Jharkhand HC: Accusing Wife Of Affair For Speaking To Man Reflects Gender Stereotypes, Amounts To Cruelty

A Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court, comprising Chief Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Manoj Prasad, has dismissed an appeal filed by a husband challenging the rejection of his divorce petition by the Family Court, Bermo at Tenughat, Bokaro. The Bench held that accusing a wife of an extramarital relationship merely because she speaks to another man reflects deep-rooted gender stereotypes and, in itself, constitutes mental cruelty towards the wife.

The parties were married on April 30, 2005, and have two children. The husband instituted proceedings under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, alleging that his wife maintained distance, quarrelled with him and his family, and engaged in conversations with an unknown man over his mobile phone. He further claimed she had an extramarital affair and deserted the matrimonial home on April 15, 2015. The wife denied these allegations, countering that she was subjected to torture and dowry demands, and alleged that the husband himself was involved in an extramarital relationship with a colleague.

The Family Court dismissed the petition after finding that the husband failed to establish cruelty or desertion. In appeal, the High Court examined the standard for cruelty under the Act, observing that it may be physical or mental but must be of such a nature that matrimonial life becomes incompatible and conjugal life cannot be restored.

Regarding physical cruelty, the Bench found the husband's evidence unreliable. His witnesses comprised colleagues and friends, whose testimony the Court viewed with suspicion. Notably, his mother, who was allegedly subjected to the wife's quarrelsome behaviour, was not examined. The Court also declined to rely on the testimony of the couple's 11-year-old daughter, who admitted during cross-examination that her evidence had been prepared under her father's dictation.

Does alleging an affair because a wife talks to a man amount to cruelty?

The High Court held that baseless allegations of an extramarital affair against a wife solely because she speaks to another man reflect gender-based stereotypes and constitute mental cruelty against her. Such accusations render matrimonial life incompatible and cannot be sustained as grounds for divorce.

On the aspect of mental cruelty, the Bench focused on the husband's accusation of an extramarital relationship, which relied partly on the wife's phone conversations. The Court expressly held that such allegations are typical gender-based stereotypes where a woman talking to a man, even a friend, results in charges of adultery. The Bench observed that these allegations amount to cruelty towards the wife. It further noted that counter-allegations by the wife against the husband, without appropriate proof, may similarly amount to cruelty.

On the question of desertion, the Court noted that although the petition did not specifically invoke Section 13(1)(i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, the pleadings contained allegations of desertion and an issue had been framed on that ground. The Bench clarified that failure to mention a specific statutory provision would not defeat a party's case where the pleadings otherwise support it. However, the Court concluded that the husband failed to establish desertion.

Regarding interim maintenance, the Bench noted that an earlier order under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act had already been affirmed by the High Court. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, upholding the Family Court's judgment in its entirety.