Accessing Wife’s Private Photos Without Consent, Humiliating Her Before Family Amounts to Mental Cruelty: Jharkhand High Court

The Jharkhand High Court recently granted divorce to a woman after holding that her husband subjected her to mental cruelty by accessing her private photographs without consent and showing them to his family members, thereby humiliating her and damaging her dignity.

Allowing a first appeal filed by the wife, the division bench of Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Arun Kumar Rai set aside a family court judgment that had refused to dissolve the marriage, observing that the trial court failed to appreciate the evidence on record in the correct perspective and had overlooked clear indicators of mental cruelty.

The parties were married on March 13, 2020, and the wife left the matrimonial home less than two months later, on May 10, 2020. She had approached the family court seeking divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, alleging that soon after marriage, her husband checked her mobile phone while she was asleep and retrieved objectionable photographs stored in her Google Drive.

According to the wife, the husband transferred those photographs to his own phone without her knowledge and thereafter used them to threaten and blackmail her. She alleged that she was assaulted, mentally harassed, and forced to submit to sexual relations under threat that the photographs would be uploaded on social media. She further claimed that the husband showed those photographs to his parents and other family members, following which she was subjected to continuous humiliation and abuse within the matrimonial home.

The wife also alleged that her stridhan was snatched and that she was forcibly made to sign a declaration stating that she was leaving the matrimonial home voluntarily and would not claim any rights in the future. She maintained that she was driven out of the house along with her father and threatened with dire consequences if she attempted to return.

The husband, however, denied all allegations of cruelty. He contended that the wife had been in a relationship with another man prior to marriage and had concealed this fact. He claimed that after marriage, she continued communicating with the said person late at night and was unwilling to sever that relationship. He asserted that despite being aware of her past relationship, he was willing to continue the marriage and lead a conjugal life with her.

The family court, after recording evidence, dismissed the divorce petition, holding that the wife had failed to establish cruelty even on a balance of probabilities.

In appeal, the high court reiterated that it had the power to reassess both facts and law under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act. The bench undertook a detailed examination of the oral testimonies of both sides and the legal principles governing cruelty under matrimonial law.

While noting that the allegation of physical assault was not supported by concrete evidence, court held that mental cruelty stood established. It observed that retrieving a spouse’s private photographs without consent and displaying them to family members amounted to humiliation and character assassination.

Court emphasised that harm to reputation and dignity is a crucial factor in assessing mental cruelty. It held that a husband exposing his wife’s past or private material to his family and allowing her to be humiliated on that basis destroys the foundation of trust and respect on which marriage rests.

"Relationship of wife and husband is based on the trust and respect to have upon each other and if it is broken it is non-repairable as the trust is the foundation of marriage. Marriage is a relationship built on mutual trust, companionship and shared experiences," the court observed, adding that the wife could not reasonably be expected to continue living in such circumstances.

Finding that the family court had ignored vital aspects of mental cruelty and had failed to apply settled legal principles, the high court termed the earlier judgment perverse. It accordingly quashed the family court’s order and allowed the appeal, granting a decree of divorce in favour of the wife.

Case Title: Debleena Dutta vs. Suman Kumar Ruj

Judgment Date: January 7, 2026

Bench: Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Arun Kumar Rai