The Jharkhand High Court has observed that alleging adultery or an extramarital relationship against a wife merely because she speaks to a male friend amounts to mental cruelty.

A Division Bench of Chief Justice MS Sonak and Justice Manoj Prasad made the observation while dismissing an appeal filed by a husband challenging a Family Court's decision rejecting his plea for divorce.

One of the allegations raised by the husband was that his wife was involved in an extramarital relationship because she frequently spoke to an unidentified male friend over the phone.

Rejecting the allegation, the Court observed that such accusations stem from gender-based stereotypes and amount to cruelty towards a woman.

“To our considered view, such allegations are typical gender-based stereotypes, where, if a woman talks to a man, even if he is a friend, charges of adultery or of an extramarital relationship are levelled. We are, therefore, of the considered view that such allegations amount to cruelty towards the wife,” the Court observed.

The couple got married in 2005 and have two children. In 2021, the husband approached the Family Court seeking dissolution of marriage, alleging that his wife was unwilling to continue the marital relationship.

He claimed that frequent disputes arose between them because his wife would continuously speak to a male friend over the phone. He further alleged that she had left the matrimonial home in 2015 and moved to her parental house.

The wife, however, alleged that she had been subjected to torture at her matrimonial home over dowry demands. She also contended that her husband had neither made any attempt to restore their conjugal relationship nor taken steps to bring her back.

In 2023, the Family Court rejected the husband's allegations, holding that he had failed to establish cruelty. Aggrieved by the decision, he approached the High Court.

In its judgment dated November 3, the High Court upheld the Family Court's findings, observing that the husband had failed to substantiate his allegations through credible evidence.

The Court noted that the witnesses produced by the husband were outsiders to the marriage and included two of his colleagues and friends. Their testimonies, it said, could not be accepted without an element of suspicion.

“Two of them appear to be his colleagues and friends, who are not family members. Their evidence, therefore, cannot be accepted without an element of suspicion. Evidence from a family member, particularly the mother, who is also alleged by the respondent to be a victim of such quarrels, would have corroborated the present appellant’s case, but such evidence has not been brought on record,” the Court observed.

The High Court also declined to place reliance on the testimony of the couple's 11-year-old daughter. It noted that the child had admitted that her entire testimony had been prepared at the dictation of her father.

The Court further observed that the husband's allegations of physical and mental cruelty were not supported by any credible evidence. He had neither lodged a complaint before any competent authority nor made any attempt at reconciliation, it noted.

“So far as the evidence of the appellant is concerned, although he has stated that he was subjected to both physical and mental cruelty, that statement is not corroborated by any credible evidence. No complaint was made before any competent authority, nor was any effort made towards reconciliation at any time. These facts lead to the conclusion that the allegations of cruelty were not proved by the present appellant,” the Court said.

Rejecting the husband's allegation of desertion as well, the Court noted that the wife had expressed her willingness to resume conjugal life, but the husband had refused to accept her.

It also took note of a compromise entered into between the parties in 2015. However, the Court observed that the compromise appeared to have been executed only to settle the criminal proceedings, as the condition requiring the couple to resume living together was never implemented.

“However, it appears that the compromise was entered into only for the purpose of settling the criminal case, as despite the terms of the compromise requiring the parties to live together, the same appears not to have been complied with,” the Court observed.

Accordingly, finding that the husband had failed to establish either cruelty or desertion as grounds for divorce, the High Court dismissed his appeal.

Advocates Atanu Banerjee appeared for the husband, while Advocate Ranjan Kumar represented the wife. Advocate Ashwini Bhushan appeared for the State.