‘Separation Due to Job Ban Not Abandonment’: Allahabad HC Denies Divorce

The Allahabad High Court recently dismissed a divorce petition on the grounds of desertion and cruelty, filed by a husband against his wife. The suspect suspected that his wife had left him. However, the court ruled against his request.

A bench of Justices Saumitra Dayal Singh and Donadi Ramesh said that since the husband and wife were living separately due to their different jobs, one working in Jhansi and the other in Auraiya, it could not be said that desertion took place.

The couple, who married in May 1999, have a child born in 2000. According to the complainant, the husband, they had been living separately since June 2003, which led to her filing for divorce in 2007.

The main reason was abandonment, and further allegations of cruelty. However, the accused, his wife, disputed these allegations with oral and written evidence.

The high court highlighted the fact that the respondent’s job as a primary school teacher in Auraiya was two kilometers away from the complainant’s ancestral home. The court saw this proximity as a significant factor, rejecting the notion of intentional abandonment or continuity.

Further, the court noted that the wife obtained her employment at Auraiya with the full knowledge and consent of the appellant. This undermined the claim that his employment status meant abandonment.

Adding to the complexity, the wife presented evidence that she was unwell and hospitalized in late June 2003. Medical records and leave certificates also discredited the husband’s timetable. Based on this, the court did not find intentional abandonment, stating that the couple’s separation was caused by employment-related circumstances rather than intentional abandonment.

Regarding the basis of malice, the court did not find any concrete evidence to support what the husband said. Although the wife filed criminal charges against the appellant, alleging dowry and domestic violence, the court noted that these charges were pending and could not be dismissed as false.

In contrast, the wife presented evidence suggesting that the husband had tried to remarry during their marriage and that there were dowry demands from his family.

As a result, the high court upheld the family court’s decision to dismiss the divorce case initiated by the husband, rejecting the grounds of rebellion and cruelty. The appeal was dismissed for lack of merit, affirming the lower court’s findings.