In a recent judgment, the Jharkhand High Court held that for a divorce to be granted on the ground of desertion under the Hindu Marriage Act, it is not enough to show that spouses lived separately. The party seeking divorce must also establish that the separation was accompanied by a firm intention to permanently end marital relations.
The Court’s Division Bench, comprising Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Rajesh Kumar, upheld the decision of the Family Court, Bokaro, which had rejected the divorce plea of Arun Kumar. He had filed for divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) and (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, citing cruelty and desertion by his wife, Raj Soni Devi.
“Desertion is not the withdrawal from a place but from a state of things,” the Bench observed. “The offence of desertion is a continuing one and must include both separation and the intention to bring cohabitation to an end.”
Arun Kumar, a police officer, alleged that his wife frequently argued with his relatives and refused to live in a joint family setup. He accused her of mental cruelty, claiming she had made threats to his life and conspired with others against him. He also said she had been living separately since November 15, 2016, and was involved in a relationship with another man.
Read Also:- Jharkhand High Court Orders Protection of Jain Holy Site Parasnath Hill
However, Raj Soni Devi denied all the allegations. She testified that she never left the marital home and continued to live with her in-laws and children in Patna. She claimed it was her husband who had cut off contact and moved in with another woman, Pooja Devi, with whom he had three children. She added that she was still willing to live with him and had no independent income.
Significantly, she revealed that the divorce suit was filed only after she initiated maintenance proceedings in 2019. In 2021, the court ordered the husband to pay ₹10,000 per month in maintenance.
“It is, thus, evident that the quality of permanence is one of the essential elements which differentiates desertion from mere wilful separation,” the Court remarked.
While reviewing the case, the High Court carefully evaluated the evidence. It found no credible proof to support the husband's claims of cruelty. In particular, the argument that she neglected his parents was found baseless, as his father had passed away six months after their marriage and his mother in 2016.
On the issue of desertion, the Court underlined that there was no proof that the wife had willingly abandoned the marital home. Rather, the evidence pointed to the fact that it was the husband who left and later tried to secure a divorce under unsubstantiated grounds.
“No such evidence has been produced by the appellant/petitioner to prove the element of desertion showing that the respondent-wife has left her matrimonial house,” the Court clarified.
Agreeing with the Family Court’s findings, the High Court dismissed the appeal and reiterated that for a claim of desertion to hold, the spouse must not only leave the marital home but must also do so with the intention of permanently ending the marriage.
Case Title: Arun Kumar vs Raj Soni Devi
Case No.: F.A. No. 172 of 2024
