Jharkhand High Court grants wife divorce after holding that a husband’s insistence that she accept his extramarital relationship and live with the other woman as a “younger sister” is mental cruelty of the gravest kind, and that the Family Court’s contrary finding was perverse.
Ranchi: The Jharkhand High Court has dissolved the marriage of two medical practitioners on the wife’s appeal, ruling that a husband who insists that his wife accept his relationship with another woman, and live with her as a “younger sister”, subjects the wife to mental cruelty of the gravest kind. The Court set aside a Hazaribagh Family Court judgment that had refused the wife a divorce [S.K. v. R.K.S.].
A Division Bench of Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava allowed First Appeal No. 82 of 2024, filed under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, and granted a decree of divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The judgment was reserved on August 17, 2026 and pronounced on September 23, 2026.
How the case reached the High Court
The parties married on February 24, 2018 under Hindu rites at Charhi in Hazaribagh district and have lived apart since September 5, 2019. No child was born of the marriage. On January 18, 2022 the husband sued for restitution of conjugal rights and obtained an ex parte decree on January 17, 2023. The wife had meanwhile filed her own petition on April 5, 2022, seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act.
The Family Court at Hazaribagh dismissed her petition on November 17, 2023 in Original Suit No. 75 of 2022, holding that no cause of action was made out and that she had not discharged the burden of proof. She challenged that judgment before the High Court.
The wife’s case
The wife alleged that her husband was in a relationship with a widow, that he signed a bond after family intervention promising to end it, and that the relationship nonetheless continued. She also alleged that he assaulted her repeatedly, leaving her with a spinal condition and osteoarthritis. These were the allegations before the courts, and the husband contested the appeal through counsel. The High Court examined them against the evidence on record, including the testimony of her father, uncle and brother and her medical records.
What the Court said
The Bench held that the Family Court had appreciated the evidence “in piece meal” and had ignored the principle of preponderance of probability, which is the test in matrimonial proceedings. It found the trial court’s conclusion on cruelty perverse. The Court said the wife’s testimony stood corroborated by her family members and that medical records from a clinic owned by her father could not be discarded merely for that reason.
On the husband’s relationship, the Court held that his insistence that the wife accept it and live with the other woman as a “younger sister” caused her mental cruelty. In the words of the judgment:
“it is the mental cruelty caused by him by having illicit relationship with another women”
Prolonged separation and breakdown of trust
Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh (2007) 4 SCC 511, the Bench noted that prolonged separation can itself amount to mental cruelty, and observed that the Family Court had not considered the parties’ separation since 2019. It recorded that trust is the foundation of a marriage and that, here, “the thread of trust has already been broken”.
“it is manifest that the marriage has broken down and is beyond repair”
The directions
The High Court quashed and set aside the Family Court’s judgment of November 17, 2023, allowed the appeal and dissolved the marriage by a decree of divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. No amount of alimony was fixed. The wife was granted liberty to approach the Family Court under Section 25 of the Act by instituting proceedings and leading evidence. Pending interlocutory applications were disposed of, and no direction on costs was made. As the couple has no children, no custody question arose.
Why the judgment matters
The ruling shows how an appellate court reads matrimonial evidence as a whole and by the civil standard of preponderance of probability, rather than demanding proof beyond doubt. A trial court that weighs each piece of evidence in isolation risks a finding that the High Court will treat as perverse.
It also confirms two strands of cruelty law under Section 13(1)(i-a): that pressing a spouse to accept an extramarital relationship can be mental cruelty in itself, and that a long separation with broken trust can support a decree even where the Family Court saw no cause of action. The findings rest on the evidence in this record and do not lay down a rule for every dispute of this kind.
Case Title: S.K. v. R.K.S. [First Appeal No. 82 of 2024]
Bench: Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, Jharkhand High Court
Date of Judgment: September 23, 2026
Appearances: Advocates Abhishek Thakur and Pratyush Navneet for the appellant (wife); Advocate Soumitra Baroi for the respondent (husband)