Patna HC Sets Aside Divorce Granted To Husband On Grounds Of Cruelty; Holds That His Living In RSS Office Amounts To Cruelty Against Wife

A Division Bench of Justice P.B. Bajanthri and Justice Jitendra Kumar observed that the husband abandoning his wife and living at the local office of RSS appeared to be cruelty against the wife instead.

“There may have been ordinary wear and tear in the matrimonial life of the parties, but certainly no cruelty is found to have been committed by the Appellant-Wife towards the Husband/Respondent. In fact, cruelty appears to have been committed other way round.”

The Plaintiff alleged his wife's cruelty, desertion, and financial misconduct. The Defendant denied these claims, asserting her husband's infidelity, physical abuse, and neglect. The Family Court had granted the divorce, finding cruelty by the wife.

Advocate Sudish Kumar appeared for the Appellant and Advocate Shashank Chandra appeared for the Respondent.

The main issues before the Court were whether cruelty occurred and if the divorce was justified.

The Court, before considering the points in the case, considered it necessary to discuss case laws related to burden of proof and standard of proof. The Court explained that in matrimonial cases, the burden of proof lies on the petitioner to establish their case. The standard of proof is preponderance of probabilities, not proof beyond reasonable doubt, as applied in criminal cases. This principle was established by the Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Narayan Ganesh Dastane vs. Sucheta Narayan Dastane (1975).

The Court further noted that several witnesses were examined. However, their testimony didn't strongly support the husband's claims. The younger son mentioned that the relationship between his parents was good until 2006, contradicting the husband's allegations.

The Court analyzed the evidence presented and found that the husband's claims were inconsistent. The Court noted that there was a significant delay of nine years between the alleged incidents and the filing of the divorce petition. The husband's evidence was deemed unreliable due to inconsistencies, and the son's testimony contradicted the husband's version.

“This circumstance goes against him making his claim of cruelty allegedly committed by the Appellant-Defendant-wife non-believable.”

The Court ruled that the husband failed to prove cruelty as defined under the Hindu Marriage Act. The wife's behavior wasn't proven to be grave and weighty enough to create a reasonable apprehension of danger, which is required for a divorce on the grounds of cruelty.

“We further find that as per evidence of both the parties that the Appellant-Defendant-wife is still living in her matrimonial house along with her children and it is the husband, who left his house and is living in the office of RSS. We also find that the wife has never refused cohabitation, it is the husband who had stopped taking interest in her and he is not making efforts for cohabitation, because he has been living separately from her. The Appellant-Defendant-wife has all along maintained that she wants to live with her husband and she always welcomed him whenever he comes home and she has never refused cohabitation.”

The Court set aside the lower court's judgment and allowed the appeal, stating that the husband wasn't entitled to a divorce based on cruelty.

Cause Title: Nisha Gupta v. Uday Chand Gupta

Click here to read/download Judgment