The Jharkhand High Court has observed that accusing a wife of having an extramarital relationship merely because she speaks to another man, even if he is a friend, amounts to cruelty towards her. The Court described such allegations as gender-based stereotypes and held that ordinary communication between a woman and a male friend cannot be treated as evidence of adultery.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Manoj Prasad made these observations while dismissing a husband's appeal seeking divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion under Section 13(1)(ia) and Section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Background
The parties married on April 30, 2005, and had two children. The husband alleged that his wife frequently quarrelled with him and his family members and regularly spoke to another man using his mobile phone. He claimed that her conduct caused physical and mental cruelty.
The wife denied the allegations and maintained that she had faced physical and mental harassment over dowry demands. She also alleged that her husband had an extramarital relationship with a woman working alongside him. She stated that she left the matrimonial home in 2015 because of the harassment but remained willing to resume marital life.
The Family Court dismissed the husband's divorce petition in November 2023, finding that the allegations of cruelty and desertion had not been established. The husband subsequently challenged that decision before the High Court.
The High Court examined the husband's allegation that his wife maintained an inappropriate relationship simply because she spoke to another man.
The Bench observed:
"To our considered view, such allegations are typical gender-based stereotypes, where, if a woman talks to a man, even if he is a friend, charges of adultery or of an extramarital relationship are levelled. We are, therefore, of the considered view that such allegations amount to cruelty towards the wife."
The Court further clarified that unsubstantiated allegations of extramarital relationships can also amount to cruelty when made by a wife against her husband. However, in the present case, the allegations had been made by the husband against his wife, and the Court found no basis to establish mental cruelty by her.
The Bench also examined the evidence presented by the husband, including statements from his colleagues and his minor daughter. It found that the allegations of physical cruelty were not supported by sufficient credible evidence.
On the question of desertion, the Court noted that the wife had repeatedly expressed her willingness to restore conjugal life, including during mediation proceedings. The husband, however, had refused to resume cohabitation.
The Court observed:
"Such a statement sufficiently establishes the absence of animus deserendi, thereby establishing the element of desertion for the purpose of divorce."
After examining the pleadings, evidence and earlier compromise proceedings, the Bench concluded that the husband had failed to establish the legal requirements for divorce on either ground.
The High Court held that the husband had failed to establish cruelty or desertion under Sections 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
The Bench accordingly dismissed the first appeal and declined to interfere with the Family Court's decision refusing divorce.
It also made no separate order regarding interim maintenance, while preserving the wife's liberty to seek modification if circumstances changed.
Case Details
Case Title: X v. Y
Case Number: First Appeal No. 23 of 2024
Judges: Chief Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Manoj Prasad
Decision Date: 3 November 2026
