Is Accusing Wife Of Adultery merely because she talks to a male friend a ground for divorce? The Jharkhand High Court has said it is a gender-based stereotype that itself amounts to cruelty towards her, turning down a husband’s appeal.
Ranchi: A husband who said his wife was in an extramarital relationship because she spoke to a man over the phone has lost his appeal against the refusal of a divorce, with the Jharkhand High Court holding that he failed to prove either cruelty or desertion and that the allegation was itself a stereotype amounting to cruelty towards her [X v. Y].
A Division Bench of Chief Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Manoj Prasad pronounced the judgment on November 3, 2026, with Justice Manoj Prasad authoring it. The matter had been reserved on October 7, 2026.
Why cruelty was not made out
The High Court agreed with the Family Court that the husband had not proved cruelty. It noted that his witnesses were outsiders to the marriage:
“Two of them appear to be his colleagues and friends, who are not family members. Their evidence, therefore, cannot be accepted without an element of suspicion. Evidence from a family member, particularly the mother, who is also alleged by the respondent to be a victim of such quarrels, would have corroborated the present appellant’s case, but such evidence has not been brought on record.”
The couple’s daughter was about 11 years old when she testified, and the Bench gave her evidence little weight because she stated in cross-examination that it had been prepared at her father’s dictation. On the husband’s own testimony, it said:
“No complaint was made before any competent authority, nor was any effort made towards reconciliation at any time. These facts lead to the conclusion that the allegations of cruelty were not proved by the present appellant.”
The phone-call allegation
The husband’s plea of mental cruelty rested on the assertion that his wife had an extramarital relationship, including claims that she used to talk to an unknown man over his own mobile phone. The Bench said:
“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.”
Unproven counter-allegations of an extramarital relationship by a wife against her husband may also amount to cruelty, the Court added, but here the allegations came from the husband. It therefore held that no case of mental cruelty against the wife was made out.
Desertion not established either
The divorce petition did not cite Section 13(1)(i-b), yet the Court examined desertion because it had been pleaded and an issue had been framed on it. An earlier order of a coordinate Bench recorded that the wife had expressed her wish to restore conjugal life, which the husband refused. The Court held that this showed there was no intention on her part to desert.
It also noted a 2015 compromise between the parties in a criminal case, with terms requiring them to live together. It observed:
“However, it appears that the compromise was entered into only for the purpose of settling the criminal case, as despite the terms of the compromise requiring the parties to live together, the same appears not to have been complied with.”
The husband had even challenged an interim maintenance order of just Rs 3,000 a month under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. That challenge was dismissed, and it “speaks volumes” about his conduct, the Court remarked.
How the dispute reached the High Court
The couple married in April 2005 according to Hindu rites and have a son and a daughter. In 2021, the husband sought divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, before the Additional Family Court, Bermo at Tenughat, Bokaro. His case was that his wife had never sought a marital relationship, that there were constant quarrels because she kept talking to a male friend on the phone, and that she had left for her parental home in 2015.
The wife alleged dowry-related torture at the matrimonial home and said her husband never tried to bring her back or restore conjugal life. The Family Court dismissed the divorce petition by a judgment dated November 30, 2023, and a decree dated December 7, 2023, and the husband appealed under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984.
Result
The Bench dismissed the appeal without costs, holding that the husband failed to make out a case of cruelty or desertion. It passed no separate order on interim maintenance, but left the wife free to seek modification of that order on changed circumstances before the competent court.
Why the judgment matters
Divorce petitions on the ground of cruelty often lean on suspicion of infidelity drawn from ordinary social contact. The ruling makes clear that treating a woman’s conversation with a male friend as proof of adultery is a stereotype, and that levelling such an unproven charge can itself be cruelty towards the wife rather than a ground against her.
The judgment also restates the evidentiary standard in such cases: allegations of cruelty need credible corroboration, testimony of a child shaped by one parent carries little weight, and a spouse who refuses the other’s offer to resume married life cannot claim desertion.
Case Title: X v. Y (party names withheld)
Case No.: F.A. No. 23 of 2024; Neutral Citation 2026:JHHC:32222-DB
Bench: Chief Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Manoj Prasad, Jharkhand High Court
Date of Judgment: November 3, 2026 (reserved on October 7, 2026)
Appearances: Atanu Banerjee for the appellant-husband; Ranjan Kumar for the respondent-wife; Ashwini Bhushan, AC to Sr. SC-II, for the State
![[The New Indian vs. 4 PM Evening Newspaper] Delhi HC Directs Editor-In-Chief To Remove Defamatory Tweets](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/image-26-6.png?resize=420%2C345&ssl=1)
