Patna High Court
Akhilesh Choudhary vs Chanda Choudhary on 28 August, 2025
Author: Shailendra Singh
Bench: P. B. Bajanthri, Shailendra Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Miscellaneous Appeal No.245 of 2022
======================================================
Akhilesh Choudhary, Son of Sri Bindeshwar Choudhary, resident of Village
and P.O.- Kakraul, P.S.- Rahika, District- Madhubani.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
Chanda Choudhary, Wife of Akhilesh Choudhary, daughter of Sri Viveka
Nand Mishra, resident of Village - Nayagaon, P.S. - Raiyam, District -
Darbhanga.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mrs. Anju Jha, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Shashikant, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH
CAV JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH)
Date : 28-08-2025
Heard Mrs. Anju Jha, learned counsel for the appellant
and Mr. Shashikant, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. The present Miscellaneous Appeal has been
preferred against the judgment dated 29.04.2022 passed by the
learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Madhubani in Matrimonial
Case No. 43 of 2017, by which the Matrimonial Suit filed by the
present appellant was dismissed. Aggrieved by the said judgment,
the appellant has preferred this appeal.
3. The appellant, who was the petitioner before the
Family Court, is the husband of the respondent. He filed his
Matrimonial Suit under Section 13(1)(i-a) & (iii) of the Hindu
Patna High Court MA No.245 of 2022
2/11
Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'H.M. Act'). The
appellant mainly alleged cruelty on the part of the respondent and
claimed that her behaviour was completely abnormal towards him
and his parents. As per the appellant, he had noticed this abnormal
behaviour before the second marriage (Dviragamana) of the
respondent. However, her parents explained that it was due to her
being the eldest child and receiving excessive affection, which led
to behavioural changes.
3.1. According to the appellant, the second marriage
(Dviragamana) of the respondent into his house took place on
23.11.2013
, after which her abnormal behaviour was observed by
him and his family members. He subsequently took the respondent
to a psychiatrist in Darbhanga for treatment, and her treatment
commenced. The respondent gave birth to a child on 29.11.2014.
Thereafter, upon returning to the matrimonial home, she allegedly
began torturing and teasing the appellant and his family members,
neglected her medicines, frequently threw it away, and made noise.
The appellant also alleged that the respondent had earlier
attempted to commit suicide. On 11.03.2016, the respondent left
the appellant’s company with her parental family members without
his consent, and during her departure, she and her family members
allegedly misbehaved with him.
Patna High Court MA No.245 of 2022
3/11
4. In response, the respondent stated in her written
statement that after the second marriage, she was treated properly
until April 2014, but thereafter, the appellant started demanding a
sum of ₹2,00,000/- (rupees two lakhs) from her. When her parental
family expressed their inability to fulfill the demand, the appellant
and his family members began torturing her. She gave birth to a
child in November 2014 at her parental home, and after seven
months, returned to her matrimonial home, where she was again
subjected to harassment. On 11.03.2016, her parents rescued her
after receiving information, and during that time, the appellant
allegedly became angry and ousted her after snatching her
ornaments. The respondent also alleged that the appellant had
developed an illicit relationship with his brother’s wife.
5. The learned Family Court framed six issues, among
which Issue Nos. 2, 3, and 5 were the most crucial, relating to the
grounds on which the appellant sought a divorce decree and the
defences taken by the respondent. The trial court decided these
issues against the appellant and concluded that he did not have a
cause of action and that his suit was not maintainable. After
examining the evidence produced by both parties, the trial court
held that the appellant failed to prove the alleged cruel behaviour
and mental illness of the respondent.
Patna High Court MA No.245 of 2022
4/11
5.1. As both the spouses have been living separately
for about nine years, this Court provided them an opportunity to
explore a settlement on the point of permanent alimony and
directed the matter to be listed on 20.08.2025, requiring both
parties to appear in person in Chambers. Pursuant to the direction,
both parties appeared with their respective counsel, however, no
amicable settlement could be reached. Then, we heard both parties
briefly and reserved our judgment on the merit of this appeal.
6. The main ground taken by the appellant for seeking
dissolution of the marriage is cruelty. According to the appellant,
the respondent’s behaviour was not normal from the beginning of
the marriage, and she suffered from a mental illness for which she
was treated in Darbhanga by a psychiatrist. The appellant stated
that the respondent did not take her medicines properly and
sometimes threw them away. His claim is based primarily on the
mental cruelty allegedly inflicted on him due to respondent’s
behaviour.
6.1. Undoubtedly, cruelty includes both physical and
mental cruelty. However, it is a settled principle of law that for
dissolving the marriage on the ground of cruelty, the petitioner is
bound to prove that the impact of the alleged cruel treatment of
opposite party is such of nature that it has created a reasonable
Patna High Court MA No.245 of 2022
5/11
apprehension in his/her mind that continuing the marital
relationship with opposite party would be harmful or injurious to
him/her. But mere abnormal or unpleasant behaviour on some
occasions cannot be treated as cruelty under section 13(1) of HM
Act unless it leads to such a fear. This depends on the facts and
circumstances of each case. In this regard, we would like to refer
to the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of A.
Jayachandra vs. Aneel Kaur reported in (2005) 2 SCC 22. The
relevant paragraphs Nos. 10, 12 and 13 of the said judgment are
reproduced as under : –
“10. The expression “cruelty” has not
been defined in the Act. Cruelty can be physical or
mental. Cruelty which is a ground for dissolution of
marriage may be defined as wilful and unjustifiable
conduct of such character as to cause danger to life,
limb or health, bodily or mental, or as to give rise to a
reasonable apprehension of such a danger. The
question of mental cruelty has to be considered in the
light of the norms of marital ties of the particular
society to which the parties belong, their social values,
status, environment in which they live. Cruelty, as noted
above, includes mental cruelty, which falls within the
purview of a matrimonial wrong. Cruelty need not be
physical. If from the conduct of the spouse same is
established and/or an inference can be legitimately
drawn that the treatment of the spouse is such that it
causes an apprehension in the mind of the other spouse,
about his or her mental welfare then this conduct
amounts to cruelty. In a delicate human relationship
Patna High Court MA No.245 of 2022
6/11like matrimony, one has to see the probabilities of the
case. The concept, proof beyond the shadow of doubt, is
to be applied to criminal trials and not to civil matters
and certainly not to matters of such delicate personal
relationship as those of husband and wife. Therefore,
one has to see what are the probabilities in a case and
legal cruelty has to be found out, not merely as a matter
of fact, but as the effect on the mind of the complainant
spouse because of the acts or omissions of the other.
Cruelty may be physical or corporeal or may be mental.
In physical cruelty, there can be tangible and direct
evidence, but in the case of mental cruelty there may
not at the same time be direct evidence. In cases where
there is no direct evidence, courts are required to probe
into the mental process and mental effect of incidents
that are brought out in evidence. It is in this view that
one has to consider the evidence in matrimonial
disputes.
12. To constitute cruelty, the conduct
complained of should be “grave and weighty” so as to
come to the conclusion that the petitioner spouse
cannot be reasonably expected to live with the other
spouse. It must be something more serious than
“ordinary wear and tear of married life”. The conduct,
taking into consideration the circumstances and
background has to be examined to reach the conclusion
whether the conduct complained of amounts to cruelty
in the matrimonial law. Conduct has to be considered,
as noted above, in the background of several factors
such as social status of parties, their education,
physical and mental conditions, customs and traditions.
It is difficult to lay down a precise definition or to give
exhaustive description of the circumstances, which
would constitute cruelty. It must be of the type as to
satisfy the conscience of the court that the relationship
Patna High Court MA No.245 of 2022
7/11between the parties had deteriorated to such an extent
due to the conduct of the other spouse that it would be
impossible for them to live together without mental
agony, torture or distress, to entitle the complaining
spouse to secure divorce. Physical violence is not
absolutely essential to constitute cruelty and a
consistent course of conduct inflicting immeasurable
mental agony and torture may well constitute cruelty
within the meaning of Section 10 of the Act. Mental
cruelty may consist of verbal abuses and insults by
using filthy and abusive language leading to constant
disturbance of mental peace of the other party.
13. The court dealing with the petition for
divorce on the ground of cruelty has to bear in mind
that the problems before it are those of human beings
and the psychological changes in a spouse’s conduct
have to be borne in mind before disposing of the
petition for divorce. However insignificant or trifling,
such conduct may cause pain in the mind of another.
But before the conduct can be called cruelty, it must
touch a certain pitch of severity. It is for the court to
weigh the gravity. It has to be seen whether the conduct
was such that no reasonable person would tolerate it. It
has to be considered whether the complainant should
be called upon to endure as a part of normal human
life. Every matrimonial conduct, which may cause
annoyance to the other, may not amount to cruelty.
Mere trivial irritations, quarrels between spouses,
which happen in day-to-day married life, may also not
amount to cruelty. Cruelty in matrimonial life may be of
unfounded variety, which can be subtle or brutal. It may
be words, gestures or by mere silence, violent or non-
violent.”
Patna High Court MA No.245 of 2022
8/11
The aforesaid principles were reiterated by the Hon’ble
Apex Court in the case of Samar Ghosh vs. Jaya Ghosh reported
in (2007) 4 SCC 511.
7. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
Shobha Rani vs. Madhukar Reddi, reported in (1988) 1 SCC 105,
held that the test for cruelty is whether the conduct of the
respondent is such that the petitioner cannot reasonably be
expected to live with the respondent.
8. It is an admitted position that a male child was born
from the wedlock of the appellant and respondent on 29.11.2014.
The respondent’s second marriage into the matrimonial home was
in November 2013, and the appellant filed his suit in 2017 just
after the respondent filed a maintenance case in 2016 against him.
Between 23.11.2013 and 2016, the appellant took no legal action
to dissolve the marriage despite claiming that he and his parents
were aware of the respondent’s alleged abnormality from the
beginning. This conduct and inaction on the appellant’s part
weakens his case, which was rightly considered by the trial court.
8.1. Regarding the respondent’s alleged mental illness,
the appellant submitted some medical prescriptions only (Exhibits
1 to 1/C) purportedly in respect of respondent’s treatment.
Patna High Court MA No.245 of 2022
9/11
However, these documents do not give the detail of any specific
diagnosis and merely shows prescribed medicines. Moreover, the
appellant did not produce the doctor who is said to have treated the
respondent. Thus, these vague prescriptions cannot be accepted as
proof of a specific mental illness. Even assuming abnormal
behaviour during the relevant period, there is no evidence of
persistent or continuous abnormality. Moreover, failure to take
medicine or throwing it away does not establish such kind of
cruelty sufficient to create a reasonable apprehension in the mind
of the appellant that cohabitation and together living with the
respondent would be harmful or injurious to the appellant.
9. In ocular evidence, the appellant examined four
witnesses, including himself. PW-2 (Bindeshwar Chaudhary) and
PW-3 (Govind Chaudhary) are close relatives and thus, interested
witnesses. Their testimonies are insufficient to establish the alleged
cruelty or mental illness.
9.1. PW-2, the appellant’s father, admitted in cross-
examination that the respondent never assaulted him, although she
once threw his clothes and spoke loudly on the phone. He also
admitted that she greeted him respectfully with “Pranaam” word.
These behaviours of the respondent are not enough to justify
divorce.
Patna High Court MA No.245 of 2022
10/11
10. The appellant (PW-1) stated in his cross-
examination that although his child was born on 29.11.2014, he
learned about the birth only 4-5 days later and he did not visit the
child. This conduct of the appellant shows his own negligent
attitude towards both his child and his wife.
11. The fourth witness, Md. Taiyyab (PW-4), is not a
reliable witness regarding the alleged behaviour of the respondent.
His house is located 100-150 meters away from the appellant’s, so
it is implausible that he could be fully aware of the couple’s
private domestic affairs. The trial court rightly disbelieved his
testimony.
12. The respondent herself appeared as a witness and
supported her version. She denied all allegations, and the appellant
could not extract any supporting facts during her cross-
examination or from respondent’s other witnesses.
13. Accordingly, we find that the appellant failed to
prove the grounds he relied upon for seeking divorce from the
respondent. The learned Family Court correctly appreciated the
evidences in light of the pleadings, and there is no illegality in the
trial court’s findings. We see no reason to interfere with the
conclusions on Issues No. 2, 3, and 5. Therefore, the appellant had
no valid cause of action, and his suit was rightly dismissed.
Patna High Court MA No.245 of 2022
11/11
14. In the result, we find this appeal to be devoid of
merit, hence it stands dismissed.
(Shailendra Singh, J)
I agree. (P. B. Bajanthri, J)
annu/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE 20.08.2025
Uploading Date 28.08.2025
Transmission Date NA
[ad_1]
Source link