Case at a Glance
A husband appealed against a Dhanbad Family Court decree that refused him divorce on the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. He alleged that his wife refused intimacy, quarrelled, misbehaved at family events and that her mother interfered in the marriage. The Jharkhand High Court found his witnesses’ testimony hearsay or contradictory, held that pen-drive material never supplied to the wife did not prove anything, and noted that the real obstacle to cohabitation was the husband’s own refusal to take her back. The appeal was dismissed and the Family Court’s decree affirmed.
The parties married in 2018 (the judgment records 29.04.2018, while the husband’s testimony gives 29.07.2018). The husband alleged that the wife refused physical intimacy, confined herself to her room, picked quarrels and misbehaved at family functions, and he blamed her mother for interfering in the marriage. The wife left the matrimonial home on 3 June 2021; each side gave a different account of why.
The wife denied the allegations and in turn alleged dowry demands, surveillance and other cruelty by the husband and his family. Criminal and maintenance proceedings between the parties were pending, and the wife told the court that she wished to continue the marriage. The Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court-II, Dhanbad dismissed the husband’s divorce suit (Original Suit No. 536 of 2021) by judgment dated 17 January 2025, and he appealed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984.
The Key Question Before the Court
Had the husband proved, on a preponderance of probabilities, that the wife treated him with cruelty so as to justify divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — and was the Family Court wrong to dismiss his suit?
Why the Division Bench Found No Cruelty Proved
The Bench first recalled the scope of a first appeal: it can re-appreciate the evidence, but will interfere only where findings are perverse, contrary to the record or unsustainable in law. Testing the record against the standards laid down in Dr. N.G. Dastane v. Mrs. S. Dastane, (1975) 03 SC CK 0038, Vishwanath Agrawal v. Sarla Vishwanath Agrawal, (2012) 07 SC CK 0001 and K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa, (2013) 02 SC CK 0086, and Joydeep Majumdar v. Bharti Jaiswal Majumdar, (2021) 02 SC CK 0065, it held that “Mere allegations in the plaint, in the absence of satisfactory proof, cannot constitute the basis” for a decree. The husband’s own testimony was found to rest on hearsay — “The testimony of P.W-1, being based on hearsay, lacks probative value” — and his supporting witnesses were contradictory. He also admitted that the wife took part in family events, which undercut his claim of misbehaviour.
On the mother-in-law, the Court said a matrimonial decree cannot be granted merely on a general allegation that a relative interfered; the real question is whether the wife’s own conduct amounted to cruelty. On the pen drive, the Court, referring to Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer, (2014) 09 SC CK 0079, Shafhi Mohammad v. State of H.P., (2018) 01 SC CK 0038 and Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, (2020) 07 SC CK 0006, observed that “the mere production of electronic material does not, by itself, establish the truth of its contents”, and noted that the wife “was admittedly not supplied a copy thereof despite opportunities being granted”. Finally, since the husband had “categorically deposed that he does not wish to keep her with him”, the impediment to cohabitation arose from his own refusal to resume matrimonial life.
What the Court Actually Held
- The husband failed to establish that the wife treated him with cruelty within Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
- Hearsay and contradictory testimony, and bare averments in the plaint, cannot found a divorce decree.
- Electronic material (a pen drive) not supplied to the other side and not properly proved does not establish the truth of its contents.
- The Family Court committed no error of law; the appeal was dismissed and the judgment dated 17 January 2025 and decree signed on 29 January 2025 were affirmed.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It reiterates that cruelty must be proved with credible, first-hand evidence — not general complaints about quarrels or in-laws’ interference.
- It warns litigants that recordings and pen drives are not self-proving: fairness (supplying copies) and proper proof both matter.
- A spouse who himself refuses cohabitation cannot easily turn the resulting separation into a ground of cruelty against the other.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Spouses
- Keep a clear record of specific incidents (dates, witnesses) rather than general grievances.
- If you rely on recordings, make sure copies are served and authenticity can be proved.
- Stating in court that you will not live with your spouse may weaken your own cruelty case.
For Counsel
- Lead first-hand witnesses; hearsay from relatives carries little weight in matrimonial appeals.
- Comply with Section 65B (now Section 63 BSA) and supply electronic evidence to the opposite side in time.
- Frame the appeal around perversity in the Family Court’s findings — the appellate threshold under Section 19 is high.
Key Takeaways
- Cruelty under Section 13(1)(i-a) HMA must be proved on a preponderance of probabilities with satisfactory evidence.
- General allegations of interference by the wife’s mother do not prove the wife’s own cruelty.
- Electronic evidence not shared with the other party and not authenticated does not prove its contents.
- The Jharkhand High Court affirmed the Dhanbad Family Court’s refusal of divorce.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a husband get divorce if the wife refuses to live with him?
Only if the facts amount to a recognised ground such as cruelty or desertion and are proved. Here the Court found the separation was linked to the husband’s own refusal to take the wife back, and cruelty was not proved.
Is a pen drive recording enough to prove cruelty?
Not by itself. The Court said mere production of electronic material does not establish the truth of its contents; it must be properly proved, and here a copy had not even been supplied to the wife.
Does interference by the wife’s mother amount to cruelty by the wife?
Not automatically. The Court said a decree cannot rest on a general allegation that a relative interfered — the wife’s own conduct must amount to cruelty.
Conclusion
Niraj Kathuria v. Palak Kathuria, (2026) 10 JH CK 0522 is a reminder that the matrimonial court decides on proof, not on the number of grievances in a plaint. With hearsay witnesses, an unshared pen drive and his own refusal to resume cohabitation, the husband could not show the Family Court had erred, and his appeal failed.
Practical takeaway: In a cruelty divorce, lead first-hand evidence of specific incidents, prove electronic records properly and serve copies on the other side — otherwise the claim is likely to fail at trial and on appeal.
Read the full judgment on CourtKutchehry: View judgment →
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com