‘A scar to psychology’: Jharkhand High Court grants divorce after wife remarries during first marriage’s subsistence

Case: ‘A six-month marriage’

• The estranged couple got married as per Hindu rites and customs in June 2013, following which the husband claimed that she stayed at her matrimonial home for six days.
• The husband claimed that the estranged wife is a temperamental and whimsical lady and had rude behaviour with him and his parents.

• It was also stated by the husband that the marriage was never consummated, as the wife had shown her reluctance to have a child.
• The estranged wife returned to her matrimonial home after three months in September 2013, but there was no change in her behaviour.
• The husband claimed that his estranged wife even abused his father when he interrupted her from talking to someone on the phone for long hours.
• Subsequently, she again left the matrimonial home and returned only on the condition of having a separate kitchen for herself.
• It was further claimed that the petitioner found a letter indicating a physical relationship between his estranged wife and another person.
• On being confronted, the husband claimed that her estranged wife told him that she enjoys the company of her friend more than him.
• She left her matrimonial house, allegedly again in October 2013, with the threat that the petitioner and his parents would be implicated by her in false and fabricated cases.
• It was mentioned by the husband that he filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights, but during the conciliation proceedings, his estranged wife refused to reside with him, which led to the withdrawal of that application.
• It was further alleged that the estranged wife had filed a case against the petitioner and his parents, and she had also submitted two written complaints to his office.
• The husband filed a case for dissolution of marriage in the family court, which was dismissed in 2018. Following the same, he appealed in the present high court.
• During the pendency of the current appeal and despite the subsistence of her first marriage, the wife remarried in November 2024.

Observation: ‘Cruelty not defined’

• The petitioner failed to prove cruelty in the trial court, and his plea was dismissed, following which he appealed in the present court.
• It was placed on record that during the pendency of the appeal, his estranged wife had solemnised a second marriage in November 2024 during the subsistence of the first marriage.
• The term “cruelty” is an ever-expanding concept based on different circumstances and has not been defined in the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
• The Supreme Court has analysed the term “cruelty” in various judgments, which were referred to by the present court.
• Considering the circumstances of the case, the marriage between the petitioner and her estranged wife is dissolved.

Arguments: ‘Cruelty on husband or torture with wife’

• Representing the petitioner, advocate Sanjeev Thakur has argued that the trial court did not consider the evidence placed on record, which suggested various instances of cruelty with his client at the hands of the estranged wife.
• Thakur also pointed out that the estranged wife has solemnised another marriage despite the subsistence of the marriage with the petitioner, which amounts to cruelty committed upon his client.
• On the contrary, the wife’s advocate, Anshuman Mishra, argued that she denied all the allegations levelled against her.

• Mishra argued that she had stayed at her matrimonial house for six months, and during this period, she was subjected to torture and a demand of Rs 5 lakh was also made.
• He further pointed out that it was the petitioner who had manufactured the letter in order to create a ground for divorce.
• His client, the estranged wife, was compelled to leave her matrimonial house due to the torture committed and has been forced to stay at her parental house from March 2014 onwards.
• The estranged wife claimed that she was constrained to file a criminal case against the petitioner and his parents, and a copy of the complaint was also forwarded to the petitioner’s superiors.
• Mishra further argued that the suit for restitution of conjugal rights was filed in order to secure bail in the criminal case, and once the petitioner got bail, he filed an application for withdrawal of the suit.
• It was argued that the marriage between the petitioner and his estranged wife had broken down irretrievably due to the circumstances created by her.