The Jharkhand High Court has clarified that a spouse’s residence near their workplace due to unavoidable commuting constraints cannot be construed as cruelty or desertion under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. This judgment reinforces the principle that marital obligations must be interpreted with sensitivity to practical realities, particularly when gender, employment, and geographic distance intersect.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellant, Rajkumar Paul, sought divorce from his wife, Mamta Kumari, on grounds of cruelty and desertion under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. He alleged that after their marriage in December 2016, the respondent refused to reside with him at his family home in Birajpur and Dumka, instead choosing to live permanently at her father’s house in Piprasole, Jamtara. He claimed she subjected him to mental cruelty through threats of suicide, quarrels with his parents, and eventual abandonment.
Procedural History
- December 2016: Marriage solemnized under Hindu rites; respondent was a government school teacher.
- July 2017: Respondent took maternity leave; resided with appellant during pregnancy.
- September 2017: Child born; respondent discharged from hospital within five hours and taken to Palojori, 50 km away.
- March 2018: Respondent left matrimonial home permanently, citing health deterioration and lack of medical care.
- 2021: Appellant filed suit for restitution of conjugal rights; settled via compromise.
- 2023: Appellant filed divorce suit under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib); dismissed by Family Court, Jamtara.
- 2025: Appeal filed before Jharkhand High Court.
Relief Sought
The appellant sought dissolution of marriage on grounds of mental cruelty and desertion, along with custody of the child and maintenance.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a wife’s prolonged residence at her parental home, necessitated by a 75-kilometre daily commute to her government school job, constitutes mental cruelty or desertion under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
The appellant’s counsel argued that the respondent’s refusal to reside with him, despite repeated efforts to reconcile, amounted to willful abandonment. He cited threats of suicide, refusal to remit salary during maternity leave, and failure to resume conjugal life after settlement as evidence of cruelty. He relied on Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh to argue that sustained neglect and emotional distress meet the threshold for mental cruelty.
For the Respondent
The respondent’s counsel contended that her residence at her father’s house was not voluntary but compelled by the impracticality of daily 75-km commuting, especially during pregnancy and postpartum recovery. She produced bank records showing regular salary transfers to the appellant’s account, proving her commitment to the marriage. She cited A. Jayachandra v. Aneel Kaur to argue that conduct must be grave and weighty to constitute cruelty, and that mere separation due to employment logistics does not equate to desertion.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a nuanced examination of the facts against the legal framework established in Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh and A. Jayachandra v. Aneel Kaur. It emphasized that mental cruelty must be persistent, grave, and capable of making marital life intolerable - not merely the result of domestic friction or logistical inconvenience.
"The reason for staying at the parent's house of the respondent was of being near to her school where she is working as a Government Teacher. The distance between the matrimonial house of the respondent and the school is 75 km and understandably for a female it is not possible to commute and cover such distance on a daily basis more so, when the means of commuting are limited."
The Court noted that the respondent had consistently attempted to maintain the marriage: she resided with the appellant during festivals and holidays, transferred Rs. 20,000 - 25,000 monthly to support the household, and sought transfer to a nearby school. Her departure was not an act of hostility but a necessity for professional continuity and health preservation.
The Court further held that desertion requires both factum of separation and animus deserendi - a deliberate intention to abandon the marital relationship. Here, the respondent’s actions demonstrated no such intent; rather, she expressed willingness to reunite and even participated in multiple mediation attempts.
The appellant’s failure to produce any corroborative evidence of verbal abuse, physical threats, or financial neglect further weakened his claim. The Court concluded that the trial court correctly appreciated the evidence and that the appellant’s allegations amounted to ordinary marital discord, not legally cognizable cruelty or desertion.
The Verdict
The appeal was dismissed. The Court held that residence near a workplace due to long-distance commuting does not constitute cruelty or desertion under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, provided the spouse maintains financial and emotional ties to the marriage. The burden of proving grave and sustained misconduct remains on the petitioner, which was not discharged here.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Commuting Constraints Are Not Desertion
- Practitioners must now distinguish between voluntary abandonment and involuntary separation due to employment obligations.
- Evidence of regular financial support, communication, and attempts at reconciliation rebut claims of animus deserendi.
- Courts will not penalize spouses - particularly women - for prioritizing professional stability in the absence of malicious intent.
Mental Cruelty Requires More Than Discomfort
- Isolated quarrels, refusal to relocate, or emotional distance do not automatically qualify as mental cruelty.
- The conduct must be systematically degrading, abusive, or life-threatening, as per Samar Ghosh.
- Courts will examine the totality of conduct, including economic contributions and efforts to preserve the marriage.
Burden of Proof Remains on the Petitioner
- Petitioners alleging cruelty or desertion must provide concrete, corroborated evidence - not mere allegations.
- Bank statements, medical records, and witness testimony showing continued marital engagement are critical defenses.
- Settlements or compromises in prior suits (e.g., restitution of conjugal rights) weigh heavily against claims of irretrievable breakdown.
