Jharkhand High Court
Anil Kumar Das vs Anuja Devi @ Pushpi Devi on 10 September, 2025
Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay, Deepak Roshan
2025:JHHC:28270-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
First Appeal No.258 of 2019
------
Anil Kumar Das, son of Angad Das, resident of Bhabhua, Ward
No.13, P.O. and PS. Bhabhua, District Kaimur (Bhabhua);
present address Police Radio Department, Kashganj Janpad,
District Kashganj, U.P.
------- Appellant
Versus
Anuja Devi @ Pushpi Devi, daughter of Late Pramod Kumar,
resident of H.I. 17, Harmu Housing Colony, P.O. and P.S.
Argora, District Ranchi; present address Block Programming
Officer, Chandwa Block, P.O. and P.S. Latehar, District Latehar.
------ Respondent
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
-------
For the Appellant : Mr. Vijay Bahadur Singh, Adv.
For the Respondent : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sinha, Adv.
-------
CAV JUDGMENT
Dated: 10th September 2025
R.Mukhopadhyay,J. Heard Mr. Vijay Bahadur Singh, learned counsel
for the appellant and Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sinha, learned
counsel appearing for the respondent.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and
decree dated 15.07.2019 (decree signed on 27.07.2019)
passed by Sri Nalin Kumar, learned Principal Judge, Family
Court, Ranchi in Original Suit No. 340 of 2018 whereby and
whereunder the suit preferred by the appellant for dissolution
of his marriage with the respondent 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. The petitioner / husband (appellant herein) had
preferred a suit for dissolution of his marriage in the Family
Court, Kaimur (Bhabhua) wherein it has been stated that the
marriage of the petitioner was solemnized with the respondent
on 09.05.1997 and after marriage the respondent came to
stay at her matrimonial house at Bhabhua. After staying for
4½ months at Bhabhua, the respondent had left for her
parents place and at the instigation of others a false case of
assault was instituted being Complaint Case No. 269/2000
which however was dismissed later on. The petitioner had
filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights on 19.05.2000
which was also dismissed. The respondent did not want to
reside with the petitioner and she had filed a case of
maintenance claiming an amount of Rs.2500/- per month.
The petitioner has a son with the respondent who is aged 13
years who under the influence of his mother and maternal
uncle stays at Ranchi. The respondent has completely
deserted the petitioner and there is no relationship of
husband and wife between them. The respondent has filed a
case under Section 498A IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry
Prohibition Act being GR Case No. 2143/2003 which is
pending. The High Court in MJC No. 695/2004 had sent the
respondent to stay with the petitioner on 19.09.2006 and both
stayed at Obra and on the pretext of attending the yearly
rituals of her deceased father, had left for Ranchi along with
her brothers and thereafter she had never returned. It has
been stated that on 16.03.1999 when the petitioner had come
to Ranchi to take the bidai of the respondent, the brothers of
the Respondent had assaulted the petitioner and he was
forcibly taken to a mental hospital from where the petitioner
somehow managed to free himself. In the maintenance case,
the respondent has taken a one-time amount of Rs 40,000/-
and monthly maintenance of Rs 2,500/- per month, though
the respondent is employed in the Block Programming Office
and is earning an amount of Rs 14,000/- per month. The
petitioner had earlier given information against the
respondent and her brothers in the office of the Sub-
Divisional Officer.
5. The respondent, on being noticed, had appeared
and filed a written statement in which the allegation made in
the application for divorce has been denied. The respondent
had never refused to stay with the petitioner but the petitioner
has never cared to fulfill even the basic necessities of the
respondent. The respondent has been mentally and physically
tortured by the petitioner and his family members. In
Matrimonial Case No. 06/2000, the petitioner has himself
admitted that the respondent is living in Bhabhua at her in-
laws' house which fact is reflected in the judgment in Case No.
06/2000. In Complaint Case No. 1082/03, the petitioner had
stated that the respondent had left her matrimonial house on
12.06.2003 and had gone to Ranchi. This makes it clear that
the petitioner has filed the instant suit with false allegations
against the respondent that she has deserted the petitioner
and has refused to live with him. It has been stated that after
marriage of the respondent with the petitioner in the year
1997, the petitioner and his family members had tortured the
respondent in various ways for demand of dowry and on
account of the negligence and assault, the respondent had
suffered a miscarriage in the year 1999. This led to the
respondent filing Complaint Case No. 269/2000 against the
petitioner and her in-laws. On the written assurance of the
petitioner that the respondent would be kept with love,
affection and dignity, the respondent did not proceed with the
complaint case. The assurance of the petitioner led the
respondent to her matrimonial house. The respondent lived at
her matrimonial house despite a hostile environment but after
an attack on the respondent, she was compelled to move back
to her parents' place at Ranchi and had lodged Argora P.S.
Case No. 207/2003 which is still pending. The petitioner did
not take care of the respondent and the child which led to
filing of Maintenance Case No. 130/03 which was allowed.
The petitioner had thereafter persuaded the respondent to
withdraw the criminal case and the maintenance case and
had started lodging false cases against the Respondent and
her family members. The respondent has come to know that
the petitioner has solemnized another marriage with one
Shweta for which the respondent had filed Complaint Case
No. 1069/14 under Section 494 IPC and other Sections of the
Indian Penal Code.
6. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the following
issues were framed for adjudication:-
(i) Whether the suit is maintainable in its present
form ?
(ii) Whether the petitioner has valid cause of action for
the suit ?
(iii) Whether the respondent has treated the petitioner
with cruelty after solemnization of marriage ?
(iv) Whether the respondent has deserted the petitioner
since last two years ?
(v) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get decree of
divorce ?
(vi) To what relief or reliefs the petitioner is entitled to ?
7. The suit which was initially filed at Kasmar
(Bhabhua) and numbered as Matrimonial Case No. 77/15
stood transferred in terms of the order passed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Transfer Petition (C) No. 42/2018 and was
re-registered as Original Suit No. 340/18.
8. The petitioner has examined as many as five
witnesses in support of its case.
9. P.W.1 Rishikesh Tiwari has stated that the
respondent is staying separate from the petitioner for the last
10-11 years at Ranchi. The respondent works in the Block
Office. The respondent has stayed with the petitioner for 2-4
months. He does not know as to whether the petitioner and
the respondent have any children or not.
In cross-examination he has deposed that he is
aware about the fact that the respondent has filed a dowry
related case as well as a case for maintenance against the
petitioner. He has not attended the second marriage of the
respondent.
10. P.W.2 Niranjan Das is the brother-in-law of the
petitioner who has stated that in 1997 the marriage of the
petitioner and the respondent was solemnized and after
marriage the respondent had gone to her matrimonial house
at Bhabhua where she stayed for 3-4 months. The respondent
is at present a Block Program Officer at Chandwa Block and
the petitioner is at present posted at Chandoli as Wireless
Operator. He does not know as to whether the petitioner and
the respondent have any children or not. Neither of the parties
wants to stay with each other. Though the petitioner has not
solemnized another marriage but the respondent has
solemnized a marriage with Prabhat Pathak.
In cross-examination he has deposed that he has
come to know of the second marriage of the respondent from
Chitranjan Das. He is aware about the dowry related case
preferred by the respondent.
11. P.W.3 Rajesh Kumar has stated that the
respondent has spent a total period of 4½ months at her
matrimonial house. There is no physical relationship between
the petitioner and the respondent for the last 10 years. The
petitioner is a Wireless Operator in U.P. Police and the
respondent works in Chandwa Block. He does not have any
information that the respondent has solemnized another
marriage with Prabhat Pathak.
In cross-examination he has deposed that he had
attended the marriage ceremony of the petitioner and the
respondent. The respondent is staying separate from the
petitioner since 2008. In 2008 he had witnessed the
solemnization of marriage of the respondent with Prabhat
Pathak. Despite being present in the marriage he had not
raised any objection. He does not have any documentary proof
of the marriage.
12. P.W.4 Chitranjan Kumar has stated that after
marriage the respondent had stayed at her matrimonial house
for 3 months and thereafter she had filed a case relating to
demand of dowry as well as a case for maintenance. The
respondent has solemnized another marriage with Prabhat
Pathak on 25.04.2008 at Jagannath Temple, Hatia. He had
not attended the marriage but had coincidentally gone to visit
the temple. He had also met the temple priest on the same
day.
13. In cross-examination he has deposed that the
petitioner is his cousin brother. He has no knowledge about
the petitioner having solemnized another marriage with
Shweta Kumari with whom he has 2 children.
14. P.W.5 Anil Kumar Das is the petitioner who has
stated that his marriage was solemnized with the respondent
on 09.05.1997 and on 10.05.1997 the respondent had gone to
her matrimonial house where after staying for 3 days she had
left for her parents place along with her brothers. The total
period the respondent had stayed with him is four and half
months which was also intermittent. In the year 2000 on the
instigation of her brother she had filed a dowry related case
which was dismissed on 22.03.2001. He had filed a suit under
Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 on 19.05.2000 at
Bhabhua and for transfer of which to Ranchi the respondent
had filed MJC No. 695 of 2004 in which on the intervention of
the court the respondent had gone to stay with the petitioner
at Obra, Sonbhadra, Uttar Pradesh and on 27.11.2006 on the
pretext of attending the yearly rituals of her deceased father
the respondent had left for Ranchi with her brother and she
had never come back thereafter. The respondent does not
want to stay with him and this is the reason for the
respondent to have filed a case for maintenance in which an
amount of Rs. 2500/- per month has been ordered. The
respondent has completely deserted him and has also filed a
false dowry related case being GR No. 2143/2007. The
respondent has extended inhuman behavior towards the
petitioner and at Ranchi he and his father were assaulted by
the respondent and her brother for which an information was
also given to the court of SDJM on 12.07.2006. The
respondent is a Block Program Officer at Chandwa Block
since February 2008 and she is at present getting an amount
of Rs. 19,500/- per month. Prabhat Pathak had solemnized
marriage with the respondent in a temple and this fact had
come to his knowledge in February 2013. He had on several
occasions approached the respondent to get divorce by mutual
consent but she had refused to accept such offer.
In cross-examination he has deposed that in
Complaint Case No. 269 of 2000 he was forced to enter into a
compromise. He has lodged 5 cases against the respondent
and her family members. He had seen Prabhat Pathak and the
respondent in a quarter in Chandwa.
15. The respondent has examined herself as a witness
in support of her case.
16. R.W.1 Anuja Devi is the respondent who has stated
that her marriage was solemnized with the petitioner on
09.05.1997 as per Hindu rites and customs and after
marriage she went to reside at her matrimonial house at
Bhabhua. Out of the wedlock a son was born on 20.06.2001.
After being kept well for a few days after marriage the
petitioner and his family members started committing torture
upon her with respect to demand of dowry which forced her to
file a complaint in the court of CJM, Ranchi being Complaint
Case No. 269 of 2000. During the pendency of the complaint
case a compromise was effected on 2.7.2000 after which she
went back to her matrimonial house. However, there was no
change in the behavior of the petitioner and his family
members and for 2-3 years she tolerated the torture
committed upon her and ultimately she was constrained to
file a police case being Argora P.S. Case No. 207/2003. The
said case remained pending for 15 years and was ultimately
decided on 31.03.2018. She has filed an appeal against the
order dated 31.03.2018 which is at present pending. She had
filed an application for maintenance being Maintenance Case
No. 130/2003 in which pursuant to an order the petitioner is
making payment of an amount of Rs.2500/- per month. The
petitioner had filed a revision against the order of
maintenance being Criminal Revision No. 1110/2004 which
was disposed of on 23.08.2016. During the pendency of the
revision application the petitioner had filed Misc. Case No.
23/2013 which was dismissed on 07.12.2016. This led to
another revision being filed by the petitioner in Criminal
Revision No. 222/2017 which is still pending. The petitioner
had also filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights which
was dismissed on 17.09.2007. The petitioner had preferred a
Misc. Appeal against the order dated 17.09.2007 which
however was withdrawn by him. The petitioner has lodged
several false cases against her and her brother. Whenever she
used to go to Civil Court, Bhabhua for attending to her cases
the petitioner used to abuse and humiliate them. Despite
several compromises and orders of the court there was no
change in the behaviour of the petitioner and his family
members whenever she went to reside at her matrimonial
house. The petitioner has solemnised another marriage for
which she has filed a complaint case being Complaint Case
No. 1069/14 which is still pending.
In cross-examination she has deposed that since
27.11.2006 she does not have any relation with the petitioner.
She knows Prabhat Kumar Pathak and she ties Rakhi to him.
17. It has been submitted by Mr. Vijay Bahadur Singh,
learned counsel appearing for the petitioner / appellant that
the cruelty which has been inflicted upon the petitioner by the
various acts of the respondent has made it an impossibility for
the petitioner to stay with the respondent. The petitioner had
made all efforts to reconcile the disputes with the respondent
but the respondent instead had made false allegations against
the petitioner and none of the criminal cases instituted
against the petitioner ended in any adverse order having been
passed against the petitioner. It has been submitted that both
the parties are staying separate since decades and the
marriage for all practical purposes has become dead but this
fact has also not been appropriately considered by the learned
trial court.
18. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sinha, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent has submitted that bald and
unsubstantiated allegations have been made against the
respondent of solemnizing a marriage with Prabhat Pathak.
Such scandalous allegations would itself amount to drawing
an adverse inference against the petitioner of seeking divorce
on non-existent grounds. It has been submitted that a
number of cases have been filed against the respondent by the
petitioner and despite the willingness of the respondent to
resume her conjugal life with the petitioner, it was the petitioner
who has been adamant in getting the marriage dissolved.
19. We have heard the learned counsel for the
respective parties and have also perused the trial court
record.
20. 'Cruelty' and 'desertion' are the initial two pillars
upon which the foundation of the case of the petitioner rests.
In course of argument, the ground of irretrievable breakdown
of marriage has been highlighted by the learned counsel for
the petitioner/appellant and in such context reference has
been made to the case of Rakesh Raman versus Kavita
reported in AIR 2023 SC 2144 wherein it has been held as
follows:
"16. Matrimonial cases before the Courts pose a
different challenge, quite unlike any other, as we are
dealing with human relationships with its bundle of
emotions, with all its faults and frailties. It is not
possible in every case to pin point to an act of "cruelty"
or blameworthy conduct of the spouse. The nature of
relationship, the general behaviour of the parties
towards each other, or long separation between the
two are relevant factors which a Court must take into
consideration. In Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh a three
Judge Bench of this Court had dealt in detail as to
what would constitute cruelty under Section 13 (1) (ia)
of the Act. An important guideline in the above
decision is on the approach of a Court in determining
cruelty. What has to be examined here is the entire
matrimonial relationship, as cruelty may not be in a
violent act or acts but in a given case has to be
gathered from injurious reproaches, complaints,
accusations, taunts, etc. The Court relied on the
definition of cruelty in matrimonial relationships in
Halsbury's Laws of England (Vol 13, 4th Edn, Para
1269, Pg 602) which must be reproduced here:
"The general rule in all cases of cruelty is that the
entire matrimonial relationship must be considered,
and that rule is of special value when the cruelty
consists not of violent acts but of injurious reproaches,
complaints, accusations or taunts. In cases where no
violence is averred, it is undesirable to consider
judicial pronouncements with a view to creating
certain categories of acts or conduct as having or
lacking the nature or quality which renders them
capable or incapable in all circumstances of amounting
to cruelty; for it is the effect of the conduct rather than
its nature which is of paramount importance in
assessing a complaint of cruelty. Whether one spouse
has been guilty of cruelty to the other is essentially a
question of fact and previously decided cases have
little, if any, value. The court should bear in mind the
physical and mental condition of the parties as well as
their social status, and should consider the impact of
the personality and conduct of one spouse on the mind
of the other, weighing all incidents and quarrels
between the spouses from that point of view; further,
the conduct alleged must be examined in the light of
the complainant's capacity for endurance and the
extent to which that capacity is known to the other
spouse. Malevolent intention is not essential to cruelty
but it is an important element where it exists."
The view taken by the Delhi High Court in the present
case that mere filing of criminal cases by the wife does
not constitute cruelty as what has also to be seen are
the circumstances under which cases were filed, is a
finding we do not wish to disregard totally, in fact as
a pure proposition of law it may be correct, but then
we must also closely examine the entire facts of the
case which are now before us. When we take into
consideration the facts as they exist today, we are
convinced that continuation of this marriage would
mean continuation of cruelty, which each now inflicts
on the other. Irretrievable breakdown of a marriage
may not be a ground for dissolution of marriage, under
the Hindu Marriage Act, but cruelty is. A marriage can
be dissolved by a decree of divorce, inter alia, on the
ground when the other party "has, after the
solemnization of the marriage treated the petitioner
with cruelty". In our considered opinion, a marital
relationship which has only become more bitter and
acrimonious over the years, does nothing but inflicts
cruelty on both the sides. To keep the facade of this
broken marriage alive would be doing injustice to both
the parties. A marriage which has broken down
irretrievably, in our opinion spells cruelty to both the
parties, as in such a relationship each party is treating
the other with cruelty. It is therefore a ground for
dissolution of marriage under Section 13 (1) (ia) of the
Act.
17. Cruelty has not been defined under the Act. All
the same, the context where it has been used, which is
as a ground for dissolution of a marriage would show
that it has to be seen as a 'human conduct' and
'behaviour" in a matrimonial relationship. While
dealing in the case of Samar Ghosh : (AIR Online 2007
SC 377) (supra) this Court opined that cruelty can be
physical as well as mental:
"46...If it is physical, it is a question of fact and
degree. If it is mental, the enquiry must begin as to the
nature of the cruel treatment and then as to 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,
is a matter of inference to be drawn by taking into
account the nature of the conduct and its effect on the
complaining spouse.
Cruelty can be even unintentional:-
...The absence of intention should not make any
difference in the case, if by ordinary sense in human
affairs, the act complained of could otherwise be
regarded as cruelty. Intention is not a necessary
element in cruelty. The relief to the party cannot be
denied on the ground that there has been no
deliberate or wilful ill treatment."
This Court though did ultimately give certain
illustrations of mental cruelty. Some of these are as
follows:
(i) On consideration of complete matrimonial life of the
parties, acute mental pain, agony and suffering as
would not make possible for the parties to live with
each other could come within the broad parameters of
mental cruelty.
(xii) Unilateral decision of refusal to have intercourse
for considerable period without there being any
physical incapacity or valid reason may amount to
mental cruelty.
(xiii) Unilateral decision of either husband or wife after
marriage not to have child from the marriage may
amount to cruelty.
(xiv) Where there has been a long period of continuous
separation, it may fairly be concluded that the
matrimonial bond is beyond repair. The marriage
becomes a fiction though supported by a legal tie. By
refusing to sever that tie, the law in such cases, does
not serve the sanctity of marriage; on the contrary, it
shows scant regard for the feelings and emotions of
the parties. In such like situations, it may lead to
mental cruelty.
(emphasis supplied)
18. We have a married couple before us who have
barely stayed together as a couple for four years and
who have now been living separately for the last 25
years. There is no child out of the wedlock. The
matrimonial bond is completely broken and is beyond
repair. We have no doubt that this relationship must
end as its continuation is causing cruelty on both the
sides. The long separation and absence of
cohabitation and the complete breakdown of all
meaningful bonds and the existing bitterness between
the two, has to be read as cruelty under Section 13(1)
(ia) of the 1955 Act. We therefore hold that in a given
case, such as the one at hand, where the marital
relationship has broken down irretrievably, where
there is a long separation and absence of cohabitation
(as in the present case for the last 25 years), with
multiple Court cases between the parties; then
continuation of such a 'marriage' would only mean
giving sanction to cruelty which each is inflicting on
the other. We are also conscious of the fact that a
dissolution of this marriage would affect only the two
parties as there is no child out of the wedlock."
21. So far as the ground of irretrievable breakdown of
marriage is concerned, it is beyond the domain of this Court
to pass any order on such ground considering the fact that
"irretrievable breakdown of marriage" is not one of the
grounds which finds place in the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
We, therefore, negate such submission advanced by the
learned counsel for the Appellant.
22. So far as the issue of 'cruelty' is concerned, the
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 does not define 'cruelty', but the
said term has evolved with the passage of time.
23. In the case of A. Jayachandra v. Aneel Kaur
reported in (2005) 2 SCC 22 it has been held 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. MadhukarReddi [(1988)
1 SCC 105 : 1988 SCC (Cri) 60 : AIR 1988 SC 121] .)
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."
24. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent
after the marriage had hardly stayed for a few months and
that too intermittently and had lodged cases against the
petitioner and his family members. The other ground which
has been taken is of the respondent solemnizing another
marriage with one Prabhat Pathak. The case of the
respondent, on the other hand, is that the petitioner after
marriage had kept her well for a few days after which there
was a demand of dowry and torture committed upon the
respondent which forced her to lodge a criminal case in which
a compromise was effected, but despite the respondent
returning back to her matrimonial house, the torture upon
her continued unabated. The respondent has filed criminal
cases as well as a case for maintenance.
25. It is true that the first criminal case was dismissed
on account of the fact that a compromise had been effected.
So far as the second case is concerned being G.R. No.
2143/03 instituted under Section 498A IPC and Section 3/4
D.P. Act, the same was dismissed against which the
respondent has preferred an appeal. The learned counsel for
the petitioner/appellant in order to highlight the effect of
acquittal has referred to the case of Rani Narasimha Sastry
vrs. Rani Suneela Rani in Civil Appeal No. 8871/2019
wherein it has been held as follows:-
"The above observation of the High Court cannot be
approved. It is true that it is open for anyone to file
complaint or lodge prosecution for redressal for his or
her grievances and lodge a first information report for
an offence also and mere lodging of complaint or FIR
cannot ipso facto be treated as cruelty. But when a
person undergoes a trial in which he is acquitted of
the allegation of offence under Section 498-A of IPC,
leveled by the wife against the husband, it cannot be
accepted that no cruelty has meted on the husband.
As per pleadings before us, after parties having been
married on 14.08.2005, they lived together only 18
months and thereafter they are separately living for
more than a decade now."
26. If a party has alleged specifically against the
spouse regarding torture and if it is not proved in a court of
law, the consequences of the same would amount to making
false assertions and therefore mental cruelty would become
apparent. Had it not been for the conduct of the petitioner, we
might have accepted the submission of the learned counsel for
the petitioner /appellant, but as it seems, several cases were
also filed by the petitioner against the respondent, but he did
not succeed in any of them. The same has offset the allegation
of mental cruelty on the ground of being acquitted in the
criminal case. The other important feature is with respect to
the role reversal, so far as cruelty is concerned, as though it is
the consistent case of the petitioner that the respondent has
solemnized another marriage with Prabhat Pathak during the
subsistence of her marriage with the petitioner, but the same
seems to be without any basis. As per the petitioner (P.W. 5),
he had come to know about the marriage of the respondent
with Prabhat Pathak in February 2013, but as per the cousin
brother of the petitioner who has been examined as P.W. 4, he
has witnessed the marriage on 25.04.2008 solemnized at
Jagannath Temple, Hatia. The other witnesses of the
petitioner has given vague statements regarding the marriage,
which fact has been falsified by P.W. 5 himself, as he had
come to know of the same after 5 years. In fact, the learned
trial court has rightly come to a finding that the petitioner and
his witnesses are unreliable and untrustworthy. The petitioner
in view of the reasonings noted above has not been able to
prove cruelty.
27. So far as the issue of 'desertion' is concerned, there
does not appear to be any circumstance which would speak of
willful abandonment by the respondent of the petitioner. The
petitioner had resorted to filing a number of criminal cases
and he had no intention to take back his wife. In the suit
preferred for restitution of conjugal rights, the petitioner in his
evidence had deposed that he wants to divorce his wife. Even
in the agreement entered in the mediation centre and despite
the undertaking given by the petitioner he had not acted upon
the same. The respondent has been able to demonstrate that
she is staying separate from the petitioner on account of a
reasonable cause and the longstanding intention of the
petitioner not to make efforts to resume his conjugal life with
the respondent.
28. The learned trial court has given apropriate
reasons while dismissing the suit preferred by the
petitioner/appellant. We do not find any reason to conclude
otherwise and consequently the present appeal is dismissed.
29. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stand(s)
closed.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
Shamim/-
