RANCHI: The Jharkhand High Court has held that abandoning a minor child when she was barely seven months old and failing to care for her despite knowing that she was suffering from cancer constituted cruelty. The court upheld the divorce decree granted by the Family Court on a petition filed by the husband.
A division bench of Chief Justice MS Sonak and Justice Manoj Prasad delivered its verdict on November 5, 2026, while hearing the first appeal filed by the wife against the divorce decree granted by the Jamshedpur Family Court on November 24, 2021.
Dismissing the wife's appeal in the matrimonial dispute, which had continued for nearly 18 years, the High Court held that the failure to care for the ailing child and the prolonged separation from the husband amounted to matrimonial cruelty and desertion.
"Apart from the above, the fact that the appellant admits of having left her minor child when the child was aged about 7 months and has not bothered to take care of the child despite knowing full well that the child is suffering from cancer is definitely such acts which would come under the definition of cruelty sufficient to dissolve the marriage in terms of Section 13(1) (i-a) of the Act, 1955," the court observed in its order.
According to the husband's petition, the couple got married on November 23, 2008, and subsequently lived in Jamshedpur. They had a daughter who was diagnosed with cancer at a very young age. The husband stated that the child had to be taken to Mumbai for treatment, but his wife did not accompany them during this period.
The husband also levelled serious allegations against his wife, accusing her of physically assaulting their daughter, submerging her in cold water during winter and even attempting to throw her off a balcony. The wife, however, denied these allegations.
During the hearing, the High Court observed that the wife had failed to provide specific, point-by-point responses to the allegations in her written statement. Referring to the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), the division bench noted that an evasive or ambiguous denial could not be treated as an effective rebuttal.
The court further observed that allegations not specifically denied could be treated as admitted.
"In the facts of the present case, such a reply in the written statement amounts to an evasive denial, which, as a matter of law, shall be treated as no denial. Order VIII Rule 5 of the CPC provides that facts not denied shall be deemed to be admitted. Thus, from the bare pleading of the appellant, the allegations of cruelty and desertion appear to have been admitted," the court stated.
The court also took note of the wife's testimony, in which she admitted that she had left for her parental home when their daughter was just seven months old and had no further contact with her husband thereafter.
However, while upholding the divorce decree, the High Court increased the monthly maintenance allowance payable to the wife from Rs 10,000 to Rs 15,000.