Jharkhand High Court
Rajeev Ranjan vs Gitanjali Kumari on 3 July, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Rajesh Kumar
2025:JHHC:17756-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
F.A. No.102 of 2022
----- -
Rajeev Ranjan, aged about 33 years, son of Ramadhar Singh,
resident of Ram Nagar, Jorar, Namkum, P.O. & P.S.
Namkum, District Ranchi, Jharkhand.
... ... Appellant/Plaintiff
Versus
Gitanjali Kumari, wife of Rajeev Ranjan, daughter of
Sachidanand Singh, at present resident of Adarsh Nagar,
P.O. & P.S. Tatisilwai, District Ranchi, Jharkhand and
permanent resident of village and P.O. Teus, Balbigha, P.S. &
District Sheikhpur, Bihar
... ... Respondent/Defendant
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
.....
For the Appellant : Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Rishu Ranjan, Advocate
.....
C.A.V. on 24.06.2025 Pronounced on 03/07/2025
Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
Prayer:
1. The instant appeal has been filed challenging the
legality and propriety of impugned judgment passed on
24.08.2022 and decree signed on 01.09.2022 by learned
Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court-I, Ranchi
whereby and whereunder the Original Suit No.312 of 2015
filed by the plaintiff-appellant-husband under Section 13(1)(i-
a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for a decree of divorce has
been dismissed.
Factual Matrix
2. The brief facts of the case of the appellant-husband
2025:JHHC:17756-DB
as narrated in the plaint, is that the marriage between
appellant (plaintiff) and respondent (defendant) was
solemnized on 06.06.2014 at Teus District Sheikhpura as
per Hindu rites and customs in presence of their relatives
and friends and after marriage the appellant along with the
respondent came to Adarsh Nagar, Tatisilwai Ranchi and
they lived together in the house of appellant as husband and
wife.
3. It has further been stated that after two days of the
marriage the respondent's behaviour became very rude
against the appellant and his family members and she
started torturing them with her behaviour and her taunt.
She started quarrelling with appellant's mother and
torturing with rude language and she told to the appellant's
mother "Bhikhmanga and mere Papa Ke Samne Tumlogo Ki
Aukat Kuch Bhi Nahi Hai, Tum Log Ek Bhikmanga Pariwar Ke
WansAj Ho" and she started to pressurize the appellant to
live alone from his family.
4. It has further been stated that respondent used to
quarrel with the appellant and abused him in filthy language
and she also not supported to sexual right (bed share) and
she also did not give respect to the appellant and his family
members.
5. On 21.06.2014 in the presence of family members
2025:JHHC:17756-DB
and neighbours of the appellant the respondent abused the
appellant and assaulted him with slap and on that day
appellant went to Chennai on his duty and in the meantime,
she continuously quarreled with the appellant's family.
6. It has further been stated that the appellant
returned on 23.08.2014 to his home but behaviour of
respondent/wife was same and she had not supported the
sexual right with the appellant and she also quarreled with
the appellant and his family members and after two days the
appellant returned to his job and he also returned in
October, 2014 and December, 2014 respectively but the
respondent's behaviour was rude against the appellant and
she never supported the sexual right to the appellant.
7. It has further been stated that the respondent after
marriage since beginning on the instruction of her parents
and brother always created problem to the appellant and his
family members and she also threatened the appellant and
his family members to falsely implicate them in a criminal
case and other cases.
8. It has further been stated that on 15.03.2015 the
respondent went to her parental home along with her
brother taking all the ornaments, sarees, two chain and one
gold ring of the appellant.
9. It has further been stated that the above ornaments
2025:JHHC:17756-DB
which she kept along with her had been given by the
appellant at the time of marriage and the respondent never
wants to live with the appellant at Ranchi and she wants to
live in her parental home and she also pressurized to the
appellant to leave the job and reside along with her.
10. It has further been stated that the respondent
follows all the instructions given by her parents and
maternal brother and she always neglected the appellant
and her old mother-in-law. The respondent has never given
proper respect to the appellant and his family members. The
appellant and his mother, after the marriage, are taking all
the care about the respondent and they fulfilled her all
needs and requirement.
11. It has further been stated that the appellant several
times approached to the respondents and her parents but
the respondent's parents did not agree to send her and the
respondent also did not want to come and live with the
appellant on the instruction of her parents.
12. It has further been stated that the respondent's
father and brother and the respondent's brother-in-law
always threatened the appellant to live in his in-laws house
otherwise face the consequences and they were also ready to
assault the appellant and brother of the respondent also
threatened the appellant to kill him.
2025:JHHC:17756-DB
13. It has further been stated that from the conduct
and behaviour of the respondent the life of the appellant has
been ruined and the appellant was passing a deserted life in
absence of respondent. The appellant came to the
conclusion that the respondent will not live with him and
hence there is no option but to file a suit for dissolution of
marriage.
14. The appellant has, thus, prayed that in the light of
what has been averred in the plaint duly supported with
an affidavit, a decree of divorce be kindly passed in favour
of the appellant and as against the respondent-wife.
15. The case was admitted for hearing. It is pertinent to
mention here that initially this suit was proceeded ex parte
against the respondent vide order dated 15.02.2017 and
ex parte evidence of two witnesses had been recorded. Later
on, respondent appeared in this suit and vide order dated
21.06.2017 ex parte order against respondent was recalled
and thereafter respondent filed her written statement.
16. In her written statement she has strongly
denounced the contentions of the appellant, as made in the
plaint and refuted the allegations made against her.
17. By virtue of her written statement, the respondent-
wife has inter alia stated that the petition filed on behalf of
appellant who is husband of respondent is neither
2025:JHHC:17756-DB
maintainable under the law nor on the fact and hence it is
liable to be dismissed.
18. It has further been contended that the respondent is
residing in the house of appellant as per address mentioned
in his petition but the appellant sent all the notices to
another fake and false address. The respondent when came
to know the motive of the appellant to take divorce from her
by way of false pleading or address, she appeared before this
court and filed petition.
19. It has further been stated that all the allegation
levelled in the petition under reply are false and baseless
because the respondent never committed any type of
mistake, never misbehaved with the appellant or his family
members and due to illicit relationship with the another lady
of his company, the appellant forced her to give divorce to
him but when the respondent refused to give divorce to him
he started torturing in the name of demand of dowry.
20. It has further been stated that against the demand
of dowry the respondent lodged a case vide Tatisilwai P.S.
Case No. 40/2016 against the appellant and his family
members and in the said case, during hearing of bail
petition, the appellant started taking time in the name of
mediation with the respondent and filed this case for divorce
against her and in this case the appellant has given false
2025:JHHC:17756-DB
address in the plaint and also issued notice on false address
in place of his address because at the time of filing of divorce
the respondent was living with the appellant in his house as
wife and husband and till today she is living in said house of
appellant but the appellant never told about this case and
when the respondent appeared in this case before the
learned court, the appellant made false promise before her
that he will withdraw this case and live with her and the
respondent who has got no legal knowledge about the law of
family court could not file written statement on time.
21. It has been stated that the respondent has filed the
show cause and denied all the allegations levelled against
her by the appellant only with a view to obtain divorce from
her keeping her in dark and hence prayed to dismiss the
petition filed by the appellant with heavy cost.
22. The case proceeded for evidence during which the
appellant has produced and examined two witnesses
including himself.
23. The respondent-wife has produced and examined
altogether three witnesses including herself.
24. The learned Principal Judge, after hearing learned
counsel for the parties, framed four issues for adjudication
of the lis, which were decided against the appellant-husband
and in favour of respondent-wife and decreed the suit on
2025:JHHC:17756-DB
contest in the following terms :
"17. Considering the aforesaid facts and
circumstances as well as the discussion made
above, I find and hold that plaintiff has not been
able to prove his case against the defendant even
to the extent of preponderance of probabilities.
Accordingly, I find and hold that he is not
entitled to a decree as claimed for."
25. The appellant-husband, being aggrieved with the
judgment passed on 24.08.2022 and decree signed on
01.09.2022 by learned Additional Principal Judge,
Additional Family Court-I, Ranchi approached this Court by
filing the instant appeal.
Submission made on behalf of the appellant-husband
26. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-husband
has submitted that the Learned Court below has failed to
appreciate that the plaintiff/appellant has produced credible
evidence which are sufficient to establish that the
respondent-wife has subjected him to cruelty and on
account of cruelty, the plaintiff / appellant is entitled for
grant of decree of divorce.
27. Further, it has been submitted that the findings
recorded by the learned Family Court while answering issue
no.III (cruelty) are perverse and based on mere presumption,
therefore, the same will not stand in the eye of law.
28. Submission has also been made that the learned
Family Court also failed to appreciate that the plaintiff /
2025:JHHC:17756-DB
appellant has successfully substantiated the allegation that
the respondent has deprived him from cohabitation and,
therefore, the plaintiff / appellant is entitled for grant of
decree of divorce. But that aspect of the matter has not been
taken into consideration by the learned Family Court.
29. It has lastly been submitted that the learned Trial
Court has failed to appreciate the oral and documentary
evidence produced on behalf of plaintiff / appellant and,
thus, came to wrong conclusion.
30. It has been argued on behalf of appellant that
altogether two witnesses have been examined in this case
including appellant and both have consistently supported
that behaviour of respondent was very rude towards
appellant and his family members and she used to quarrel
and abuse them and she also assaulted the appellant in
presence of neighbour and family members.
31. It has been further argued that conjugal relation
between appellant and respondent has not established as
respondent never supported the sexual right and respondent
also left her matrimonial house and thereafter, she did not
return to live with the appellant.
32. It has further been argued that from the evidence it is
evident there is no possibility of reunion as wife and
husband between appellant and respondent and it is not
possible to continue their matrimonial relationship without
2025:JHHC:17756-DB
mental agony, torture and distress hence, the impugned
judgment passed by the learned Family Court needs
interference.
33. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant, on the
basis of aforesaid grounds, has submitted that the judgment
passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional
Family Court-I, Ranchi requires interference.
Submission made on behalf of respondent-wife
34. Learned counsel for the respondent-wife, defending the
impugned order, has submitted that the appellant has
sought divorce on the ground of cruelty and on the ground
that the respondent-wife does not want to live with the
appellant as such the appellant cannot reasonably be
expected to live with the respondent but the learned Family
Court, after taking into consideration the evidence, has held
that the appellant has not been able to prove that the
defendant subjected him with cruelty to the extent required
by law and has rightly dismissed the suit.
35. It has been argued on behalf of respondent that she
never treated the appellant with cruelty rather evidences on
record depict that it is the respondent who is sufferer and
being tortured mentally and physically by the appellant and
his family members for demand of dowry and in this regard
the respondent has also lodged criminal case against the
appellant and his family members vide Tatisilwai P.S. Case
2025:JHHC:17756-DB
No. 40 of 2016.
36. It has further been argued that appellant has not come
with clean hands and has filed the suit by suppressing the
material fact that appellant was still living in her
matrimonial house when this suit was filed in the year 2015
and the appellant has concealed this fact and mentioned
wrong and false address in his matrimonial petition and
filed the suit for dissolution of marriage.
37. It has been further submitted that respondent is
always ready and willing to live with appellant but it is the
appellant who was adamant to give her divorce.
38. Learned counsel for the respondent has further
submitted that learned trial court has rightly held that the
appellant is not entitled for the decree of divorce on the
ground of cruelty because the appellant has miserably failed
to prove the allegation of cruelty against her.
39. Learned counsel for the respondent-wife has submitted
that the appellant has alleged that the respondent is living
with her parents and despite his efforts, her parents are not
ready to send her to matrimonial house which is not true
since the respondent is still living in the house of the
appellant and learned Family Court, taking into
consideration the evidence led by the respondent-wife, has
rightly rejected the prayer for divorce made by the appellant.
40. Submission has been made that the learned Principal
2025:JHHC:17756-DB
Judge, Family Court on the backdrop of the evidence led by
the parties has come to the conclusion that mere allegation
of cruelty against the defendant is not suffice to grant decree
of divorce on the ground of cruelty unless and until it is
established by the cogent and reliable piece of evidence that
the conduct and character of the defendant was unbearable
to the plaintiff and it was not possible for him in normal
course of nature to lead conjugal life with defendant and the
plaintiff has not been able to prove that the defendant
subjected him with cruelty to the extent required by law.
41. Learned counsel for the respondent-wife on the
aforesaid grounds has submitted that the impugned
judgment requires no interference by this Court
Analysis
42. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant-
husband as also learned counsel for the respondent-wife and
perused the material available on record and the finding
recorded in the impugned order.
43. This Court, before looking into the legality and propriety
of the impugned order, requires to consider the testimonies of
the witnesses, as available on record.
44. The appellant, in support of his case, has adduced three
witnesses including himself. The relevant portion of the
testimonies of the witnesses are mentioned as under :-
2025:JHHC:17756-DB
PW-1 Rajeev Ranjan is appellant himself and he has
reiterated his plaint in his affidavited examination-in-chief
and has stated that he is plaintiff of this suit and he has filed
this case against his wife respondent.
He has further stated that his marriage with the
respondent was solemnized on 06.06.2014 and after
marriage the respondent came to her matrimonial home at
Tatisilwai, Ranchi and after 2-3 days of marriage the
behaviour of respondent towards him and his family
members became cruel and she started torturing him and his
family members.
It has also been stated that the respondent used to
quarrel and assault his mother and also used to misbehave
with his sister and even she did not allow him to have sexual
right over her and due to which he sustained mental pain
and agony.
He has further stated that on 21.06.2014 the
respondent, in presence of family members of the appellant,
abused him in filthy words and also assaulted him.
Thereafter, he went to Chennai for his work and the
respondent used to quarrel with his mother and other family
members and also threatened them to implicate in false case.
He has further stated that after some days, he returned
from Chennai but the behaviour of respondent was not
2025:JHHC:17756-DB
changed and she flatly refused to have sexual relation with
him.
Again, he went to his job and the respondent along with
her family members started pressurizing him to transfer the
house of Adarsh Nagar in her name and they started
threatening if the said property will not be transferred in the
name of respondent, they will implicate them in a false case.
He has further stated that the respondent often used to
go to her maika and did not give any respect to her in-laws.
On 15.03.2015, the respondent left her matrimonial home
and thereafter she refused to live with him.
It has further been stated that his father has filed
informatory petition u/s 39 Cr.P.C. vide no. 774/2015 dated
24.08.2015. Thereafter, the respondent has lodged FIR vide
Tatisilwai PS Case No. 40/2016 dated 31.05.2016 u/s
498A,354/34 of IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act.
He has further stated that the respondent has also filed
case against his father for outraging her modesty which is
pending in the court of Ld. CJM, Ranchi.
In his cross-examination the said witness has stated
that the respondent, who is his wife, is living in his house
and he is living at Kolkata for his job and in Ranchi he has
only house in which respondent is residing.
He has stated that he did not make complaint anywhere
regarding the occurrence. He has stated that he has not
2025:JHHC:17756-DB
mentioned the day and time of occurrence dated 21.06.2014.
He has also not mentioned the name of person in whose
presence the occurrence was occurred.
He has further stated that on 23.06.2014 he went to
Chennai alone and he did not go with respondent.
He has further stated that after one year of marriage he
has filed this case against his wife and at that time the
respondent was not living at his house rather she was
residing at her Maika.
He has stated that his wife refused to come to her
matrimonial home after one and half months of filing of this
case and thereafter he was transferred to Hyderabad and
from there he was transferred to Kolkata and in due course
he used to come at Ranchi in every two months.
He has stated that he does not know when was last time
he talked over phone with his wife but whenever he came to
Ranchi then talk was initiated with her.
He has stated that he went to his Sasural only once at
the time of marriage. He has stated that prior to filing this
case he never sent any legal notice to his wife. He has stated
that Panchayati took place at Tatisilwai but no written paper
was made.
He has stated that relationship between them as
husband and wife is not sustained for single day. He has not
filed any case regarding threatening given to him by his wife.
2025:JHHC:17756-DB
He has stated that he did not take his wife at his place of
posting. He has stated that he is working at T.C.S. in Kolkata
and presently his salary is Rs. 70,000/-per month and he is
on the post of Associate consultant and he used to give Rs.
5,000/- to his wife for maintenance as per direction of the
Court. He paid the maintenance till February, 2021 and
thereafter he is giving maintenance from September, 2021
and he has not given maintenance for five months.
He has stated that presently the respondent is living at
his house at Ranchi. He has stated that his marriage was
solemnized on 06.06.2014.
He has stated that he has not filed complaint in any
court regarding cruelty made by his wife. He denied that he
filed this case while living in conjugal relation with the
respondent. He denied that he wants to leave the respondent
because she is less educated and belongs to rural
surroundings. He denied that he has illicit relation with some
other lady due to which he filed this divorce case and he
denied that he has made false allegation against the
respondent.
P.W. 2 Ramadhar Sharma @ Ramadhar Singh, father
of appellant has fully supported the case of appellant and he
has stated more or less the similar version as stated by the
appellant in his evidence and he has stated that the marriage
of appellant was solemnized with the respondent on
2025:JHHC:17756-DB
06.06.2014 and after marriage the respondent came to her
Sasural at Adarsh Nagar, Tatisilwai, Ranchi and after 2-3
days of marriage the behaviour of respondent towards her in-
laws became cruel and she used to torture the appellant and
his family members.
He has stated that the respondent also used to quarrel
and abuse with his wife and also used to misbehave with his
son.
He has stated that on 21.06.2014 the respondent
abused the appellant in filthy language and also assaulted
the appellant.
He has stated that after some days when his son came
from Chennai then the behaviour of respondent did not
change and she refused to make relation with the appellant
as husband and wife and also humiliated him by saying
"Badchalan Kurup Nich Kul ke Aadmi".
He has stated that respondent at the instance of her
family members threatened them to implicate in false case if
they do not transfer the house in her name.
He has stated that respondent along with her family
members used to threaten them to implicate in false case and
second time she also made complain in police station and
police also came but went away after giving instruction.
2025:JHHC:17756-DB
He has stated that on 15.03.2015 the respondent left
her matrimonial home and she refused to live with the
appellant.
He has stated that due to such cruel behaviour one
informatory petition vide case no. 774/15 was filed.
He has stated that in October, 2015 the respondent
came to her Sasural and started living there and after few
days she ousted him and locked the door from inside and
after interference of neighbour she opened the door.
He has further stated that on 31.05.2016 she lodged
FIR in Tatisilwai PS Case vide case no. 40/2016 u/s 498A,
354/34 of IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act.
In his cross examination he has stated that the
respondent is living in his house which was constructed by
him.
He has further stated that he has made complaint
regarding abuse and misbehave made by respondent before
the police station but he has no any such document and he
has not complained in any forum. He has stated that his son
is an engineer in TCS and presently he is getting salary of Rs.
50-60 thousand per month.
He has stated that respondent filed case on 31.05.2016
for dowry demand and torture. He has stated that due to
humiliation of respondent this divorce case was filed. He has
stated that he and his family members filed this case. He has
2025:JHHC:17756-DB
stated that in writing he has not made any complaint against
the respondent.
45. The respondent-wife has also adduced three witnesses,
including herself, in support of her case which are being
dealt hereunder as :-
DW-1 Geetanjali Kumari is respondent herself. She has
stated that her marriage was solemnized with the appellant
according to Hindu rites and rituals on 06.06.2014 and after
marriage she went to her Sasural and she lived with her
husband for few days peacefully but thereafter the behaviour
of her husband and in-laws towards her was cruel and when
their demand of dowry was not fulfilled, she was subjected to
torture by them.
She has further stated that the case which has been
filed by her husband against her is not true and her husband
made false and concocted allegations against her.
She has stated that this case has been filed by her
husband by suppressing the material fact that at the time of
filing of this case he was living with her as husband and wife
in the same house.
She has further stated that when her husband came
from his job, he resided with her in the same room. She has
further stated that it is true that after marriage she was
subjected to torture by her husband and his family members
for bringing less dowry.
2025:JHHC:17756-DB
She has stated that her husband tried to convince her
to allow him to solemnize his second marriage and when she
was not agreed then they started torturing her.
She has further stated that in due course she lodged
FIR in Tatisilwai P.S. Case vide case no. 40 of 2016 against
the appellant and his family members and thereafter
everything became normal.
She has stated that when the divorce case was filed she
was living with the appellant as husband and wife and after
many days she came to know that her husband has filed the
instant suit and when she requested then he stated that he
will withdraw the case but in spite of that he has not
withdrawn the case and then she got herself ready to contest
the same.
She has stated that the allegation levelled against her in
the petition is false, concocted and are baseless. She has
stated that her marriage was solemnized on 6th June, 2014
and since then she is living at her Sasural and on two-three
times she went to her Maika after taking permission from
appellant. She has stated that relationship of husband and
wife was established between them.
She has stated that she always used to give respect to
her in-laws and she never tortured the appellant and his
family members.
2025:JHHC:17756-DB
She has stated that she is less educated and her
husband is an engineer and after marriage the appellant
pressurized her to allow him to solemnize marriage with
other girl, but when she refused then he filed this case with
false allegation against her.
She has stated that since her marriage till date she is
living in the house of her husband. She has stated that the
allegation of her husband that her family members quarreled
with him is completely false rather her family members never
came to her matrimonial house.
She has stated that it is true that in initial day of
marriage when her husband and in-laws tortured her for
dowry then her family members came there. She denied that
she has ever misbehaved with her husband and never
refused to make relation with him as husband and wife and
they are still living as husband and wife.
In her cross examination she has stated that she is
living at her matrimonial home at Adarsh Nagar and her
husband is doing job at Kolkata and at the time of marriage
her husband was doing job at Chennai. She has never gone
with her husband at Chennai and at Kolkata.
She has stated that she has filed a case in the year
2016 at Tatisilwai PS 40 of 2016 against her husband. She
has stated that later on she came to know that her husband
2025:JHHC:17756-DB
has filed divorce case and thereafter she lodged the case in
police station.
She has stated that in absence of her husband her in-
laws demanded Rs. 5 lakhs as dowry and the said demand
was not fulfilled by her family members.
She has stated that their marriage was solemnized in
the year 2014 but there is no issue out of the wedlock and
she came to know about the instant case in the year 2016.
She denied that she does not want to live with her husband.
She has stated that behaviour of her husband towards her
was not good and due to such ill behaviour this divorce case
was filed.
She has stated that in her Sasural she used to cook
food for all and sometimes she was not provided food. She
has stated that she is getting maintenance of Rs. 10,000/-
per month. She has stated that she does not know what
allegation she has levelled against her husband. She denied
that her husband has filed this case due to torture
committed by her.
DW-2 Vijay Shankar is the brother of respondent. He
has fully supported the case of respondent in his affidavited
examination-in-chief and he has stated more or less the
similar version as stated by the respondent in her evidence.
In his cross-examination he has stated that his sister
lodged case in Tatisilwai after two years of marriage and he
2025:JHHC:17756-DB
has not read over the said FIR and he has no knowledge
whether that case is pending or disposed of.
He has stated that presently his sister is living at
Tatisilwai in the house of her father-in-law and presently he
has not gone at the said house as his posting is at Katihar in
Bihar Police and he came to know about the divorce case
from his sister.
He has stated that the marriage of his sister was
arranged marriage as per Hindu rites and rituals and at the
time of marriage he stayed for one month.
He has stated that in the year 2016 the case was filed
u/s 498A of IPC and at the time of filing of that case he had
not gone to Police Station.
DW-3 Nutan Devi, mother of respondent, has fully
supported the case of respondent in her affidavited
examination in chief and she has stated more or less the
similar version as stated by the respondent in her evidence.
In her cross examination she has stated that her
husband has lodged a case in police station due to torture
with her daughter which is pending in the court and in that
case Rs. 10,000/- as maintenance was allowed to give to the
respondent.
She has further stated that presently her daughter is
living in her matrimonial home and she has no knowledge
whether her daughter is living with her in-laws or not.
2025:JHHC:17756-DB
She has stated that presently she is living at
Sheikhpura and she has not come to Ranchi since last five
years.
46. No documentary evidence has been adduced on behalf
of either of the parties.
47. From the testimony, as referred hereinabove, it is
evident that the appellant-husband has been examined as
P.W.1 before the Family Court, who in his deposition has
mainly taken the ground of bad behaviour of his wife and
constant threats of getting the family members implicated in
the false cases. He has deposed that his wife has
misbehaved with him as well as his family members and
treated them with cruelty.
48. From the aforesaid testimony of the appellant-husband
it is evident that though cruelty has been pleaded by him
in his petition, but no cogent evidence has been
produced by him to prove the allegations.
49. The respondent-wife has been examined as DW-1 who
has stated that her marriage was solemnized with the
appellant according to Hindu rites and rituals on
06.06.2014 and after marriage she went to her Sasural and
she lived with her husband for few days peacefully but
thereafter the behaviour of her husband and in-laws
towards her was cruel and when their demand of dowry was
not fulfilled, she was subjected to torture by them.
2025:JHHC:17756-DB
She has stated that the case has been filed by her
husband against her is not true and her husband made false
and concocted allegations against her and that the instant
case has been filed by suppressing the material fact that at
the time of filing of this case, the appellant was living with
her as husband and wife in the same house.
She has further stated that it is true that after marriage
she was subjected to torture by her husband and his family
members for bringing less dowry.
She has stated that when the divorce case was filed, she
was living with the appellant as husband and wife and after
many days she came to know that her husband has filed the
instant suit and when she requested to withdraw the case,
then he stated that he will withdraw the case but in spite of
that he has not withdrawn the case.
She has stated that the allegation levelled against her in
the petition is false, concocted and are baseless.
She has stated that she is less educated and her
husband is an engineer and after marriage the appellant
pressurized her to allow him to solemnize marriage with
other girl, but when she refused then he filed this case with
false allegation against her.
She has stated that since her marriage till date she is
living in the house of her husband. She has stated that the
allegation of her husband that her family members quarreled
2025:JHHC:17756-DB
with him is completely false rather her family members never
came to her matrimonial house.
50. The learned Principal Judge, from the statements of
the witnesses so produced on behalf of the parties, has come
to the conclusion that appellant has miserably failed to
prove the grounds of alleged cruelty pleaded by him in his
petition.
51. From the testimony so recorded of the appellant-
husband, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court has
come to the conclusion that in the instant case, the
plaintiff/appellant has not been able to prove his case
against the defendant/respondent even to the extent of
preponderance of probabilities. The onus to prove the
grounds taken for divorce squarely rests on the
plaintiff which are required to be discharged by leading
a cogent, tangible and reliable evidence.
52. In the context of the aforesaid factual aspect only
seminal issue has to be decide herein that "Whether
the plaintiff is entitled to get divorce dissolving the
marriage of the petitioner/appellant with OP/wife U/s
13(1) (i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955?
53. It requires to refer herein the definition of 'cruelty' as
has been defined by Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment
rendered in Dr. N.G. Dastane Vs. Mrs. S. Dastane [(1975)
2 SCC 326], wherein it has been held that the Court is to
2025:JHHC:17756-DB
enquire as to whether the charge as cruelty, is of such a
character, as to cause in the mind of the petitioner, a
reasonable apprehension that, it will be harmful or injurious
for him to live with the respondent.
54. The cruelty has also been defined in the case of
Shobha Rani Vs. Madhukar Reddi [(1988) 1 SCC 105],
wherein the wife alleged that the husband and his parents
demanded dowry. The Hon'ble Apex Court emphasized that
"cruelty" can have no fixed definition.
55. According to the Hon'ble Apex Court, "cruelty" is the
"conduct in relation to or in respect of matrimonial conduct
in respect of matrimonial duties and obligations". It is the
conduct which adversely affects the spouse. Such cruelty
can be either "mental" or "physical", intentional or
unintentional. For example, unintentionally waking your
spouse up in the middle of the night may be mental cruelty;
intention is not an essential element of cruelty but it may be
present. Physical cruelty is less ambiguous and more "a
question of fact and degree."
56. The Hon'ble Apex Court has further observed therein
that while dealing with such complaints of cruelty that it is
important for the Court to not search for a standard in life,
since cruelty in one case may not be cruelty in another case.
What must be considered include the kind of life the parties
are used to, "their economic and social conditions", and the
2025:JHHC:17756-DB
"culture and human values to which they attach
importance."
57. The nature of allegations need not only be illegal
conduct such as asking for dowry. Making allegations
against the spouse in the written statement filed before the
court in judicial proceedings may also be held to constitute
cruelty.
58. In V. Bhagat vs. D. Bhagat (Mrs.), (1994)1 SCC 337,
the wife alleged in her written statement that her husband
was suffering from "mental problems and paranoid
disorder". The wife's lawyer also levelled allegations of
"lunacy" and "insanity" against the husband and his family
while he was conducting cross-examination. The Hon‟ble
Apex Court held these allegations against the husband to
constitute "cruelty".
59. In Vijay Kumar Ramchandra Bhate v. Neela Vijay
Kumar Bhate, (2003)6 SCC 334 the Hon'ble Apex Court
has observed by taking into consideration the allegations
levelled by the husband in his written statement that his
wife was "unchaste" and had indecent familiarity with a
person outside wedlock and that his wife was having an
extramarital affair. These allegations, given the context of an
educated Indian woman, were held to constitute "cruelty"
itself.
60. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Joydeep Majumdar v.
2025:JHHC:17756-DB
Bharti Jaiswal Majumdar, (2021) 3 SCC 742, has been
pleased to observe that while judging whether the conduct is
cruel or not, what has to be seen is whether that conduct,
which is sustained over a period of time, renders the life of
the spouse so miserable as to make it unreasonable to make
one live with the other. The conduct may take the form of
abusive or humiliating treatment, causing mental pain and
anguish, torturing the spouse, etc. The conduct complained
of must be "grave" and "weighty" and trivial irritations and
normal wear and tear of marriage would not constitute
mental cruelty as a ground for divorce.
61. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vidhya
Viswanathan v. Kartik Balakrishnan, (2014) 15 SCC 21
has specifically held that cruelty is to be determined on
whole facts of the case and the matrimonial relations
between the spouses and the word 'cruelty' has not been
defined and 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 and one which is adversely affecting the other.
62. Now reverting to the fact of the case It has been stated
by the appellant/husband that the respondent used to
quarrel and assault his mother and also used to misbehave
with his sister and even she did not allow him to have sexual
right over her and due to which he sustained mental pain
2025:JHHC:17756-DB
and agony. He has further stated that on 21.06.2014 the
respondent, in presence of family members of the appellant,
abused him in filthy words and also assaulted him.
63. But at the same time in the cross-examination, he had
stated that he did not make complaint anywhere regarding
the occurrence and he has not mentioned the day and time
of occurrence dated 21.06.2014. He has also not mentioned
the name of person in whose presence the occurrence was
occurred.
64. Thus, from the aforesaid it is evident that the appellant
husband has not produced any cogent evidence in regard to
the cruelty which has been subjected to him by the
respondent/wife and he had categorically stated that he had
not lodged any complainant regarding the alleged
occurrence.
65. This Court, based upon the aforesaid discussions on
the issue of cruelty, is of considered view that the issue of
cruelty as has been alleged by the appellant-husband
against his wife could not be proved because no cogent
evidence to that effect has been produced by the appellant
and, as such, this Court has no reason to take different view
that has been taken by the learned Family Court observing
that the plaintiff has not been able to prove that the
defendant subjected him with cruelty to the extent required
by law.
2025:JHHC:17756-DB
66. Accordingly, issue as framed by this Court is decided
against the appellant-husband and it is held that the
learned Family Court had rightly not granted the decree of
divorce in favour of the appellant husband on the ground of
cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, as
such same is requires no interference by this Court.
67. This Court, on the basis of discussions made
hereinabove, is of the view that the judgment passed on
24.08.2022 and decree signed on 01.09.2022 by learned
Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court-I,
Ranchi whereby and whereunder the Original Suit No.312 of
2015 filed by the appellant-husband under Section 13(1)(i-a)
of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for a decree of divorce has
been dismissed, requires no interference by this Court.
68. Accordingly, the instant appeal fails and is dismissed.
69. Pending interlocutory application, if any, also stands
disposed of.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
I agree.
(Rajesh Kumar, J.) (Rajesh Kumar, J.)
Birendra / A.F.R.
