The Jharkhand High Court has dismissed a husband's appeal seeking divorce on the ground of mental cruelty, holding that his wife's alleged wish that he live with her parents as a gharjamai (son-in-law living at the wife's parental home) did not by itself amount to cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Sujit Narayan Pra ad and Justice Sanjay Prasad also upheld the Family Court's finding that a wife's visits to her parental home could not, by themselves, be treated as cruelty for granting a decree of divorce.
Background of the Case
Rahul Choubey and Poonam Pathak were married on 21 November 2008 in Patna according to Hindu customs. They have a daughter from the marriage.
According to Rahul Choubey, the matrimonial relationship initially remained peaceful. He later alleged that Poonam frequently visited her parental home in Patna and that her parents wanted him to move there and live as a gharjamai. He claimed that he could not accept the proposal because his parents were old and ailing and depended upon him.
The husband further stated that Poonam went to Patna on 24 February 2013 and did not return to the matrimonial home at Meru, Hazaribagh. He alleged that repeated efforts to bring her back failed and that she insisted that he shift to Patna.
On these grounds, he filed a divorce petition under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, alleging cruelty. The Family Court, however, dismissed his suit in July 2022 after finding that the alleged cruelty had not been established.
Wife's Stand
Before the High Court, the respondent-wife defended the Family Court's decision through the appointed amicus curiae. Her case was that she had not subjected her husband or his family to cruelty.
She alleged instead that she had faced physical, mental and economic harassment after marriage. She also maintained that she wanted to continue the marriage and live with her husband with dignity.
Court's Observation On Cruelty
The High Court examined the evidence placed before the Family Court and discussed the principles governing matrimonial cruelty.
The Bench noted that cruelty cannot be determined through a fixed formula. What may constitute cruelty in one marriage may not necessarily amount to cruelty in another. The Court said the nature of the parties' lives, social and economic circumstances, culture and human values are relevant while assessing such allegations.
The Court further observed:
"Cruelty" under matrimonial law consists of conduct so grave and weighty as to lead one to the conclusion that one of the spouses cannot reasonably be expected to live with the other spouse.
The Bench clarified that ordinary disagreements, trivial grievances and the normal wear and tear of married life cannot automatically become grounds for dissolving a marriage.
Gharjamai Demand And Visits To Parental Home
Applying these principles to the evidence, the High Court found that the husband had failed to establish the alleged cruelty.
The Court noted that visiting one's parental home could not be treated as cruelty merely because the husband objected to it. It also examined the allegation concerning the gharjamai arrangement and found that there was no evidence that the husband had actually been forced to live as a gharjamai.
The Bench observed that merely expressing such a wish did not constitute cruelty for the purposes of the Hindu Marriage Act.
Decision
The High Court held that the husband had failed to substantiate the allegation of cruelty and that the Family Court had properly appreciated the evidence. The finding of the Family Court was therefore not considered perverse or legally unsustainable.
The Division Bench upheld the Family Court's judgment dated 16 July 2022 and decree dated 1 August 2022, which had dismissed the husband's divorce suit.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the appeal.
Case Details
Case Title: Rahul Choubey v. Poonam Pathak
Case Number: F.A. No. 86 of 2022
Judges: Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Sanjay Prasad
Decision Date: 15 September 2026
