Jharkhand High Court
Raghunandan Kumar Aged About 29 Years vs Anjani Kumari on 19 June, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Rajesh Kumar
2025:JHHC:16141-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
First Appeal (DB) No. 123 of 2023
Raghunandan Kumar aged about 29 years, son of Sukhdeo Rai, Resident of
Village Kripalpur, P.O. and P.S. Dhnwar, District-Giridih (Jharkhand)
-- --- Plaintiff/Appellant
Versus
Anjani Kumari, W/o Raghunandan Kumar, Daughter of Suresh Rai, Resident
of Village Kripalpur, P.O. and P.S. Dhnwar, District- Giridih (Jharkhand) at
present resident of Chitrokurha, P.O. Mandro, P.S. Deori, District- Giridih
(Jharkhand) --- ---Defendant/ Respondent
.......
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Anurag Kashyap, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Roy, Advocate
12/ Dated 19th June 2025
This appeal filed under Section 19(1) of the Family Court Act is
directed against the judgment dated 12.04.2023 and decree dated
20.04.2023 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge,
Additional Family Court, Giridih in Original Suit No. 303 of 2017
whereby and whereunder the suit preferred by the appellant for
dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955 has been dismissed.
2. The brief facts as per the pleading are need to be referred herein
which reads as under:
The appellant-husband after solemnization of marriage with the
respondent-wife on 13.07.2016 as per the Hindu rites and customs has
found himself impossible to live with his wife and as such an
application was made under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955 for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty.
Cruelty has been tried to be demonstrated on the ground that the
respondent-wife is suffering from Polio and in consequence thereof,
she is not in a position to perform her household duties and even to
2025:JHHC:16141-DB
cook.
3. Evidence has been laid on behalf of both the parties. The
learned Family Court on consideration of the evidences of the rival
parties and considering the definition of "Cruelty" has come to the
conclusion that the element of cruelty is not established on the ground
that the respondent-wife is suffering from Polio. As a result, the suit
has been dismissed against which the present appeal has been
preferred.
Submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the appellant:
4. Ground has been taken by the appellant that the marriage has
been solemnized by the parents of the respondent-wife by concealing
the fact that the respondent-wife is suffering from Polio, which
according to learned counsel for the appellant is sufficient ground to
prove the element of cruelty. But the same has not been taken in right
perspective by the learned Family Court and hence the present appeal.
Submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the respondent:
5. While on the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-
wife has submitted that it is unacceptable that the wife, a human, is
suffering from Polio can hide that disease rather Polio is such a
disease, which is apparent. It has been contended that it is incorrect on
the part of the appellant to take the ground of cruelty merely because
the wife was suffering from Polio. Hence the said ground has been
taken as a ground for divorce. It has come in the evidence that she has
been subjected to torture on the ground that she is suffering from
Polio. It has been contended that the learned Family Judge after taking
into consideration the aforesaid fact is correct in declining to dissolve
the marriage on the ground of physical ailment.
Analysis:
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone
through the finding recorded by the learned Family Judge in the
2025:JHHC:16141-DB
impugned judgment as also the evidences available in the trial Court
record.
7. This Court after appreciating the arguments advanced on behalf
of the parties has to consider as to whether the disease of Polio can be
construed to be a ground so as to dissolve the marriage under the
provision of Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955.
8. But before consideration of the aforesaid issue, the evidences
recorded of the witnesses needs to be referred herein, which reads as
under:--
On behalf of the Plaintiff/ Appellant husband
P.W.1 Sadanand Rai is the neighbor of the plaintiff (appellant herein)
has stated in his evidence at para 1,2 & 3 that the marriage of plaintiff
with defendant was solemnized on 13.07.2016 at Chitrokurha, P.S.
Deori, District-Giridih according to Hindu Rites and Ceremonies and
defendant lived in her Sasural for about 14-15 days. He further stated
that from the first day, she refused to talk with the plaintiff stated that
she does not like plaintiff and her parents and she forcefully married
the plaintiff. She does not want to live in her sasural as the plaintiff is
an unemployed person and she also started misbehaving with the
plaintiff and his family members. He has further stated in para 4 that
plaintiff and his family members tried to pacify the matter, but in vain.
The witness further deposed that defendant is handicapped and her
right leg is totally polio affected and she is unable to move freely and
not able to do normal works and this fact was not disclosed by the
parents of the defendant prior to marriage with the plaintiff. He further
stated in para 6 that when the plaintiff informed and complained to his
in-laws, then his father-in-law and brother-in-law came to his house
and took the defendant with them on 27.07.2016 with all ornaments,
clothes and other articles and while they were going to their village,
they threatened that when plaintiff tried to come to his sasural, they
will implicate him and his family members in a false criminal case.
During cross examination PW-1 Sadanand Rai has stated in para 9 and
2025:JHHC:16141-DB
10 that marriage was solemnized in Jharkhandi Dham Temple. In para
11 he has stated that defendant is little bit polio affected but she is able
to do normal daily routine work. He further stated in para 14 that
parents of plaintiff have seen the defendant prior to her marriage and
then marriage was solemnized. In para 16, 17 & 18 he has denied that
Raghunandan solemnized second marriage with one Punam Kumari
D/o Manoj Rai, so Petitioner deliberately ousted the defendant from
his house. He has further stated that he had no knowledge about the
case filed by Anjani Kumari against plaintiff and his family members.
PW-2 Baleshwar Rai, also neighbour of plaintiff has stated in his
evidence at para 1 and 2 that the marriage of plaintiff with defendant
was solemnized on 13.07.2016 at Chitrokurha, P.S-Deori, District-
Giridih according to Hindu Rites and Ceremonies. He has further
stated that after marriage, defendant lived in her Sasural and from the
first day, she refused to talk with the plaintiff and her parents
forcefully married her with the plaintiff and she does not want to live
in her sasural as the plaintiff is an unemployed person and she also
started misbehaving with the plaintiff and his family members. He
further stated that plaintiff and his family members tried to pacify the
matter, but in-vain. He further stated that the defendant lived at her
sasural for 13-14 days only. He further stated in para 3 that defendant
is handicapped and her right leg is totally polio affected and she is
unable to move freely and to do normal works and this fact was not
disclosed by the parents of the defendant prior to marriage to the
plaintiff. He further stated in para 4 and 5 that plaintiff is a Graduate
and he is preparing for competitive examinations and his future is
totally ruined by defendant. He further stated that when the plaintiff
informed and complained to his in-laws, then his father-in-law and
brother-in-law came to his house and took the defendant with them
with all ornaments, clothes and other articles and while they were
going to their village, they threatened that if plaintiff try to come to
his sasural, they will implicate him and his family members in a false
2025:JHHC:16141-DB
criminal case. During cross examination PW-2 Baleshwar Rai has
stated in para 8 and 9 that the marriage of plaintiff with defendant is
an arranged marriage. He further stated that the defendant reside in
her sasural for 13-14 days only and after that his brother came and
took the defendant to her naihar. In para 15, 16 he has denied that
husband of the defendant solemnised second marriage in Tilaiya. He
further stated that father of the defendant filed a dowry case against
the plaintiff and his family members. He further denied that it is not a
fact that when defendant filed a dowry case against the husband and
In- laws then plaintiff filed this present case for divorce and further he
denied that Anjani wants to reside in her sasural, but in-laws did not
want to keep her.
PW-3, Raghunandan Kumar is plaintiff himself has stated in his
evidence in para 1and 2 that his marriage was solemnized with the
defendant on 13.07.2016 as per the Hindu Rites and customs and after
marriage, the defendant came to her matrimonial house. In para 3 he
has further stated that from the first day of marriage, the defendant
started behaving with unbearable cruelty with him, whenever he wants
to talk with her, she totally refused to talk with him. He further stated
that the reason behind this is that the defendant did not want to marry
with him as he is an unemployed person, but her parents solemnised
her marriage with him by force and without her consent and also
threaten her of dire consequences. He further stated that from the
second day of her marriage, she washed her vermilion (Sindur) from
her head. In para 4 he has stated that just after marriage when
defendant came to his home he came to know that she is handicapped
and her right leg is totally polio affected and she is unable to move
freely and cannot to do normal routine works. This fact was not
disclosed by the parents of the defendant prior to the marriage and he
is under mental torture. He further stated in para 6 that he is a
graduate and he is in preparation of competitive examinations, but
now his career is in danger of being ruined in the above circumstances
2025:JHHC:16141-DB
and mental torture by the Defendant. In para 7 he has stated that he
tried to establish physical relation as husband and she flatly refused
which caused mental torture. He has further stated that when he
informed and complained to his father-in-law and brother-in-law, they
came to his house and took the defendant with them in 13-14 days of
his marriage with all ornaments, clothes and other articles and while
they were going to their village, they threatened that if he try to come
to his sasural, they will implicate him and his family members in a
false criminal case. He further stated that since 27.07.2016, the
defendant is residing in her naihar. During cross examination, in paras
12 and 13 he has stated that he is a Graduate and preparing for
competitive examinations and he visited to his sasural three times for
taking his wife. In para 14 and 15 he has admitted that he could not
went to see the defendant Anjani Kumari prior to his marriage but his
father and mother went to see the defendant and like her after
negotiation, marriage took place. He further stated in para 17 that he
also does not like her as from the first day of his marriage, she
misbehaved with him. In para 18 plaintiff refused to keep defendant as
wife in spite of that defendant is ready to reside with him as wife. In
para 19 and 20 he has admitted that there is no consultation of doctor
for treatment of polio of his wife defendant and no panchayati was
called for. In para 22 he denied that he solemnized second marriage
with the daughter of Manoj Rai and also denied for demand of dowry
and ousted his wife/defendant. In para 25 he has denied that it is not a
fact that second day of his marriage, he knows that defendant is polio
affected, so he does not want keep her.
PW-4, Sukhdeo Rai, the father of the plaintiff has stated in his
evidence para 1and 2 that the marriage of his son was solemnized with
the defendant on 13.07.2016 as per the Hindu Rites and customs and
after marriage, the defendant came to her matrimonial house and
resided for 15 days only. He further stated in para 3 that from the very
beginning, the defendant started behaving with unbearable cruelty
2025:JHHC:16141-DB
with the plaintiff and whenever plainüff wants to talk with her, she
totally refused to talk with him. He further stated that the reason
behind this is that the defendant did not want to marry with his son as
he is an unemployed person, but her parents solemnized her marriage
with him by force and without her consent and also threatened her of
dire consequences. Further stated that from second day of her
marriage, she washed her vermilion (Suhag) from her head. He further
stated in para 4 that unfortunate the defendant is handicapped and her
right leg is totally polio affected and she is unable to move freely and
to do normal works and this fact was not disclosed by the parents of
the defendant prior to the marriage. He further stated in para 6 that his
son is in preparation of competitive examinations, but now his career
is in danger of being ruined in the above circumstances. He further
stated in para 7 that when his son informed and complained to his in-
laws, then his father-in-law and brother-in-law came to his house and
took the defendant with them on 27.07.2016 with all ornaments,
clothes and other articles and while they were going to their village,
they threatened that if he try to come to his sasural, they will implicate
him and his family members in a false criminal case and since then,
the defendant is residing in her naihar. During cross examination, he
has stated in para 6, 7 and 8 that he is living separately from his son
prior to his marriage and after his consent, the marriage of his son was
solemnized. He further stated that he and his one relative went for
negotiation and after 4-5 days, the marriage was solemnised. He
further stated that plaintiff and defendant were always quarreling with
each other. He further stated that his wife has told that defendant is
polio affected. He further stated that his son is residing in house and
he is disturbed and defendant is a Graduate. He further stated that
defendant misbehaved with them, so his son filed this case and his son
is also a Graduate. He denied that his son has solemnized second
marriage. He further stated that the defendant has filed dowry case
against them.
2025:JHHC:16141-DB
On behalf of Defendant/Respondent wife
DW-1 Awdhesh Kumar Rai is neighbour of the defendant, who has
stated in his evidence at para 2and 3 that the marriage of defendant
with plaintiff was solemnised on 13.07.2016 according to Hindu Rites
and Ceremonies and she went to her sasural. He further stated that
after her marriage, the plaintiff and her In-laws started demanding Rs.
Ten lacs and one Bullet motorcycle and on non-fulfillment of the said
demand, she was tortured by them and in the year 2016 on the eve of
Durgapuja after assaulting her, she was sent to her naihar. He further
stated in para 4 that the father of the defendant tried to pacify the
matter, but in-vain. He further stated in para 5 that by the consent of
all, the marriage of defendant with plaintiff was solemnised and the
defendant is a Graduate and able to do all work and she is doing all
her matrimonial obligation, but due to dowry demand she was tortured
and ousted from her sasural by her In-laws, so she filed a dowry case
in Deori P.S bearing no-94/17 against them. He has further stated that
defendant wants to reside in her sasural but husband and In-laws did
not want to keep her. He further stated in para 9 that plaintiff
solemnised second marriage with one Punam Kumari, D/O Manoj Rai
of Dhanwar, Giridih in the lifetime of the defendant an 07.03.2018, So
the defendant had also filed a case against them and her husband filed
the present suit against her with false allegation. During cross
examination, he stated that his house is situated at a distance of 5 KM
from the naihar of defendant and the dowry was not demanded in-
front of him. He has stated in para 22 that plaintiff runs a computer
shop at Firayalal Chowk, Ranchi with name and style "Raghunandan
shop". He has stated that he has not attended second marriage of the
Plaintiff. He further denied that it is not a fact that defendant is not
able to do daily routine work due to polio in her right leg. He has
denied that Plaintiff was in jail custody. It is not a fact that respondent
misbehaved with her In-laws.
DW-2 Anjani Kumari, defendant herself and she has stated in her
2025:JHHC:16141-DB
evidence that her marriage with plaintiff was solemnised on
13.07.2016 according to Hindu Rites and Ceremonies and she went to
her sasural. She further stated that plaintiff had earlier filed a case
bearing Case No-274/2016, which was dismissed and this fact was not
placed by the plaintiff in this present petition. She has further stated
that after one of her marriage, the plaintiff and her In-laws started
demanding Rs. Ten lacs and one Bullet motorcycle and on non-
fulfillment of the said demand, she was tortured by them and in the
year 2016 on the eve of Durgapuja after assaulting her they sent her to
naihar. She further stated that she is able to do all work and she is
doing all matrimonial obligation, but due to dowry demand she was
tortured and ousted from her sasural by her In-laws, so she filed a
dowry case in Deori P.S Case no-94/17 against them. She has further
stated that by the consent of all, her marriage with plaintiff was
solemnised and she wants to reside in her sasural but her In-laws did
not want to keep her. She further stated that his father tried to pacify
the matter and conveyed a Panchayti, but in-vain and plaintiff
solemnised second marriage with one Punam Kumari in her lifetime
on 07.03.2018 and for this reason her life got ruined by them. Her
husband filed the present suit against her with false allegation. During
cross examination, she stated that she is graduate and doing nothing
and she wants to reside with her husband. She further stated that after
marriage, she reside in her sasural for one month together, but due to
dowry demand, they tortured her and after assaulting her, ousted her
from matrimonial home. She further stated that she came to her naihar
on the eve of Durgapuja and then she never went to her sasural. She
further stated that her husband has solemnised second marriage. She
has further stated in para 18 that Rs. 7,20,000/- was not given by her
father-in-law, but by the order of Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court in
498 A IPC case, it was given to her and the said amount is in her
Allahabad bank account. Further she stated in her para 24 that her
father-in-law went to judicial custody and he is a government teacher
2025:JHHC:16141-DB
and her husband is running a Computer Coaching in Ranchi.
DW-3 Suresh Rai, father of the defendant has stated in his evidence
that the marriage of her daughter with plaintiff was solemnised on
13.07.2016 according to Hindu Rites and Ceremonies and she went to
her sasural. He further stated after marriage, the plaintiff and her In-
laws started demanding Rs. Ten lacs and one Bullet motorcycle and
on non-fulfillment of the said demand, she was tortured by them and
in the year 2016 on the eve of Durgapuja after assaulting her, she was
sent to her to naihar. He further stated that he convened Panchayti and
tried to pacify the matter but in-vain. He further stated that by the
consent of all, the marriage of her daughter with plaintiff was
solemnized. She further stated that her daughter is graduate and she is
able to do all work and doing her all matrimonial obligation, but due
to dowry demand she was tortured and ousted from her sasural by her
In-laws, so she filed a dowry case being Deori P.S Case no-94/17
against them. He further stated that her daughter wants to reside in her
sasural but In-laws did not want to keep her. He further stated that
plaintiff solemnized second marriage with one Punam Kumari in the
lifetime of his daughter on 07.05.2018 and for this reason her life got
ruined by them, so her daughter filed a case against them and her
husband filed the present suit against her with false allegation. During
cross examination, he has stated that defendant is his daughter and
after her marriage, she resided in her sasural for 2 months only. He
further stated that his son-in-law had a Splendor Plus Bike and he runs
a computer Shop. He further stated that on the victim compensation,
the court had directed to pay a sum of Rs.7,20,000/- to her daughter
and the plaintiff had paid the same. He further stated that his daughter
is not handicapped person and she is doing tuition work and also work
on a computer. He denied that his daughter has misbehaved with her
In-laws.
9. This Court has found from the material available on record and
the statement as recorded in the evidences of the different witnesses
2025:JHHC:16141-DB
adduced on behalf of the parties that the disease of Polio to which the
respondent wife is said to be suffering has been taken as a ground of
cruelty by the appellant-husband for dissolution of marriage.
10. Further ground has been taken that due to the said ailment, the
respondent wife is not in a position to perform her day to day
household work in her matrimonial house and even she is not in a
position to cook food rather she threatens her husband to solemnize
second marriage.
11. This Court needs to refer herein as to whether the suffering of
Polio of the wife and threatening on her part to the husband of
solemnizing second marriage will be construed to be cruelty or not
within the meaning of "Cruelty".
12. The "Cruelty" has not been defined in the Hindu Marriage
Act,1955 however, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Several decisions has
interpreted the meaning of "Cruelty" for the purpose of taking such
circumstances for dissolution of marriage while considering the
application filed under section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act,
1955.
13. The "cruelty" has been interpreted by the Hon'ble Apex Court
in the case of Dr. N.G. Dastane vs. Mrs. S. Dastane, (1975) 2 SCC
326 wherein it has been held that the Court has to enquire, as to
whether, the conduct 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.
14. In the case of Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi, (1988)1 SCC
105 wherein the wife has alleged that the husband and his parents
demanded dowry. The Hon'ble Apex Court has emphasized that
"cruelty" can have no fixed definition. According to the Hon'ble Apex
Court, "cruelty" is the "conduct in relation to or in respect of
matrimonial conduct in respect of matrimonial obligations". It is the
conduct which adversely affects the spouse. Such cruelty can be either
"mental" or "physical", "intentional or unintentional". For example,
2025:JHHC:16141-DB
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.". The Hon'ble Apex Court has further
observed therein that while dealing with such complaints of cruelty 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 "culture and human values
to which they attach importance." 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.
15. In V. Bhagat vs. D. Bhagat (Mrs.), (1994)1 SCC 337, the wife
has 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 a cross-examination.
The Hon'ble Apex Court held these allegations against the husband to
constitute "cruelty".
16. In Vijaykumar 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.
17. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Joydeep Majumdar v. 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
2025:JHHC:16141-DB
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.
It is, thus, evident that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the recent judgment
passed in Joydeep Majumdar v. Bharti Jaiswal Majumdar (supra)
has been pleased to lay down 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.
18. It is thus evident from the aforesaid judgments that the cruelty
has been defined to be a nature of the ground which is above the
normal ground and not all type of quarrel is to be considered as
cruelty. None of the judgment has referred that suffering from any
disease can come within the fold of cruelty.
19. This Court after having referred the impugned judgment and
adverting to the factual aspect is of the view that suffering of Polio or
any kind of disease will not come under the fold of cruelty. Further,
simple threatening to solemnize second marriage given by the wife to
the husband, will also not come under the definition of cruelty.
20. Further ground has been taken about suppression of fact of
Polio in the right leg at the time of solemnization of marriage also
found not be substantiated, since, Polio in the right leg of the
respondent wife is the admitted fact herein. The said fact could have
been considered by the husband prior to solemnization of marriage but
once the marriage has been solemnized then it is understood that
2025:JHHC:16141-DB
solemnization of marriage must have been done only after observing
the lady i.e., respondent wife and further the suffering from Polio in
the right leg cannot be suppressed as has been stated by the husband
as it would be apparent when the person suffering from polio walks,
which is visible by the naked eye. However, if the suffering of Polio
in on any hand, that could have been concealed.
21. This Court having discussed the factual as well as the legal
position has found that the learned Family Court has relied upon the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dr. N.G. Dastane
Vrs. Mrs. S.Dastane (1975) 2 SCC 326; V. Bhagat Vs. D. Bhagat
(Mrs.) (1994) 1 SCC 337 and the case of Chetan Dass V. Kamla Devi
(2001) 4 SCC 250 while considering the element of cruelty and come
to the conclusion that the ground of cruelty taken by the husband does
not fit to dissolve the marriage. The learned Family Court has also
taken endeavour to judge the physical deformity of the respondent
wife by calling her to the Court. The learned Family Court has noticed
that respondent wife is having average height and there is no crippling
walk noticed by the Court. Further the respondent wife walked before
the Court and there is a slight cripple in her right leg which appears
when observed very carefully. For reference, the aforesaid findings
recorded by the learned Family Court at paragraph 22 of the
impugned judgment is quoted hereunder:
"I have discussed the evidence of Husband/Petitioner as PW 3, it deposed
that respondent refused to reside with him only 14 days and also refused to
cohabitation with him even refused to talk with the petitioner/husband but
he admitted in his cross-examination para 12 and 13 that he was visited to
his sasural for taking his wife which shows that there is cordial relation in
between the parties. So far the physical condition of respondent is
concerned as alleged suffering from Polio in her right leg and unable to do
daily routine work, this court noticed that during the recording of the
evidence and also subsequent date fixed for hearing/Argument of the suit
the respondent Anjani Kumari present before the court and it was notice
that she/wife is having average height and there is no any crippling walk
noticed by the court. Further that the respondent walked before the court
in very discipline manner and there is very slight cripple in her right leg,
which appears when watch her very carefully. The main allegation of the
plaintiff is that due to Polio in her right leg and unable to do any work, but
court was found that she is able to do her own work in natural way.
Therefore, the court finds that the allegation against the respondent is
suffering from Polio in her right leg and unable to do daily routine work is
2025:JHHC:16141-DB
found no force to relay."
22. This Court, considering the aforesaid finding as recorded in the
impugned judgment is of the view that the impugned judgment
requires no interference by this Court.
23. Accordingly, the present first appeal is dismissed. Pending I.A,
if any also stands disposed of.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
Jharkhand High Court
19th June 2025
A.Mohanty/Raja /AFR
