The Chhattisgarh High Court has ruled that a wife living separately at the place of her government posting cannot be treated as having deserted her husband merely because she is residing away from the matrimonial home. The Court observed that desertion requires an intention to permanently abandon the marriage, and where the wife makes genuine efforts to preserve the relationship, separate residence alone is not enough to prove desertion.
Chhattisgarh HC Government Posting Does Not Prove Desertion
The Chhattisgarh High Court has clarified that a wife cannot automatically be accused of deserting her husband merely because she lives separately at the place where she is posted for government service. The Court held that the real question is whether she intended to permanently end the marital relationship.
A Division Bench of the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, comprising Justice Parth Prateem Sahu and Justice Sachin Singh Rajput, overturned a Family Court decision that had granted divorce to the husband on allegations of cruelty and desertion.
The High Court found that the wife’s conduct, including her efforts to return to the matrimonial home and her decision to seek restitution of conjugal rights, indicated that she wanted to continue the marriage rather than abandon it.
Also Read: Income Should Not Decide SC/ST Reservation Benefits: Centre Tells Supreme Court
Background of the Matrimonial Dispute
The couple married on February 21, 2019, in Bilaspur according to Hindu customs. Differences developed between them soon after the marriage.
The husband subsequently approached the Family Court at Bilaspur seeking divorce. He alleged that his wife frequently quarrelled with him and his family, refused to live with him and eventually left the matrimonial home on January 7, 2020.
He also claimed that attempts by relatives and others to settle the dispute had failed and that the wife had threatened to initiate false dowry-related criminal proceedings against his family.
The wife denied these allegations. She maintained that she had never intended to end the marriage and was prepared to discharge her matrimonial responsibilities.
According to her, she was employed as a government nurse and had been posted at Dhamdha. Her husband was aware of her employment and posting circumstances before the marriage. She argued that living at her place of posting was connected with her government service and should not be treated as an intentional abandonment of her husband.
Wife Alleged Harassment by Husband and In-Laws
The wife also made allegations of harassment against her husband and his family.
She claimed that demands had been made for ₹5 lakh, her salary and her ATM card. She alleged that she had faced both physical and mental harassment in the matrimonial household.
She further pointed out that she had actually stayed at the matrimonial home from August 29, 2021, to September 29, 2021, in an attempt to resolve the marital dispute and save the relationship.
However, she alleged that the husband did not cooperate in restoring normal matrimonial life.
The Family Court nevertheless accepted the husband’s divorce petition and dissolved the marriage through its judgment dated December 12, 2023. The wife then challenged that decision before the High Court.
High Court Examines Whether the Wife Had Really Deserted Her Husband
One of the important questions before the High Court was whether the wife’s separate residence amounted to legal desertion.
The Court explained that physical separation alone is not sufficient to establish desertion under the Hindu Marriage Act.
For desertion to be established, the spouse alleging it must demonstrate not only separation but also an intention on the part of the other spouse to permanently abandon the marital relationship.
This intention is commonly described in law as animus deserendi.
Therefore, simply showing that a husband and wife were living at different places does not automatically prove desertion. The circumstances surrounding the separation and the conduct of the parties must also be examined.
Government Posting Was an Important Circumstance
The High Court took note of the wife’s government employment.
The wife had been posted as a government nurse at Dhamdha, and according to her case, her husband already knew about her employment circumstances when they married.
The Court therefore did not treat her residence at the place of posting, by itself, as proof that she had decided to abandon the marriage.
The Bench also considered her subsequent conduct.
After receiving a legal notice, she went to her husband’s residence. She had also obtained a decree for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, showing that she wanted the matrimonial relationship to continue.
The Court considered these actions inconsistent with an intention to permanently leave the marriage.
Husband’s Conduct Also Considered by the Court
The High Court noted that when the wife visited the matrimonial home after receiving the legal notice, the situation did not lead to reconciliation.
According to the material considered by the Court, the husband allegedly quarrelled with her, left the house and remained unreachable for nearly a month.
The Bench observed that the circumstances indicated that the husband had avoided the wife’s company when she had made an effort to live with him.
This conduct was relevant because the husband was required to establish that the wife had intentionally abandoned the marriage.
Minor Marital Disputes Do Not Automatically Amount to Cruelty
The High Court also examined the allegation of mental cruelty.
While considering this issue, the Bench referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh, which explains that ordinary disagreements, minor quarrels and the normal difficulties that occur during married life cannot, without more, become a ground for divorce on the basis of mental cruelty.
The High Court found that the allegations and circumstances presented in this case did not establish the level of cruelty required under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act.
The Court emphasized that ordinary unhappiness or dissatisfaction between spouses cannot by itself justify dissolution of a marriage.
Wife’s Attempts to Save the Marriage Weighed Against Desertion
A significant factor in the judgment was the wife’s conduct after the separation.
She had visited the matrimonial home and had also pursued proceedings for restitution of conjugal rights.
According to the High Court, these actions showed that she was interested in restoring the marital relationship.
A person who is genuinely seeking to resume matrimonial life cannot easily be described as someone who has formed an intention to permanently abandon the marriage.
Thus, the Court found that the necessary element of animus deserendi was absent in the circumstances of the case.
High Court Sets Aside Divorce Decree
After examining the evidence and the conduct of both parties, the Chhattisgarh High Court concluded that the Family Court had not correctly appreciated the evidence.
The husband failed to establish the statutory requirements necessary to prove either mental cruelty or desertion.
The Division Bench therefore allowed the wife’s appeal and set aside the Family Court’s December 12, 2023 decree dissolving the marriage.
What This Judgment Means
The ruling highlights an important principle in matrimonial law: living separately does not automatically mean desertion.
Where a spouse lives away because of employment, professional obligations or other circumstances, the court must examine the entire situation before concluding that the person intended to abandon the marriage.
In a desertion claim, both separation and an intention to permanently end the marital relationship have to be established.
The judgment also demonstrates that efforts made by a spouse to restore cohabitation can be important evidence against an allegation of desertion.
At the same time, the ruling is based on the particular facts and evidence of this case. It should not be understood as a general rule that every spouse living separately because of employment will be protected from a claim of desertion. Courts examine the conduct and circumstances of each matrimonial dispute individually.
Conclusion
The Chhattisgarh High Court’s decision reinforces the distinction between physical separation and legal desertion. A spouse may be living at another location, including the place of a government posting, without having any intention of ending the marriage.
Where the evidence shows genuine efforts to resume married life, such conduct may contradict an allegation that the spouse intended to permanently abandon the relationship.
In the present case, the wife’s government posting, her visit to the matrimonial home and her proceedings seeking restitution of conjugal rights were important circumstances considered by the High Court before setting aside the divorce decree.