Jharkhand HC dismisses Appellant-husband appeal for decree of divorce under Section 13(1), (i-a), (i-b) of the Hindu
Alok Baidya Roy v. Nibedita Baidya Roy F.A. No.116 of 2016
Facts
The case arises from a matrimonial dispute between a husband (Appellant) and a wife (Respondent). The parties, married since 2004, resided together at Maithan, Dhanbad with two children from the wedlock. The husband filed a petition under Section 13(1)(ia) and Section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking dissolution of marriage on the grounds of cruelty and desertion.
The husband alleged that: (i) the wife and her father pressured him to shift to Asansol and construct a house there, which he refused due to his obligation to care for his widowed mother; (ii) the wife failed to perform household duties, neglected her mother-in-law, misbehaved with family members, and threatened him with criminal prosecution; (iii) after the birth of their son in August 2006, the wife left the matrimonial home and did not return despite attempts at reconciliation, compelling him to file a restitution petition. On the other hand, the wife initiated criminal and maintenance proceedings against the husband.
The petition for divorce on grounds of cruelty and desertion was opposed by the wife by stating that: (i) the husband committed severe physical and mental cruelty on her; (ii) the husband was addicted to alcohol, subjected her to indecent conduct, demanded dowry, and assaulted her for not being able to pay; (iii) the husband expelled her from the matrimonial home.
Lower Court Decision
The Family Court, Dhanbad, dismissed the husband’s petition for divorce. Aggrieved, the husband preferred an appeal before the High Court of Jharkhand under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984.
Legal Issues
The High Court had to deal with two major issues:
(i) Whether the grounds of cruelty and desertion under Sections 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act have been successfully established by the Husband?
(ii) Whether the findings of the Family Court were ‘perverse’ and, hence, required interference by the Appellate Court?
Court’s Reasoning and Holding
On the (ii) issue, the Court held that the decision of the lower court can be categorized as ‘perverse’ if it bases its findings on unsupported evidences or irrelevant considerations. Based on that standard, it held that the findings of the Family Court were based on proper appreciation of evidence and legal principles. Thus, the findings were not perverse.
On the (i) issue, the Court held that the Husband has failed to establish his claims of cruelty since he failed to prove that the conduct of the wife was of such gravity as to cause a reasonable apprehension of harm or make cohabitation impossible for the husband. It relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in N.G. Dastane v. S. Dastane and subsequent cases to emphasize that cruelty has to be assessed in light of the totality of circumstances and the social context of the parties.
Further, it held that mere assertions by the husband, without detailed proof of the nature and impact of alleged acts, were insufficient to constitute cruelty. The Court also noted that the husband failed to effectively rebut the allegations of physical abuse and dowry-related harassment by the wife during the cross-examination.
The Court also held that the element of animus deserendi (intention to permanently end cohabitation) has also not been proved by the Husband to establish desertion. It held that the burden of proof to establish both desertion as well as the intention to end cohabitation permanently lies on the Appellant, as held in the case of Lachman Utamchand Kirpalani v. Meena. Although the parties were living separately, the evidence indicated that the departure of the wife from the matrimonial home was attributable to alleged ill-treatment and dowry demands rather than a voluntary and intentional abandonment of marital obligations. The husband failed to examine material witnesses, including his mother, to substantiate his claim that the wife refused to return without cause. The Court held that absence of consent alone is insufficient to establish the allegations of desertion and the petitioner must also establish that the separation was without reasonable cause, which was not demonstrated in the present case.
