While finding that the appellant husband’s allegation of cruelty and refusal to cohabit by the respondent-wife lacks sufficient evidence and reliability, the Patna High Court ruled that the appellant's motive for seeking a divorce was based on the wife's medical condition and inability to bear children was deemed irrelevant as developing a disease during the marriage is beyond a spouse's control.

The Division Bench of Justice P.B. Bajanthri and Justice Jitendra Kumar observed that “the marriage was solemnized on 12.06.2015 and divorce petition was filed on 01.04.2017 i.e within two years of marriage and respondent-wife had lived in her matrimonial home for two months. As such, the ground of desertion is not made out because as per Section 13(1) (b), desertion must be for a continuous period of not less than two years immediately preceding the present petition”.

Upon analysis of the total evidence on the record, as adduced by the appellant-husband, the Bench found that no specific allegation of behavioral misconduct amounting to cruelty has been made in his pleading or evidence regarding the date, place and nature of the cruelty except the allegation that she refused to cohabit with him.

Advocate Shyam Sunder Pandey appeared for the Appellant, whereas none appeared for the Respondent

The brief facts of the case were that the appellant's husband claims that he and the respondent-wife were married through Hindu rights and rituals on June 12, 2015. However, she returned to her parental home shortly after staying briefly at their matrimonial residence, allegedly displaying improper behavior towards the appellant husband’s family. The respondent-wife refused to consummate the marriage, stating her intention was solely to lose her virginity, and engaged in secretive meetings with individuals from her village despite objections. Repeated efforts to reconcile and bring her back were unsuccessful. Claiming health issues, she was taken to a doctor who diagnosed a uterine cyst and a lack of eggs, indicating minimal chances of motherhood. The appellant further alleged frequent demands for money and threats of suicide, as well as implicating his family in a false dowry case. Despite notice, the respondent-wife did not appear in Court, prompting an ex-parte proceeding. Concerned for his family's safety, the appellant seeks legal resolution for their troubled marriage.

After considering the submission, the Bench found no specific evidence of cruelty, except the allegation of refusal to cohabit, which is deemed unreliable due to the ongoing communication between the appellant and the respondent supporting her illness.

Additionally, the appellant-husband did not pursue legal action for restitution of conjugal rights, and therefore, the claim of refusal of cohabitation by the respondent-wife lacks sufficient grounds, added the Bench.

The Bench highlighted that developing a disease during marriage is beyond a spouse's control, and the other spouse has to cooperate and support in such situations.

Therefore, stating that the inability to bear a child is not considered impotence nor a valid ground for dissolving the marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act, the High Court upheld the Family Court's decision to dismiss the appellant's divorce plea.

Cause Title: Sonu Kumar v. Rina Devi

Click here to read/download the order


Patna High CourtJustice P.B BajanthriJustice Jitendra Kumar

Pankaj Bajpai