INTRODUCTION
In the case of Surendra Kumar Thakur v. Babita Devi and Baby Devi, First Appeal No. 23 of 2024, 2026: JHHC:32222-DB (decision of Nov. 3, 2026), in the High Court of Jharkhand, it was held that the presumption that a woman having an extramarital relationship just by talking to some other person on the phone was an act of cruelty towards her, as it was based on gender stereotyping. The husband’s case for divorce had been rejected, as there was no act of cruelty or desertion committed by him.
BACKGROUND
The two individuals tied the knot on 30 April 2005 and now have two kids. The petitioner in this case was the male and sought a divorce from the respondent in the Family Court under Section 13(1) (i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955. His grounds for divorce included the fact that the respondent would regularly argue with him, speak to another man on the phone and desert the matrimonial home in April 2015. He added that the conduct of the respondent subjected him to cruelty, both physically and mentally.
The female respondent, however, rejected the claims and counterclaimed that she was subjected to harassment and mental cruelty by her husband. She also added that she deserted the matrimonial home since she was not treated properly. The female respondent stated her readiness to get back to the matrimonial life with dignity.
The Family Court rejected the husband’s case for divorce in 2023 as there was not enough proof that the husband had suffered cruelty. The husband appealed against this ruling to the Jharkhand High Court on the grounds of whether his wife’s actions amounted to cruelty and whether her separation from him was desertion.
KEY POINTS
- Accusing a wife of being unfaithful based on her interaction with a male friend is a stereotype associated with gender.
- Proofs of cruelty have to be authentic and convincing.
- The readiness of the spouse to lead a marital life becomes pertinent when deciding upon desertion.
- Cruelty is acknowledged under Section 13(1) (i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, as a ground for divorce.
- Desertion can be treated as a ground for divorce in accordance with Section 13(1) (i-b).
ANALYSIS
In the present case, the High Court has taken into consideration all the relevant evidence adduced by the husband to prove the allegations made against him. The Court has held that there was no sufficient ground for considering that the allegations regarding physical and mental harassment have any basis in truth, as there was no evidence in support of the allegations. Moreover, the Court has considered the testimony of the witnesses led by the husband. One of the husband’s witnesses has admitted that her evidence has been collected through dictation by her father, making her testimony unreliable.
In the present case, the husband has alleged that the wife had a liaison with another person. In this context, the Court has held that just because a lady communicates with another person does not mean that she is unfaithful, and the mere suspicion of infidelity on the part of the lady does not constitute cruelty to her husband.
Whereas in relation to the issue of desertion, the Court looked into the fact of whether the wife had actually abandoned the matrimonial relationship. According to Section 13(1) (i-b), desertion cannot be mere separation, but it must be accompanied by the intention to leave the marriage, which is called animus deserendi. The Court observed that while the wife had expressed her readiness to go back to the matrimonial home and live together, the husband was not ready for that.
After examining the conduct of both the parties in the light of the facts and evidence before it, the Court observed that neither cruelty nor desertion has been proved by the husband.
CONCLUSION
This judgment reiterates the rule that normal conversation between people of the opposite sex alone is not enough to prove the case of adultery. Any allegations made against the character of a spouse need to be backed up by proof. The judgment also underlines that both the husband’s and wife’s behaviour is studied by the court while deciding if there is any case of cruelty or desertion.
“PRIME LEGAL is a National Award-winning law firm with over two decades of experience across diverse legal sectors. We are dedicated to setting the standard for legal excellence in civil, criminal, and family law.”
WRITTEN BY: DEBARATI CHATTERJEE
