The Jharkhand High Court has denied a man’s request for divorce, which was based on his wife’s conviction in a dowry-death case concerning her sister-in-law. The court maintained that even a serious criminal conviction does not serve as sufficient grounds for dissolving a marriage.
A bench consisting of Justices Sujit Narayan Prasad and Sanjay Prasad observed that the wife had been acquitted by the high court in the criminal matter. They emphasized that even if her conviction had remained in effect, it would not constitute a valid reason for divorce.
The ruling, issued on August 27, stated, “The petitioner (husband) cannot seek the dissolution of marriage solely on the basis of the respondent (wife)’s criminal conviction. This court is firmly of the opinion that the conviction of the respondent-wife under Section 304B IPC, despite its seriousness, does not provide a legitimate basis for divorce under the relevant law.”
The husband was appealing a family court decision from July 2017, which rejected his divorce application on the grounds of cruelty and desertion.
He claimed to have married the woman in February 1999 after previously being married to another woman, with whom he shares a son and daughter, aged 16 and 13 at the time of filing for divorce.
The husband contended that the marriage with his current wife was arranged with the understanding that his children would live with them, and they all resided together in a flat provided by his employer. However, he alleged that during their cohabitation, the wife subjected her stepchildren to severe mistreatment. He said that when the treatment became intolerable, he had no choice but to send the children to their maternal grandfather’s home.
He further alleged that the parents and brother of the wife began living there and reportedly started extorting money from him. Frustrated by the situation, the husband claimed he moved to a rented accommodation to find some peace of mind. He initially filed a matrimonial case but later withdrew it in December 2001, citing insufficient evidence.
The husband’s lawyer, Sanjeev Thakur, argued that the wife’s conviction for her involvement in the dowry death of her sister-in-law indicated a criminal mindset, making it unsafe for the husband to continue their marriage. He also asserted that the wife’s actions constituted cruelty, claiming she had filed multiple criminal cases against him and his family.
In contrast, the wife’s attorney, Saurav Arun, maintained that the family court rightly concluded there was no substantial evidence of cruelty or desertion, leading to the dismissal of the divorce petition.
The court highlighted that matrimonial law does not recognize a criminal conviction, regardless of its severity, as a standalone reason for divorce. It referenced the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955, which explicitly outlines acceptable grounds for marriage dissolution and does not include criminal convictions as a valid basis.
The ruling emphasized, “Even if the conviction were to remain, it does not automatically equate to cruelty or any other recognized ground for divorce.”
The court also remarked that within two years following the withdrawal of the husband’s previous case, both parties had initiated numerous criminal proceedings against each other, with the husband filing more cases than the wife. “The multitude of cases indicates mutual animosity rather than one-sided persecution,” the court explained.
Regarding the allegations of child abuse, the court found no supporting evidence that the wife had mistreated the husband’s children, noting that they were residing with their maternal grandfather and not with the couple.
On the matter of desertion, the court indicated that the husband claimed he left the marital home due to the alleged cruelty of his wife. However, it determined that he was the one who deserted her, and the wife expressed a willingness to continue their marriage.
As a result, the court dismissed the husband’s appeal, affirming the family court’s decision and stating that it did not necessitate any intervention. The judges concluded that “the family judge has accurately determined that the appellant-husband has failed to substantiate the legal grounds of cruelty and desertion against the respondent-wife.”
Richa Sahay serves as a Legal Correspondent for The Indian Express (Digital), focusing on elucidating the intricacies of the Indian judicial system. A postgraduate in law, she utilizes her advanced legal knowledge to connect complex court decisions with public comprehension, ensuring readers remain informed about the swiftly changing legal environment.
