The Jharkhand High Court ruled that accessing a wife’s private photographs without her consent and showing them to family members amounts to grave mental cruelty, as it humiliates her and destroys the trust and dignity essential to a marital relationship.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
RANCHI: In a ruling on mental cruelty under matrimonial law, the Jharkhand High Court has held that a husband accessing his wife’s private photographs without her consent and showing them to his family members amounts to grave mental cruelty, warranting dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Allowing a first appeal filed by the wife, the Division Bench set aside the Family Court’s refusal to grant divorce, observing that the trial court failed to appreciate the evidence in its correct legal perspective and ignored clear indicators of mental cruelty.
Background of the Case
The parties were married on 13 March 2020 according to Hindu rites. Within less than two months of marriage, the relationship deteriorated, and the wife left the matrimonial home on 10 May 2020.
The wife approached the Family Court at Dhanbad seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty, alleging that:
- Her husband accessed her mobile phone without consent while she was asleep
- He retrieved private and objectionable photographs stored in her Google Drive
- The photographs were transferred to his phone and used to threaten and blackmail her
- She was subjected to continuous mental harassment and humiliation
- The husband showed the photographs to his parents and family members
- She was forced to sign a declaration stating she was leaving voluntarily and would claim no future rights
- Her stridhan was allegedly snatched, and she was driven out of the matrimonial home
The husband denied the allegations and claimed that the wife had concealed a prior romantic relationship, continued communicating with another man after marriage, and was unwilling to sever that relationship. He maintained that he was still willing to continue the marriage.
Family Court’s Decision
The Family Court dismissed the wife’s divorce petition, holding that she failed to prove cruelty even on a preponderance of probabilities.
Aggrieved by this decision, the wife filed a first appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, before the Jharkhand High Court.
High Court’s Analysis
Reiterating its powers as a first appellate court, the High Court reassessed both facts and law and undertook a detailed examination of witness testimonies and established legal principles on cruelty.
Key Observations of the Court
Mental cruelty includes humiliation and damage to dignity:
The Court held that cruelty is not limited to physical violence. Acts that harm a spouse’s reputation, dignity, and mental peace constitute mental cruelty.
Accessing private photographs without consent is a serious violation:
Retrieving a spouse’s private photographs without consent and using them as a tool of intimidation was held to be deeply humiliating and abusive.
Showing private photos to family members amounts to character assassination:
The Court emphasized that exposing a spouse’s private material to family members results in character assassination, which is a grave form of mental cruelty.
Trust is the foundation of marriage:
The Bench observed:
“Relationship of wife and husband is based on trust and respect… if it is broken, it is non-repairable as trust is the foundation of marriage.”
Wife cannot be expected to live under psychological terror:
The Court held that the wife could not reasonably be expected to continue living in a marriage where she was subjected to intimidation, humiliation, and emotional distress.
The High Court observed that the Family Court had missed key evidence showing mental cruelty, overlooked well-established Supreme Court principles, and adopted an overly narrow view of what constitutes cruelty. By failing to appreciate the emotional and psychological impact of the husband’s actions, the lower court’s judgment ignored the real harm suffered by the wife and did not reflect the full context of the case.
Terming the Family Court’s decision perverse, the High Court set aside the impugned judgment.
The High Court:
- allowed the appeal filed by the wife
- quashed and set aside the Family Court judgment dated 19 September 2023
- granted a decree of divorce in favour of the wife under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Case Title:
Debleena Dutta vs. Suman Kumar Ruj
First Appeal No. 327 of 2023
READ JUDGMENT
Click Here to Read More Reports On Mental Cruelty