No divorce for husband who drove wife away with dowry demands, rules court

The couple married on May 1, 2001, but started living separately in 2005 after matrimonial disputes. Over the next two decades, they became embroiled in multiple criminal, maintenance and matrimonial proceedings, including a dowry harassment case, maintenance litigation and allegations of a second marriage, before the husband sought dissolution of marriage in 2019.

Justices Sujit Narayan Prasad and Pradeep Kumar Srivastava said that the wife had consistently expressed her willingness to return to the matrimonial home if assured of her safety. (Image generated using AI)

Husband alleged cruelty, false cases, desertion

The husband claimed that soon after the marriage, his wife constantly quarrelled with him and insisted that he live separately from his parents. According to him, when he refused, she left the matrimonial home in May 2005 and subjected him to mental cruelty by repeatedly filing false criminal cases against him and his family.

He further alleged that despite several attempts at reconciliation over the years to save the marriage from divorce including court-sponsored mediation, the wife refused to return. He also accused her and her family of assaulting him during a reconciliation meeting in June 2017.

Claiming that the marriage had irretrievably broken down and there was no possibility of reconciliation, he sought a decree of divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion.

Wife blamed husband for dowry harassment

The wife strongly contested the allegations opposing the plea for divorce and told the court that it was she who had been subjected to cruelty. According to her, six months after the marriage, the husband and his family demanded Rs 3 lakh in cash, a bed worth Rs 50,000 and 25 bighas of land. When her family failed to meet the demands, she alleged that she was physically and mentally harassed before being thrown out of the matrimonial home along with their daughter in 2005.

She pointed out that the criminal case she filed under Section 498A (cruelty) IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act ended in the conviction of the husband and his relatives, with the conviction also being upheld in appeal.

The wife further maintained that she had never deserted her husband voluntarily and remained willing to resume cohabitation provided he assured her safety and treated her with dignity and not divorce.

Daughter supported mother’s stand

The parties’ daughter also deposed before the family court, stating that she had always lived with her mother and that her father had neither maintained contact with her nor provided financial support.
She said she had been forced to discontinue her medical entrance preparation due to financial constraints and had returned from Patna to continue her education in Pakur.

Court finds cruelty not proved

After examining the evidence, the high court held that the husband had failed to substantiate his allegations of cruelty in the marriage seeking divorce. The bench noted that while cruelty had been pleaded, no convincing material had been produced to establish that the wife’s conduct amounted to cruelty within the meaning of the Hindu Marriage Act.

The court also agreed with the family court’s finding that the allegations were vague and general in nature and lacked particulars regarding the dates, manner or circumstances of the alleged acts of cruelty.
Consequently, it held that there was no reason to interfere with the findings recorded by the trial court.

Mere separation can’t amount to desertion

• The high court also rejected the husband’s argument seeking divorce that the prolonged separation itself established desertion.
• Desertion means the intentional abandonment of one spouse by the other without the consent of the other and without a reasonable cause, said the court.
• Referring to settled Supreme Court law, the bench observed that desertion requires intentional and permanent abandonment of one spouse by the other without reasonable cause and against the wishes of the deserted spouse.

• Te court found that the wife had consistently expressed her willingness to return to the matrimonial home if assured of her safety, making it impossible to conclude that she intended to permanently abandon the marriage.
• The bench also noted that the evidence suggested she had left the matrimonial home after allegations of dowry-related cruelty and therefore had reasonable cause for living separately.
• The deserted spouse seeking divorce must prove that there is a factum of separation and there is an intention on the part of the deserting spouse to bring the cohabitation to a permanent end.
• The appellant-husband seeking divorce has not produced any cogent evidence in regard to the cruelty which has been subjected to him by the respondent-wife.

Appeal dismissed

Holding that the husband had failed to prove either cruelty or desertion and finding no perversity in the Family Court’s appreciation of evidence, the division bench dismissed the appeal not granting the divorce. The high court accordingly upheld the July 19, 2022 judgment of the family court refusing to grant a decree of divorce, bringing another chapter of the couple’s long-running matrimonial litigation to a close.