Jharkhand High Court

Vijay Kumar Verma vs Prabha Kumari on 10 September, 2025

Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay

Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay

                       Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:28262-DB )




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                   (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction)

                         First Appeal No. 24 of 2022

    Vijay Kumar Verma, son of Sukhdev Prasad Verma, resident of Mrigbandhs,
    PO: Pahadiya, PS: Sarwan, District: Deoghar at present resident of Near
    Rakha Jugle, PO & PS: Kunda, District: Deoghar.            ... Appellant
                                     -Versus-
    Prabha Kumari, W/o Vijay Kumar Verma, daughter of Laxman Prasad Verma,
    resident of village: Baratand, PO & PS: Deori, District: Giridih presently
    residing Near Rakha Jugle, PO & PS: Kunda, District: Deoghar.
                                                              ...Respondent

    CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
                       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI

    For the Appellant  : Mr. Niranjan Kumar, Advocate
    For the Respondent : Mr. Arvind Kr. Choudhary, Advocate
                                     ...
    CAV on: 09/12/2024                    Pronounced on: 10/09/2025


Per, R.Mukhopadhyay, J.

Heard Mr. Niranjan Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Arvind Kr. Choudhary, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 21.12.2021(decree signed on 15.01.2022) passed by Shri Ranjeet Kumar, learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Deoghar in Original Suit No. 225/2017, 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 this impugned judgment as per their status before the learned trial Court.

4. The petitioner/ husband (appellant herein) had filed a suit under section 13(1) (i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking dissolution of his marriage with the respondent/ wife (respondent herein also) in which it has been stated that the marriage of the petitioner was solemnized with the opposite party on 13.05.2006 at Baratand Giridih as per Hindu rites and customs and both stayed as husband and wife till 13.01.2017. The petitioner had a peaceful conjugal life for a few years and later on due to the quarrelling

attitude of the respondent the relationship became strained. The respondent used to publicly humiliate the petitioner and his family members which have been witnessed by several persons. Out of the wedlock two children were born who are aged nine years and seven years at present. On account of the misbehavior of the respondent and her constant pressure the petitioner was forced to stay separate from his parents at Deoghar in a rented house along with the respondent and the children since April, 2011. It has been stated that in the year 2014 the petitioner got a land besides the landed property of his in-laws and after constructing a small house started residing therein. The situation became worse as the respondent started frequenting her parents' house and when the petitioner raised objection he was abused, humiliated and assaulted by the respondent in presence of his children and others. The respondent had lodged a complaint in Court as well as before the police making false and baseless allegations and due to compelling circumstances the petitioner had to execute a bond and even conceded to the demands of the respondent. The respondent has indulged in extra-marital affairs and she has also expressed her dislike for the petitioner. On account of the inhuman behavior of the respondent the petitioner and his two minor children are residing at his house at Mrighandhi, Sarwan, Deoghar since May, 2017. The respondent and her family members had committed theft of household articles and a threat was also issued by the respondent of solemnizing marriage elsewhere as also to eliminate the petitioner. It has become an impossibility for the petitioner to stay with the respondent on account of the cruelty meted out to him. It has been stated that the marriage has broken down irretrievably.

5. The respondent on being noticed has filed a written statement in which the allegations made in the application seeking dissolution of marriage has been denied. The petitioner had induced the respondent of entering into a compromise in PCR Case No.1054/16 and Cr. Misc. Case No. 205/16 and based on the compromise both the cases were disposed of. However, after disposal the petitioner and his family members started committing cruelty upon the respondent and left with no alternative the respondent had filed a complaint case being PCR Case No. 682/17 and a case for maintenance being Original Maintenance Suit No. 210/17. The respondent is still ready and willing to live with the petitioner.

6. Based on the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed for adjudication:

"(i) Whether the suit as framed is maintainable in its present form?

(ii) Whether the petitioner has a valid cause of action?

(iii) Whether the respondent has committed any act of cruelty upon the petitioner?

(iv) Whether the respondent has deserted the petitioner for a continuous period of more than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition?

(v) Whether the petitioner is entitled for dissolution of marriage on the grounds of cruelty and desertion?

(vi) Any other relief/ reliefs?"

7. The petitioner has examined five witnesses in support of his case.

8. PW-1 Laxmi Verma is the aunt of the petitioner who has stated that the marriage was solemnized about thirteen years back and the relationship between the couple was cordial for a year barring a few instances of dispute. The respondent used to frequently visit her parents' house. The respondent on several occasions had abused and humiliated the petitioner and his parents and relatives in her presence and in presence of the villagers. The couple has two children but the behavior of the respondent and her family members have been cruel even towards the children and despite being a mother the respondent is staying separate from her children. The respondent has on several occasions lodged false cases against the petitioner and his family members. Several meetings have been held between the families and the villagers to restore normalcy in the marital life but the behavior of the respondent never underwent any change.

In cross-examination she has deposed that the petitioner had stayed at a rented house for two years after which the father-in-law of the petitioner had given him a small piece of land in which the petitioner has constructed a house. Till the time of the birth of the daughter the relationship between the petitioner and the respondent was cordial.

9. PW-2 Santosh Kumar Verma is the uncle of the petitioner who has reiterated what has been stated by PW-1 in her sworn statement.

In cross-examination he has deposed that the respondent has filed a case related to dowry and a case for maintenance about three years back which are still pending. As a retaliation the petitioner has also filed a case. The petitioner and the respondent are staying separate for the last five years.

10. PW-3 Indra Devi is the mother of the petitioner who has stated similar to what has been stated by PW-1 and PW-2 in their sworn statement.

In cross-examination she has deposed that about one and half years

back she has seen the respondent in a compromising position with one Bihari Mahto. She had disclosed the incident to the petitioner on the same day and the petitioner had filed a case against Bihari Mahto. She had also seen the respondent in a compromising position with Modi Verma and the same was disclosed to the petitioner on the same day after which the petitioner had instituted a case. The respondent has filed a dowry related case against her. She has deposed that twice panchayati was held but she was not present on both the occasions.

11. PW-4 Laxman Prasad Verma is the uncle of the petitioner who has also reiterated what has been stated in the sworn statement of PW-1.

In cross-examination he has deposed that the respondent is a literate and had also fought elections on the advice of the petitioner.

12. PW-5 Vijay Kumar Verma is the petitioner who has stated that his marriage was solemnized with the respondent on 13.05.2006 at Baratand Giridih as per Hindu rites and customs. He had stayed with the respondent as husband and wife till 13.01.2017 and even during this period the respondent used to go to her parent's place or to other places as per her own wish. The relationship was cordial for a few years after which there was quarrel and abuses on trivial matters. The respondent had abused and assaulted his family members even in public places which has been witnessed by several villagers. He was also subjected to assault mercilessly and in proof of which some photographs have been brought on record. His two children are staying with him much prior to the institution of the present suit and the respondent neither has contacted the children nor has she shown any desire to meet them. The respondent by making false allegations against him and his family members have lodged cases before the Court, the police and the Women's Commission. During the stay of the respondent at Mrighandhi and Kunda she used to talk with strangers from her mobile numbers 6209708199 and 9199182361. On inquiry he came to know that the respondent used to talk with Bihari Mahto, Modi Verma who happens to be her brother-in-law and Dilip Ram with whom the respondent had a love affair from before her marriage and she has continued to meet and establish physical relationship. The other persons with whom the respondent was on regular contact were Neeraj Kumar Nirala and Priyam Mishra. The respondent at present is working in Divyajyoti Clinic, Deoghar and is earning an amount of Rs.12,000/- per month. The respondent had established physical relationship with the named persons and she had expressed her dislike for him.

In cross-examination he has deposed that he works as a para teacher. He has not brought on record the photographs of the assault. The photographs are not of the said incident. He had seen the respondent establishing physical relationship with all the five persons he has named. The incident had taken place in his house. He had also seen the respondent in a compromising position in the village but he does not remember the date or time of such incident.

13. The respondent has examined three witnesses on her behalf.

14. RW-1 Prabha Kumari is the respondent who has stated that to create pressure upon her and to defame her in the society the present suit has been filed. She has denied the allegations made against her by the petitioner. Her marriage was solemnized with the petitioner on 13.07.2006 and out of the said wedlock two children were born. The petitioner is a para teacher who is greedy for money which is the reason for his committing torture upon her and he had also forced her to contest elections. The petitioner used to demand additional dowry from her, her father and her brother and also demanded the land/ house at Deoghar and for these reasons she used to be tortured by the petitioner. Being fed up with the demand and continuous torture committed by the petitioner, her brother and father had purchased a plot of land situated adjacent to their own house from Biranchi Bouri in her name who in turn had given the papers to the petitioner. Her father and brother also got a house constructed over the said plot of land and electricity connection was taken in her name. In spite of such act on the part of her father and brother the torture did not lessen and the petitioner had got deposited an amount of Rs.6,50,000/- in installments from her brother. The petitioner and his family members used to come to her house and commit assault on her and this led to the institution of a dowry related case as well as a maintenance case by her in the year 2016. However, the petitioner and her in-laws by adopting surreptitious methods convinced her to withdraw both the cases. After keeping her well for a few days on 08.07.2017 she was assaulted and a demand of Rs.1,00,000/- was made and on non-fulfillment of the said demand she was ousted from her matrimonial house. The petitioner had defamed her in society by casting aspersions upon her of having illicit relationship with her brother-in-law as well as other persons. She has stated that the petitioner does not allow her to meet her children and has poisoned the mind of her children against her. The phone from which the call details have been produced was used by the petitioner prior to the institution of the case and during the period also when

the dispute was settled.

In cross-examination she has deposed that she does not do any work and is dependent on her parents for her sustenance. The petitioner has filed a case against her and her father and brother in which they are on bail. The mobile numbers 6206708199 and 9199182361 are used by her as well as by her family members. Her husband and in-laws also used to avail of these numbers. She is still using the said mobile. She wants to stay with the petitioner but the petitioner does not want to keep her. She has not filed any case for custody of the children.

15. RW-2 Laxman Mahto is the father of the respondent who has reiterated what has been stated by RW-1.

In cross-examination he has deposed that he is ready to send his daughter to stay with the petitioner. Out of his purchased plot of 5700 sq. ft. at Karnibagh he had gifted 1009 sq. ft. of land to the respondent.

16. RW-3 Tinku Kumar Verma has stated that the suit has been filed to defame the opposite party in the society.

In cross-examination he has deposed that he does not have any personal knowledge about the case. He had heard about the demand of dowry and the assault committed.

17. It has been submitted by Mr. Niranjan Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/ appellant that the petitioner has been able to prove 'cruelty' and 'desertion' but the learned trial Court has not appreciated the evidence on record. The respondent used to humiliate, abuse and commit assault upon the petitioner and his family members publicly and the petitioner has exhibited photographs relating to such assault. On account of the torture committed upon the petitioner he had to leave his parents and started residing elsewhere. The mental cruelty suffered by the petitioner can be fathomed from the fact that the respondent had illicit relationship with several males and the call details are testimony to such assertion. It has been submitted that the respondent has willfully abandoned the petitioner and her children as well which is an admitted fact and therefore desertion has also been proved beyond doubt by the petitioner.

18. Mr. Arvind Kr. Choudhary, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has submitted that unsubstantiated allegations have been made by the petitioner touching upon the character of the respondent. 'Adultery' was never a ground taken by the petitioner in his application seeking dissolution of marriage and the learned trial Court has rightly not taken cognizance of

such brazen accusations. It was the petitioner who had repeatedly committed torture upon the respondent and the demand of dowry has been met by the father and the brother of the respondent which includes gift of a plot of land in which construction was also made by them and deposit of cash in the account of the petitioner though in installments.

19. We have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and have also perused the trial Court records.

20. The suit was preferred by the petitioner/ appellant seeking dissolution of his marriage with the respondent on the ground of cruelty only as envisaged in section 13(1) (i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. On account of the pleadings of the parties since the question of desertion had also come to the fore Issue No.(iv) was accordingly framed. The application for divorce specifically relates to 'cruelty' and 'desertion' but in course of trial 'adultery' appears to have held centre stage as per the evidence of the petitioner (PW-5) and his mother (PW-3). It appears that the respondent has been vilified regarding her character involving several persons with whom she was said to be having an intimate relationship. The learned trial Court has rightly come to a conclusion that since 'adultery' was never a ground seeking divorce the same cannot be taken into consideration for deciding the lis.

21. So far as the issue of cruelty is concerned, we may at the outset refer to the case of "Samar Ghosh versus Jaya Ghosh" reported in (2007) 4 SCC 511 wherein it has been held as follows:

"99. Human mind is extremely complex and human behaviour is equally complicated. Similarly human ingenuity has no bound, therefore, to assimilate the entire human behaviour in one definition is almost impossible. What is cruelty in one case may not amount to cruelty in other case. The concept of cruelty differs from person to person depending upon his upbringing, level of sensitivity, educational, family and cultural background, financial position, social status, customs, traditions, religious beliefs, human values and their value system.

100. Apart from this, the concept of mental cruelty cannot remain static; it is bound to change with the passage of time, impact of modern culture through print and electronic media and value system, etc. etc. What may be mental cruelty now may not remain a mental cruelty after a passage of time or vice versa. There can never be any straitjacket formula or fixed parameters for determining mental cruelty in matrimonial matters. The prudent and appropriate way to adjudicate the case would be to evaluate it on its peculiar facts and circumstances while taking aforementioned factors in consideration."

22. In the case of "A. Jayachandra v. Aneel Kaur" reported in (2005) 2 SCC 22 'cruelty' has been conceptualized to mean as under:

"10. The expression "cruelty" has not been defined in the Act. Cruelty can be physical or mental. Cruelty which is a ground for dissolution of marriage may be defined as wilful and unjustifiable conduct of such character as to cause danger to life, limb or health, bodily or mental, or as to give rise to a reasonable apprehension of such a danger. The question of mental cruelty has to be considered

in the light of the norms of marital ties of the particular society to which the parties belong, their social values, status, environment in which they live. Cruelty, as noted above, includes mental cruelty, which falls within the purview of a matrimonial wrong. Cruelty need not be physical. If from the conduct of the spouse same is established and/or an inference can be legitimately drawn that the treatment of the spouse is such that it causes an apprehension in the mind of the other spouse, about his or her mental welfare then this conduct amounts to cruelty. In a delicate human relationship like matrimony, one has to see the probabilities of the case. The concept, proof beyond the shadow of doubt, is to be applied to criminal trials and not to civil matters and certainly not to matters of such delicate personal relationship as those of husband and wife. Therefore, one has to see what are the probabilities in a case and legal cruelty has to be found out, not merely as a matter of fact, but as the effect on the mind of the complainant spouse because of the acts or omissions of the other. Cruelty may be physical or corporeal or may be mental. In physical cruelty, there can be tangible and direct evidence, but in the case of mental cruelty there may not at the same time be direct evidence. In cases where there is no direct evidence, courts are required to probe into the mental process and mental effect of incidents that are brought out in evidence. It is in this view that one has to consider the evidence in matrimonial disputes.

11. The expression "cruelty" has been used in relation to human conduct or human behaviour. It is the conduct in relation to or in respect of matrimonial duties and obligations. Cruelty is a course or conduct of one, which is adversely affecting the other. The cruelty may be mental or physical, intentional or unintentional. If it is physical, the court will have no problem in determining it. It is a question of fact and degree. If it is mental, the problem presents difficulties. First, the enquiry must begin as to the nature of cruel treatment, second the impact of such treatment in the mind of the spouse, whether it caused reasonable apprehension that it would be harmful or injurious to live with the other. Ultimately, it is a matter of inference to be drawn by taking into account the nature of the conduct and its effect on the complaining spouse. However, there may be a case where the conduct complained of itself is bad enough and per se unlawful or illegal. Then the impact or injurious effect on the other spouse need not be enquired into or considered. In such cases, the cruelty will be established if the conduct itself is proved or admitted. (See Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi [(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."

23. There have been allegations of misbehaviour, humiliation and assault against the respondent and she tended to go frequently to her parents' place as per her own wish. The petitioner has relied on certain photographs to further his ground of being assaulted at the hands of the respondent but he himself has admitted in his evidence as PW-5 that the photographs are related

to different incident and not to the incident of assault committed upon him. It seems that the respondent had filed a dowry related case as well as a case of maintenance against the petitioner which however were withdrawn on account of a compromise and the torture continued unabated despite such compromise leading to institution of two more cases by the respondent. The father of the respondent had purchased a small piece of land adjacent to his house and had gifted the same to the respondent and had also constructed a house as per the evidence of RW-1. PW-1 is the aunt of the petitioner who has stated about the father of the respondent gifting the petitioner a piece of land which substantiates the claim of RW-1. The passbook filed by the respondent indicates the deposit of an amount of Rs.6,50,000/- in the account of the petitioner which enhances the allegations made against the petitioner of demand of dowry. The respondent in her pleadings as well as in her evidence has consistently stated about her willingness to stay with the petitioner but the petitioner has been very evasive in his intention of restoring normalcy in the marital life. As per RW-1 she has not even been allowed to meet her children who are staying with the petitioner. The respondent was compelled to leave her matrimonial house on account of the demand of dowry and torture committed upon her. The assertion of the petitioner in his evidence as PW-5 has led to a character assassination of the respondent and is a humiliation and cruelty committed by the petitioner himself.

24. The essence of 'cruelty' and 'desertion' has not been proved by the petitioner as has rightly been held by the learned trial Court, thereby deciding the relevant issues against the petitioner. We do not find any reasons to differ with the findings and conclusions arrived at by the learned trial Court in the judgment dated 21.12.2021 passed in Original Suit No. 225/2017 and consequently, we dismiss this appeal.

25. Pending IA, if any, stands closed.

(RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.)

(ARUN KUMAR RAI, J.)

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi, Dated:10 /09 /2025 S.B.