Mere Non-Filing Of FIR Cannot Discredit Wife's Testimony Of Cruelty In Matrimonial Dispute: Jharkhand High Court
The Jharkhand HC has held that in a matrimonial dispute, the mere fact that a wife did not lodge a formal First Information Report cannot, by itself, be a ground to disbelieve her testimony regarding cruelty and assault by her husband.
A Division Bench of Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Sanjay Prasad was hearing an appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 against the dismissal of a divorce petition filed by the wife under Section 27(1)(b) and (d) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954.
The parties had married on 20.10.2010 before the Marriage Officer at Jamshedpur and had two children. The wife alleged that after the birth of their son, the husband began consuming alcohol, assaulting her and abusing her. She further alleged that after her father-in-law's death in 2015, his behaviour became more violent, he stopped working and failed to provide for the family.
According to the wife, she was ultimately driven out of the matrimonial home along with her two children on 15.03.2018. She thereafter lived with her parents and supported herself and the children through a private job.
The Family Court proceeded ex parte after the husband failed to appear despite service of notice, but dismissed the wife's divorce petition. The wife consequently approached the High Court.
The High Court noted that the Family Court had rejected the wife's allegation of cruelty, principally observing that no criminal case had been instituted in relation to the alleged assault and torture. The High Court found this approach erroneous. It observed:
“This Court is of the considered view that, in matrimonial disputes, when either party adduces evidence to substantiate the element of cruelty particularly the wife the mere fact of non-institution of a formal First Information Report cannot, by itself, be treated as a ground to discredit such testimony...”
The Court further noted that the wife had specifically deposed about being assaulted by her husband while he was drunk and being subjected to torture for money. She had also stated that her two children were subjected to such treatment.
The Court posed the question why the wife would voluntarily choose to live separately from her husband and endure the difficulties of living alone and supporting herself and her children, observing that this circumstance lent credibility to her testimony. The Court held:
“The appellant-wife, even if she did not lodge a formal FIR, has nonetheless explained the torture and assault suffered at the hands of the respondent-husband.”
It consequently held that the Family Court had failed to properly appreciate the material evidence and that its finding on cruelty was perverse.
On desertion, the Court noted that the wife's departure from the matrimonial home could not be treated as a wilful abandonment of her husband. Given the evidence of cruelty, her departure was a compelled act arising from the circumstances created by the husband. The Court observed:
“The cruelty and desertion are inter-related to some extent. If the cruelty is meted out to the wife, then wife is compelled to leave the house and, in such situation, it cannot be alleged it is the wife who on own volition has left the matrimonial house.”
The High Court accordingly set aside the Family Court's judgment dated 09.02.2026 and decree dated 16.02.2026.
Appearance:
For the Appellant: Mr. Prabhash Kumar, Advocate; Mr. Ganesh Ram, Advocate
For the Respondent: None