Patna High Court
Prity Raj vs Shishir Kumar on 13 August, 2025
Author: P. B. Bajanthri
Bench: P. B. Bajanthri
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Miscellaneous Appeal No.91 of 2021
======================================================
Prity Raj Wife of Shishir Kumar, D/o Malanand Mehta Resident of Bardhman
Hata Ward No.14, Near Arjun Bhawan Jail Chowk, P.S.-K. Hat, District-
Purnea.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
Shishir Kumar Son of Surendra Prasad Singh Resident of Gokul Babu Hata
Khiru Chowk, Ward No.22, P.S.-K.hat, District-Purnea.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Karandeep Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Praveen Kumar Agrawal, Advocate
======================================================
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 : 13-08-2025
Heard the parties.
2. The present appeal has been filed under
Section 19(1)(1-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1984
impugning the judgment and decree dated 21.08.2020
passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Purnea in
Matrimonial (Divorce) Case No. 203 of 2018, whereby the
petition, filed by the appellant-wife to nullify the marriage
with the respondent-husband solemnized on 06.02.2016,
Patna High Court MA No.91 of 2021 dt.13-08-2025
2/21
has been dismissed.
3. The case of the appellant-wife as per the
petition filed before the Family Court is that the marriage
of the appellant with the respondent was solemonized on
06.02.2016
as per Hindu rites and rituals and at the time of
mariage, her parents had given a gift to the respondent
worth Rs. 20 lakhs. After marriage, the appellant started
leading matrimonial live with the respondent, however,
after some times, her in-laws family members started
torturing and assaulting the appellant to meet their illegal
demand of Rs. 20 lakhs from her father for establishing a
medical clinic at Purnea City. Ultimately, father of the
appellant took loan of Rs. 5 lakhs and gave it to the
respondent but again they started pressuring for another Rs.
15 lakhs. It is alleged that on 10.09.2017, the respondent
made an attempt to kill the appellant by burning and
opened gas cylinder in the kitchen but somehow she saved
her life and since then, she is residing at her parents' house.
The appellant has lodged Purnea (Mahila) P.S. Case No. 49
of 2017 on 23.09.2017 against the respondent and other in-
laws family members under Sections 498(A), 120(B), 307,
Patna High Court MA No.91 of 2021 dt.13-08-2025
511, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/ 4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act. The respondent, in order to save
his skin has filed Matrimonial Suit No. 190 of 2017 under
Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of
conjugal rights. The respondent has also filed Maintenance
Case No. 17 of 2018 on 30.01.2018 against the respondent
in which the respondent was directed to make payment of
Rs. 15,000/- per month as maintenance to the appellant.
The appellant has made all her efforts to reconcile the issue
and lead a conjugal live with the respondent but all her
efforts went in vein since respondent was not interested to
continue matrimonial relationship with the appellant.
Hence, the appellant has filed the divorce petition for
dissolution of marriage.
4. After filing of the present suit,
summons/notices were issued by the Court to the
respondent-husband. He appeared and filed his written
statement. The respondent has stated in his written
statement that all the allegations levelled against the
appellant is false and concocted. The respondent has never
demanded Rs. 20 lakhs for establishment of his clinic as
Patna High Court MA No.91 of 2021 dt.13-08-2025
before marriage with the appellant, he had established his
clinic. The respondent has made every efforts to bring back
the appellant into her matrimonial fold but it was the
appellant who was not interested to live with the
respondent. Ultimately, the respondent has filed
Matrimonial Suit No. 190 of 2017 for restitution of
conjugal rights. The appellant has been living at her parents
house since 10.09.2017 without any reason. The allegation
of the appellant that an attempt was made to set her on fire
by opening gas cylinder has not been proved.
5. In order to prove her case, the appellant has
produced six witnesses namely P.W. 1 Priti Raj (appellant),
P.W. 2 Malanand Mahto (father of appellant), P.W. 3 Anil
Kumar Singh, P.W. 4 Raj Kumar Shrivastava, P.W. 5
Anokhe Lal and P.W. 6 Bindeshwari Mahto.
6. The respondent has also produced three
witnesses in order to falsify the case of the appellant which
are D.W. 1 Shishir Kumar (respondent), D.W. 2 Surendra
Prasad Singh (father-in-law of the appellant) and D.W. 3
Shanti Devi (mother-in-law of the appellant).
7. In view of the pleadings and the arguments
Patna High Court MA No.91 of 2021 dt.13-08-2025
advanced on behalf of the appellant and respondent as well
as the evidences brought on record, the main points for
determination in this appeal are as follows:-
(i) Whether the appellant is entitled to the
relief sought for in her appeal.
(ii) Whether the impugned judgment of
Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna is just,
proper and sustainable in the eyes of law.
8. Both the above points are taken together for
discussion on the basis of facts and evidences adduced on
behalf of both the parties and the provision of law
applicable in this case.
9. It is submitted by learned counsel for the
appellant-wife that learned Court below has passed the
order in a mechanical manner without appreciating the
evidences placed on record before it. Learned Court below
has failed to appreciate that an attempt was made by the
respondent's side to kill the appellant by setting her on fire.
The appellant has been residing at her parents' house since
10.09.2017 but the respondent has not made any effort to
take her to her matrimonial home. Learned Family Court
Patna High Court MA No.91 of 2021 dt.13-08-2025
has also failed to appreciate that in the criminal case filed
against the respondent and other in-laws family members,
the respondent was charge-sheeted for the offences
punishable under Section 307 I.P.C which proves her claim
of cruelty at the hands of the respondent. The learned court
below has failed to consider that the respondent-husband is
mentally disturbed person and it reflects from his
behaviour and that might be a reason why marriage could
not be consummated due to the inability of the respondent.
10. Before coming to the conclusion, we need to
analyze whether the divorce petition filed by the appellant
on the ground of cruelty meets the requirements as
envisaged by Hon'ble Apex Court in its decision?"
11. The concept of cruelty within the meaning of
Section 13 (1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act has been
explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of
"Joydeep Majumdar v. Bharti Jaiswal Majumdar",
(2021) 2 RCR (Civil) 289, by observing as under: -
"10. For considering dissolution
of marriage at the instance of a spouse
who allege mental cruelty, the result of
such mental cruelty must be such that it is
Patna High Court MA No.91 of 2021 dt.13-08-2025
not possible to continue with the
matrimonial relationship. In other words,
the wronged party cannot be expected to
condone such conduct and continue to live
with his/her spouse. The degree of
tolerance will vary from one couple to
another and the Court will have to bear in
mind the background, the level of
education and also the status of the
parties, in order to determine whether the
cruelty alleged is sufficient to justify
dissolution of marriage, at the instance of
the wronged party..."
12. In "Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh", (2007) 4
SCC 511, Hon'ble Supreme Court gave illustrative cases
where inference of mental cruelty could be drawn even
while emphasizing that no uniform standard can be laid
down and each case will have to be decided on its own
facts.
"85. No uniform standard can ever be
laid down for guidance, yet we deem it
appropriate to enumerate some instances
of human behaviour which may be
relevant in dealing with the cases of
Patna High Court MA No.91 of 2021 dt.13-08-2025
'mental cruelty'. The instances indicated in
the succeeding paragraphs are only
illustrative and not exhaustive.
(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.
(ii) On comprehensive appraisal of
the entire matrimonial life of the parties, it
becomes abundantly clear that situation is
such that the wronged party cannot
reasonably be asked to put up with such
conduct and continue to live with other
party.
(iii) Mere coldness or lack of
affection cannot amount to cruelty,
frequent rudeness of language, petulance
of manner, indifference and neglect may
reach such a degree that it makes the
married life for the other spouse
absolutely intolerable.
(iv) Mental cruelty is a state of mind.
The feeling of deep anguish,
disappointment, frustration in one spouse
caused by the conduct of other for a long
time may lead to mental cruelty.
Patna High Court MA No.91 of 2021 dt.13-08-2025
(v) A sustained course of abusive and
humiliating treatment calculated to
torture, discommode or render miserable
life of the spouse.
(vi) Sustained unjustifiable conduct
and behaviour of one spouse actually
affecting physical and mental health of the
other spouse. The treatment complained of
and the resultant danger or apprehension
must be very grave, substantial and
weighty.
(vii) Sustained reprehensible conduct,
studied neglect, indifference or total
departure from the normal standard of
conjugal kindness causing injury to
mental health or deriving sadistic pleasure
can also amount to mental cruelty.
(viii) The conduct must be much more
than jealousy, selfishness, possessiveness,
which causes unhappiness and
dissatisfaction and emotional upset may
not be a ground for grant of divorce on the
ground of mental cruelty.
(ix) Mere trivial irritations, quarrels,
normal wear and tear of the married life
which happens in day to day life would
not be adequate for grant of divorce on
the ground of mental cruelty.
Patna High Court MA No.91 of 2021 dt.13-08-2025
(x) The married life should be
reviewed as a whole and a few Isolated
instances over a period of years will not
amount to cruelty. The ill-conduct must be
persistent for a fairly lengthy period,
where the relationship has deteriorated to
an extent that because of the acts and
behaviour of a spouse, the wronged party
finds it extremely difficult to live with the
other party any longer, may amount to
mental cruelty.
(xi) If a husband submits himself for
an operation of sterilisation without
medical reasons and without the consent
or knowledge of his wife and similarly if
the wife undergoes vasectomy or abortion
without medical reason or without the
consent or knowledge of her husband,
such an act of the spouse may lead to
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
Patna High Court MA No.91 of 2021 dt.13-08-2025
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..."
13. On the envil of the aforesaid principle of
Hon'ble Apex Court when we examine the present case in
the light of the evidences adduced on behalf of the parties,
it becomes clear that there is long separation between the
parties and the matrimonial bond is virtually beyond repair
and in this circumstance, if divorce is not granted, it will
not serve the sanctity of marriage.
14. From perusal of the Trial Court records, it
transpires that so many cases were going on between the
parties. It also appears that Purnea (Mahila) P.S. Case No.
49 of 2017 was filed by the appellant-wife under Sections
Patna High Court MA No.91 of 2021 dt.13-08-2025
498(A), 120, 307, 511, 34 of the Indian Penal Code in
which charge-sheet has been submitted under Section
498(A) I.P.C. It also appears that Matrimonial Suit No. 190
of 2017 was filed by the husband for restitution of conjugal
rights in which decree has been passed but in spite of that
the appellant-wife did not join her husband. This is
sufficient ground in itself for passing a decree for divorce
under Sections 13 (1-A)(ii) of the Hindu Marriage Act.
15. It would be pertinent in reproduce the relevant
portions of sections 9 13, 13A and 14 of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955, which are as follows:-
"9. Restitution of Conjugal Rights - When
either the husband or the wife has, without
reasonable excuse, withdrawn from the
society of the other, the aggrieved party
may apply, by petition to the district court,
restitution of conjugal rights and the court,
on being satisfied of the truth of the
statements made in such petition and that
there is no legal ground why the
application should not be granted, may
decree restitution of conjugal rights
accordingly.
Explanation- where a question arises
Patna High Court MA No.91 of 2021 dt.13-08-2025
whether there has been reasonable excuse
for withdrawal from the society, the
burden of proving reasonable excuse
shall be on the person who has
withdrawn from the society.
13. Divorce (1) Any marriage solemnized
whether before or after the
commencement of this Act, may, on
petition presented by either the husband
or the wife, be dissolved by a decree of
divorce on the ground that the other party
-
i) has, after the solemnisation of the
marriage, had voluntarily sexual
intercourse with any person other than
his or her spouse: or (ia) has, after
solemnisation of the marriage, treated the
petitioner with cruelty; or (ib) has
deserted the petitioner for a continuous
period of not less than 2 years
immediately preceding the presentation of
the petition; or
(ii)...............
Explanation- In this subsection, the
expression "desertion" means the
desertion of the petitioner by the other
party to the marriage without
reasonable cause and without the
Patna High Court MA No.91 of 2021 dt.13-08-2025
consent or against the wish of such
party, and includes the wilful neglect of
the petitioner by the other party to the
marriage, and it's grammatical
variations and cognate expressions
shall be construed accordingly.
(1A) Either party to a marriage,
whether solemnised before or after the
commencement of this Act, may also
present a petition for dissolution of the
marriage by a decree of divorce on the
ground-
(i) that there has been no resumption of
cohabitation as between the parties to
the marriage for a period of one year or
upwards after the passing of a decree
for judicial separation in a proceeding
to which they were parties; or
(ii) that there has been no restitution of
conjugal rights as between the parties
to the marriage for a period of one
year or upwards after the passing of a
decree for restitution of conjugal rights
in a proceeding to which they were
parties.
................
13A. Alternate relief in divorce
proceedings - in any proceeding under
Patna High Court MA No.91 of 2021 dt.13-08-2025
this Act, on a petition for dissolution of
marriage by a decree of divorce, except
in so far as the petition is founded on
the grounds mentioned in clauses (ii),
(vi) and (vii) of subsection (1) of section
13, the court may, if it considers it just
so to do having regard to the
circumstances of the case, pass instead
a decree for judicial separation.
14. No petition for divorce to be
presented within one year of marriage -
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained
in this Act, it shall not be competent for
any court to entertain any petition for
dissolution of marriage by a decree of
divorce, unless at the date of
presentation of the petition one year
has elapsed since the date of the
marriage.
16. Further, it is clear that appellant-wife is not
willing to join her husband as gets reflected from her
evidence also in Matrimonial Suit No. 190 of 2017 filed for
restitution of conjugal rights in which she has appeared as
Patna High Court MA No.91 of 2021 dt.13-08-2025
O.P.W.1 and adduced her evidence in para 18 and in the
present case also, she has been examined as P.W. 1 and
adduced her evidence at para 49. So, in the backdrop of the
aforesaid evidence of the appellant-wife as well as the
criminal cases filed by the appellant-wife against her
husband (respondent), it is clear that the matrimonial bond
between both the parties has virtually been broken and it is
beyond repair which comes under the purview of mental
cruelty by the appellant towards her husband (respondent).
17. So, after perusing the case record and
considering the submissions advanced on behalf of the
learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent and
after analyzing the evidence on record in entirety as
adduced by the appellant-wife, this Court finds that learned
Court below has not appreciated the evidences in its right
perspective and dismissed the petition of the appellant-
wife. The learned Court below ought to have considered
this fact that divorce petition was filed by the appellant on
the ground of cruelty which has been proved by the
strength of oral as well as documentary evidence. The
matrimonial relation between the appellant and respondent
Patna High Court MA No.91 of 2021 dt.13-08-2025
has already been broken down and there is no hope of
restoration of their conjugal life.
18. In view of forgoing discussion, we conclude
that respondent-wife has made out a ground for grant of
decree of dissolution of marriage on the ground as
mentioned in Section 13(1-A)(ii) of the Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955."
19. In that view of the matter, the impugned
judgment dated 21.08.2020 passed by learned Principal
Judge, Family Court, Purnea in Matrimonial Divorce Case
No. 203 of 2018 is hereby set aside. The prayer of the
appellant-wife for dissolution of marriage by a decree of
divorce with the respondent under Section 13(1)(1-a) of the
Hindu Marriage Act is allowed and the marriage of the
appellant-wife with the respondent-husband is dissolved by
a decree of divorce.
20. Registry is directed to prepare decree of
divorce accordingly.
21. Before we part with this order, we need to
have a say on the quantum of permanent alimony to the
appellant.
Patna High Court MA No.91 of 2021 dt.13-08-2025
22. Here it is useful to refer to Section 25 of the
1955 Act, which reads thus:
"Section 25. Permanent alimony
and maintenance: (1) Any Court
exercising jurisdiction under this Act may,
at the time of passing any decree or at
any time subsequent thereto, on
application made to it for the purpose by
either the wife or the husband, as the case
may be, order that the respondent shall
pay to the appellant for her or his
maintenance and support such gross sum
or such monthly or periodical sum for a
term not exceeding the life of the
applicant as, having regard to the
respondent's own income and other
property, if any, the income and other
property of the applicant (the conduct of
the parties and other circumstances of the
case), it may seem to the Court to be just,
and any such payment may be secured, if
necessary, by a charge on the immovable
property of the respondent."
23. In the light of the language used in Section 25
of the 1955 Act, it is clear that claim under Section 25 of
Patna High Court MA No.91 of 2021 dt.13-08-2025
the Act has to be made on an application furnishing all
details regarding his or her own income or other property.
Further an opportunity has to be given to the other side to
put forth his/her defence.
24. The quantum of maintenance is subjective to
each case and is dependent on various circumstances and
factors. The Court needs to look into factors such as
income of both the parties; conduct during the subsistence
of marriage; their individual social and financial status;
personal expenses of each of the parties; their individual
capacities and duties to maintain their dependents; the
quality of life enjoyed by the wife during the subsistence of
the marriage; period of marriage and such other similar
factors. The grant of permanent alimony should be directed
after assessing the social, financial status of both the
parties and also after appreciating the burden of liabilities
incurred either on husband or wife in light of Hon'ble
Supreme Court decision in the case of Rajnesh vs. Neha
reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324 read with Aditi @ Mithi vs.
Jitesh Sharma reported in (2023) SCC OnLine SC 1451
read with Pravin Kumar Jain vs. Anju Jain reported in
Patna High Court MA No.91 of 2021 dt.13-08-2025
2024 SCC OnLine SC 3678.
25. Be that as it may, Section 25 of the 1955 Act
itself envisages that the wife can initiate proceedings for
grant of permanent alimony even after the decree of
divorce. Therefore, the court does not become functus
officio with the passing of the decree and continues to have
jurisdiction to award alimony even thereafter.
26. Accordingly, we deem it fit and proper to
remand the matter back to the learned Principal Judge,
Family Court, Purnea only with regard to decide the
quantum of permanent alimony. The Court below is
expected to direct the appellant-wife and respondent-
husband to file details regarding their assets and liabilities
in light of Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of
Rajnesh vs. Neha reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324 read with
Aditi @ Mithi vs. Jitesh Sharma reported in (2023) SCC
OnLine SC 1451 read with Pravin Kumar Jain vs. Anju
Jain reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3678 and after
analyzing their assets and liabilities, pass appropriate order
with regard to the permanent alimony within a period of
three months from the date of passing of the judgment.
Patna High Court MA No.91 of 2021 dt.13-08-2025
Both parties are directed to co-operate in expeditious
disposal of the above matter. In case of non-appearance of
either party, proper order shall be passed in accordance
with law.
27. It is made clear that the interim maintenance
of Rs. 15,000/- per month which was awarded by the
learned Family Court in Maintenance Case No. 17(M) of
2018 to the appellant-wife will be paid by the respondent-
husband till permanent alimony is decided.
28. In view of the above discussions, M.A. No. 91
of 2021 is hereby disposed of.
29. Pending I.A(s), if any, stand disposed of.
( S. B. Pd. Singh, J)
(P. B. Bajanthri, J)
Shageer/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE 16/04/2025
Uploading Date 13/08/2025
Transmission Date N/A
