The Jharkhand High Court has set aside a Family Court order refusing divorce to a woman, holding that a wife's decision to pursue higher education or take up employment after marriage cannot be treated as a favour granted by her husband.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice M. S. Sonak and Justice Manoj Prasad held that the wife's evidence of physical and mental cruelty remained substantially unrebutted. The Court also criticised the Family Court's approach of describing the woman's career aspirations as over-ambitious.
Background
The couple married in 2004 and had a daughter in 2007. The wife subsequently sought divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, alleging physical and mental cruelty, repeated dowry demands and lack of financial support.
According to her, she had to leave her employment after her husband assured her of a job opportunity in Delhi. However, he subsequently moved to Raigarh, leaving her and their minor daughter without adequate support. She further alleged that she faced demands for Rs. 5 lakh and harassment when she could not fulfil them.
The Family Court dismissed her divorce petition in 2019, observing that her husband had supported her education and employment after marriage. It also questioned her career ambitions.
Examining the evidence, the High Court found that the wife had examined herself, her father and an independent neighbour in support of her allegations. However, the husband neither examined any witness nor effectively cross-examined the wife's witnesses.
The Bench observed that the Family Court had relied on vague denials in the written statement while overlooking the substantially unchallenged evidence presented by the wife.
The Court further rejected the Family Court's reasoning that supporting a wife's education and employment demonstrated a husband's liberal attitude.
In this regard, the Bench observed:
"With respect, we cannot subscribe to such observations or approach. Such gender stereotyping cannot be permitted in such matters. The husband and wife are equal partners in marriage. The law is settled that the relationship between a husband and wife is not one of a superior and an inferior, nor of one person dominating another."
The Court also emphasised that pursuing education and employment after marriage are rights, not privileges granted by a husband.
It further stated:
"Pursuing higher education after marriage is not a privilege granted by the respondent, but a right which the wife is always entitled to exercise. Similarly, if the wife wishes to take up a government or even a private job, based on merit and eligibility, allowing her to do so is not some favour the husband does to his wife."
Finding that the allegations of physical and mental cruelty had been established through unrebutted evidence, the High Court concluded that the marriage could not reasonably continue.
Accordingly, the Bench set aside the Family Court's judgment, allowed the appeal and granted divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act.
The Court did not pass any maintenance or permanent alimony order, as no such application had been filed. However, it preserved the right of the wife and daughter to seek maintenance before a competent court.
