Patna High Court
Reena Singh @ Chunni @ Rina Kumari vs Rakesh Singh on 6 August, 2025
Author: P. B. Bajanthri
Bench: P. B. Bajanthri
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Miscellaneous Appeal No.236 of 2018
======================================================
Reena Singh @ Chunni @ Rina Kumari Wife of Rakesh Singh, Resident of
Village- Virpur Singhara, Gandhi Tola, P.O.- Singhara, P.S.- Mahua, District-
Vaishali, Naihari, D/o Murlidhar Singh, Village- Shambhopur, Kowari, P.O.-
Asoi, P.S.- Sarai, District- Vaishali.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
Rakesh Singh S/o Late Kamal Kishore Singh, Resident of Village- Singhara
Gandhi Tola, P.O.- Singhara, P.S.- Mahua, District- Vaishali. At present
Bertilananm Marketing Service India Pvt. Ltd. Arvita Service, Rakesh Singh
10151 DLF Super City, Sector 25, Phase- 2, Building No. 8, Floor No. 15,
Near Infinity Town, Gurgaon- 12200, Haryana.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Shyameshwar Kumar Singh
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Rajiv Prashant
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI
And
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. B. PD. SINGH
CAV JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. B. PD. SINGH)
Date : 06-08-2025
Heard the parties.
2. The appellant has come up in this appeal
against judgment and decree dated 27.01.2018 passed by
the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Vaishali at
Hajipur in Divorce Case No. 36 of 2012, whereby the
petition filed by the respondent under Section 13(1) of the
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short 'the 1955 Act') seeking
Patna High Court MA No.236 of 2018 dt.06-08-2025
2/9
dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce, has been
allowed.
3. The pleaded case of the respondent in his
petition under Section 13 (1) of the Hindu Marriage Act,
1955 is that the marriage of the appellant was solemnized
with the respondent as per Hindu custom and rites on
03.12.2004
. After marriage, the appellant came to her
Sasural where she was being kept with all honour and
dignity by the family members of the respondent. The
appellant stayed at her matrimonial house for three months
and during her stay at her matrimonial house, the
behaviour and other activities and gestures reflected that
she was not ready to be abide by the culture and dignity of
her matrimonial house. In March 2005, she returned to her
parents' house. In July 2005, she again came to her
Sasural and stayed there for six months and during this
period, she broke all the family culture and prestige and
showed detachment towards the inmates of his
matrimonial house. She used to go her Maike without
asking or taking permission from her husband and other
in-laws family members. She always showed cruel
Patna High Court MA No.236 of 2018 dt.06-08-2025
behaviour towards the respondent and other family
members and she pushed the life of the respondent in hell.
Sometimes she ill treated with the old father of the
respondent and compelled him to live on his own fate
without any aid by her. The respondent made every
possible steps to stop the appellant from such an ignorant
and cruel behaviour towards him and other family
members but her behaviour towards his family did not
change, as a result of which, due to cruel behaviour of the
appellant, the father of the respondent went into deep
depression and ultimately died prematurely as respondent
happens to be his only son.
4. The further case of the respondent is that the
appellant never extended any service to her ailing father-
in-law who ultimately died and she also did not attend the
respondent when he met with an accident and his both
upper limbs and back got fractured in 2010. The
respondent also alleged that matrimonial relationship did
not consummate as she always denied to have conjugal
relationship with the respondent.
5. The appellant has completely failed to
Patna High Court MA No.236 of 2018 dt.06-08-2025
discharge her matrimonial obligation towards her husband
and other in-laws members. The actions/misdeeds of the
appellant have caused great torture and harassment in the
mind of the respondent. This causes enormous pain and
grief in the mind of the respondent and he found that in
spite of giving best possible love and affection, there was
no change in her behaviour towards him, his parents,
relations and friends. The appellant has left the society and
company of the respondent and went to her Maike in
September, 2007. The matrimonial relation between the
appellant and respondent has already irretrievably broken
down and there is no hope of restoration of their conjugal
life.
6. After filing of the Matrimonial Case, summons
were issued to the opposite party/appellant. She appeared
and filed her written statement in which she has stated that
all the allegations made by the respondent against the
conduct and behaviour of the appellant was denied and it
has been averred that the appellant was mentally and
physically tortured by the respondent for non-fulfilment of
dowry demand and in December, 2007 she was forced to
Patna High Court MA No.236 of 2018 dt.06-08-2025
leave her matrimonial house and she took shelter in her
Maike. This Divorce case is said to have been filed on
false and concocted grounds only to oust the appellant
from the matrimonial life of the respondent. The appellant,
therefore, prayed that divorce petition filed by the
respondent is fit to be dismissed.
7. After framing of the issue and material
evidences available on record, learned Principal Judge,
Family Court, Vaishali at Hajipur held that the appellant-
wife has treated her husband with mental cruelty.
Accordingly the suit has been decreed on contest under
Sections 13 (1) of the Act and accordingly the marriage
solemnized on 03.12.2004 between the parties was
dissolved on the ground of cruelty and desertion. The
appellant-wife, aggrieved by the said judgment of the
learned Family Court filed the instant appeal before this
Court.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant-wife submits
that the learned Family Court has erred in law and facts
both in allowing the divorce petition filed by the
respondent-husband. Learned counsel has further
Patna High Court MA No.236 of 2018 dt.06-08-2025
submitted that the divorce petition has wrongly been
allowed on the ground of cruelty, rather the appellant-wife
had been treated with cruelty at her matrimonial home and
she had only availed her legal remedies by filing cases as
regards the cruelty meted out to her and also as regards the
demand of dowry by the respondent-husband and his
family members, however the same have been wrongly
taken against the appellant. It is further submitted that the
Family Court has wrongly concluded that the appellant
had deserted the respondent-husband, whereas it was the
respondent, who had compelled the appellant-wife to leave
her matrimonial home.
9. It is further submitted on behalf of the
appellant that appellant-wife has filed Maintenance Case
No. 191 of 2012 u/s 125 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure before learned Principal Judge, Family Court,
Vaishali at Hajipur wherein vide order dated 27.03.2017,
she is getting Rs. 6000/- per month as interim
maintenance.
10. It is further submitted that no efforts were
made by the Family Court to reconcile the matter between
Patna High Court MA No.236 of 2018 dt.06-08-2025
the parties and no permanent alimony was decided. It is
therefore contended that the findings returned by the
Family Court are not sustainable in the eyes of law.
11. We have heard learned counsel for the
appellant and perused the concerned record of Family
Court as well as the impugned judgment.
12. From perusal of the case records, it appears
that after framing of issue, evidence of the
applicant/respondent was started and ultimately on
16.06.2017, his evidence was closed and on the next date
i.e. 28.07.2017, none appeared on behalf of the opposite
party/appellant and on further next date i.e. 01.09.2017,
the evidence of the opposite party/appellant was closed.
The record also shows that on 21.12.2017, a petition was
filed to recall the said order of closing the evidence of
opposite party/appellant which was rejected vide order
dated 19.01.2018.
13. It also appears from the records of the Family
Court that notice was not served to the opposite
party/appellant and only a paper publication was issued
regarding which the appellant's argument that she belongs
Patna High Court MA No.236 of 2018 dt.06-08-2025
to a poor family and corona pendamic was in vogue at that
time appears to be justified and reasonable for proper and
complete adjudication of the case. The evidence and
pleadings of both sides must come on record which have
not been done in this case.
14. So, in this background, the argument
advanced on behalf of the appellant that proper
opportunity was not given to her appears to be convincing
and it requires consideration. Sufficient opportunity ought
to have been given to the opposite party/appellant to
adduce her evidence in support of her pleadings which was
not given by the Family Court.
15. Accordingly, the judgment and decree dated
27.01.2018 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family
Court, Vaishali at Hajipur in Divorce Case No. 36 of 2012
is set aside.
16. The matter is remanded back to the Principal
Judge, Family Court, Vaishali at Hajipur to decide the case
on merits after granting opportunity to both the parties to
adduce their evidences within a period of three months
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Parties are
Patna High Court MA No.236 of 2018 dt.06-08-2025
directed to co-operate in the matter.
17. Pending I.A(s), if any, stand disposed of.
( S. B. Pd. Singh, J)
(P. B. Bajanthri, J)
Shageer/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE 24/07/2025
Uploading Date 06/08/2025
Transmission Date N/A
