Only Long Separation, Dowry Case Isn’t Ground for Divorce: Jharkhand High Court

The Jharkhand High Court recently observed that neither a long separation nor the pendency of dowry-harassment proceedings is, by itself, sufficient to constitute cruelty or desertion for dissolving a marriage, as it dismissed a husband’s appeal seeking divorce from his wife.

The division bench of Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Arun Kumar Rai upheld the 2018 decision of the Additional Family Court, Dhanbad, which had refused divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) and (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

The bench reaffirmed the family court’s findings that the husband had failed to establish any act of cruelty and had also not produced evidence showing that the wife left the matrimonial home voluntarily with an intention to end cohabitation permanently. It concluded that the element of “perversity” alleged by him was not made out, and the court below’s judgment required no interference.

The marriage between Dukhi Ram Mandal and Pratima Mandal was solemnised in 2007. The couple has a son, who has been living with the mother since 2013. During the pendency of the appeal, both sides initially indicated willingness for reconciliation. The High Court, accordingly, directed their personal appearance in April and May 2025. However, on interacting with them, the bench recorded that the husband “was bent upon not residing with the wife,” after which the court proceeded to hear the matter on merits.

The husband, a railway employee, had approached the family court in 2016 alleging that his wife abused him and his parents, refused to perform household duties, quarrelled frequently, and compelled him to bathe and wash clothes before touching her or their child. He also alleged that she assaulted him in 2013 in their railway quarter at Baraut in Uttar Pradesh and thereafter refused to cohabit. He further claimed that she and her father filed false police complaints and that she deserted him without reasonable cause.

In response, the wife denied all allegations and asserted that she had been subjected to dowry harassment, physical assault, and repeated abandonment by her husband and in-laws. She stated that her father bore all expenses for the birth of their child as her husband did not come to see her at the hospital. Her testimony detailed incidents in which she was beaten, denied medical treatment, and left at her parents’ house along with her young son. She also relied on her father’s 498A/DP Act complaint and the maintenance proceedings she initiated, in which maintenance of Rs. 9,000 per month had been awarded.

The High Court examined the husband’s own cross-examination, in which he admitted that he had not met his son since 2013, had not visited his wife’s parental home in the past decade, and had no knowledge of where his son studied. Court observed that these admissions indicated an abdication of marital responsibilities rather than any cruelty inflicted upon him.

On the plea of cruelty, the bench held that the husband’s allegations related to day-to-day marital friction and “normal wear and tear,” not conduct so grave as to make it unreasonable to live with the spouse. The High Court endorsed the family court’s finding that no specific incident of cruelty was proved through cogent evidence.

On the issue of desertion, court reiterated that two essential elements must be established, which are the factum of separation and an intention on the part of the spouse to permanently end cohabitation.

The bench noted that the wife’s departure from the matrimonial home was linked to allegations of dowry harassment, assaults, and police complaints, all of which were supported by her parents’ testimony. It held that the evidence did not show she left voluntarily; rather, she appeared to have been compelled to leave. The husband also failed to prove any effort on his part to bring her back.

Finding no legal error or misappreciation of evidence, the High Court upheld the family court’s conclusion that neither cruelty nor desertion had been established.

Accordingly, the court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the family court’s refusal to grant divorce.

Case Title: Dukhi Ram Mandal vs. Pratima Mandal

Order Date: December 2, 2025

Bench: Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Arun Kumar Rai