The Jharkhand High Court recently observed that accusing one's wife of adultery for merely speaking to her male friend amounts to mental cruelty.

A Bench of Chief Justice MS Sonak and Justice Manoj Prasad made the observation while dismissing a man’s plea seeking divorce from his wife.

One of the allegations made by the husband was that his wife was in an extra-marital relationship as she used to talk to an unknown male over mobile phone. 

“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 said.

The couple had married in 2005 and have two children. In 2021, the husband moved a family court seeking dissolution of marriage, alleging that his wife was not interested in the marital relationship. He claimed there were frequent quarrels between them as she used to continuously talk to a male friend over the phone. It was also stated that she had left the matrimonial home in 2015 and gone to her parental home. 

However, the wife alleged that she was tortured at her matrimonial home over dowry. She also said that her husband never tried to restore conjugal life or make any effort to bring her back to her matrimonial home. 

The trial court ruled in favour of the wife in 2023, ruling that the allegations of cruelty were not made out. The husband then moved the High Court.

In a judgment passed on November 3, the High Court agreed with the finding that the husband had failed to prove his allegations of cruelty against wife. The witnesses produced by him were outsiders to the marriage, it noted.

“Two of them appear to be his colleagues and friends, who are not family members. Their evidence, therefore, cannot be accepted without an element of suspicion. Evidence from a family member, particularly the mother, who is also alleged by the respondent to be a victim of such quarrels, would have corroborated the present appellant’s case, but such evidence has not been brought on record,” the Court said

Further, the Court declined to rely on the testimony of the couple’s 11-year-old daughter. It found that the child herself had admitted that her entire evidence was prepared under the dictation of her father. 

“So far as the evidence of the appellant is concerned, although he has stated that he was subjected to both physical and mental cruelty, that statement is not corroborated by any credible evidence. No complaint was made before any competent authority, nor was any effort made towards reconciliation at any time. These facts lead to the conclusion that the allegations of cruelty were not proved by the present appellant,” the Court added.

The Court also rejected the allegation of desertion by the wife, stating that she had expressed her desire to restore conjugal life, which was refused by the husband. It also found that the husband had entered into a compromise with his wife in 2015.

“However, it appears that the compromise was entered into only for the purpose of settling the criminal case, as despite the terms of the compromise requiring the parties to live together, the same appears not to have been complied with."

Thus, the Court concluded that the husband failed to make out a case of cruelty or desertion. Accordingly, his appeal was dismissed. 

Advocate Atanu Banerjee represented the husband.

Advocate Ranjan Kumar represented the wife.

Advocate Ashwini Bhushan appeared for the State.

[Read Judgment]