Unfounded Allegations On Wife's Chastity, Denial Of Child's Paternity Amount To Matrimonial Cruelty: Jharkhand High Court

The Jharkhand High Court has held that unfounded allegations questioning a wife's chastity and denying paternity of her child amount to a grave assault on her character, honour and reputation and constitute matrimonial cruelty.

A Division Bench of Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Sanjay Prasad dismissed a husband's appeal against the Family Court's refusal to dissolve the marriage on the grounds of cruelty and desertion under Sections 27(1)(b) and 27(1)(d) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954.

The parties solemnised their marriage under the Special Marriage Act on June 25, 2008. The husband alleged that the wife instituted a false criminal case against him in 2009, left the matrimonial home and thereafter refused to resume cohabitation despite repeated requests. He further contended that the parties had not cohabited for nearly ten years, which amounted to cruelty, and that the wife had deserted him without any possibility of reunion.

The Family Court dismissed the divorce petition after finding that the husband had failed to prove either cruelty or desertion. He thereafter approached the High Court in appeal.

The Division Bench observed that cruelty under matrimonial law may be physical or mental, intentional or unintentional, and must be assessed in the context of matrimonial duties and obligations. The Court noted that the marital relationship had become strained following the wife's criminal complaint alleging dowry-related harassment. However, the material on record also showed that the husband had questioned her chastity and denied being the father of her son.

Referring to the Supreme Court's decision in Vijay Kumar Ramchandra Bhate v. Neela Vijay Kumar Bhate, the Court observed:

“Levelling disgusting accusations of indecent familiarity with a person outside wedlock and allegations of extra-marital relationship constituted grave assault on the character, honour, reputation, status of the spouse and therefore, such aspersions amounted to worst form of insult and cruelty.”

The Bench found that the husband had failed to produce cogent evidence showing that the wife subjected him to cruelty. It observed that the circumstances relied upon by him related only to the normal wear and tear of matrimonial life.

On desertion, the Court noted that there was no evidence showing that the husband had made genuine efforts to bring the wife back to the matrimonial home. He had neither sent her any notice expressing his willingness to resume cohabitation nor specified any date on which he allegedly went to take her back. The Court held:

“There is even not a single evidence available on the record that the plaintiff even sent any notice to the defendant showing his eagerness to take her back.”

It further observed that the cruelty appeared to have emanated from the husband's conduct rather than the wife's, it noted:

“Rather, it appears that the cruelty came from his side not from the defendant by not taking care of the wife-defendant and her child and also by levelling wild allegations of un-chastity against wife-defendant by denying himself to be the father of her son.”

Finding no perversity in the Family Court's appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the High Court upheld the dismissal of the divorce petition and dismissed the appeal.

Case Title: Manoj Kumar Hansda v. Varsha Monigini Hembrom.

Case Number: First Appeal No. 64 of 2023.

Appearance: Mr. Gautam Kumar, Mr. Ashutosh Kr. Sinha and Ms. Savita Kumari for the Appellant. Mr. Pankaj Srivastava and Mr. Ashish Gautam for the Respondent.

Click Here To Read/Download Order