Jharkhand High Court
Bipin Kumar Son Of Sri Ram Swarup Yadav vs Smt. Guddi Devi Wife Of Bipin Kumar on 14 January, 2025
Author: R. Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
First Appeal No.235 of 2019
------
Bipin Kumar son of Sri Ram Swarup Yadav, resident of Bhistipara
near H.E. School, P.O. & P.S. Dhanbad, District Dhanbad.
------- Appellant
Versus
Smt. Guddi Devi wife of Bipin Kumar, Resident of C/o Sri Hari
Yadav, village Rajobigha, P.O. and P.S. Pakribarma, District
Nawada (Bihar). ----- Respondent
------
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI
-------
For the Appellant : Mr. Lukesh Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. R.S.P. Sinha, Sr. Advocate
-------
CAV on 27.11.2024 Pronounced on 14/01/2025
JUDGMENT
Per R. Mukhopadhyay, J.
1. Heard Mr. Lukesh Kumar, learned counsel for the
appellant and Mr. R.S.P. Sinha, learned senior counsel for the
respondent.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and
decree dated 01.05.2019 (decree signed on 10.05.2019) passed
by Shri Satya Prakash No. II, learned Principal Judge, Family
Court, Dhanbad in Original Suit No. 546 of 2016 whereby and
whereunder the suit preferred by the appellant under Section
13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has been
dismissed.
3. For the sake of convenience, both the parties are
referred to in this judgment as per their status before the
learned trial court.
4. A suit was preferred by the plaintiff / husband
(appellant herein) under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of his marriage with the
defendant (respondent herein) in which inter-alia it has been
stated that the marriage between the plaintiff and the defendant
was solemnized on 23.04.2012 as per Hindu rites and customs
at village Rajobigha, P.O. Pakribarma, District Nawada. After the
marriage, the plaintiff had brought the defendant to his house
at Bhistipara, Dhanbad on 25.04.2012 where the defendant
initially stayed for a period of 10 days. During her stay at her
matrimonial house, the defendant did not behave as an ideal
housewife with the plaintiff and his family members. It has been
stated that the defendant used to misbehave with the plaintiff
and his family members and also abused and assaulted them.
The defendant had clearly demonstrated that she does not like
the plaintiff and wants to stay at her parents' house and
ultimately, she left for her parents' house with her brother.
Despite several attempts made by the plaintiff for the Bidai of
the defendant, she did not come and after 2 years though the
defendant returned to her matrimonial house but after a few
days, she began to quarrel with her mother-in-law as well as
other members of the plaintiff's family. The plaintiff had called a
Panchayat on 01.06.2016 and a compromise document was
prepared by the Panches but after a few days, the defendant
once again started quarrelling with the plaintiff and his family
members. On the request of the plaintiff, the Ward
Commissioner had convened a meeting of the Panchayat and a
settlement was arrived at but the same did not materialize as
the defendant went back to her parents' place. The defendant
has a cruel and rude nature who has constrained the plaintiff to
prefer the suit for dissolution of his marriage with the
defendant.
5. On being noticed, the defendant had appeared and
filed a written statement in which the allegations made by the
plaintiff have been denied. It has been stated that the defendant
came to her matrimonial house on 25.04.2012 and stayed there
for 2 months. The defendant has expressed her desire to stay
with the plaintiff as she likes the plaintiff very much. The
plaintiff and his family members in a planned way had
assaulted the defendant, took away all her Stridhan and ousted
her from her matrimonial house. It has been stated that the
plaintiff is facing trial in a case under Section 498A IPC and
only to save his skin, he has filed the suit for divorce.
6. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the following
issues were framed for adjudication:-
(i) Whether the petitioner is entitled to a decree of
divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage
Act?
(ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to a decree of
divorce under section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage
Act?
(iii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for any other
relief/reliefs?
7. The plaintiff, in support of his case, has examined as
many as six witnesses including himself.
8. P.W. 1 Bipin Kumar is the plaintiff who has stated
that his marriage was solemnized with Guddi Devi (defendant)
on 23.04.2012 as per Hindu rites and customs at village
Rajobigha, P.O. and P.S. Pakribarma, District Nawada and after
the marriage, the defendant came to her matrimonial house on
25.04.2012 and after staying for 10 days, she left for her
parents' house. During her stay at her matrimonial house, the
defendant had misbehaved with him and his family members,
abused and assaulted them and declared that she does not like
him and thereafter, she left for her parents' place with her
brother. In spite of making attempts to get the Bidai of the
defendant, she refused and after two years, though the
defendant returned back to her matrimonial house but after a
few days, she once again started abusing and assaulting her in-
laws. On 22.06.2016 at the instance of the Ward Commissioner,
the matter was compromised but the defendant did not adhere
to any of the terms and conditions of the compromise and went
back to her parental place with her father. He has stated that
on 04.06.2016, his father had given an application to the
Superintendent of Police, Dhanbad stating about the cruelty
committed by the defendant as also expressing apprehension
that he and his family members will be implicated in false cases.
On 14.03.2015 the defendant had assaulted Leela Devi, the
aged mother of the plaintiff, as a result of which she became
unconscious and had undergone medical treatment by Dr.
Sangeeta Karan. He has stated that on 27.07.2016, his sister
and brother-in-law had come in order to make attempts to
pacify the situation but the defendant had abused his sister and
assaulted her on her abdomen, as a result of which his sister
had a miscarriage for which she was treated at Park Clinic. On
21.06.2016 his elder sister had come to meet him and his family
members and the defendant had assaulted her and she was
treated at PMCH Hospital, Dhanbad. He has stated that on
21.06.2016 his grandmother was assaulted by the defendant
and she had also to be admitted in the hospital.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that no
physical relationship was ever established between him and the
defendant. He has not filed any suit for restitution of conjugal
rights with the defendant. After the compromise, he had not
gone to his in-law's place to get the Bidai of the defendant. The
defendant has instituted a dowry-related case against him being
C.P. Case No. 991/2016 at Nawada.
9. P.W.2 Leela Devi has supported what has been stated
by P.W.1 in her sworn statement.
In cross-examination, she has deposed that Bipin
Kumar is her son. Her daughter-in-law had instituted a case
being C.P. Case No. 991/2016 against her sons and others.
After marriage, the defendant had stayed for 10 days at her
matrimonial house and in the year 2012, during Durga Puja,
she had stayed for 10-15 days. The third time the defendant
had stayed was after two months from her marriage. She has
deposed that when the defendant had assaulted her, Lalita Devi
and Soni Devi were present.
10. P.W.3 Lalita Devi is the sister of the plaintiff who had
come to her parents' place in July 2016 in order to settle the
dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant, but the same
did not have any effect on the defendant. On 27.07.2016 at
around 2-3 p.m., there was a quarrel going on between the
defendant and Leela Devi and when she intervened, she was
abused and kicked in the abdomen, as a result of which she
had a miscarriage. She was admitted on 30.7.2016 at Park
Clinic, Hirapur where she was treated for her miscarriage. She
has stated that the defendant has a cruel nature and on trivial
matters, she used to resort to abuses and assault.
In cross-examination, she has deposed that she is
the sister of the plaintiff. In July 2016, she had come to learn
about the dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant. She
has deposed that from 27.07.2016 to 30.07.2016, she did not
undergo any treatment for her miscarriage.
11. P.W.4 Anita Devi is the elder sister of the plaintiff
who has stated that the defendant has a cruel and rude nature
who used to misbehave with her in-laws. On 21.06.2016, she
had come to her parents place and had tried to impress upon the
defendant to behave properly at which the defendant had
abused and felled her on the ground due to which she suffered
injuries on her person. A complaint was made to the Police and
she was sent to PMCH, Dhanbad where she was treated for two
days and on 23.06.2016 she was discharged from the hospital.
In cross-examination, she has deposed that she is
aware that the defendant has filed a complaint case against the
plaintiff and his family members. The defendant after her
marriage had come to her matrimonial house on three
occasions.
12. P.W.5 Sunita Chaubey has supported what has been
stated by PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4.
13. P.W.6 Ram Swarup Yadav is the father of the plaintiff
who has reiterated what has been stated by the other witnesses.
14. The defendant has examined two witnesses including
herself.
15. D.W.1 Hari Yadav is the father of the defendant who
has stated that after marriage his daughter was subjected to
torture by her husband and the in-laws. He has denied the
allegations leveled in the plaint as well as in the evidence of the
witnesses of the plaintiff.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that the
defendant in total had gone twice to her matrimonial house.
16. D.W.2 Guddi Devi is the defendant who has stated
that her marriage was solemnized on 23.04.2012 with the
plaintiff as per Hindu rites and customs and after marriage she
came to her matrimonial house at Bhistipara, Dhanbad. After
marriage, she was subjected to torture for bringing less dowry.
She has denied that she had misbehaved with her in-laws. The
plaintiff had never shown any interest for her Bidai. She had
instituted Complaint Case No. 991 of 2016 which is pending
and in which the accused persons are on bail. She has denied
the allegations of not adhering to the terms and conditions of
compromise and that of abuses and assault committed by her
upon her mother-in-law and sisters-in-law. She has stated that
the plaintiff has never given any maintenance to her and it is
difficult for her to sustain herself.
In cross-examination, she has deposed that she has
filed a case of maintenance against the plaintiff.
17. It has been submitted by Mr. Lukesh Kumar, learned
counsel appearing for the plaintiff / appellant that the plaintiff
and his witnesses have given several instances of the abuses
and assault committed upon his mother and sisters by the
defendant which would clearly constitute cruelty. The behavior
of the defendant has made it an impossibility for the plaintiff to
continue with his marital relationship with the defendant and
the threat perception from the side of the defendant is
perennially present. The act of the defendant had led to a
miscarriage suffered by the sister of the plaintiff Lalita Devi as
also bodily injury suffered by the mother and another sister of
the plaintiff. The defendant had left her matrimonial house on
her own willingness and without any reason and such willful
abandonment would constitute desertion. It has been submitted
that the learned trial court has misconstrued and
misinterpreted cruelty and desertion in the backdrop of the
factual aspects of the case and therefore, the impugned
judgment is liable to be set aside.
18. Mr. R. S. P. Sinha, learned Senior Counsel for the
defendant / respondent has stated that none of the allegations
made by the plaintiff have been supported by any documentary
evidence, so far as the act of assault as alleged against the
defendant is concerned. In fact, it is the defendant who had
been subjected to torture with respect to demand of dowry for
which a criminal case has also been instituted by the defendant
and the torture committed upon the defendant was the cause
for staying at her parents' house.
19. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective
sides and have also perused the trial court records.
20. 'Cruelty' has not been defined in the Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955. The various features constituting cruelty has evolved
with the passage of time. In Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi,
reported in (1988) 1 SCC 105, cruelty has been construed to
mean as follows:-
"4. Section 13(1)(i-a) uses the words "treated the
petitioner with cruelty". The word "cruelty" has not been
defined. Indeed it could not have been defined. It has
been used in relation to human conduct or human
behaviour. It is the conduct in relation to or in respect of
matrimonial duties and obligations. It is a course of
conduct of one which is adversely affecting the other.
The cruelty may be mental or physical, intentional or
unintentional. If it is physical the court will have no
problem to determine it. It is a question of fact and
degree. If it is mental the problem presents difficulty.
First, the enquiry must begin as to the nature of the cruel
treatment. Second, the impact of such treatment on the
mind of the spouse. Whether it caused reasonable
apprehension that it would be harmful or injurious to live
with the other. Ultimately, it is a matter of inference to be
drawn by taking into account the nature of the conduct
and its effect on the complaining spouse. There may,
however, be cases where the conduct complained of
itself is bad enough and per se unlawful or illegal. Then
the impact or the injurious effect on the other spouse
need not be enquired into or considered. In such cases,
the cruelty will be established if the conduct itself is
proved or admitted."
21. In A. Jayachandra v. Aneel Kaur, reported in
(2005) 2 SCC 22 it has been observed as follows:-
"10. The expression "cruelty" has not been defined in
the Act. Cruelty can be physical or mental. Cruelty
which is a ground for dissolution of marriage may be
defined as wilful and unjustifiable conduct of such
character as to cause danger to life, limb or health,
bodily or mental, or as to give rise to a reasonable
apprehension of such a danger. The question of mental
cruelty has to be considered in the light of the norms of
marital ties of the particular society to which the parties
belong, their social values, status, environment in which
they live. Cruelty, as noted above, includes mental
cruelty, which falls within the purview of a matrimonial
wrong. Cruelty need not be physical. If from the conduct
of the spouse same is established and/or an inference
can be legitimately drawn that the treatment of the
spouse is such that it causes an apprehension in the
mind of the other spouse, about his or her mental
welfare then this conduct amounts to cruelty. In a
delicate human relationship like matrimony, one has to
see the probabilities of the case. The concept, proof
beyond the shadow of doubt, is to be applied to criminal
trials and not to civil matters and certainly not to
matters of such delicate personal relationship as those
of husband and wife. Therefore, one has to see what are
the probabilities in a case and legal cruelty has to be
found out, not merely as a matter of fact, but as the
effect on the mind of the complainant spouse because of
the acts or omissions of the other. Cruelty may be
physical or corporeal or may be mental. In physical
cruelty, there can be tangible and direct evidence, but in
the case of mental cruelty there may not at the same
time be direct evidence. In cases where there is no direct
evidence, courts are required to probe into the mental
process and mental effect of incidents that are brought
out in evidence. It is in this view that one has to consider
the evidence in matrimonial disputes.
11. The expression "cruelty" has been used in
relation to human conduct or human behaviour. It is the
conduct in relation to or in respect of matrimonial duties
and obligations. Cruelty is a course or conduct of one,
which is adversely affecting the other. The cruelty may
be mental or physical, intentional or unintentional. If it is
physical, the court will have no problem in determining
it. It is a question of fact and degree. If it is mental, the
problem presents difficulties. First, the enquiry must
begin as to the nature of cruel treatment, second the
impact of such treatment in the mind of the spouse,
whether it caused reasonable apprehension that it
would be harmful or injurious to live with the other.
Ultimately, it is a matter of inference to be drawn by
taking into account the nature of the conduct and its
effect on the complaining spouse. However, there may
be a case where the conduct complained of itself is bad
enough and per se unlawful or illegal. Then the impact
or injurious effect on the other spouse need not be
enquired into or considered. In such cases, the cruelty
will be established if the conduct itself is proved or
admitted. (See Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi.)
12. To constitute cruelty, the conduct complained of
should be "grave and weighty" so as to come to the
conclusion that the petitioner spouse cannot be
reasonably expected to live with the other spouse. It
must be something more serious than "ordinary wear
and tear of married life". The conduct, taking into
consideration the circumstances and background has to
be examined to reach the conclusion whether the
conduct complained of amounts to cruelty in the
matrimonial law. Conduct has to be considered, as
noted above, in the background of several factors such
as social status of parties, their education, physical and
mental conditions, customs and traditions. It is difficult
to lay down a precise definition or to give exhaustive
description of the circumstances, which would constitute
cruelty. It must be of the type as to satisfy the
conscience of the court that the relationship between the
parties had deteriorated to such an extent due to the
conduct of the other spouse that it would be impossible
for them to live together without mental agony, torture or
distress, to entitle the complaining spouse to secure
divorce. Physical violence is not absolutely essential to
constitute cruelty and a consistent course of conduct
inflicting immeasurable mental agony and torture may
well constitute cruelty within the meaning of Section 10
of the Act. Mental cruelty may consist of verbal abuses
and insults by using filthy and abusive language
leading to constant disturbance of mental peace of the
other party."
22. The concept of cruelty is an ever-expanding feature
and we have to gather from the evidence of the plaintiff and the
defendant as to whether the ingredients of cruelty are present or
not. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant had
intermittently stayed at her matrimonial house starting from the
initial stage when the marriage was solemnized when the
defendant had stayed for a period of 10 days and subsequently
on two other occasions. As per the plaintiff whenever the
defendant resided at her matrimonial house, abuses and
assault on her part became a common feature and the mother
and sisters of the plaintiff had to bear the brunt of such vicious
conduct on the part of the defendant. P.W.3 is said to have been
kicked on her abdomen by the defendant which resulted in a
miscarriage and she was treated by Dr. Sangeeta Karan at Park
Clinic. P.W.4 on being assaulted by the defendant had to be
admitted to PMCH, Dhanbad where she was discharged after
two days. All these allegations seem to have been made up by
the plaintiff and if at all these allegations were true, the same
would definitely have been backed up by supporting medical
documents. The plaintiff has not brought on record any such
document and these allegations therefore cannot be taken note
of. On the other hand, the claim of the defendant that she was
subjected to torture due to bringing less amount of dowry is
reflected in Complaint Case No. 991 of 2016 which has been
filed against the plaintiff and the in-laws of the defendant. The
same itself would suggest a sufficient ground for the defendant
not to stay with the plaintiff. In fact, the evidence of the plaintiff
(P.W.1) reveals that even after compromise he had not made any
efforts to get the Bidai of the defendant. This would counter the
contents of the certificate issued by the Ward Commissioner
which has been exhibited that the defendant had never adhered
to the terms and conditions of the compromise. This would also
negate the claim of the plaintiff that the defendant had deserted
him.
23. The learned trial court, based on the assertions made
by both the sides, has rightly come to a conclusion that cruelty
and desertion which constitute Issue Nos. (i) and (ii) have not
been proved by the plaintiff and consequently had dismissed the
suit. We find no reasons to conclude otherwise and accordingly
we affirm the impugned judgment and decree dated 01.05.2019
(decree signed on 10.05.2019) passed by Shri Satya Prakash No.
II, learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhanbad in Original
Suit No. 546 of 2016 and dismiss this appeal.
24. Pending Interlocutory application, if any, stands closed.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)
(Arun Kumar Rai, J.)
Shamim/-
