Jharkhand High Court: Alleging Infidelity Because Wife Speaks to Another Man Amounts to Mental Cruelty
The Jharkhand High Court has ruled that accusing a wife of having an extramarital relationship merely because she speaks to another man reflects gender-based stereotypes and amounts to mental cruelty towards her. The Court dismissed a husband's appeal seeking divorce, holding that he had failed to establish cruelty or desertion under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Background of the Case
The dispute arose between Surendra Kumar Thakur and Babita Devi, who married on 30 April 2005 and have two children. The husband alleged that his wife maintained distance from him, frequently quarrelled with him and his family members, and spoke to another man using his mobile phone. On this basis, he questioned her character and alleged that she was involved in an extramarital relationship.
He further claimed that his wife had left the matrimonial home on 15 April 2015 and sought divorce on grounds of cruelty. The wife denied these allegations, asserting that she had been subjected to physical and mental harassment and dowry demands. She also alleged that her husband was involved in an extramarital relationship with a female colleague.
The Family Court at Bermo, Tenughat, Bokaro, dismissed the husband's divorce petition after finding that the allegations of cruelty and desertion were not established. The husband subsequently challenged this decision before the Jharkhand High Court.
High Court's Observations
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Manoj Prasad examined the allegations and the evidence presented by both parties.
While considering the allegation of mental cruelty, the Bench observed that the husband's accusation of an extramarital relationship was based, among other things, on his wife's conversations with an unknown man over his mobile phone.
The Court characterised this reasoning as a typical gender-based stereotype, observing that a woman speaking to a man, even if he is a friend, should not automatically lead to allegations of adultery or an extramarital relationship.
The Bench expressly held that such allegations amounted to cruelty towards the wife. It also clarified that counter-allegations of extramarital relationships made by either spouse without appropriate evidence may similarly amount to cruelty.
Failure to Establish Cruelty and Desertion
The High Court also examined the evidence concerning physical cruelty. It found that the husband's allegations were not supported by sufficient credible evidence. The Court expressed reservations about the testimony of his colleagues and friends and noted that his daughter had admitted during cross-examination that her evidence had been prepared under her father's dictation.
On the issue of desertion, the Bench observed that the wife had expressed her willingness to restore conjugal life, whereas the husband had refused to resume cohabitation. The Court therefore found that the legal requirements for establishing desertion were not satisfied.
The Bench further clarified that failure to specifically mention a statutory provision would not necessarily defeat a claim where the relevant facts had been pleaded and the issue had been framed for adjudication.
Final Decision
Concluding that the husband had failed to establish either cruelty or desertion under Section 13(1)(i-a) and Section 13(1)(i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the Jharkhand High Court dismissed First Appeal No. 23 of 2024 and upheld the Family Court's decision refusing to grant divorce.
The judgment reinforces the principle that ordinary communication with a person of the opposite sex cannot, by itself, justify allegations of infidelity and that serious matrimonial allegations must be supported by appropriate evidence.
Case: Surendra Kumar Thakur v. Babita Devi @ Baby Devi
Court: Jharkhand High Court
Case Number: First Appeal No. 23 of 2024
Neutral Citation: 2026:JHHC:32222-DB
Judgment Date: 3 November 2026
Bench: Chief Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Manoj Prasad