Living near workplace not ‘desertion’: Why Jharkhand High Court dismissed husband’s divorce plea against teacher wife

The order added that what has been construed by the petitioner as “reluctance” would, in the facts and circumstances of the case, be termed a “compulsion” on the part of the wife.

Findings

• The wife’s act of cruelty, as depicted by the petitioner, seems to be the reluctance on the part of the wife to stay at her matrimonial house.
• The reason for staying at the parents’ house of the wife was being near her school, where she works as a government teacher.
• The wife, it seems, has been regularly sending money to the account of the petitioner, which enhances her willingness to lead a peaceful marital life.
• Her sending of the amounts seems to have shored up the financial resources of the petitioner and his family members, since, as per their own admission, they run a shop selling plastic ware,s and the income depicted by them appears to be meagre.
• The petitioner has failed to prove a single instance that would add muscle to his allegation of being treated with cruelty.
• The issue of “desertion” appears to intermingle with “cruelty” since it is the case of the petitioner that the respondent had willfully abandoned her without his consent.
• None of the ingredients constituting “desertion” has been proved by the petitioner.
• The wife started residing at her parental home for the sole reason of attending to her duties in school, as commuting to school from her matrimonial house daily would have been an arduous task.
• Such a stay cannot be said to be a “willful abandonment” but rather an act of compulsion, as we have stated earlier.
• The petitioner, before the marriage, knew about the wife being employed as a government teacher, and he had willingly accepted the said fact.
• The wife has also stated her willingness to stay with the petitioner and in-laws.
• These circumstances wipe out the assertion made by the petitioner of being deserted by the wife.

Background

• The family court had dismissed the petitioner’s plea for dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) (marriage dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground that the other party has, after the solemnisation of the marriage, treated the petitioner with cruelty or has deserted the petitioner for a continuous period of not less than two years) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
• Following this, the husband-petitioner filed a plea before high court challenging the family court order.
• The petitioner married the respondent-wife in December 2016.
• He alleged that his wife is a government teacher, pressured him to live separately from his parents, and eventually deserted him in March 2018, taking cash and jewelry with her.
• He further claimed that despite a prior settlement for the restitution of conjugal rights, the wife refused to resume her marital life.
• Appearing for the wife, advocate Sameer Saurabh submitted that the wife’s school was located 75 kilometers away from her matrimonial home and it was physically impossible to commute this distance daily, and that she resided at her father’s house solely to attend to her professional duties.
• He further argued that she visit her matrimonial home during holidays and regularly transfer Rs 20,000–25,000 of her salary to the petitioner’s account to support the household.