The Patna High Court has set aside a divorce decree granted by the Family Court, Lakhisarai, holding that scattered allegations of verbal abuse and marital discord were insufficient to establish the degree and continuity of cruelty required for dissolution of marriage.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Bibek Chaudhuri and Justice Rana Vikram Singh delivered the judgment on August 6, 2026, in Jyoti Rani v. Nishant Kumar.
Background Of The Case
Jyoti Rani and Nishant Kumar married on February 12, 2010. They have two daughters, born in 2010 and 2014. The husband approached the Family Court seeking divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, alleging mental cruelty.
He relied on several alleged incidents, including verbal abuse, family disputes, refusal to participate in certain family occasions and denial of physical relations. He also claimed that the parties had not lived together since November 2018.
The wife denied the allegations and made counter-allegations of physical and mental abuse. However, despite opportunities before the Family Court, she did not lead oral or documentary evidence. The Family Court ultimately accepted the husband's evidence and granted divorce.
Patna High Court Examines Evidence
The High Court independently reassessed the evidence, noting that an appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act is a first appeal on facts as well as law.
The Bench found that most allegations were spread across several years and lacked precise dates, surrounding circumstances and supporting material. The Court observed that the evidence presented “intermittent episodes” rather than a continuous course of conduct.
The Bench further noted that the parties had continued to cohabit for substantial periods, had two children and had also temporarily resumed cohabitation following counselling in June 2022.
Referring to the Supreme Court's decision in Suman Singh v. Sanjay Singh, the Court held that isolated incidents from the distant past cannot ordinarily provide a continuing basis for divorce on cruelty grounds.
WhatsApp Messages Found Inadmissible
The High Court also considered the WhatsApp messages relied upon by the husband. The Court noted that the electronic material had been marked as an exhibit without the certificate required under Section 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
Relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, the Bench held that the statutory certificate is necessary for admissibility of such electronic records. The WhatsApp messages therefore could not be relied upon.
Court's Decision
The Bench concluded that the husband had failed to establish cruelty of the required degree, gravity and continuity under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act.
The Court held that the incidents relied upon were scattered and lacked sufficient particulars, while the electronic evidence was inadmissible. It consequently allowed the appeal and set aside the Family Court's judgment and decree dated March 20/April 1, 2023.
The matrimonial suit seeking divorce was dismissed. The Court directed both parties to continue discharging their parental responsibilities towards their two minor daughters, leaving any future dispute concerning custody, visitation or maintenance to the competent court.
Case Details
Case Title: Jyoti Rani v. Nishant Kumar
Case Number: Miscellaneous Appeal No. 32 of 2024
Court: Patna High Court
Bench: Justice Bibek Chaudhuri and Justice Rana Vikram Singh
Decision Date: August 6, 2026
