Jharkhand High Court Upholds Dismissal of Divorce Plea, Finds No Proof of Cruelty or Desertion

News Citation : 2026 LN (HC) 113 | 2026:JHHC:1815-DB

January 24, 2026 : The Jharkhand High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by a husband challenging the rejection of his divorce petition, holding that allegations of cruelty and desertion against his wife were not supported by credible evidence. A Division Bench of Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Arun Kumar Rai affirmed the Family Court’s 2022 decision that had refused to dissolve the marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

The appeal arose from a matrimonial dispute between Sandeep Pramanik and his wife Jyotsna Pramanik. The couple married in June 2010 and have a son born in November 2011. The husband, employed as a Project Associate at IIT Delhi, alleged that his wife subjected him and his family to mental and physical cruelty, pressured him to separate from his parents, and deserted the matrimonial home in 2012. He also claimed that she threatened suicide and criminal cases if her demands were not met.

On these grounds, he sought divorce under Sections 13(1)(i-a) and 13(1)(i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, citing cruelty and desertion. The Family Court at Chaibasa, after recording evidence from both sides, dismissed the suit, concluding that neither ground was proved.

Before the High Court, the husband argued that the Family Court had ignored material evidence and that its findings were perverse. He relied on witness testimonies and documents to assert that the wife’s conduct caused severe mental cruelty and that she had willfully deserted him for more than two years.

The wife, however, consistently denied the allegations. She maintained that she was subjected to harassment and dowry demands by her husband and in-laws, that she was forced to leave the matrimonial home, and that she was always willing to resume cohabitation. She also pointed out contradictions in the husband’s evidence and highlighted admissions made by his own witnesses.

After examining the full record, the High Court found that the husband failed to establish cruelty of the nature required under law. The Bench noted that key allegations were not corroborated by independent or consistent evidence. Significantly, the husband’s father admitted during cross-examination that the divorce case was filed on the basis of false allegations and that he had no complaints about his daughter-in-law’s behavior during her stay at the matrimonial home.

On the issue of desertion, the Court held that the essential elements were not proved. The wife had repeatedly expressed her willingness to live with her husband, and the evidence suggested that she was compelled to stay away rather than having abandoned the marriage with the intention to permanently end cohabitation. In such circumstances, the statutory requirement of “animus deserendi” was not satisfied.

The Bench also reiterated settled Supreme Court principles on cruelty and desertion, emphasizing that normal wear and tear of marital life cannot be treated as cruelty and that desertion requires clear proof of intentional and permanent abandonment without reasonable cause.

Finding no perversity or legal infirmity in the Family Court’s reasoning, the High Court refused to interfere with the impugned judgment. The appeal was accordingly dismissed on January 22, 2026, and the rejection of the divorce petition was upheld.

Case Reference : F.A. No. 123 of 2022, Sandeep Pramanik vs. Jyotsna Paramanik; counsels appearing were Mr. Kalyan Banerjee, Advocate for the appellant, and Mr. Anjani Kumar, Advocate for the respondent.