The Jharkhand High Court has upheld a Family Court decree dissolving a marriage on grounds of cruelty and desertion, ruling that the wife's evasive written statement amounted to an admission of the husband's allegations under Order VIII Rules 3, 4 and 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Division Bench also enhanced the interim maintenance from Rs.10,000 to Rs.15,000 per month while dismissing the wife's appeal.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellant-wife, Pinki Kumari, challenged the judgment dated 24.11.2021 (decree signed 30.11.2021) passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Jamshedpur in Matrimonial Suit No.105 of 2015. The respondent-husband, Ravi Kumar, had filed a petition for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion under Section 13(1)(i-a) and 13(1)(i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Key Facts
- The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 23.11.2008 at Madhubani, Bihar as per Hindu rituals
- Both parties started residing together at Jamshedpur from 28.11.2008
- A daughter was born out of the wedlock, who was later detected to be suffering from cancer and taken to Mumbai for treatment
- The husband alleged the wife's erratic behavior: quarreling with family members for petty causes, throwing hot pans during meals, not accompanying the daughter for cancer treatment in Mumbai, psychiatric issues requiring medical treatment, physical assault on the infant child (putting her in cold water tub during winter, attempting to throw her from balcony)
- The wife left the matrimonial home and resided with her parents; no restitution of conjugal rights or cohabitation occurred thereafter
- The wife did not visit the minor child during the entire period
- After institution of the divorce petition, the wife filed an FIR under Section 498-A IPC against the husband without any averment of dowry demand or cruelty against her
Procedural History
- 2015: Matrimonial Suit No.105 of 2015 filed by respondent-husband before Family Court, Jamshedpur
- 24.11.2021: Family Court judgment allowing divorce petition on grounds of cruelty and desertion (decree signed 30.11.2021)
- 2021: First Appeal No. 68 of 2021 filed by appellant-wife under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984
- 13.10.2026: Appeal reserved for judgment
- 05.11.2026: Judgment pronounced by Division Bench of Jharkhand High Court
The Parties' Positions
Appellant-wife: Contested the allegations through vague and general denial in written statement; argued psychiatric allegations unsubstantiated; contended husband brought her to parental home and left her there, thus husband deserted wife; denied cruelty and desertion allegations.
Respondent-husband: Asserted case well proved through three witnesses (himself, his father, his uncle); maintained wife guilty of cruelty and desertion; admitted offering Rs.25 lakhs as one-time alimony which was accepted but later retracted due to Rs.40 lakhs spent on daughter's treatment; offered Rs.15 lakhs as final settlement.
Relief Sought
The appellant sought setting aside of the divorce decree and dismissal of the husband's petition. The respondent sought confirmation of the decree. Both parties engaged in settlement discussions for permanent alimony (Rs.25 lakhs offered, retracted; Rs.15 lakhs counter-offer; Court suggested Rs.20 lakhs).
The Legal Issue
The central questions were: (1) Whether the respondent-husband proved a case of cruelty and desertion by the appellant-wife entitling him to a decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) and 13(1)(i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; (2) Whether the appellant's written statement, containing evasive and rhetorical denials, constituted an admission of the allegations under Order VIII Rules 3, 4 and 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure; (3) What constitutes appropriate permanent alimony given the parties' circumstances and the child's medical needs.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
Ms. Amrita Sinha, Amicus Curiae, submitted that the allegations regarding the appellant's psychiatric problem remain unsubstantiated for lack of medical documents. She argued that the respondent admitted bringing his wife to her parents' house and leaving her there, which demolishes the desertion case against the wife. Counsel conceded the minor daughter's cancer and treatment expenses, and that the child is in father's custody, but maintained the cruelty and desertion allegations are false. Counsel also highlighted the respondent's initial offer of Rs.25 lakhs as permanent alimony (accepted by appellant) and subsequent retraction to Rs.15 lakhs.
For the Respondent
Mr. Anurag Kashyap submitted the impugned order suffers no illegality. The respondent's case was well proved through three witnesses whose testimony remained unshaken in cross-examination. The appellant's evidence practically amounted to not disputing the allegations. Counsel admitted the initial Rs.25 lakhs alimony offer but explained retraction due to Rs.40 lakhs spent on daughter's treatment, offering Rs.15 lakhs as per capacity.
The Court's Analysis
The Division Bench, per Justice Manoj Prasad, first examined the pleadings. The appellant's written statement contained rhetorical denials: paragraphs 4-19 of the plaint were called "a concocted reservoir of low standard rhetoric" and paragraphs 20-30 described as "restlessly riding a plain of wrong and empty explanations." The Court held:
"We are of the considered view that such a reply does not comply with the requirements of Order VIII Rules 3, 4 and 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Order VIII Rule 3 of the CPC mandates that every fact must be specifically denied, and Order VIII Rule 4 stipulates that an evasive denial is no denial. In the facts of the present case, such a reply in the written statement amounts to an evasive denial, which, as a matter of law, shall be treated as no denial. Order VIII Rule 5 of the CPC provides that facts not denied shall be deemed to be admitted."
Thus, the allegations of cruelty and desertion stood admitted from the pleadings alone.
The Court then examined the evidence. Three witnesses for the respondent (P.W.-1 Ravi Kumar, P.W.-2 Brajmohan Jha, P.W.-3 Manoj Kumar Jha) reiterated the plaint assertions. Nothing in cross-examination discredited their testimony. The appellant (D.W.-1) in examination-in-chief made statements similar to her written statement, "practically amounts to not disputing the allegations levelled against her."
On cruelty, the Court found the appellant's admission of leaving her minor child at 7 months, not caring for the child despite knowing the cancer diagnosis, constitutes acts falling under Section 13(1)(i-a). The filing of a Section 498-A FIR after the divorce petition without any dowry demand averment was also considered an element of cruelty, following the Trial Court's reliance on Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli (2006) 4 SCC 558 and V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat (1994) 1 SCC 337.
On desertion, the appellant's cross-examination admission - "जब बेटी सात महीना की थी तभी माँ मायके चली गई और तब से पिता से कोई संपर्क नहीं है" (when the daughter was seven months old, mother went to her parental home and since then there is no contact with father) - was treated as a clear admission of desertion for over two years prior to filing the petition.
On permanent alimony, the Court considered affidavits filed pursuant to a Co-ordinate Bench direction and the Supreme Court's guidelines in Rajnesh v. Neha & Another (2021) 2 SCC 324. The Court enhanced the monthly alimony from Rs.10,000 to Rs.15,000 per month, granting liberty to apply for modification under changed circumstances.
The Verdict
The First Appeal was dismissed without any order as to costs. The divorce decree on grounds of cruelty and desertion under Section 13(1)(i-a) and 13(1)(i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was upheld. The interim alimony of Rs.10,000 per month was enhanced to Rs.15,000 per month. The parties were granted liberty to file appropriate applications before a competent court for modification of the alimony amount under changed circumstances. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, were disposed of.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Evasive Denials Constitute Admissions
- A written statement containing rhetorical, vague, or evasive denials - rather than specific denials of each factual allegation - will be treated as no denial under Order VIII Rules 3, 4 and 5 CPC
- Facts not specifically denied are deemed admitted under Order VIII Rule 5 CPC, relieving the opposing party of the burden of proof on those facts
- Practitioners must ensure written statements contain specific, paragraph-by-paragraph denials with supporting particulars; generic rhetoric is legally insufficient
Cruelty Encompasses Child Neglect and Misuse of Process
- Abandonment of a minor child (especially one with serious illness) by a mother, coupled with complete disengagement from the child's care, constitutes cruelty under Section 13(1)(i-a) HMA
- Filing a false Section 498-A IPC complaint after institution of divorce proceedings, without any averment of dowry demand or cruelty against the wife, is a relevant factor establishing mental cruelty against the husband
- Courts will examine the totality of conduct - including behavior toward in-laws, treatment of children, and litigation conduct - in assessing cruelty
Desertion Established by Admission and Conduct
- A party's own admission in cross-examination of leaving the matrimonial home with a 7-month-old child and having no contact for years conclusively proves desertion under Section 13(1)(i-b) HMA
- The two-year statutory period for desertion is satisfied where the separation is continuous and the deserting party shows no intention to resume cohabitation
- Husband bringing wife to parental home does not negate desertion by wife where she voluntarily remains there and makes no effort at restitution
Alimony Enhancement Guided by Supreme Court Principles
- Interim maintenance can be enhanced on appeal based on affidavits and financial disclosures, applying Rajnesh v. Neha guidelines
- Liberty to seek modification under changed circumstances preserves flexibility for both parties
- Child's medical expenses and custodial parent's financial burden are relevant factors in determining maintenance quantum
