Case at a Glance
A husband sought divorce for cruelty and desertion, saying his wife refused to return after a short marriage. The Family Court, Janjgir, refused divorce and allowed the wife's application under Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act for return of her stridhan. The Chhattisgarh High Court held that cruelty and desertion were not proved, that there was no animus deserendi, and that the evidence suggested the husband's family had sent her to her parents' home after she fell ill. The appeal was dismissed.
Background
The parties married on 7 March 2019 at Raigarh. On 5 November 2019 the husband approached a counselling centre, and on 16 December 2019 the wife refused to return to the matrimonial home. The husband filed Civil Suit No. 129A/22 for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, on the grounds of cruelty and desertion.
On 28 August 2024 the Family Court, Janjgir, rejected the husband's petition and allowed the wife's application under Section 27, directing return of her stridhan within one month. The husband appealed.
The Question Before the Court
Did the husband prove cruelty or desertion, including the intention to desert, on the wife's part?
Living Apart Is Not Desertion
The Court explained that desertion requires both separation and animus deserendi, the intention to end cohabitation permanently, without reasonable cause and without the other spouse's consent. Here, the evidence suggested that the wife was sent to her parental home by the husband's family after she fell ill, which is inconsistent with her deserting him. The husband had not established that she left with the intention of abandoning the marriage.
On cruelty, the Court referred to Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh and found that the husband's evidence did not reach the threshold of mental cruelty. Finding no illegality in the Family Court's judgment, it dismissed the appeal without costs, leaving the Section 27 order intact.
What the Court Held
- Desertion requires an intention to desert (animus deserendi), which was not proved.
- The evidence suggested the wife was sent to her parents by the husband's family after her illness.
- Cruelty was not established under the Samar Ghosh standard.
- The appeal was dismissed without costs, and the Family Court's Section 27 order stands.
Why It Matters
- Separation caused by the husband's side cannot be recast as the wife's desertion.
- Section 27 lets a Family Court order return of stridhan within divorce proceedings.
- A counselling-centre complaint does not by itself prove cruelty.
For Litigants / For Counsel
For litigants
- If you were sent away, that is not desertion by you.
- You can seek return of your stridhan in the same proceeding under Section 27.
For counsel
- Lead evidence on who caused the separation and why.
- Prove the stridhan items and their value specifically.
Key Takeaways
- Divorce refused.
- No intention to desert.
- Cruelty not proved.
- Stridhan order stands.
FAQs
What is animus deserendi?
The intention to end cohabitation permanently; without it, living apart is not desertion.
What is Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act?
It lets the court deal with property presented at or about the marriage that belongs jointly to the spouses.
Was the stridhan order changed?
No. The appeal was dismissed, so it stands.
Conclusion
The Chhattisgarh High Court held that a wife sent to her parents' home after an illness had not deserted her husband, and left her stridhan relief in place.
Practical takeaway: in desertion cases, courts ask not just who left but why, and with what intention.