Patna High Court
Ram Krishna Kumar @ Nanhku Pandey vs Geeta Devi on 7 August, 2025
Author: P. B. Bajanthri
Bench: P. B. Bajanthri
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Miscellaneous Appeal No.95 of 2016
======================================================
Ram Krishna Kumar @ Nanhku Pandey son of Satyanarayan Pandey R/o
villagePost- Shamshernagar, P.S.- Daudnagar, District- Aurangabad.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
Geeta Devi Wife of Ran Krishan Kumar@ Nanhku Pandey, Daughter of Ram
Kripal Sharma, R/o Village- Kodra, P.O.- Kodra, P.S.- Paliganj, District-
Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Shivendra Prasad Singh, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Purushotam Sharma, Advocate
Mr. Gaurav Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Mukund Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Kumar Sameer, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Parashuram Singh, 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 : 07-08-2025
Heard the parties.
2. The appellant has come up in this appeal against
judgment and decree dated 19.11.2015 passed by the
learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Aurangabad in
Matrimonial Case No. 150 of 2014, whereby the petition
filed by the appellant under Section 13 of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955 (in short ‘the 1955 Act’) seeking
dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce, has been
dismissed.
3. Succinctly, the marriage of appellant was
Patna High Court MA No.95 of 2016 dt.07-08-2025
2/13
solemnized with the respondent on 04.05.1984 as per Hindu
rites and ceremonies. The marriage was duly consummated;
however, no child was born from the wedlock.
4. The pleaded case of the appellant in his petition
filed under Section 13 Act was that the appellant was
married with Geeta Devi (respondent) on 04.05.1984
according to Hindu rites and rituals but just after marriage
she started quarreling for a separate house as she did not
want to live in joint family. The respondent was a
quarrelsome lady and she had never been a good relation
either with the appellant or other in-laws family members.
Further, the case of the appellant is that in order to save his
matrimonial life, he started residing separately in other
house with the respondent but again she started quarreling
with the appellant to transfer his property in her favour. The
appellant had no issue out of the wedlock, hence, he spent
his money and consulted several doctors for treatment of his
wife. The respondent has filed a complaint being Case No.
257 of 2013 before State Women Commission, Patna and
she has also filed Daudnagar P.S. Case No. 336 of 2013
against the appellant under Sections 341,323,498(A) and
Patna High Court MA No.95 of 2016 dt.07-08-2025
3/13
379 of the Indian Penal Code in which the appellant is on
bail. The matrimonial relation between the appellant and
respondent has already irretrievably broken down and there
is no hope of restoration of their conjugal life. Hence, the
divorce petition was filed for dissolution of marriage
between the parties.
5. The respondent-wife appeared and filed her
written statement and has submitted that the application
filed on behalf of appellant is not maintainable and all the
allegations levelled against her by the appellant are baseless
and without any evidence. The respondent is a competent
house wife to serve her husband properly and having good
behaviour and character. The appellant is member of
District Board, Sasaram and he runs a Petrol Pump and has
illicit relation with other lady and when the respondent-wife
made objection, she was brutally assaulted and ousted from
her matrimonial house. The appellant has illicit relation
with another lady without her consent. The appellant is
earning Rs. 1,50,000/- per month from his all sources and
respondent is residing at her Maike since 2013 but he has
not paid a penny to the respondent for her maintenance.
Patna High Court MA No.95 of 2016 dt.07-08-2025
4/13
The respondent had never given threat, nor ill behaved,
humiliated or quarreled with any in-laws family members
and all the allegations made against her are fake with a view
to take divorce from her. Hence, the divorce petition is
liable to be dismissed.
6. After conclusion of trial, learned Principal
Judge, Family Court, Aurangabad held that appellant has
not made out a case for dissolution of marriage. Hence, the
divorce petition was accordingly dismissed. The appellant-
husband, aggrieved by the said judgment of the learned
Family Court filed the instant appeal before this Court.
7. It is submitted by learned counsel for the
appellant that the Family Court has failed to appreciate the
cruelty meted out to the appellant. The respondent is a
quarrelsome lady and she herself does not want to join the
matrimonial relationship with the appellant. The respondent
only alleges illicit relationship of the appellant with another
ladies but she has not brought on record any proof to
authenticate her claim. Instead, the respondent has filed a
complaint being Case No. 257 of 2013 before State Women
Commission, Patna and also filed Daudnagar P.S. Case No.
Patna High Court MA No.95 of 2016 dt.07-08-2025
5/13
336 of 2013 against the appellant with false allegations only
with a view to harass, humiliate and malign the social
prestige of the appellant. The seriousness of the respondent-
wife is apparent from the fact that during course of evidence
in Divorce Case, she has left the pairvi, hence the case was
proceeded ex-parte. The appellant also alleges that
respondent has not filed any petition for restitution of
conjugal rights. It is therefore submitted that these issues
suffice to say that appellant was facing humiliation and
embarrassment in the family circle and these issues would
fall under mental torture and leads to cruelty at the hands of
the respondent-wife.
8. It is submitted by learned counsel for the
respondent-wife that learned Family Court has rightly
dismissed the divorce petition filed on behalf of the
appellant. All the allegations levelled against the respondent
in the divorce petition is concocted, baseless and without
any proof. In fact, the appellant has illicit relationship with
many ladies and when she protested, she was assaulted and
ousted from her matrimonial house. The appellant is earning
Rs. 1,50,000/- per month from his all sources and
Patna High Court MA No.95 of 2016 dt.07-08-2025
6/13
respondent is residing at her Maike since 2013 but he has
not paid a penny to the respondent for her maintenance.
The respondent had never given threat, nor ill behaved,
humiliated or quarreled with any in-laws family members
and all the allegations made against her are fake with a view
to take divorce from her.
9. In view of the submissions made on behalf of
the appellant and 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 his petition/appeal.
(ii) Whether the impugned judgment of
Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna is just,
proper and sustainable/tenable in the eyes of
law.
10. The appellant has prayed for divorce in
Matrimonial Case No. 150 of 2021 on the ground of cruelty
and desertion.
11. So far as, the ground of cruelty for taking
divorce is concerned, the word ‘cruelty’ has not been
defined in specific words and language in the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955, but it is well settled position that
Patna High Court MA No.95 of 2016 dt.07-08-2025
7/13
cruelty is such of character and conduct as cause in mind of
other spouse a reasonable apprehension that it will be
harmful and injurious for him to live with O.P.- respondent.
12. It is observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in
leading case of Samar Ghose vs. Jaya Ghose reported in
2007 (4) SCC 511 that a 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. More trivial
irritations, quarrel, normal wear and tear of the married live
which happens in day-to-day live would not be adequate for
grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty.
13. In this context, we are tempted to quote the
golden observation made by the Hon’ble Apex Court during
decision in case of Narain Ganesh Dastane vs. Sucheta
Naraih Dastane reported in, AIR 1975, 1534, which are as
follows:-
“One other matter which needs to be
clarified is that though under Section 10(1)
(b), the apprehension of the petitioner that it
will be harmful or injurious to live with the
Patna High Court MA No.95 of 2016 dt.07-08-2025
8/13other party has to be reasonable, it is wrong,
except in the context of such apprehension, to
import the concept of a reasonable man as
known to the law of negligence of judging of
matrimonial relations. Spouses are
undoubtedly supposed and expected to
conduct their joint venture as best as they
might but it is no function of a court inquring
into a charge of cruelty to philosophise on the
modalities of married life. Some one may want
to keep late hours of finish the day’s work and
some one may want to get up early for a
morning round of golf. The court cannot apply
to the habits or hobbies of these the test
whether a reasonable man situated similarly
will behave in a similar fashion. “The
question whether the misconduct complained
of constitutes cruelty and the like for divorce
purposes is determined primarily by its effect
upon the particular person complaining of the
acts. The question is not whether the conduct
would be cruel to a reasonable person or a
person of average or normal sensibilities, but
whether it would have that effect upon the
aggrieved spouse. That which may be cruel to
one person may be laughed off by another,
and what may not be cruel to an Individual
under one set of circumstances may be
Patna High Court MA No.95 of 2016 dt.07-08-2025
9/13extreme cruelty under another set of
circumstances”. The Court has to deal, not
with an ideal husband and ideal wife
(assuming any such exist) but with the
particular man and woman before it. The
ideal couple or a near-ideal one will probably
have no occasion to go to a matrimonial court
for, even if they may not be able to draw their
differences, their ideal attitudes may help
them overlook or gloss over mutual faults and
failures.”
14. After going through the aforesaid facts adduced
on behalf the appellant-husband, it is crystal clear that
appellant-husband has failed to prove the cruel behaviour of
the respondent towards him and his family members by the
strength of cogent, relevant and reliable evidence, while
burden of proof of cruelty rests upon the appellant-husband
of this case, because, he has sought relief of divorce on the
basis of cruel behaviour of the respondent towards him. Not
even single incident with reference to specific date of
alleged cruelty has been pleaded/urged in the plaint before
the Family Court. Furthermore, alleged certain flimsy act or
omission or using some threatening and harsh words may
Patna High Court MA No.95 of 2016 dt.07-08-2025
10/13
occasionally happen in the day-to-day conjugal life of a
husband and wife to retaliate the other spouse but that
cannot be a justified/sustainable ground for taking divorce.
Some trifling utterance or remarks or mere threatening of
one spouse to other cannot be construed as such decree of
cruelty, which is legally required to a decree of divorce. The
austerity of temper and behaviour, petulance of manner and
harshness of language may vary from man to man born and
brought up in different family background, living in
different standard of life, having their quality of educational
qualification and their status in society in which they live.
15. Thus, considering the above entire aspects of
this case and evidence adduced on behalf of both the
parties, we find that appellant has failed to prove the
allegation of cruelty, much less, the decree of cruel
behaviour of respondent which is legally required for grant
of decree of divorce under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage
Act.
16. So far as ground of desertion is concerned, it is
the case of the appellant that marriage of the appellant with
respondent was solemnized on 04.05.1984 but there is no
Patna High Court MA No.95 of 2016 dt.07-08-2025
11/13
issue out of the wedlock and he consulted with many
doctors and spent a lot of money to have an issue with the
respondent. However, at the same time, he submits that he
spent 1-2 years with the respondent in his entire
matrimonial life which appears to be contradictory to each
other. The appellant claims that respondent is a quarrelsome
lady and engaged in multiple relationship but he has not
brought on record any proof to authenticate this allegation.
The appellant has also not filed any petition under Section 9
of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights
which further proves this fact that appellant had not taken
any efforts to bring back the respondent into her
matrimonial home which creates serious doubt regarding
his allegation in the divorce petition. So also on the ground
of desertion, the appellant is not entitled to get any decree
of divorce. Thus, the appellant-husband has failed to prove
that the respondent-wife has herself deserted the appellant-
husband.
17. 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
Patna High Court MA No.95 of 2016 dt.07-08-2025
12/13
under:-
“24. It is no doubt true that the High
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
Patna High Court MA No.95 of 2016 dt.07-08-2025
13/13the trial court in appraisal of evidence is
erroneous, contrary to well-established
principles of law or unreasonable…”
18. After going through the entire judgment of
learned Family Court, it appears that there is no any grave
error of law and illegality in appreciating the evidences
available on the record.
19. Hence, we find no merit in the present appeal
warranting any interference in the impugned judgment. The
Family Court has rightly dismissed the matrimonial case of
the appellant seeking divorce.
20. The present appeal is dismissed accordingly,
affirming the impugned judgment.
21. 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 07/08/2025 Transmission Date N/A