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
3/21
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
4/21
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
5/21
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
6/21
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
7/21
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
8/21appellant-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
9/21
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
10/21Court 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
11/21erroneous, 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
12/21
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
13/21party.
(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
14/21mental 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
15/21the 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
16/21
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
17/21
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
18/21exercising 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
19/21
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
20/21
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
21/21
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