The Patna High Court, in a 2020 oral judgment delivered by a Division Bench, dismissed a husband’s appeal against the Family Court’s refusal to dissolve his marriage. The Court held that allegations of “cruelty” and “desertion” were not proved and further clarified that “irretrievable breakdown of marriage” is not an independent ground for divorce before the High Court.

Simplified Explanation of the Judgment

This case arose from a marriage solemnized in July 2003 according to Hindu rites. The husband (appellant) sought a divorce on two main grounds under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: (1) cruelty—primarily mental cruelty—and (2) desertion. The Family Court, Katihar had earlier dismissed his suit after a contested trial; the husband then appealed to the Patna High Court.

What the parties said:
The husband alleged that the wife (respondent) refused to live harmoniously at his residence, threatened him over petty issues, and insulted his aged and ailing parents as well as his differently-abled brother. He also asserted that they had lived apart since 2005 and that the marriage had broken down beyond repair. The wife denied these allegations. She asserted that the husband and his relatives maltreated her during the initial period of cohabitation and that the husband had even withdrawn an earlier petition for restitution of conjugal rights shortly after filing it. Both sides also filed or threatened criminal complaints, but the High Court noted that such factual assertions must be proved by cogent evidence.

Evidence assessment:
Multiple witnesses were examined by both sides. Crucially, most witnesses produced by the husband were cousins or friends, not close family members living within the matrimonial home. The Court considered this an important gap because mental cruelty is often best established through the testimony of people who actually observed day-to-day marital interactions. On dates, places, and specific instances, the husband’s witnesses were inconsistent. There was also no specific, credible proof of grave acts that could objectively amount to mental cruelty. The Court therefore affirmed the Family Court’s finding that mental cruelty had not been proved.

On desertion:
To prove desertion under Section 13(1)(ib), the spouse seeking divorce must show a continuous period of separation of not less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition, coupled with the intention of the other spouse to end cohabitation (animus deserendi), and that such separation was without consent and without reasonable cause. The Court found neither clear pleadings nor evidence to fulfil these elements. The marriage was in 2003, and the matrimonial suit was filed in 2005—timelines and intent necessary to prove desertion were not clearly established. Thus, the ground of desertion also failed.

On “irretrievable breakdown”:
The appellant argued that since the parties were living apart for long, the marriage had irretrievably broken down and should be dissolved. The High Court emphasized a settled principle: while long separation and a broken bond may be a relevant circumstance while assessing cruelty or desertion, “irretrievable breakdown of marriage” is not, by itself, a statutory ground for divorce under Section 13 of the Act. Importantly, only the Supreme Court can dissolve a marriage solely on this doctrine by exercising its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution. High Courts and Family Courts cannot grant divorce merely on this basis. The Bench, therefore, refused dissolution on this ground.

Result:
The appeal lacked merit and was dismissed. The Family Court’s decree refusing divorce stood confirmed. In short, the husband did not succeed in proving either mental cruelty or desertion to the legal standard, and the High Court could not step in on the basis of irretrievable breakdown alone.

Significance or Implication of the Judgment (For general public or government)

This decision is a practical guide for matrimonial litigants in Bihar:

• Mental cruelty demands consistent, credible evidence. General allegations, routine quarrels, or everyday “wear and tear” of married life are not enough. The Court looks for sustained, grave conduct that makes cohabitation impossible, and prefers testimony from those who can speak to daily interactions within the household.
• Desertion requires precise pleadings and proof: a continuous two-year separation immediately before the case, plus evidence of intention to permanently end cohabitation without consent or reasonable cause. Timelines matter.
• “Irretrievable breakdown” is not a shortcut in High Courts. Parties living apart for years may still not get a decree of divorce unless they satisfy one of the statutory grounds. Only the Supreme Court can grant divorce purely on the breakdown doctrine under Article 142.
• For policy and administration, the case underscores the need for careful documentation and responsible pleadings in Family Courts, and for mediation efforts to be attempted early, before litigation hardens positions.

Legal Issue(s) Decided and the Court’s Decision with reasoning

• Whether mental cruelty was proved by the husband
  • Decision: No.
  • Reasoning: Inconsistent evidence; largely non-family witnesses; absence of specific, credible incidents rising above normal marital discord; failure to meet the threshold of sustained and grave mental cruelty.
• Whether desertion was proved
  • Decision: No.
  • Reasoning: Lack of clear pleadings and proof of continuous two-year separation immediately preceding the suit, and no clear proof of the respondent’s intention to permanently end cohabitation without consent or reasonable cause.
• Whether “irretrievable breakdown of marriage” could be an independent ground before the High Court
  • Decision: No.
  • Reasoning: Not a statutory ground under Section 13; only the Supreme Court can grant relief solely on this basis using Article 142.

Judgments Referred by Parties (with citations)

• Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh, (2007) 4 SCC 511 — relied upon by the appellant to define mental cruelty and enumerate illustrative instances.

Judgments Relied Upon or Cited by Court (with citations)

• A. Jayachandra v. Aneel Kaur, AIR 2005 SC 534 — contours of mental cruelty and standards of proof in matrimonial disputes.
• K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa, (2013) 5 SCC 226 — additional instances of mental cruelty such as unfounded defamatory allegations and repeated false complaints.
• Savitri Pandey v. Prem Chandra Pandey, (2002) 2 SCC 73 — essential elements of desertion: factum of separation and animus deserendi, along with absence of consent and absence of conduct giving reasonable cause.
• Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli, (2006) 4 SCC 558 — discussion on irretrievable breakdown (not a statutory ground but often discussed by the Supreme Court).
• Anil Kumar Jain v. Maya Jain, (2009) 10 SCC 415 — only the Supreme Court can dissolve marriage solely on irretrievable breakdown using Article 142; High Courts/Family Courts cannot.

Case Title

Subhash Chandra Jha v. Archana (Miscellaneous Appeal) — Patna High Court. (Names used here only to identify the official case title; names are not used elsewhere in this explanatory article.)

Case Number

Miscellaneous Appeal No. 618 of 2013 (arising from Matrimonial Case No. 53 of 2005).

Citation(s)

2021(1) PLJR 883

Coram and Names of Judges

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arvind Srivastava

Names of Advocates and who they appeared for

For the appellant (husband): Mr. Siddhartha Prasad
For the respondent (wife): Name not recorded in the available copy of the judgment.

Link to Judgment

MiM2MTgjMjAxMyMxI04=-EFgf6IDciIQ=

If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar, you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.