Jharkhand High Court: In appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, challenging dismissal of a petition under Section 13(1) (i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (‘HMA’), the Division Bench of Sujit Narayan Prasad* and Arun Kumar Rai, JJ., held that the conduct of the husband in blackmailing and humiliating the wife using her past history and objectionable photographs is mental cruelty. The Court emphasised that such conduct broke the trust essential to marriage, and therefore quashed the Family Court’s judgment, granting dissolution of marriage.
Background:
The marriage was solemnised in March 2020 in accordance with Hindu rites and customs. Shortly thereafter, the husband accessed the wife’s mobile phone and, without her knowledge, transferred objectionable photographs. He subsequently threatened to upload these photographs on social media, coupled with acts of physical and mental assault. The wife was subjected to blackmail, coerced into signing a letter, and ultimately driven out of the matrimonial home along with her father.
The wife contended that the continuous torture, threats, and humiliation inflicted upon her amounted to cruelty, irreparably breaking the marital bond and leaving no scope for reunion. The husband, however, denied the allegations, asserting that the wife had maintained a prior relationship even after marriage, and claimed that he was willing to accept her despite her past. The Family Court dismissed the petition, holding that cruelty had not been established even on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities.
Analysis and Decision:
The Court observed that the matter was earlier referred to mediation but failed and hence was heard on merits. The Court referred to Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi, (1988) 1 SCC 105, wherein the Supreme Court emphasised that “cruelty” can have no fixed definition. The Court highlighted that cruelty may be mental or physical, intentional or unintentional, and includes conduct adversely affecting the spouse’s dignity and reputation.
The Court emphasised that the testimony of the wife revealed she was blackmailed on the ground of her past history, objectionable photographs were shown to her in-laws, and she was humiliated and tortured. It was observed that such intimidation and infliction of emotional and psychological distress, using her past history to blackmail, itself constituted mental cruelty. The Court further noted that the conduct of the husband assassinated the dignity and reputation of the wife by divulging her past conduct to her in-laws, and on that ground, she was tortured.
The Court highlighted that the husband’s conduct has shown that it is the humiliation caused by him and his family members that has caused mental agony to the wife to such an extent that it is almost impossible for the wife to live with the husband, where the thread of trust has already been broken. The Court reiterated that marriage is a relationship built on mutual trust and respect, and once broken, it is non-repairable. It was observed that the Family Court had not properly considered the element of cruelty and its judgment suffered from perversity.
Accordingly, the Court quashed the judgment and decree of the Family Court and allowed the appeal, granting dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty.
[X v. Y, 2026 SCC OnLine Jhar 24, decided on 07-01-2026]
*Judgment authored by: Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellant: Sanjay Prasad, Advocate
For the Respondent: Abhijeet Kr. Singh, Advocate, Shashank Kumar, Advocate, Harsh Chandra, Advocate