Binay Sharma @ Binay Kumar Sharma vs Ruhi Sharma
2025 Latest Caselaw 2959 Patna

Patna High Court

Binay Sharma @ Binay Kumar Sharma vs Ruhi Sharma on 30 June, 2025

Author: P. B. Bajanthri

Bench: P. B. Bajanthri

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                       Miscellaneous Appeal No.402 of 2021

======================================================
Binay Sharma @ Binay Kumar Sharma Son of Late Narayan Prasad Sharna
Resident of Dina Sah Lane Mundichak, Tilkamanjhi, District- Bhagalpur.

                                                             ... ... Appellant/s
                                     Versus

Ruhi Sharma Daughter of Binod Sharma Resident of Mohalla- Churihari Tola,
Police Station- Adampur, District- Bhagalpur.

                                                         ... ... Respondent/s

======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s       :      Mr. Dr. Manoj Kumar
For the Respondent/s      :      Mr. Ravi Bhushan

======================================================

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 : 30-06-2025

             Heard the parties.

             2. The appellant has come up in this appeal

 against judgment and decree dated 26.03.2021 passed by

 the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhagalpur in

 Matrimonial Case No. 207 of 2017, whereby the petition

 filed by the respondent-wife (Ruchi Sharma) under Section

 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short 'the

 1955 Act') seeking dissolution of marriage by a decree of

 divorce, has been allowed and the appellant was directed to
 Patna High Court MA No.402 of 2021 dt.30-06-2025
                                           2/21




         make payment of Rs. 15,00,000/-(Fifteen Lakhs) as

         permanent alimony.

                     3. Succinctly, the marriage of appellant was

         solemnized with the respondent on 29th January, 2016 as

         per Hindu rites and ceremonies. The marriage was duly

         consummated; however, no child was born from the

         wedlock.

                     4. The pleaded case of respondent-wife in her

         petition under Section 13 (1)(i-a) of the 1955 Act was that

         her marriage was performed with the appellant on

         29.01.2016

in which her parents spent Rs.10-11 Lakh.

After marriage respondent went to the house of appellant

on 30.1.2016 but appellant instead of establishing normal

sex-relation started committing unnatural sexual atrocities

and on protest, appellant assaulted and abused her. The

appellant, his mother, brother, and Bhabhi started torturing

the respondent for dowry of Rs.3 Lakhs cash, motor-cycle,

Inverter etc. The appellant also prepared videography of

respondent of her unnatural sex relation in naked state,

hence the respondent left the house of the appellant on

13.06.2016 and came to her parental house. The Patna High Court MA No.402 of 2021 dt.30-06-2025

respondent, thereafter, filed Complaint Case No. 1030 of

2016 against appellant and his family members on

16.6.2016 under Sections 498A, 377 of the Indian Penal

Code and Section 3/ 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act in

which cognizance was taken. It is further alleged that after

filing of the complaint, the appellant along with his brother

and other two persons arrived at the parental house of

respondent and threatened to withdraw the case for which

Kotwali (Adampur) P.S. Case No.353/16 was lodged on

24.07.2016 under Sections 341, 447, 323, 504, 506, 34 of

the Indian Penal Code. The appellant, in order to save his

skin has also filed Complaint Case No.1457 of 2016 which

was referred to police station and accordingly Kotwali

(Tilkamanjhi) P.S. Case No.80 of 2017 was lodged under

Sections 364, 447, 341, 323, 504, 380, 120(B) of the Indian

Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act in which, the

police, after investigation, submitted final form and did not

find the case true as against the respondent's side. The

respondent being fed up with the atrocities meted out by

the appellant, went to Pune to get commercial education

but the appellant also reached there and he assaulted her Patna High Court MA No.402 of 2021 dt.30-06-2025

and threatened to withdraw the case. The matrimonial

relation between the appellant and respondent has already

irretrievably broken down and there is no hope of

restoration of their conjugal life.

5. The appellant-husband appeared and filed his

written statement and has submitted that the instant case is

fit to be dismissed as it is not maintainable either in eye of

law or on fact. It is pleaded that respondent has been

misguided by Vimmi Sharma who has adopted her. Vimmi

Sharma has settled the marriage of respondent with the

appellant to take undue advantage and take away the entire

property of appellant. All the expenses of marriage were

borne by family members of appellant. Not only this, the

mother of appellant had offered ornaments worth Rs.10

Lakhs to the respondent which were kept by Vimmi

Sharma. The appellant has already filed matrimonial case

No. 289 of 2016 under section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act for

restitution of conjugal rights and thereafter present suit for

divorce has been filed by the respondent. The respondent

is very ambitious woman and never rendered her good

wishes to her husband and in-laws. The respondent also Patna High Court MA No.402 of 2021 dt.30-06-2025

assaulted her mother-in-law at different times and

threatened to transfer the property in her own name. The

appellant had never given threat, nor ill behaved,

humiliated or quarreled with any in-laws family members

and all the allegations made against the appellant-husband

are fake with a view to take divorce from him. Hence, the

divorce petition is liable to be dismissed.

6. After conclusion of trial, learned Principal

Judge, Family Court, Bhagalpur held that respondent-Ruhi

Sharma is entitled for a decree of divorce along with

permanent alimony. Hence, the marriage between the

appellant and the respondent were dissolved and the

appellant-husband was directed to make payment of Rs.

15,00,000/-(Fifteen Lakhs) as permanent alimony to the

respondent-wife within two months of passing of the order.

The appellant-husband, aggrieved by the said judgment of

the learned Family Court filed the instant appeal before this

Court.

7. The divorce has been granted on the grounds of

cruelty and desertion. A perusal of the Impugned judgment

would show that the following acts of cruelty and desertion Patna High Court MA No.402 of 2021 dt.30-06-2025

were considered by the Family Court, as proved:-

a) Cruelty:

(i) From oral and documentary evidence, it is

evident that the couple got married about five years back.

The marriage took place on 29.01.2016 and they are

residing separately w.e.f. 13.06.2016.

(ii) Admittedly, the parties got separated on

13.06.2016 and they were engaged in filing cases against

each other as respondent-wife has filed Complaint Case

No. 1030 of 2016, Kotwali (Adampur) P.S. Case

No.353/16 whereas appellant-husband has filed Kotwali

(Tilkamanjhi) P.S. Case No.80 of 2017.

(iii) The Hon'ble Apex Court in "Jagbir Singh v.

Nisha", (2015) 9 RCR (Civil) 873, "Rishipal v. Luxmi

Devi", (2009) 4 RCR (Civil) 811, "Dharampal v. Smt.

Pushpa Devi", 2004 RCR (Civil) 717, "Major Ashish

Poonia Mrs. Nilima Poonia"; "Mangayakarasi v. M.

Yuvaraj" (2020) 3 SCC 786, "K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A.

Deepa", (2013) 5 SCC 226 and "K. Srinivas v. K.

Suneetha" (2014) 16 SCC 34, has held that making

unfounded allegations and filing false complaints against Patna High Court MA No.402 of 2021 dt.30-06-2025

the spouse or his relatives amount to cruelty to the other

spouse and held that acquittal of respondent-husband and

his mother in criminal case filed by appellant in fact goes

to show that respondent-husband has indeed faced

matrimonial cruelties at the hands of appellant-wife.

(v) It was observed by the Family Court that the

couple have been living separately for about five years and

this long separation has in fact put them in such a situation

that matrimonial bond has broken down beyond repair. It

was further observed that there are no chances of the

couple living together and such a marriage is now

unworkable and can be a source of great misery for the

parties, if allowed to be continued.

8. Accordingly, it was concluded that the

respondent-wife has been able to prove the ground of

cruelty.

b) Desertion:

(i) The Family Court observed that the

respondent-wife left her matrimonial house on 13.06.2016

and since then they are living separately. There was no

effort on the part of respondent-wife to return to fold of Patna High Court MA No.402 of 2021 dt.30-06-2025

appellant-husband. Though the appellant-husband has filed

a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu marriage Act for

restitution of conjugal rights but all his efforts went in vein

since the respondent-wife was not agree to live with the

appellant.

(ii) It was concluded that the respondent-wife had

put the relationship to a permanent end and had not joined

the appellant-husband. She has not filed any case under

Section 9 of the 1955 Act for restitution of conjugal rights.

Hence, it is evident that the factum of separation, intention

to bring cohabitation to a permanent end, goes to establish

that respondent has deserted the appellant continuously for

a period of more than two years.

9. In the aforementioned circumstances, present

appeal has been filed before this Court.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant-husband

submits that the learned Family Court has erred in law and

facts in allowing the divorce petition filed by the

respondent-wife. It is further submitted that much prior to

filing of the instant Divorce case, the appellant-husband

had filed Matrimonial Suit No. 289 of 2016 against the Patna High Court MA No.402 of 2021 dt.30-06-2025

respondent-wife for restitution of conjugal rights under

section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act and on coming to

know about said case, the respondent has filed Matrimonial

Case No. 207 of 2017 for a decree of divorce. The

appellant has further submitted that the respondent-wife,

during pendency of the Matrimonial Case No. 207 of 2017

has performed second marriage on 10.07.2019 with one

Awadhesh Kumar Jha. Hence, she is not entitled to get

single farthing from the appellant towards alimony.

11. We have heard learned counsel for the

appellant and perused the paper-book as well as the

impugned judgment.

12. The following question arises for

consideration before this Court: "Whether the decree for

divorce granted on the grounds of cruelty and desertion by

the Family Court, requires interference?"

13. In "Jagdish Singh v. Madhuri Devi", (2008)

10 SCC 497, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering

the scope of interference by first appellate court, observed

as under:-

"24. It is no doubt true that the High Patna High Court MA No.402 of 2021 dt.30-06-2025

Court was exercising power as first appellate court and hence it was open to the Court to enter into not only questions of law but questions of fact as well. It is settled law that an appeal is a continuation of suit. An appeal thus is a re-hearing of the main matter and the appellate court can re- appraise, re-appreciate and review the entire evidence "oral as well as documentary" and can come to its own conclusion.

25. At the same time, however, the appellate court is expected, nay bound, to bear in mind a finding recorded by the trial court on oral evidence. It should not forget that the trial court had an advantage and opportunity of seeing the demeanour of witnesses and, hence, the trial court's conclusions should not normally be disturbed. No doubt, the appellate court possesses the same powers as that of the original court, but they have to be exercised with proper care, caution and circumspection. When a finding of fact has been recorded by the trial court mainly on appreciation of oral evidence, it should not be lightly disturbed unless the approach of the trial court in appraisal of evidence is Patna High Court MA No.402 of 2021 dt.30-06-2025

erroneous, contrary to well-established principles of law or unreasonable..."

14. Further, 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 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..."

Patna High Court MA No.402 of 2021 dt.30-06-2025

15. 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 '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 Patna High Court MA No.402 of 2021 dt.30-06-2025

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.

(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 Patna High Court MA No.402 of 2021 dt.30-06-2025

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.

(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 Patna High Court MA No.402 of 2021 dt.30-06-2025

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 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..."

16. On the envil of the aforesaid principle of Patna High Court MA No.402 of 2021 dt.30-06-2025

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. The appellant-husband

has also filed a petition before learned Principal Judge,

Family Court that he has no objection, if decree of

dissolution of marriage is passed in favour of the

respondent-wife. The aforesaid averment of the appellant

also finds mentioned in its order dated 12.01.2021 of the

Trial Court. The appellant has also stated before this Court

in para 11 of his memo of appeaal that he has filed a

petition that decree of divorce be passed in favour of the

respondent.

17. In view of forgoing discussion, we conclude

that respondent-wife has made a ground for grant of decree

of dissolution of marriage on the ground as mentioned in

Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955."

18. Considering the totality of circumstances, in

our considered view, learned Family Court has rightly Patna High Court MA No.402 of 2021 dt.30-06-2025

passed a decree of dissolution of marriage between the

parties and we see no reason as to why, the findings as

given by the learned trial Court should not be upheld.

19. Before we part with this order, it is apposite to

state here that while granting the decree of divorce, without

assessing the assets and liabilities of the parties, learned

Family court has awarded Rs. 15,00,000/-(Fifteen Lakhs)

to the respondent-wife towards Permanent Alimony as

neither appellant nor respondent has filed their assets and

liabilities statement nor it was required by the learned

Principal Judge, Family Court while granting permanent

alimony of Rs. 15 lakhs in favour of the respondent-wife.

20. This Court, vide order dated 10.02.2025 had

directed both the parties to file their assets and liabilities

statement. The office note dated 02.05.2025 suggests that

neither appellant nor respondent has brought on record

their assets and liabilities statements.

21. 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 Patna High Court MA No.402 of 2021 dt.30-06-2025

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."

22. In the light of the language used in Section 25

of the 1955 Act, it is clear that claim under Section 25 of

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.

Patna High Court MA No.402 of 2021 dt.30-06-2025

23. 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. Neither appellant-husband nor respondent-wife has

filed his/her assets and liability before Principal Judge,

Family Court, Bhagalpur and without assessing the

aforestate aspects, in a flimsy manner, permanent alimony

of Rs. 15 lakhs was directed to be paid to the respondent-

wife, which is not sustainable in the eye of law. 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 Patna High Court MA No.402 of 2021 dt.30-06-2025

Sharma reported in (2023) SCC OnLine SC 1451 read

with Pravin Kumar Jain vs. Anju Jain reported in 2024

SCC OnLine SC 3678.

24. 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.

25. Accordingly, we deem it fit and proper to

remand the matter back to the learned Principal Judge,

Family Court, Bhagalpur only with regard to decide the

quantum of permanent alimony. The Court below is

expected to direct the appellant-husband and respondent-

wife 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 Patna High Court MA No.402 of 2021 dt.30-06-2025

with regard to the permanent alimony within a period of

three months from the date of passing of the judgment.

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.

26. In view of the above discussions, M.A. No.

402 of 2021 is hereby disposed of.

27. Pending I.A(s), if any, stand disposed of.

( S. B. Pd. Singh, J)

(P. B. Bajanthri, J)

Shageer/-

AFR/NAFR                AFR
CAV DATE                05/05/2025
Uploading Date          02/07/2025
Transmission Date       N/A