Accordingly, the Jharkhand High Court dismissed the husband\u2019s divorce appeal<\/strong> and declined to interfere with the Family Court\u2019s refusal to dissolve the marriage.<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\n
EXPLANATORY TABLE OF LAWS AND SECTION<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Law \/ Section<\/strong><\/td> What It Means<\/strong><\/td> Application In This Case<\/strong><\/td><\/tr><\/thead> Section 13(1)(ia), Hindu Marriage Act<\/a>, 1955<\/strong><\/td> Permits dissolution of a Hindu marriage where one spouse has treated the other with cruelty after solemnisation of marriage.<\/td> The husband relied on alleged acts including locking the toilet, disconnecting bathroom water and preventing him from keeping a cow. The High Court found the alleged conduct insufficient to dissolve the long marriage.<\/td><\/tr> Section 13(1)(ib), Hindu Marriage Act<\/a>, 1955<\/strong><\/td> Provides divorce where one spouse has deserted the other for the statutory continuous period immediately preceding presentation of the petition.<\/td> The Court explained that physical separation alone does not establish desertion; an intention to permanently end cohabitation is also material.<\/td><\/tr> Section 19, Family Courts Act,<\/a> 1984<\/strong><\/td> Provides for appeals to the High Court from specified judgments and orders of a Family Court.<\/td> The husband approached the Jharkhand High Court after the Family Court dismissed his divorce petition.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n CASE DETAILS<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Case Particular<\/strong><\/td> Details<\/strong><\/td><\/tr><\/thead> Case Title<\/strong><\/td> Birendra Kumar Singh v. Pratima Devi<\/strong><\/td><\/tr> Court<\/strong><\/td> High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi<\/strong><\/td><\/tr> Case Number<\/strong><\/td> F.A. No. 241 of 2024<\/td><\/tr> Nature of Proceeding<\/strong><\/td> First Appeal arising from dismissal of husband\u2019s divorce petition<\/td><\/tr> Bench<\/strong><\/td> Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Sanjay Prasad<\/strong><\/td><\/tr> Date of Judgment<\/strong><\/td> 6 August 2026<\/strong><\/td><\/tr> Neutral Citation<\/strong><\/td> 2026:JHHC:23504-DB<\/strong><\/td><\/tr> Appellant<\/strong><\/td> Birendra Kumar Singh \u2013 Husband<\/strong><\/td><\/tr> Respondent<\/strong><\/td> Pratima Devi \u2013 Wife<\/strong><\/td><\/tr> Counsel for Appellant\/Husband<\/strong><\/td> Jitesh Kumar, Advocate<\/strong><\/td><\/tr> Counsel for Respondent\/Wife<\/strong><\/td> Vincent Rohit Marki, Advocate<\/strong><\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n KEY TAKEAWAYS<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n