Matrimonial cruelty is a ground of divorce, not a description of unhappiness. In Niraj Kathuria v. Palak Kathuria @ Palak Agarwal (F.A. No. 143 of 2025, neutral citation 2026:JHHC:30294-DB, pronounced 8 October 2026), a Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court dismissed a husband’s first appeal against the rejection of his divorce suit under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The judgment is a compact lesson in two things that decide most contested divorces: the quality of the witnesses, and the discipline of proving electronic evidence.
The case below
The husband sued for divorce before the Additional Family Court-II, Dhanbad (Original Suit No. 536 of 2021), alleging that the wife was moody, refused intimacy, confined herself to her room, quarrelled, misbehaved at family events and left the matrimonial home in June 2021, all of it aggravated — he said — by her mother’s interference. The wife denied cruelty and made her own allegations of dowry demands, surveillance through CCTV and spy software, and assault during pregnancy. She maintained throughout that she wanted the marriage to continue. The Family Court dismissed the suit on 17 January 2025, and the husband appealed.
Where the husband’s case failed
Hearsay support
The husband’s corroborating witness was his brother, who testified only to what he had been told. Hearsay cannot prove cruelty, which must be established by witnesses with direct knowledge or by reliable documents.
Self-contradiction
The husband admitted in cross-examination that the wife attended family functions, and stated that he himself refused to take her back — admissions that cut against both cruelty and the narrative of desertion by the wife.
Consistent respondent
The wife’s evidence was consistent and corroborated by her mother, and her stated willingness to resume cohabitation stood in contrast to the husband’s stand that he did not wish to keep her.
The pen drive problem
The husband’s central attack on appeal was that the Family Court had ignored electronic evidence contained in a pen drive. The Division Bench rejected the argument at the threshold: the pen drive was never admitted into evidence, the wife was not supplied a copy despite repeated opportunities, and the record lacked the certification and authentication that electronic evidence demands — a requirement rooted in Section 65B of the Evidence Act and carried forward under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, as explained in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar. The Court put it crisply: the mere production of electronic material does not, by itself, establish the truth of its contents.
Producing a device
Handing a pen drive, phone or recording to the court proves nothing. Without admission into evidence, supply to the other side and statutory certification, it is inert material.
Proving a record
Electronic evidence must be exhibited, certified and authenticated, with the opposite party given the chance to test it. Only then can its contents be weighed.
The standard the Bench applied
The Bench reiterated that an allegation of cruelty cannot be accepted merely because the matrimonial relationship has become strained, and that the jurisdiction to dissolve a marriage on the ground of cruelty is exercised only upon proof of the statutory ground. On a full reappraisal it found no perversity in the trial court’s conclusions, and in paragraph 69 recorded that the husband had failed to establish cruelty on the part of the wife. The appeal was dismissed and the decree affirmed.
For litigants, the practical message is sobering: a divorce suit is won on admissible proof, not on the volume of grievances. WhatsApp exports, recordings and pen drives are now routine in matrimonial trials, and they are just as routinely wasted for want of certification, supply to the other side and proper exhibition. Electronic material should be planned as evidence from the day the petition is drafted.
Frequently Asked Questions
What must a spouse prove for divorce on the ground of cruelty?
The statutory ground under Section 13(1)(i-a) HMA requires proof that the other spouse treated the petitioner with cruelty — conduct of such a character as to cause reasonable apprehension that living together would be harmful or injurious, or grave and weighty conduct going beyond the ordinary wear and tear of married life. A strained relationship, quarrels or moodiness alone do not meet that threshold.
Why did the pen drive fail as evidence in this case?
The pen drive was never properly brought on record or proved. The wife was not supplied a copy despite opportunities, and the electronic record lacked the authentication that the law requires for electronic evidence, a requirement explained by the Supreme Court in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar. The Court observed that mere production of electronic material does not establish the truth of its contents.
Can a High Court reappraise evidence in a matrimonial first appeal?
Yes. A first appellate court under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act can reappraise the entire evidence. But it interferes only where the trial court’s findings are perverse or legally unsustainable. Here the Division Bench reappraised the record and found the Family Court’s conclusions well supported.
Did the wife’s pending complaints affect the outcome?
The wife had pending dowry and domestic violence complaints and alleged assault and surveillance, but the appeal turned on the husband’s failure to prove his own case. His witness spoke from hearsay, his testimony was self-contradictory, and the wife’s consistent willingness to resume the marriage weighed against the claim that her conduct amounted to cruelty.