Jharkhand High Court
(Against The Judgment And Decree Dated ... vs Baban Kumar Singh on 10 September, 2025
Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay, Deepak Roshan
Neutral Citation
2025:JHHC:28136-DB
First Appeal (DB) No. 295 of 2018
(Against the judgment and decree dated 26.05.2018 (decree
signed on 31.05.2018) passed by Sri Yogeshwar Mani, learned
Principal Judge, Family Court, Bokaro in T.M.S. No. 261/2014.)
Kanchan Singh, W/o Baban Kumar Singh, D/o Arun Kumar
Singh, R/o Flat No. 175 Near Gayitri Bhawan, Gaya Road Bye
Pass, P.O. & P.S.- Aurangabad, Dist.- Aurangabad (Bihar)-
824101, A/P Qtr. No. 478, Sector 3/B, P.O. & P.S.- B.S. City,
Dist.- Bokaro, Jharkhand.
... Appellant
Versus
Baban Kumar Singh, S/o Mohan Singh, R/o Jaina More,
P.O. & P.S.- Jaridih, Dist.- Bokaro. ... Respondent
----
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
----
For the Appellant : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Adv.
For the Respondent : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Adv.
----
Dated : 10/09/2025
CAV JUDGMENT
Per Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. :
1. Heard Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant
and Mr. Rakesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree
dated 26-05-2018 (decree signed on 31-05-2018) passed by Sri
Yogeshwar Mani, learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bokaro
in T.M.S. No. 261/2014 whereby and whereunder, the suit
preferred by the plaintiff/respondent herein has been allowed
and the marriage of the plaintiff and the defendant has been
dissolved.
3. For the sake of convenience, both the parties are referred to
in this judgment as per their status before the learning trial
Neutral Citation
2025:JHHC:28136-DB
court.
4. The plaintiff/husband (respondent herein) had filed a suit
for dissolution of his marriage with the defendant (appellant
herein) under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act,
1955 wherein it has been stated that the marriage of the plaintiff
was solemnized with the defendant on 11-03-2004 and both
started residing together at the father's house of the plaintiff at
Kasmar. After marriage, when the defendant came to Kasmar,
her sister also came with her and at her instigation, the
defendant refused to consummate the marriage in the first night.
The defendant used to misbehave and quarrel with the parents
of the plaintiff. The defendant also did not do any work and did
not even cook and always kept herself busy by gossiping with her
sister. The sister of the defendant used to misbehave and abuse
the plaintiff and his family members and also used to extend
threats that if the plaintiff did not support the parents of the
defendant financially, a false dowry-related case will be instituted
against the entire family members. The defendant always
pressurized the plaintiff to stay at her parents' place. It has been
stated that all of a sudden on 17-03-2004, the defendant,
without any reason, called her father, filled her attaché with
jewellery, gifts and clothes received during the marriage and left
for her parents' place never to come back to her matrimonial
house. Despite attempts made by the plaintiff and his father to
bring back the defendant, the defendant refused to come back
and after humiliating the plaintiff and his father, turned them
out of the house. Thereafter, the defendant filed a false dowry-
related case against the plaintiff and his entire family members
being Complaint Case No. 534/2004 which is pending and for
which the plaintiff had to go to jail. The defendant had also filed
a case for maintenance and the plaintiff is making payment of
Rs. 4,000/- per month as maintenance to the defendant. The
Neutral Citation
2025:JHHC:28136-DB
plaintiff had in the year 2013 filed a case for dissolution of
marriage which was dismissed for non-appearance. Thereafter,
the plaintiff had instituted a suit for restitution of conjugal rights
and as per the order of the Court, a bond was executed by the
plaintiff and he had gone to bring back the defendant, but she
refused and the matter was informed to the Court. The suit for
restitution was decreed in favour of the plaintiff but the
defendant did not go with the plaintiff and she refused to stay
with the plaintiff. The defendant had also filed a case claiming
streedhan as well as a case for judicial separation. The plaintiff
and the defendant are residing separately for the last 10 years.
5. The defendant, on being noticed, had appeared and filed a
written statement in which the allegations made in the plaint has
been denied. It has been stated that after marriage, the defendant
was continuously tortured for 7 days and when the family
members of the defendant came and requested the in-laws of the
defendant for keeping her properly, they had instead made a
demand of Rs. 1 lakh in cash and various articles. The defendant
had been a dutiful wife and had never done any act which would
have humiliated her in-laws. The plaintiff even after the
marriage, continued to maintain illicit relationship with Ruby
Devi, his sister-in-law. Due to the physical and mental torture
the defendant had undergone, she had instituted a case being
Complaint Case No. 534/2004. The defendant had denied the
fact that her younger sister was staying at her matrimonial
house. The father of the defendant had made efforts at a
compromise, but the same failed. On 19-11-2004 and 25-11-
2004, an attempt was made to eliminate the family members of
the defendant. The defendant has denied the assertion of the
plaintiff that despite submitting a bond, the defendant had
refused to go with the plaintiff. The father of the defendant had
given an amount of Rs. 2 lakhs, a Hero Honda motorcycle and
Neutral Citation
2025:JHHC:28136-DB
various other articles and jewellery which, on the insistence of
the plaintiff, was taken by the defendant to her matrimonial
house which the plaintiff and his family members had forcibly
snatched and kept it with them. The plaintiff never intends to
keep the defendant with him.
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 plaintiff has got valid cause of action of
the suit?
(iii) Whether the defendant left her matrimonial house on
17-03-2004 without any reasonable cause and has
deserted the plaintiff?
(iv) Whether the plaintiff has been subjected to cruelty by
the defendant?
(v) Whether the defendant has been subjected to cruelty
by way of physical and mental torture at the hands of
her husband for non-fulfillment of demand of Rs. 1
lakh?
(vi) Whether the plaintiff has an illicit relationship with
one Ruby Devi?
(vii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief/reliefs as
prayed for?
7. The plaintiff has examined as many as three witnesses in
support of its case:
P.W.1 Baban Singh is the plaintiff, who has stated that his
marriage was solemnized with the defendant on 10-03-2004 as
per Hindu rites and customs at Bokaro. After marriage, the
defendant came to her matrimonial house at Kasmar and her
younger sister had accompanied her. As long as the defendant
stayed at her matrimonial house, her younger sister also stayed
with her. While staying at her matrimonial house, the defendant,
Neutral Citation
2025:JHHC:28136-DB
at the instigation of her sister, misbehaved with him and his
parents and also quarrelled with them and she never involved
herself in any household chores. Whenever he and his parents
said anything, the defendant and her sister used to abuse and
threaten of implicating the family members in a false dowry-
related case. The defendant used to put pressure upon him to
stay with her parents and send his entire income to her parents.
He has stated that on 17-03-2004, the defendant without any
reasons, called her father and took away the gifted items of
marriage including jewellery in two attaches and she never
returned back to her matrimonial house. He and his father had
made several attempts to bring back the defendant, but it was
refused and he and his father were humiliated and ousted from
the house of the defendant. Thereafter, a false dowry-related case
was instituted by the defendant against him and his family
members being Complaint Case No. 534/2004 which is at
present pending. A case of maintenance was also lodged by the
defendant and he is paying an amount of Rs. 4,000/- per month
to the defendant. He has stated that he had filed a suit for
restitution of conjugal rights being Title Matrimonial Suit No.
112/2006 which was decreed in his favour. He had also
submitted a bond but despite the same, the defendant had
refused to come back and lead a conjugal life with him. The
defendant had also filed a case for return of her streedhan as well
as judicial separation. All these incidents led to the death of his
father and even in spite of such information being given to the
defendant, she had never come back to her matrimonial house.
There is no relationship between him and the defendant for the
last 10-11 years.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that he is in service
since the year 2002 and his first posting was at Manipur. He has,
in his service career, always been posted outside Jharkhand. He
Neutral Citation
2025:JHHC:28136-DB
had seen the defendant being not interested in cooking.
P.W.2 Uday Pratap is acquainted with both the sides and
he has reiterated what has been stated by P.W.1 in his sworn
statement.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that the plaintiff is
his cousin brother. It was the plaintiff who had disclosed to him
that the defendant was being instigated by her sister and that
the defendant had left her matrimonial house along with the gifts
received in marriage. He cannot say on which dates the plaintiff
and his father had made attempts to bring back the defendant to
her matrimonial house.
P.W.3 Dilip Kumar Singh has stated that he is the cousin
brother of the plaintiff. His statement is similar to that of P.W.1.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that the plaintiff had
disclosed to him that on the instigation of the younger sister of
the defendant, the defendant misbehaved with her in-laws. The
parents of the plaintiff had confided in him that the defendant
had called her father and left with him to her parents' place along
with various articles.
8. The defendant has examined three witnesses on her behalf:
O.P.W.1 Arun Kumar Singh is the father of the defendant
who has stated that the marriage of the defendant was
solemnized with the plaintiff on 10-03-2004 as per Hindu rites
and customs at Bokaro Steel City. After marriage, the defendant
had left for her matrimonial house on 11-03-2004 and from the
second day, the parents and other relatives of the plaintiff started
committing mental and physical torture upon the defendant for
bringing less dowry. The defendant had tolerated the torture for
19 days. The defendant had objected to cooking in a coal-
powered oven as she was not accustomed to it at which, she was
reprimanded by her in-laws who asked her to get a gas
connection for them. When the defendant disclosed about the
Neutral Citation
2025:JHHC:28136-DB
incident, he had got installed a gas connection from M/s Bokaro
Flames in the matrimonial house of the defendant. He has denied
the allegation of the defendant calling him on 17-03-2004 to her
matrimonial house and leaving with all the articles as she had
got the connection when she was at her matrimonial house on
18-03-2004. On 30-03-2004, due to the non-fulfilment of the
demand of Rs. 1 lakh, the defendant was ousted from her
matrimonial house. The defendant had instituted a criminal case
being Complaint Case No. 534/2004 which is pending and a
maintenance case in which an order has been passed against the
plaintiff for making payment of an amount of Rs. 4,000/- per
month.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that in the suit for
restitution of conjugal rights, the decree was passed in favour of
the plaintiff. The defendant had instituted a suit for judicial
separation being T.(M).S. No. 100/08 which was later on
withdrawn. The defendant cannot reside with the plaintiff since
there is always a threat to her life. The plaintiff is in service in
the Border Security Force.
O.P.W.2 Kanchan Singh is the defendant and the wife of
the plaintiff who has stated about solemnization of her marriage
with the plaintiff and her ouster from her matrimonial house on
30-03-2004 after keeping all her jewelleries and clothes. A
communication was made to the Commandant, B.S.F. intimating
him about the torture upon her by the plaintiff and his family
members with a request to permit her to stay with the plaintiff at
his workplace, but when the plaintiff had refused to keep her,
she was constrained to file Complaint Case No. 534/04 before
the Court of S.D.J.M., Bokaro which is still pending. She does
not have any source of income and is entirely dependent on the
maintenance amount. She had received the gas connection while
staying at her matrimonial house on 18-03-2004 which
Neutral Citation
2025:JHHC:28136-DB
contradicts the allegation of the plaintiff that she had left her
matrimonial house on 17-03-2004 with jewelleries and other
articles without any reasonable cause. The claim of the plaintiff
to keep her at a government accommodation at his workplace is
false as the plaintiff has not taken any accommodation which is
evident from his payslip. Despite the order passed in the suit for
restitution of conjugal rights, the plaintiff has never made any
attempt to keep her with him. It is wrong to say that she had
committed cruelty upon the plaintiff rather, it is the plaintiff who
has regularly committed torture upon her which is borne out
from the cases instituted by her against the plaintiff.
In cross-examination, she has deposed that she had stayed
with the plaintiff after marriage for 20 days. She had not made
any communication against the plaintiff in his department. It is
not true that she does not want to reside with the plaintiff.
O.P.W.3 Purushottam Kumar Singh is the brother of the
defendant who has reiterated what has been stated by O.P.W.2.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that the defendant
had filed a case related to dowry and torture against the plaintiff
and her in-laws in which the plaintiff had to go to jail. He does
not know as to whether the defendant has filed a suit for judicial
separation or not.
9. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the
appellant/defendant has submitted that the learned trial court
had misdirected itself in construing "cruelty" and "desertion" in
favour of the plaintiff. It has been submitted that it was the
plaintiff whose treatment of the defendant at her matrimonial
house had resulted in institution of criminal case by the
defendant. The decree of restitution of conjugal rights could not
by itself amount to an adverse inference against the defendant
when the action of the plaintiff itself does not suggest about his
willingness to resume his conjugal life with the defendant.
Neutral Citation
2025:JHHC:28136-DB
10. Mr. Rakesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the
plaintiff/respondent has submitted that innumerable attempts
were made by the plaintiff to bring back the defendant to her
matrimonial house, but all the attempts failed on account of the
reluctance on the part of the defendant to respond positively to
such efforts. Since both the parties are staying separate for a
considerable length of time and there being no chance of any
reconciliation, the marriage for all practical purposes has become
dead.
11. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties
and have also perused the trial court records.
12. The marriage between the plaintiff and the defendant was
solemnized on 10-03-2004 and after a few days, for whatever
reasons, differences arose and both started staying separate. As
per the plaintiff, the younger sister of the defendant had stayed
at his house from the day the defendant after marriage had come
to her matrimonial house and at her instigation, the defendant
did not involve herself in any domestic chores and on 17-03-
2004, the defendant had left her matrimonial house and had
taken with her jewelleries and articles gifted in marriage. The
defendant, on the other hand, has strongly stressed about the
demand of additional dowry which led to torture and the
consequent institution of a criminal case. The decree for
restitution of conjugal rights seems to have assumed
considerable significance as it is the case of the plaintiff that
despite such decree, the defendant had refused to come back to
her matrimonial house. What has been stated by the plaintiff
(P.W.1) in his evidence is of also executing a bond in the suit for
restitution of conjugal rights. However, what transpires is that
despite the decree of restitution of conjugal rights under Section
9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, there has hardly been any
Neutral Citation
2025:JHHC:28136-DB
attempts made by the plaintiff to bring normalization in the
marital ties. The suit under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act,
1955, in such circumstances, would construe to mean that the
same was filed on the anvil of a futuristic act of seeking
dissolution of marriage. Even if it is assumed that the plaintiff
had made efforts to take back the defendant, the reluctance on
the part of the defendant can be gathered from the act of
instituting a criminal case against the plaintiff and his family
members with respect to the demand of dowry and torture on
account of non-fulfilment of the said demand.
13. "Cruelty" has not been defined in the Hindu Marriage Act,
1955, but with the passage of time, its concept has evolved and
broadened. In this context, we may refer to the case of
Vishwanath Agrawal v. Sarla Vishwanath Agrawal reported
in (2012) 7 SCC 288 wherein, it has been held as follows:
"22. The expression "cruelty" has an
inseparable nexus with human conduct or
human behaviour. It is always dependent
upon the social strata or the milieu to which
the parties belong, their ways of life,
relationship, temperaments and emotions
that have been conditioned by their social
status.
25. After so stating, this Court observed
in Shobha Rani case [(1988) 1 SCC 105 :
1988 SCC (Cri) 60] about the marked change
in life in modern times and the sea change in
matrimonial duties and responsibilities. It
has been observed that: (SCC p. 108, para
5).
Neutral Citation
2025:JHHC:28136-DB
"5. ... when a spouse makes a
complaint about the treatment of
cruelty by the partner in life or
relations, the court should not search
for standard in life. A set of facts
stigmatised as cruelty in one case may
not be so in another case. The cruelty
alleged may largely depend upon the
type of life the parties are accustomed
to or their economic and social
conditions. It may also depend upon
their culture and human values to
which they attach importance."
26. Their Lordships in Shobha Rani
case [(1988) 1 SCC 105 : 1988 SCC (Cri) 60]
referred to the observations made
in Sheldon v. Sheldon [1966 P 62 : (1966) 2
WLR 993 : (1966) 2 All ER 257 (CA)] wherein
Lord Denning stated, "the categories of
cruelty are not closed". Thereafter, the
Bench proceeded to state thus: (Shobha Rani
case [(1988) 1 SCC 105 : 1988 SCC (Cri) 60]
, SCC p. 109, paras 5-6)
"5. ... Each case may be different. We
deal with the conduct of human beings
who are not generally similar. Among
the human beings there is no limit to
the kind of conduct which may
constitute cruelty. New type of cruelty
may crop up in any case depending
upon the human behaviour, capacity or
Neutral Citation
2025:JHHC:28136-DB
incapability to tolerate the conduct
complained of. Such is the wonderful
(sic) realm of cruelty.
6. These preliminary observations are
intended to emphasise that the court in
matrimonial cases is not concerned
with ideals in family life. The court has
only to understand the spouses
concerned as nature made them, and
consider their particular grievance. As
Lord Reid observed
in Gollins v. Gollins [1964 AC 644 :
(1963) 3 WLR 176 : (1963) 2 All ER 966
(HL)] : (All ER p. 972 G-H)
'... In matrimonial affairs we are not
dealing with objective standards, it is
not a matrimonial offence to fall below
the standard of the reasonable man (or
the reasonable woman). We are
dealing with this man or this woman."
14. In the case of Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh reported in
(2007) 4 SCC 511, 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
Neutral Citation
2025:JHHC:28136-DB
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."
15. Vague statement in the plaint and the evidence of the
plaintiff witnesses cannot substantiate "cruelty" as nothing can
be deciphered which would lead to a conclusion that it would be
an impossibility for the plaintiff to resume his marital life with
the defendant. The plaintiff has also failed to prove that there has
been a wilful abandonment of the plaintiff by the defendant
whereas the defendant has been able to demonstrate that her
leaving the matrimonial house was not willful but was forceful by
virtue of the circumstances enunciated by her regarding
institution of a dowry related case which fact has been admitted
by the plaintiff. The learned trial court has given paramount
Neutral Citation
2025:JHHC:28136-DB
consideration to the reluctance on the part of the defendant to
join the plaintiff at his place of posting despite a bond executed
by the plaintiff without taking into consideration that the plaintiff
has not shown his inclination to keep the defendant with him as
nothing of substance has either been brought on record or have
been stated in his evidence.
16. Based on the aforesaid reasonings, we hereby set aside the
judgment and decree dated 26-05-2018 (decree signed on 31-05-
2018) passed by Sri Yogeshwar Mani, learned Principal Judge,
Family Court, Bokaro, in T.M.S. No. 261/2014.
17. This appeal is allowed.
18. Pending I.A.s, if any, stands closed.
(RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.)
(DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Dated the 10th Day of September, 2025
Preet/N.A.F.R.
