The Jharkhand High Court has dismissed a husband’s plea seeking divorce on grounds of cruelty and desertion, saying that it appears that the cruelty came from the husband’s side, not from the wife, by not taking care of the wife and her child and also by levelling wild allegations of unchastity against the wife by denying himself to be the father of her son.A bench of Justices Sujit Narayan Prasad and Sanjay Prasad was dealing with a plea of a husband seeking divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion by his wife. The court found he failed to prove either ground, while evidence suggested the wife had reasonable cause to live separately due to alleged ill-treatment, denial of their son’s paternity, and his alleged extramarital relationships.“It appears that the cruelty came from his side, not from the defendant, by not taking care of the wife-defendant and her child and also by levelling wild allegations of unchastity against the wife-defendant by denying himself to be the father of her son,” the commission said July 20.Also Read | Divorced at 28, husband remarried: Court grants woman Rs 30 lakh alimonyThe bench highlighted that it is a settled position of law that levelling disgusting accusations of indecent familiarity with a person outside wedlock and allegations of extra-marital relationship constituted grave assault on the character, honour, reputation, status of the spouse and therefore, such aspersions amounted to the worst form of insult and cruelty, which itself was sufficient to substantiate cruelty in law. “It is evident from the testimony of the husband that nothing substantial has come in his testimony to substantiate the cruelty meted out to him by the hand of the wife,” the bench remarked.Pregnancy, separation, divorce battleThe case arose from a divorce petition filed by the husband under the Special Marriage Act after the couple, who married on June 25, 2008, had been living separately since 2009. The husband alleged that after some time after the marriage, the wife filed a false criminal case in November 2009 against him and went to her parental house and never came back. He claimed that his wife deserted him without justification and subjected him to mental cruelty. Justices Sujit Narayan Prasad and Sanjay Prasad said that the wife had reasonable cause to live separately due to alleged ill-treatment and denial of their son’s paternity.The wife denied these allegations, stating that she had conceived before marriage after the husband promised to marry her, but when he came to know about her pregnancy, he started ignoring her and refused to marry her. She claimed that, meanwhile, she delivered the child in April 2008, and with the intervention of the relatives, he agreed to marry her, and therefore, the marriage was solemnised and registered in June 2008. She also denied the allegation of alleged cruelty and her misbehaviour.The wife alleged that she had left the matrimonial home due to his ill-treatment and alleged extramarital relationships. She also pointed out that the husband’s earlier suit for restitution of conjugal rights had already been dismissed, with the family court holding that she had valid reasons to live separately.Story continues below this adShe further expressed her desire to live with the husband along with her minor son if he keeps them with dignity and respect. She has been living with her parents for a long time. She admitted the maintenance amount to the defendant and her child; therefore, she had prayed to dismiss the suit.‘Husband levelled allegations of unchastity against wife’Rejecting the husband’s allegation of cruelty by wife, the court said that no cogent evidence has been produced on behalf of the husband side that there were any grave and weighty circumstances arising which compelled the husband to pull out himself from matrimonial obligation, rather, it is evident from the testimony of witnesses that the substances which have been stated are only related to normal wear and tear of life.On the point of the allegation of desertion by wife, the court referred to the definition of ‘desertion’ as stipulated under explanation part of Section 27 of the Special Marriage Act where it has been prescribed that the expression desertion means desertion of the petitioner by the other party to the marriage without reasonable cause and without the consent or against the wish of such party, and includes the wilful neglect of the petitioner by the other party to the marriage, and its grammatical variations and cognate expressions shall be construed accordingly.“Desertion is not the withdrawal from a place but from a state of things, for what the law seeks to enforce is the recognition and discharge of the common obligations of the married state; the state of things may usually be termed, for short, ‘the home’,” it noted.Story continues below this adAlso Read | ‘Can’t use law for revenge’: Calcutta High Court bins man’s case against wife, relativesHighlighting that the person who actually withdraws from cohabitation is not necessarily the deserting party, the order stated that the fact that a husband makes an allowance to a wife whom he has abandoned is no answer to a charge of desertion.The bench added that it is evident from the material available on record that the relationship of the husband with the wife was not cordial due to the filing of a criminal case regarding torture by the husband owing to demand of dowry. Further, it is evident from documents that the husband has levelled allegations of unchastity against the wife by denying himself to be the father of her son, the court said.