Per Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. :
Neutral Citation
2025:JHHC:28134-DB
3. For the sake of convenience, both the parties are referred to
in this judgment as per their status before the learning trial
court.
4. The petitioner/husband (respondent herein) had filed a suit
for dissolution of his marriage with the respondent/wife
(appellant herein) under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955, in which it has been stated that the marriage
of the petitioner was solemnised with the respondent on 06-07-
2006 at Sector 9-B, Bokaro Steel City, as per Hindu rites and
customs. Out of the said wedlock, a son was born who is aged 9
years and who is residing with the petitioner. It has been stated
that the respondent always used to quarrel with the petitioner
and his family members on trivial matters and insisted on leaving
his ailing parents. The respondent had an illicit relationship with
one Sanjeev Kumar Nirala, a contractor, and she used to spend
her maximum time with Sanjeev Kumar Nirala and had also
given her ornaments to him. On 22-10-2016, when the petitioner
went in search of his wife to her parents' house, he found her in
a compromising position with Sanjeev Kumar Nirala and when
the petitioner tried to bring back the respondent home, he was
assaulted by the respondent with the help of Sanjeev Kumar
Nirala. The petitioner had filed a suit for restitution of conjugal
rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act in Original
Maintenance Suit No. 354/2016 which, however, was dismissed
on 28-01-2019. After 10 years of marriage, the respondent had
filed a criminal case against the petitioner and his family
members in Complaint Case No. 242/2016 on the allegation of
demand of dowry. The petitioner had provided the best of
facilities, but the respondent had withdrawn herself from the
society of the petitioner without any reasonable cause. The father
of the respondent had grabbed a huge amount of money from the
Neutral Citation
2025:JHHC:28134-DB
petitioner for purchase of a residential flat. The respondent has
already received an amount of Rs. 1,72,500/- from the petitioner
in terms of the order passed in Original Maintenance Case No.
211/2016. The respondent has deserted the petitioner since 19-
01-2016 without any reasonable cause.
5. The respondent, on being noticed, had appeared and filed a
written statement in which it has been stated that on the
occasion of Chhath Pooja in the year 2015, the respondent was
assaulted by the petitioner at night in presence of the uncle of
the respondent. On 30-11-2015, while the respondent was
asleep, she was assaulted by the petitioner with fists and iron
rod and on 18-01-2016, the respondent was once again
subjected to assault by the petitioner and since then the
respondent is staying at her parent's place along with her son.
However, on 29-06-2016 the petitioner had forcibly taken away
the son of the respondent when he was returning from school
and since then her son is residing with the petitioner. In the
special mediation drive on 24-06-2019, despite the willingness of
the respondent to stay with the petitioner, the petitioner had
refused to take her back to her matrimonial house. Even now,
the respondent is ready and willing to stay with the petitioner
and restore her marital ties. It has been stated that the petitioner
had wanted one-third share of the retirement benefit of her father
who had superannuated from Bokaro Steel Plant. The
respondent has denied the allegations made by the petitioner in
the application for dissolution of marriage.
6. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the following issues
were framed for adjudication:
Neutral Citation
2025:JHHC:28134-DB
(iii) Whether the respondent (wife) subjected to cruelty
against the petitioner (husband) after marriage?
(iv) Whether the respondent (wife) deserted her husband
(petitioner) since last two years prior to filing of the
suit and is entitled to get a decree of dissolution of
marriage on the basis of Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955?
(v) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get the relief as
prayed for?
7. The petitioner has examined five witnesses in support of its
case:
P.W.1 Sanjay Kumar Suman is the petitioner who has
stated that his marriage was solemnized with the respondent on
06-07-2006 as per Hindu rites and customs at Bokaro Steel City.
The respondent on 19-01-2016 had left him with her son and
had started staying with a contractor, namely, Sanjeev Kumar
Nirala. The behaviour of the respondent towards him and his
family members was cruel from the beginning and the
respondent hated his dark complexion and she had married him
only with a view to grab his money. The conduct of the
respondent has eroded his respect in the society. On 22-10-2016,
the respondent through her paramour had made an attempt on
his life for which he had instituted a case which is pending. The
respondent is bent upon to take his life and there is always a
threat to his life. He had made several attempts with the
assistance of his family members and well-wishers to resume his
life with the respondent, but all such attempts failed. He had filed
a suit for restitution of conjugal rights being Matrimonial Title
Suit No. 354/2016, but the same was dismissed on 28-01-2019.
Several attempts at mediation were made, but all failed. In the
maintenance case till date, he has paid an amount of Rs.
2,32,500/-.
Neutral Citation
2025:JHHC:28134-DB
In cross-examination, he has deposed that post-marriage
there never was a good relationship between him and the
respondent. After the birth of his son, the respondent had left
her matrimonial house. From January 2016, the respondent is
staying separate from him. He had not lodged any case with
respect to the respondent taking away the entire jewellery
because she was his wife. He knows Sanjeev Kumar Nirala since
2006. He has instituted three cases against the respondent,
while the respondent had instituted five cases against him. There
is no question of keeping the respondent with him.
P.W.2 Hare Krishna Prasad is acquainted with the
petitioner who has reiterated what has been stated by P.W.1 in
his sworn statement.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that he was posted
as a school teacher at Seema Tand where the petitioner was also
posted. He came to know about the relationship between the
petitioner and the respondent from the petitioner in a tea shop
which they regularly visited. The son of the petitioner stays with
the petitioner. He knows Sanjeev Kumar Nirala for the last 10-12
years.
P.W.3 Vijay Sharma has stated similar to that of P.W.1 in
his sworn statement.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that he is well
acquainted with the petitioner since the year 2016. He does not
know about any discord in the marital relationship of the
petitioner and the respondent pre 2016 and post 2016. He does
not know the address of the petitioner.
P.W.4 Nand Kumar has stated similar to that of the other
witnesses.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that he has a
friendship with the petitioner for the last 10 years. In two cases,
he has given his evidence against the respondent. He does not
Neutral Citation
2025:JHHC:28134-DB
know of any incident which occurred between the petitioner and
the respondent in the year 2016. He does not know as to when
an attempt was made on the life of the petitioner at the behest of
the respondent.
P.W.5 Sachhidanand Chouhan has reiterated what has
been stated by the other witnesses in their sworn statements.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that he had given
evidence in favour of the petitioner on two occasions. He is
acquainted with both the sides due to the fact that he is a
neighbour of the petitioner. He cannot throw any light as to
whether the respondent wants to reside with the petitioner or
not.
8. The respondent has examined two witnesses on her behalf:
R.W.1 Brahamadeo Prasad Yadav has stated that he is
acquainted with both the sides. The petitioner used to commit
torture and physical assault upon the respondent on trivial
matters. The marriage of the petitioner and the respondent was
solemnised in the year 2016 and out of the said wedlock, a son
was born to them. The petitioner in the night of Chhath Puja in
the year 2015 had committed assault upon the respondent in
presence of her uncle and in November 2015, she was awakened
from her sleep and assaulted as she had a conversation with her
mother without the permission of the petitioner. He has stated
that on 18-01-2016 at 8:00PM, an assault was committed again
due to which the respondent had to be treated by a doctor and
since then the respondent is staying at her parents' place. On
24-06-2019 in the mediation centre, the respondent had agreed
to go with the petitioner, but the petitioner had flatly refused. The
respondent still wants to lead a peaceful conjugal life with the
petitioner.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that the father of the
respondent was his colleague for almost 25 years. There are three
Neutral Citation
2025:JHHC:28134-DB
cases between the petitioner and the respondent. Several time
attempts were made at a settlement, but each time such efforts
failed. The respondent does not do any work and is entirely
dependent on her family members for her sustenance.
R.W.2 Shyama is the respondent who has stated that her
marriage was solemnised with the petitioner on 06-07-2006 as
per Hindu rites and customs. Out of the said wedlock, a son was
born to them. After marriage, the petitioner started committing
torture upon her. She was even prevented from showing the child
outside the window and the continuous torture was done by the
petitioner at the behest of her sister-in-law Sheela Devi. During
Chhath puja of the year 2015, she had gone to her parents' place
with her son to have prasad and had returned home with her
uncle on a scooter and this caused an assault upon her by the
petitioner which stopped on the intervention of her uncle. On 30-
11-2015 at 02:00AM, when she was in a deep slumber, she was
awakened by the petitioner who wanted to know as to whether
she had a conversation with her mother and when she answered
in the affirmative, she was subjected to assault. On 18-01-2016,
she was assaulted by the petitioner to such an extent that she
had to be treated by a doctor. In the morning, her father had
come along with Harinandan Singh and seeing her injured had
taken her with them and got her treated. This led to the
institution of C.P. Case No. 242/2016 which is still pending. In
the special mediation drive conducted on 24-06-2019, she had
expressed her desire to stay with the petitioner, but the petitioner
had refused to keep her. She is still ready and willing to stay with
the petitioner at her matrimonial house. On 29-06-2016, she had
sent her son to school from her parent's place but while
returning, the petitioner had taken away her son. The petitioner
always demands one-third of the amount received by her father
towards his retirement benefit. The petitioner had filed a suit
Neutral Citation
2025:JHHC:28134-DB
under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act which was dismissed.
In cross-examination, she has deposed that she does not
remember as to how many days she remained happily at her
matrimonial house. In 2007, the dispute between her and the
petitioner started due to the demand of a Maruti car having not
been fulfilled and the dispute still continues today. She has filed
two cases against the petitioner; one under Section 498A IPC and
the other is for maintenance. She had also made a complaint
before the State Women's Commission, Ranchi. She does not
want to withdraw the cases instituted by her against the
petitioner. She has deposed that she is ready to stay with the
petitioner if the petitioner shows his desire to keep her, but she
will also take the maintenance amount.
9. It has been submitted by Mr. Rahul Kumar, learned counsel
appearing for the appellant/respondent herein that though the
petitioner has failed to make any good grounds for grant of
divorce, but the learned trial court on the basis of presumptions
has allowed the suit. The petitioner has failed to prove "cruelty"
and "desertion" and in fact, it was on account of the torture
committed upon the respondent that she was forced to leave her
matrimonial house.
10. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and
have also perused the trial court records.
11. The suit was preferred by the petitioner seeking dissolution
of marriage on the ground of "cruelty" and "desertion". However,
in the application for dissolution of marriage, the petitioner
seems to have focused primarily on the purported adulterous
relationship between the respondent and Sanjeev Kumar Nirala.
Though it has been claimed that the respondent was seen in a
compromising position with Sanjeev Kumar Nirala and other
instances have also been mentioned, but adultery is not a ground
which has been taken by the petitioner seeking divorce. In fact,
Neutral Citation
2025:JHHC:28134-DB
when we look into the evidence of the petitioner (P.W.1), the
allegations made with respect to such adulterous relationship
seems to have been watered down which would further indicate
that vague and unsubstantiated allegations have been made by
the petitioner touching upon the character of the respondent.
12. The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 do not define "cruelty", but
in course of time through the various pronouncements of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, the term "cruelty" has been
conceptualized and in this context, we may refer to the case of
Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi reported in
(1988) 1 SCC 105 wherein, it has been held as follows:
"4. Section 13(1)(i-a) uses the words
"treated the petitioner with cruelty".
The word "cruelty" has not been
defined. Indeed it could not have been
defined. It has been used in relation to
human conduct or human behaviour. It
is the conduct in relation to or in respect
of matrimonial duties and obligations.
It is a course of conduct of one which is
adversely affecting the other. The
cruelty may be mental or physical,
intentional or unintentional. If it is
physical the court will have no problem
to determine it. It is a question of fact
and degree. If it is mental the problem
presents difficulty. First, the enquiry
must begin as to the nature of the cruel
treatment. Second, the impact of such
treatment on the mind of the spouse.
Whether it caused reasonable
apprehension that it would be harmful
Neutral Citation
2025:JHHC:28134-DB
or injurious to live with the other.
Ultimately, it is a matter of inference to
be drawn by taking into account the
nature of the conduct and its effect on
the complaining spouse. There may,
however, be cases where the conduct
complained of itself is bad enough and
per se unlawful or illegal. Then the
impact or the injurious effect on the
other spouse need not be enquired into
or considered. In such cases, the
cruelty will be established if the
conduct itself is proved or admitted.
13. Similarly, 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
Neutral Citation
2025:JHHC:28134-DB
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
Neutral Citation
2025:JHHC:28134-DB
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
Neutral Citation
2025:JHHC:28134-DB
considered. In such cases, the cruelty
will be established if the conduct itself
is proved or admitted. (See Shobha
Rani v. Madhukar Reddi.)
12. To constitute cruelty, the conduct
complained of should be "grave and
weighty" so as to come to the
conclusion that the petitioner spouse
cannot be reasonably expected to live
with the other spouse. It must be
something more serious than "ordinary
wear and tear of married life". The
conduct, taking into consideration the
circumstances and background has to
be examined to reach the conclusion
whether the conduct complained of
amounts to cruelty in the matrimonial
law. Conduct has to be considered, as
noted above, in the background of
several factors such as social status of
parties, their education, physical and
mental conditions, customs and
traditions. It is difficult to lay down a
precise definition or to give exhaustive
description of the circumstances, which
would constitute cruelty. It must be of
the type as to satisfy the conscience of
the court that the relationship between
the parties had deteriorated to such an
extent due to the conduct of the other
spouse that it would be impossible for
them to live together without mental
Neutral Citation
2025:JHHC:28134-DB
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."
14. Apart from the illicit relationship of the respondent with
Sanjeev Kumar Nirala, the further allegation which has been
made is of misbehaviour with the petitioner and his parents and
insistence on the part of the respondent to leave his parents.
These allegations are vague and made in a generalized form. This
would also gain strength from the fact that though the petitioner
had preferred a suit for restitution of conjugal rights, but the
same was dismissed. Both the sides have resorted to filing cases
against each other and the respondent also seems to have filed a
case under Section 498 IPC as well as a case for maintenance.
The respondent in her written statement as well as in her
evidence as R.W.2 has clearly expressed her desire to stay with
the petitioner and such intention on several occasions also
appear in her evidence. However, the petitioner (P.W.1) in his
cross- examination has flatly refused to keep the respondent. The
entire scenario depicted in the evidence of the witnesses does not
substantiate the grounds taken by the petitioner seeking
dissolution of marriage. The petitioner has failed to prove that it
will be an impossibility for the petitioner to stay with the
Neutral Citation
2025:JHHC:28134-DB
respondent. Neither of the sides have produced any documentary
evidence in support of their cases. The order of the learned trial
court reveals that since the respondent is not willing to withdraw
the criminal case, it would be difficult for the petitioner to take
back his wife and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to a decree
of divorce on the ground of desertion. The reasoning appears to
be totally flawed as the broader angle of the dispute between the
parties and the defence of the respondent has not at all been
taken into consideration. As we have held above, vague and
unstabstantiated allegations cannot form the basis for grant of a
divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion. The facts of the
case leads us to come to a reverse conclusion to the effect that it
was the respondent who was subjected to torture, forcing her to
leave her matrimonial house.
15. We, therefore, on the basis of the discussions made
hereinabove, set aside the judgement and decree dated 18-01-
2021 (decree signed on 25-01-2021) passed by Sri Alok Kumar
Dubey, learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bokaro in
Original Suit No. 142/2019.
16. This appeal is allowed.
17. Pending I.A.s, if any, stands closed.
(RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.)
(ARUN KUMAR RAI, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Dated the 10th Day of September, 2025
Preet/N.A.F.R.
