Jharkhand High Court Dismisses Divorce Plea, Rules Wife's Workplace Stay Not Desertion
The Jharkhand High Court has delivered a significant judgment, dismissing a husband's divorce plea on grounds of cruelty and desertion. The court observed that a wife's decision to reside near her workplace due to an arduous 75-kilometer daily commute constitutes a "compulsion" rather than willful abandonment of the matrimonial home.
Court's Rationale on Desertion and Cruelty
A division bench comprising Justices Rongon Mukhopadhyay and Pradeep Kumar Srivastava was hearing the husband's appeal against a family court order that had earlier rejected his divorce petition. The bench meticulously analyzed the facts, emphasizing that the wife's actions were driven by necessity, not neglect.
"The distance between the matrimonial house of the wife and the school is 75 km, and understandably, for a female, it is not possible to commute and cover such a distance daily, especially when the means of commuting are limited," the court noted in its order.
The judgment clarified that what the petitioner husband perceived as "reluctance" to stay at the matrimonial home was, in reality, a practical compulsion. The wife, a government teacher, resided at her parental home solely to attend her professional duties, as daily travel would have been excessively burdensome.
Key Findings of the High Court
The court's findings systematically dismantled the husband's allegations:
- No Proof of Cruelty: The petitioner failed to substantiate any instance of cruelty by the wife. Her act of staying near her school was misconstrued as reluctance, but the court found it was a reasonable response to logistical challenges.
- Financial Support Undermines Desertion Claim: The wife regularly transferred Rs 20,000–25,000 from her salary to the petitioner's account, demonstrating her commitment to the marital household. This financial contribution bolstered the family's resources, as the husband's income from a plastic ware shop was meager.
- Desertion Ingredients Unproven: The court ruled that none of the legal ingredients constituting desertion under the Hindu Marriage Act were established. The wife's stay at her parental home was for professional reasons, not an intentional abandonment.
- Willingness to Reconcile: The wife expressed her readiness to live with the petitioner and his in-laws, further negating claims of desertion. The husband had also accepted her employment status before marriage, indicating prior awareness.
Background of the Case
The couple married in December 2016. The husband alleged that his wife pressured him to live separately from his parents and deserted him in March 2018, taking cash and jewelry. He filed for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, citing cruelty and desertion.
However, the family court dismissed his plea, leading to this appeal. Representing the wife, advocate Sameer Saurabh argued that the 75km commute was physically impossible daily, and she stayed at her father's house solely for work. He highlighted her visits to the matrimonial home during holidays and consistent financial support.
The High Court's decision reinforces that practical necessities in a marriage, such as workplace proximity, should not be mischaracterized as marital faults. It underscores the judiciary's role in interpreting legal provisions with empathy and context, ensuring that compulsion is not conflated with willful neglect in matrimonial disputes.
