The Jharkhand High Court has ruled that questioning a wife’s character and accusing her of having an extramarital relationship merely because she speaks to a male friend amounts to mental cruelty. The Court described such allegations as rooted in gender-based stereotypes and rejected the notion that a woman’s friendship with a man can automatically invite suspicions of infidelity.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice MS Sonak and Justice Manoj Prasad made the observations while dismissing a husband’s appeal seeking dissolution of his marriage.
The husband had alleged that his wife was involved in an extramarital relationship because she frequently spoke to a male acquaintance over the telephone.
Rejecting this line of reasoning, the Court observed that such accusations reflect a stereotypical mindset in which a woman’s conversation with a male friend is treated as evidence of adultery.
“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 Bench stated.
Background of the Dispute
The couple married in 2005 and have two children. Their matrimonial relationship eventually deteriorated, prompting the husband to approach the Family Court in 2021 seeking a divorce.
He claimed that his wife showed little interest in continuing the marriage and that their relationship was marked by frequent arguments. He specifically complained about her regular telephone conversations with a male friend.
The husband further alleged that his wife had left the matrimonial home in 2015 and moved to her parental residence.
The wife, however, presented a different account. She alleged that she had been subjected to harassment over dowry demands at her matrimonial home. She also maintained that her husband had made no genuine attempt to restore their marital relationship or bring her back.
In 2023, the Family Court rejected the husband’s allegations, finding that the grounds of cruelty had not been established. The husband subsequently challenged the decision before the High Court.
Husband’s Witnesses Failed to Establish Cruelty
Upholding the Family Court’s decision, the High Court found that the husband had failed to produce convincing evidence to substantiate his claims.
The Bench pointed out that the witnesses brought forward by him were not family members but appeared to be colleagues and personal acquaintances. Their statements, therefore, required closer scrutiny.
The Court observed that testimony from a family member, particularly the husband’s mother, could have provided meaningful corroboration, especially since she was also allegedly involved in the matrimonial disputes. However, no such evidence was presented.
The Bench 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 statement had been prepared at her father’s dictation.
Examining the husband’s own testimony, the Court found that his allegations of physical and mental harassment were unsupported by credible material.
It further noted that he had neither approached any competent authority with a complaint nor made any meaningful effort towards reconciliation.
“These facts lead to the conclusion that the allegations of cruelty were not proved by the present appellant,” the Court held.
Wife Cannot Be Blamed for Desertion, Court Says
The High Court also rejected the husband’s argument that his wife had deserted him.
It noted that the wife had expressed her willingness to resume married life, but the husband had refused to accept her proposal.
The Bench additionally referred to a compromise entered into between the couple in 2015. Although the agreement required them to resume living together, the Court observed that its terms appeared to have been followed only to facilitate the settlement of a criminal case.
The parties, in reality, did not resume their matrimonial life as contemplated under the compromise.
Finding no evidence to establish either cruelty or desertion on the wife’s part, the High Court dismissed the husband’s appeal and upheld the Family Court’s decision.
The ruling reinforces that ordinary interactions between women and male acquaintances cannot be treated as proof of infidelity, and baseless allegations questioning a wife’s character may themselves amount to mental cruelty.