[ad_1]
Jharkhand High Court
Jitendra Kumar vs Sangeeta Kumari on 10 June, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Rajesh Kumar
2025:JHHC:14956-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
F.A. No.74 of 2022
----- -
Jitendra Kumar, aged about 29 years, son of Dileep Kumar,
Resident of Village-Kurumdih, P.O. Simariya and P.S.
Simariya, District - Chatra, Jharkhand.
... ... Petitioner/Appellant
Versus
Sangeeta Kumari, aged about 25 years, wife of Jitendra
Kumar, Daughter of Indradeo Singh, Resident of Village-
Angara, P.O. Pathalgadda, P.S. Pathalgadda, District-Chatra,
Jharkhand. ... ... Respondent/Respondent
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
.....
For the Appellant : Mr. Ankit Vishal, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Satish Kumar Keshri, APP.
.....
C.A.V. on 30.04.2025 Pronounced on 10/06/2025
Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
Prayer:
1. The instant appeal has been filed challenging the
legality and propriety of impugned judgment passed on
30.06.2022 and decree signed on 08.07.2022 by learned
Principal Judge, Family Court, Chatra whereby and
whereunder the Original Suit No. 29 of 2019 filed by the
petitioner-appellant-husband under Section 13(1), (i-a), (i-b)
& iii of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for a decree of divorce
has been dismissed.
Factual Matrix
2. The brief facts of the case of the appellant-husband
as narrated, is that, his marriage with the respondent-wife
1
2025:JHHC:14956-DB
Sangeeta Kumari was solemnized as per Hindu rites and
customs on 16.02.2017 and after her marriage and upon
her Vidai, the respondent-wife came to reside at her
matrimonial house.
3. After a brief period of stay, the respondent-wife
began to complain about pain in her abdomen and told the
appellant that she was suffering from abdominal pain since
before marriage and after taking injection the pain used to
subside.
4. The appellant, who was working in Delhi in a private
job, had taken the respondent-wife along with him to Delhi,
where he took his wife to a hospital for treatment, where
MRI was performed and in the scan a tumor was detected in
the womb of the wife. As per the medical advice, when the
appellant got his wife admitted in a hospital at Delhi, then
the father and the brother of the wife refused to get her
operated upon at Delhi and stated that they would get the
respondent-wife treated on their own.
5. It has been stated by the appellant that the parents
and brother of the respondent-wife had got the respondent
married to the appellant through fraud after active
concealment of illness.
6. The appellant has also stated that since the
operation was not performed, the respondent-wife would
2
2025:JHHC:14956-DB
always threaten the petitioner of committing suicide.
7. It has been further stated that respondent-wife used
to abuse him and inflicting physical blows and quarrels with
the appellant.
8. It has also been stated that in May, 2017, while the
respondent-wife was staying with the appellant at Delhi,
then without informing the appellant, she slipped out of the
appellant’s house and remained missing for two days during
which frantic searches were made by the appellant and
the respondent-wife returned to appellant’s house on her
own after two days.
9. Thereafter, appellant brought his wife back to his
native place in Chatra (Jharkhand) and entrusted the
responsibilities of his wife to his parents and other inmates
of the house, but the respondent-wife continued to behave
rudely and ill-treated her parent-in-laws and other family
members and was very harsh and nasty with them. Several
times, she tried to set herself on fire, which was prevented
by the parents of the appellant. Then, the parents of the
respondent-wife were informed who, accompanied by few
members of the society, visited appellant’s house and took
away the respondent-wife from her matrimonial house and
since then respondent-wife is continuously staying with her
parents at her parental house.
3
2025:JHHC:14956-DB
10. It is the case of the petitioner that marital life of the
appellant has got utterly spoilt and meaningless since there
has been virtually no physical relations and cohabitation
between the appellant and the respondent-wife since after
six months of marriage and as the wife was living in her
parental house, the petitioner did not enjoy companionship
or cohabitation with his wife which has made his marriage a
mockery and he has been subjected to the social ridicule.
11. The appellant has categorically asserted in his plaint
that since more than one and half years as on the date of
filing of the plaint, he has not established any physical
relations with his wife and their conjugal relations have been
perfectly impaired since his wife was always staying and living
with her parents.
12. The appellant has also alleged that the
respondent-wife and her parents pressurized the appellant
for providing them money for the treatment of his wife and
in case he would not provide them the demanded money,
they would get him and the entire family implicated in a
false dowry case and get them imprisoned.
13. It has further been stated that fifteen days prior to
the filing of the instant suit, the respondent-wife suddenly
developed acute abdominal pain and then father of the
respondent-wife demanded money from the appellant for the
4
2025:JHHC:14956-DB
treatment of the respondent, then the appellant transferred
Rs.15,000/- to the accounts of the in-laws and later the
appellant, with the support and cooperation of an insurance
claim got the operation of the respondent-wife performed at
Hill View Hospital at Ranchi.
14. It has also stated that the respondent-wife always
accuses the appellant of having performed second marriage,
whereas there is no iota of truth in the said allegations.
15. It has been asserted that the attitude and behaviour
of the respondent-wife with the appellant and his family
members has always been very cruel and nasty. The
appellant has a gut-feelings and perceives that because of
the cruel nature of the wife and the routine problems
erupting between the couple, their married life would never
be on the even track and run smoothly even in the future.
Their relations as a married couple would always remain
impaired and there appears no probability of any
improvement in future. Their marriage was wrecked beyond
salvage. The appellant has also spent nearly Rs. 1,30,000/-
on the treatment of the respondent-wife, yet there has been
virtually no improvement in the nature and attitude of the
respondent-wife.
16. In the aforesaid circumstances as alleged by the
appellant, an application under Section 13(1)(i-a)(i-b) of the
5
2025:JHHC:14956-DB
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 had been preferred by him before
Family Court, Chatra for a decree of divorce and the same
has been numbered as the Original Suit No. 29 of 2019
17. The case was admitted for hearing and upon notice
the respondent wife appeared in this case and sought time
to file her written statement.
18. It is evident that in tune with the provisions of
Family Court Act to explore the possibilities of an amicable
solution between the parties to this matrimonial discord, the
case was referred to the Mediation Centre, Chatra but the
mediation stood failed between the parties. The court again
took a chance to test the probability of mediation between
the parties and an amicable settlement, but prospect of
reconciliation between the petitioner and the opposite party
again stood failed.
19. Thereafter, the respondent-wife filed her written
statement and strongly denouncing the contentions of the
appellant, as made in the plaint and refuted the allegations
made against her.
20. By virtue of her written statement, the respondent-
wife had inter alia stated that the present matrimonial suit
is not legally maintainable in law as well as on the facts of
the case and it is a fit case to be dismissed with cost.
21. It has been contented that the present baseless suit
6
2025:JHHC:14956-DB
has been filed by the appellant only with an ulterior purpose
to harass the respondent. The appellant has no cogent and
reliable grounds to file this matrimonial suit against the
appellant since she is a woman of good character and has
always provided respect and regards to the appellant and
his entire family members, but it is the appellant himself,
who has always neglected the appellant.
22. It has been stated that in fact respondent desires
and wants to spend her entire life with the appellant and is
still ready to live with the appellant to lead her conjugal life
with him.
23. The learned Family Judge has taken in to
consideration the pleading made by the parties in the plaint
as well as in the written statement. The case proceeded for
evidence during which the appellant has produced and
examined three witnesses including himself.
24. The respondent-wife has produced and examined
altogether six witnesses including herself.
25. The learned Principal Judge, after hearing learned
counsel for the parties, framed six issues for adjudication of
the lis, which are being referred as under:
1. Whether the suit is maintainable in it’s present
form?
2. Whether the petitioner/plaintiff has a valid cause of
action for the divorce suit?
3. Whether the OP Sangeeta Kumari (nee Sangita Devi)
7
2025:JHHC:14956-DBhas treated the petitioner and his family members with
cruelty ?
4. Whether the OP has refused to develop physical
relationship with the petitioner/plaintiff ?
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get divorce
dissolving the marriage of the petitioner with OP U/s
13(1) (i-a)(i-b) & iii of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ?
6. Whether the petitioner/plaintiff is entitled to be
awarded the relief or reliefs as prayed for?
26. The aforesaid issues were decided against the
appellant-husband and in favour of respondent-wife and
decreed the suit on contest in the following terms :
“Under the facts and circumstances of the case
and after considering the entire material
available on records, this Court comes to the
definite conclusion that the plaintiff/petitioner
Jitendra Kumar has miserably failed to prove the
grounds of alleged cruelty and desertion
pleaded by him in his petition and as well as
his wife’s status of being an individual having an
unsound mind while actually filing the instant
suit under section 13(1), (i-a), (i-b) & iii of the
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before this Court and
therefore, he is not entitled for a decree of
divorce. ……….”
27. The appellant-husband, being aggrieved with the
judgment passed on 30.06.2022 and decree signed on
08.07.2022 by learned Principal Judge, Family Court,
Chatra approached this Court by filing the instant appeal.
Submission made on behalf of the appellant-husband
28. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-husband
has submitted that the Learned Family Court below has
failed to appreciate that the petitioner /appellant has
8
2025:JHHC:14956-DB
produced credible evidence which are sufficient to establish
that the respondent-wife has subjected him to cruelty and
on account of cruelty and desertion, the petitioner /
appellant is entitled for grant of decree of divorce.
29. Further, it has been submitted that the findings
recorded by the learned Trial Court while answering issue
no.3 (cruelty) are perverse and based on mere presumption,
therefore, the same will not stand in the eye of law.
30. Submission has also been made that the learned Court
below also failed to appreciate that the petitioner / appellant
has successfully substantiated the allegation that the
respondent has deprived him from cohabitation and,
therefore, the petitioner / appellant is entitled for grant of
decree of divorce. But that aspect of the matter has not been
taken into consideration by the learned Family Court.
31. It has lastly been submitted that the learned Trial
Court has failed to appreciate the oral and documentary
evidence produced on behalf of petitioner / appellant and,
thus, came to wrong conclusion.
32. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant, on the
basis of aforesaid grounds, has submitted that the judgment
passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Chatra
requires interference.
Submission made on behalf of respondent-wife
33. Learned counsel for the respondent-wife, defending the
9
2025:JHHC:14956-DB
impugned order, has submitted that the appellant has
sought divorce on the ground that the respondent-wife is of
unsound mind or has been suffering continuously or
intermittently for mental disorder and the appellant cannot
reasonably be expected to live with the respondent but the
learned Family Court, after taking into consideration the
oral and documentary evidence, has held that the entire
allegations levelled in are absolutely illegal, uncalled for and
has rightly dismissed the suit.
34. Learned counsel for the appellant has further
submitted that learned trial court has rightly held that the
appellant is not entitled for the decree of divorce on the
ground of cruelty and desertion because the appellant has
miserably failed to prove the allegation of cruelty and
desertion against her.
35. Learned counsel for the respondent-wife has submitted
that the appellant has taken desertion as a ground for
divorce but this plea is not available to him since it is the
appellant and their family members who demanded dowry
from her parents and when her poor parents failed to fulfill
the illegal dowry demands of the appellant and his family
members, she was subjected to constant torture,
harassment and cruelty (both physically and mentally) by
the appellant and her in-laws and ultimately they ousted her
from her matrimonial house located at village Kurumdadhi
10
2025:JHHC:14956-DB
and then she had to take shelter in her Naihar where she is
residing ever and learned Family Court, taking into
consideration the evidence led by the respondent-wife, has
rightly rejected the prayer for divorce made by the appellant.
36. Submission has been made that the learned Principal
Judge, Family Court on the backdrop of the evidence led by
the parties has come to the conclusion that the appellant-
husband has miserably failed to establish the grounds of
cruelty, desertion and mental illness of his wife without any
valid, cogent and tenable evidence and he is just cooking up
flimsy grounds to avoid keeping his wife with him, who
otherwise is very keen to rehabilitate her marital life with the
appellant and except the vague and omnibus allegations
made by husband against his respondent-wife, no cogent
convincing, clinching evidence, no concrete documentary
evidence has been led to substantiate the charges of cruelty,
desertion and mental illness.
37. Learned counsel for the respondent-wife on the
aforesaid grounds has submitted that the impugned
judgment requires no interference by this Court
Analysis
38. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant-
husband as also learned counsel for the respondent-wife and
perused the material available on record and the finding
recorded in the impugned order.
11
2025:JHHC:14956-DB
39. This Court, before looking into the legality and propriety
of the impugned order, requires to refer the testimonies of the
witnesses, as available on record.
40. The appellant, in support of his case, has adduced three
witnesses including himself. The relevant portion of the
testimonies of the witnesses are mentioned as under :-
PW-1, Shashi Kumar Singh, who is the neighbour of the
appellant, in his examination-in-chief, has deposed that he
knows both the parties to the instant case. The appellant’s
marriage with the respondent was performed on 16th
February, 2017 and after her marriage she came to reside
with appellant at her matrimonial house. After few days of
stay, she started to complain about the stomach ache and
would say that she was experiencing this ache before the
marriage but after taking injection she used to feel
comfortable. He has averred that appellant works in Delhi
and he had taken the respondent-wife along with him to Delhi
and there he took her to a hospital This witness has stated
that the parents of respondent and the brother got the
marriage of the respondent performed with appellant through
active concealment of fact of her illness. He has further
deposed that the respondent would always curse and abuse
the appellant and his family members. He has also deposed
that at Delhi the respondent-wife without informing her
husband had absconded from her house for two days and
12
2025:JHHC:14956-DBafter a frantic search she returned home. Thereafter, the
petitioner returned to his native place at Chatra along with
his wife and then the wife began to live with her parent-in-
laws but she was not courteous and polite to her parent-in-
laws and was always engaged in a verbal dual with them and
began to repeatedly threaten them of setting herself on fire
and committing suicide. Annoyed with this attitude of the
respondent, her in-laws informed her parents at the parental
house and thereafter they took her back to the Naihar. It has
also been deposed by this witness that the respondent and
her parents would repeatedly raise demand of money from
the appellant for the treatment of respondent-wife and when
the said demand was not met with then they would always
threaten the petitioner and his entire family to be implicated
in a criminal case and suffer incarceration. It has also been
deposed that the attitude and behaviour of the respondent-
wife was quite rude and hostile towards the appellant and his
family members. According to the version of this witness, the
future of the relationship between the appellant and the
respondent looks bleak, hence this witness feels that the
marriage of petitioner could not last long.
However, in his cross-examination, this witness has
deposed that the instant case has been filed by Dileep Singh
and he has further averred that whatever has been tutored
13
2025:JHHC:14956-DBto him by the petitioner-appellant, he has filed his sworn
affidavit and he has accordingly deposed before the Court.
P.W. 2 Dileep Kumar is the father of the petitioner
Jitendra Kumar. In his examination-in-chief, he has repeated
the entire contents of the deposition of PW-1 Shashi Kumar
Singh.
In his cross-examination, he has deposed that in case
the petitioner and the opposite party lived and stayed
together then he has no objections at all. He has a house
both at Kurumdadi and Chatra. It has further been deposed
that when his daughter-in-law was not provided the medical
treatment for her illness then she used to threaten of
committing suicide. Further, he has deposed that when his
daughter-in-law was allegedly absconding for two days then
neither he himself nor his son, the petitioner had lodged any
missing report before any police station in Delhi. He further
categorically re-asserts that there has been no physical union
and sexual relations established between his son and his
daughter-in-law. At para-6 of his deposition, although he
has acknowledged the evidence provided by PW-1 Shashi
Kumar Singh, but he has categorically denied Shashi Kumar
Singh to be related to him any way and he has further denied
that the averment of Shashi Singh that the instant case has
been filed by the petitioner’s side is an after thought and a
14
2025:JHHC:14956-DBlater exercise made upon the previous conduct of the OP of
having instituted the case is totally false.
At para-26, he has deposed that he was unaware of the
name of the hospital where his daughter-in-law had under
gone MRI scan and only his son Jitendra Singh could answer
the same. At para-27, he has deposed that his daughter-in-
law was living in her Maika/parental house since about two
and half years, but he could not tell the date from which she
has been staying there. At para-28, he has deposed that
they had earlier tried to bring back their daughter-in-law
back to her Sasural but later he stated that he had gone
alone to fetch his daughter-in-law, but he could not make
any statement regarding the date, month, day and the year of
the same. At para-29, he has candidly averred that the
monetary demands made by the family of his daughter-in-law
for her treatment and the consequent pressure exerted upon
them for the same.
P.W. 3 Jitendra Kumar, is the appellant himself, who
in his examination-in-chief has practically echoed the same
contents of examination-in-chief of PW-1 & PW-2 and at
para 11 & 12 of his affidavit, he has also laid much
emphasis on the aspect of the non-cohabitation of
respondent and the consequential non-establishment of
physical sexual relations with the OP-wife because of her
lack of co-operation in leading the marital life and
15
2025:JHHC:14956-DBexpansion of family and her insistence on living in her
Naihar alone. He has also expressed a grave apprehension of
his marital life ever improving in future and he has thus
prayed this Court for dissolution of his marriage with the
OP-wife on account of his contentions made in his
matrimonial application/plaint.
In his cross-examination, this witness has admitted his
wife-OP of having stayed with him for about six months after
the marriage. At para-4 of his cross- examination, he has
deposed that even if his wife desires to live and stay with
him with good behaviour and attitude then also he would not
keep his wife with him because he has no faith and
confidence upon her. Further, at para-6 of his cross-
examination, he has deposed that the basic cause for seeking
divorce from his wife-OP is the bad behaviour of his wife,
constant threats of committing suicide or killing people in
the family and for getting the family members implicated in
the false cases. He has deposed that his wife has misbehaved
with him and treated him with cruelty but he has not filed
any documentary evidence to this effect before this Court. He
has, however, claimed that his wife continues to serve him
threats of putting herself on fire and committing suicide
and he has earlier filed documentary evidence to this effect
before this Court. At para-7, he has deposed that at Delhi,
when his wife had gone missing for two days from their
16
2025:JHHC:14956-DBhouse, then he had not lodged any informatory petition
(Sanha) before any police station in Delhi, but, he had stated
this fact back home at Chatra. He has deposed that he had
no documentary evidence to demonstrate the ill-treatment,
ill-behaviour and cruelty inflicted by his OP-wife, hence, he
could not file it before the Court. Lastly, he has denied the
suggestion that just for the sake of saving his skin and
protecting himself from the savage of section 498(A) IPC and
section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, he had filed the instant
case for dissolution of his marriage with OP-wife. He has
deposed that he had filed the instant case for dissolution of
his marriage with the OP-wife prior to institution of the case
under section 498(A) of IPC and section 3/4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act.
41. The respondent-wife has also adduced six witnesses in
support of her case which are being dealt hereunder as :-
OPW-1 Vijay Singh, is the cousin brother of OP-wife. In
his examination-in-chief, he has deposed that OP-wife’s
marriage with the petitioner-appellant was solemnized on
16.02.2017 as per Hindu rites and customs, where-after
upon her Vidai, she went to her Sasural along with the
petitioner and began to lead a conjugal life with him. After
few months of her stay in Sasural, the petitioner began to
indulge in abusing his wife and to make the dowry demands
from her. When the OP-wife stated that her parents were old
17
2025:JHHC:14956-DBand poor peasants and they could not further give anything
in dowry, then the petitioner-appellant and his family
members got annoyed with her and began to inflict both
mental and physical torture upon the OP and exclaimed that
they were not at all keen to keep her along with the petitioner-
appellant.
It has further been deposed that that petitioner had
turned out the OP-wife several times from his house yet the
OP was very much keen and desirous to always live and stay
with her husband in her Sasural. This witness has denied
that OP-wife had ever ventured out of her house to stroll
anywhere without the permission of her husband and
neither she had crossed her limits and treated the petitioner
with any cruelty or any ill- treatment. He has assertively
denied the allegations of the petitioner-appellant that OP-
wife had a tumor and was medically treated upon. He has
averred that OP is fully fit and fine and in a healthy state and
thus was fully competent to live and stay with her husband
all through her life. He has also averred that the case
brought by the petitioner-husband for dissolution of his
marriage with the OP was purely false, fabricated and
untenable and the reply filed by the OP in this case was
purely true and reasonable.
In his cross-examination, at para-3, he has averred that
the OP-wife had instituted a case under the Dowry Act upon
18
2025:JHHC:14956-DB
her husband, which was instituted after the filing of the
instant matrimonial petition. At para-4, he has deposed
that after her marriage, the OP-wife lived well in her
Sasural for about 6-7 months. While she was in her Sasural,
Jitendra had taken her along to Delhi where she was badly
treated and cruelty was inflicted upon her. Thereafter, from
Delhi Sangeeta Kumari was dropped back to her Sasural,
where the atrocities commenced upon the OP-wife. At para-5
& 6, he has averred that Sangeeta Kumari lived in Delhi
for about six months and thereafter, for one month she lived
in her Sasural and at Delhi the husband ill-treated and
misbehaved with her and while she was staying in her
Sasural, she was ill- treated and her parent-in-laws
misbehaved with her. At para-7, he has averred that the
atrocities upon the OP had begun in the year 2017 itself, but
no case had ever been filed against the petitioner-husband or
his family members. At para-9 of his deposition, he has
averred that prior to her marriage, wife had never
complained about any stomach ache, but after her marriage,
he got to know about the abdominal ache of the OP-wife
during her stay at Delhi. He has averred that she was treated
at Delhi and thereafter the husband dropped her to his
parents in her Sasural and husband went back to Delhi. At
Ranchi, the OP-wife was treated at the medical clinic of Dr.
Shobha Chakravorty, the expenses of which were borne by
19
2025:JHHC:14956-DB
the husband. At para-12, he has candidly admitted that
during her stay in Sasural, her cousin sister had
threatened the inmates of the house of torching herself to
flame in order to commit suicide and then everybody had
joined hands to save her. However, this information about
the same had been provided to him by the father of the
petitioner Jitendra Kumar. At para-13, he had
significantly deposed that both Sangeeta and Jitendra have
been living separately from each other since last about two
and half years and in the meanwhile no conjugal physical
relations have ever taken place between them and both are
living apart. At para 14, he has deposed that Jitendra
Singh had discussed with him how much was received or
not received by them as dowry and regarding rest of the
dowry demand, the same had been informed to him by
Sangeeta Kumari. However, no dowry demand had ever
been raised in his presence. At para-16, he has denied the
suggestion that no dowry demand were ever raised from his
cousin sister Sangeeta Kumari and her family members.
Lastly, at para-17 of his deposition, he has denied the
suggestion that Sangeeta Kumari had lodged a false and
fabricated case of dowry demand upon her husband Jitendra
Kumar.
OPW-2 Janardan Singh is another cousin brother of
opposite party, who in his examination-in-chief has stated
20
2025:JHHC:14956-DB
the same contents as that of OPW-1, hence it needs no
repetition here. However, in his cross-examination, at para 4
he has deposed that the OP-wife has been turned out of
her Sasural no less than 3-4 times, but he could not
specify the day and date of the same. Although, she had not
been ousted from her matrimonial house in his presence,
but he had received this information through his sister,
who had communicated it to him from her Sasural. He
has further deposed that once when OP-wife had b een
ousted from her Sasural at 4.00 PM evening, then after he
was informed on cell phone, he had accompanied the father,
brother and other members of the family and had reached
her Sasural the same day at about 5.00 P.M after she had
been ousted. Thereafter, the meeting and conference, the
husband and in-laws agreed to keep her back and thereafter
she stayed in her Sasural for about three months. At para-9,
he had significantly deposed that later the demand of money
as dowry was made in his presence by the in-laws. He has
candidly averred that they could not fulfill the demand but
no case was instituted by them. Neither they informed about
the demand to either any police station or any Court. At
para-10, he has deposed that his sister has been living
separately from her husband since about two years, however,
after her marriage, upon her Vidai, she had gone to her
Sasural and from there she later on went to Delhi and her
21
2025:JHHC:14956-DB
marital life was moving smoothly and her conjugal life was
very peaceful and happy. At para-12, he has deposed that
when she returned from Delhi then her in-laws began to
torture and torment her At para-13, he has averred that at
Chatra, OP-wife was not kept well for the full one year that
she stayed in her Sasural and in between, her in-laws began
to torture her and treat her with cruelty and began to make
demand for money, then they filed a case before the Court.
He has deposed that the in- laws of the OP-wife used to make
a demand of Rs. 2,00,000/-. At para-17, he has deposed
that in case his sister would get proper treatment and
honour in her Sasural, then she was very keen and
desirous of staying with her husband. At para- 18, he has
categorically denied the suggestion that his sister is
mentally sick and she has been treated at Ranchi. At para-19,
he has denied the suggestion that his sister had ever tried to
torch herself to flame and commit suicide in her Sasural
and that she was ever trying and exerting to get the entire
family be implicated in a case. At para-20, he has deposed
that his sister was still very keen and desirous to stay in her
Sasural along with her husband and in-laws and lead a
peaceful conjugal life.
OPW-3 Raj Kumar Singh is another cousin brother of
the OP-wife, who in his examination-in-chief, has in a routine
and mechanical manner repeated the same contents as that
22
2025:JHHC:14956-DB
of OPW-1 & OPW-2 and has virtually stated the contents in
toto.
In his cross-examination, at para-4, he has candidly
averred that his sister Sangeeta Kumari does not suffer
from any kind of illness. According to him, neither she had
any complaints of illness prior to the marriage or
thereafter. At para-5, he has deposed that his sister
Sangeeta is not staying with her husband since last about
three to three and half years. At para-6, he has denied the
suggestion that the mental health of Sangeeta is not well
and proper. At para-7, he has asserted that Sangeeta has
never ever made an attempt to commit suicide. At para-8,
he has denied about having knowledge of the information
regarding unsuccessful attempt of Sangeeta to commit suicide
had been communicated to her Maika. At para-9, he has
deposed that Sangeeta had gone to her Maika on her own.
Dowry demand was being raised from her and when the
demand could not be fulfilled she was ill-treated and
thereafter turned out of her matrimonial house. He has
further averred that dowry demand had been raised by the
husband and this information had been passed on to him
by his sister. He has averred that a case under section
498(A) IPC for dowry demand and ousting the OP-wife
from the matrimonial house had been instituted,
23
2025:JHHC:14956-DB
OPW-4 Sandeep Kumar Singh is another cousin
brother of OP-wife. In his examination-in-chief, this witness
significantly has also deposed the same contents as that of
OPW 1 to 3 and has not added anything more to their
averments.
In his cross-examination, at para-4, he has deposed
that dowry demand from the OP had been raised in his
presence. At para-7, he has deposed that the marriage of
Sangeeta Kumari had been performed on 16th February, 2017
and after staying in her Sasural for about six months, she
returned to her Maika and at para-8, he has deposed that
ever since the year 2017, in the last four years the litigating
couple have not met each other. At para-9, he has deposed
that the marital discord and the quarrel between the
petitioner-husband and OP-wife had been communicated to
him by the father and brother of his cousin sister. At para-
10, he has denied the suggestion that during this while
Sangeeta Kumari had tried to commit suicide. At para-11, he
has denied the suggestion that his sister had not gone back
to her Maika along with her parental family. However, at
para-12, he has deposed that he had heard that his brother-
in-law had dropped the OP-wife to her Maika. At para-13, he
has vehemently denied the suggestion that prior to her
marriage itself, she used to suffer from abdominal ache
and stated that this contention is absolutely baseless.
24
2025:JHHC:14956-DB
OPW-5 Indradeo Singh is the father of the OP-wife. In
his examination-in-chief, he has stated that he knows both
the litigating parties as they are his daughter and son-in-law
respectively and their marriage was solemnized on 16th
February, 2017 and at the time of marriage, all dowry and
gifts in the form of jewelry, cash Rs. 10,00,000/-, household
articles and clothes had been given where-after upon her
Vidai, the OP went along with petitioner-husband to her
Sasural and began to lead her conjugal life with him. She
could barely live peacefully for six months where-after her
husband, the petitioner and other members of her in-laws
family began to abuse her, ridicule her for insufficient dowry
and began to make dowry demands further and when this
dowry demand could not be met, then the husband-petitioner
has brought the instant suit for dissolution of his marriage
with the OP-wife. This witness has also deposed about the
OP-wife being ousted from her matrimonial house and not
being taken within the family folds again, although his
daughter is very keen and desirous to live and stay with her
husband in her Sasural. Like other witnesses, he has
categorically denied all the allegations pertaining to the
conduct, nature, activities and history of previous illness of
his daughter, as alleged and has very assertively averred that
the entire case has been filed on false and fabricated grounds
just to get rid of the society of his daughter. This witness has
25
2025:JHHC:14956-DB
asserted that his daughter-OP is fully fit and healthy and is
in a good state both mentally and physically to lead her
conjugal life till her last breath and the reply furnished by
the OP-wife in this case is absolutely true and genuine and
the case brought against her by the petitioner-husband is fit
to be dismissed being totally false and fabricated.
In his cross-examination, he has deposed that the
instant case was instituted in the year 2019 and after filing of
the case, she has been living in her parental house with him.
At para-4 of his deposition, he has averred that he has
instituted a dowry harassment case against his son-in- law
and his parents as they were demanding dowry from him. In
the said case, he has reliably learnt that the Hon’ble
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi had granted an interim
relief of Rs. 1,00,000/- in cash to his daughter but that
money had not been withdrawn till date, as there were
some technical difficulties related to the banking transaction.
After opening of the Pass Book, the money remitted by his
son-in-law to their account, has not been withdrawn at all
till date. Whether his daughter would desire to withdraw that
money or not that entirely depends on the consent, decision
and discretion of his daughter. At para-5, he has very
categorically averred that his daughter was not suffering
from any kind of ailment or sickness and rather was fully
hale and hearty and that she is still fully fit and of a
26
2025:JHHC:14956-DB
sound health. At para-6, he has denied the suggestion
that at Delhi, his son-in-law had got his daughter admitted
in a hospital but he instead himself had pestered his son-
in-law to get his daughter treated at their own house
itself. At para-7, he has candidly admitted that at Ranchi in
Hill View Hospital, his daughter had undergone a surgery
but for what ailment was she operated upon, he was
however ignorant of the same. At para-8, he has deposed
that just after few days of marriage, his son-in-law and
his parents used to abuse and ridicule his daughter while
she was staying at Chatra and this trend of abusing and
being nasty to the OP-wife had begun just after 6-7
months of marriage. He has further deposed that this
rude behaviour and ill-treatment was meted out to his
daughter on account of the dowry demand raised by his
son-in-law and his parents and when this demand could
not be met with, then they not only abused his daughter but
also ousted her from the matrimonial house. He has
asserted that the allegation of being abused and treated
badly was not based on hearsay basis, but rather his
daughter had herself communicated about the same to her
father on telephone. A t para-9, he has averred that his
daughter had never ever tried to commit suicide by
torching herself to flame or cutting her veins or in any
other manner and to get her husband and family be
27
2025:JHHC:14956-DB
implicated in a false case. At para-10, he has deposed
that the solo reason for his daughter being ousted from her
matrimonial house is the dowry demand. At para- 11 & 12,
he has deposed that his daughter is of a very quiet and
submissive nature but she had narrated it to her father
that dowry demand of Rs. 2,00,000/- in cash were being
raised from her by his son-in-law and his family members
and all the family members of the in-laws family used to
pounce upon and raise the dowry demands of Rs.
2,00,000/- from the OP- wife in unison.
OPW-6 is the OP of this case herself and in her
examination-in-chief this witness has deposed that she is the
opposite party of this case and the petitioner and herself
enjoys the relationship of being husband and wife. Their
marriage was solemnized as per Hindu rites and customs
with the petitioner on 16th February, 2017 and after her
marriage, she went to her Sasural along with the petitioner
and there the conjugal relations between the couple were
established and they began to lead a married life and the OP
is still very keen and desirous to stay and spend her entire
life with the petitioner-husband and establish conjugal and
physical sexual relationship with him. At para-3, she has
averred that in the year 2018 the petitioner raising the dowry
demand from her began to inflict both mental and physical
cruelty upon her yet she continued to bear this cruel attitude
28
2025:JHHC:14956-DB
and behaviour of her husband and stay in her Sasural. At
para-4, she has candidly averred that neither she ever
complained of any abdominal ache in the past nor she suffers
any pain and trauma presently. At para-5, she has again
asserted that she was neither ever provided with any medical
treatment at Delhi nor was she ever admitted in any hospital
at Delhi for undergoing a surgery. At para-6, she has boldly
asserted that the OP is perfectly fit and healthy and is in
the best physical state to bear children and attain
motherhood. At para-7, she has deposed that OP had never
ever threatened the petitioner of committing suicide by
igniting herself to flames nor would she ever give the
same in future. At para-8, she has positively averred that
the OP is ever too keen and desirous to lead a familial
blissful marital life with the petitioner-husband and she
would always give all love, respect, regard, care and her
services as a dutiful wife all through her life and she would
never ever breach these future commitments to her
husband and the in-laws. At para-9, she has strictly
denied that at Delhi she used to venture out of her
house alone and independently without the knowledge and
consent of her husband and rather she would only go out of
her house together with her husband. At para-10, the OP has
denounced that she had ever behaved badly, rudely and ill-
treated her husband and her in-laws in the past as
29
2025:JHHC:14956-DB
alleged and has further committed herself that in future
also she would never ever ill-treat and badly behave with her
husband-petitioner, her parent-in-laws or anybody in her
matrimonial family and she is totally committed and
dedicated to render full services and a pleasant association to
her husband and parent-in-laws in future also. At para-11,
she has reiterated her desire to live and stay with her
husband all through her life. At para-12, this witness has
deposed that the petitioner after filing of the instant case
before this Court and on account of the non-fulfillment of
dowry demands raised by him and his family have ousted
the OP-wife from her matrimonial house and prior to the
filing of the instant case, OP was living and staying with her
husband only. At para-17, the OP has vehemently denied the
expenses of Rs.1,30,000/- made upon her medical treatment
by the petitioner. At para-18, OP has claimed herself to be
fully fit and was fully fit to conceive and produce children
and was also prepared to even file a medical certificate issued
by the doctor regarding her fertility fitness and at para-19,
she has strictly and vehemently denied the claim of the
petitioner of seeking the relief of divorce from her terming it as
untrue, frivolous and baseless.
In her cross-examination, at para-2, she has reiterated
her marriage to have been solemnized on 16th February, 2017
whereafter she went to her Sasural and four months later she
30
2025:JHHC:14956-DB
went to Delhi and stayed there for nine months.
Subsequently, she returned to her Sasural at Chatra along
with her husband. She has however, claimed that during her
stay at Delhi she had never ever experienced any kind of
illness. Neither she had experienced any stomach ache nor
she had any fever etc. also. She has averred that after her
marriage, she stayed for about eight months with her
husband at Delhi and thereafter about 3-4 months in her
Sasural at Chatra and subsequently after filing of the instant
case she has been continuously living in her Maika. At para-
10, she has averred that ever since 2019 when her husband
has instituted the present matrimonial case against her since
then no physical sexual relations has been established
between them and at para-12, she has further denied the
suggestion that vide Pathalgadda PS case No. 26/2019, she
and her family had lodged a case upon her husband and his
brother and sister-in-law (Bhabhi). She has further added
that her in-laws used to demand cash in dowry and when it
could not be fulfilled, then her parent-in-laws and her
husband began to beat her with cruelty and inflict atrocities
upon her. At para-14, she has averred that in her
matrimonial house, her mother-in-law, father-in-law and her
husband all used to join together in making her dowry
demand from her but how much amount was being
demanded, she could not recall at the time of her deposition.
31
2025:JHHC:14956-DB
At para-15, she has deposed that after 10-15 days of her
marriage itself, dowry demand was raised from her. At
para-16, she has deposed that no medical treatment had
been administered to her at Delhi and rather she was operated
upon at Ranchi in the year 2019.. At para- 18 of her cross-
examination, she has been queried as to for what ailment
was she operated upon at Ranchi and where. In reply
thereto, she has deposed that at Ranchi she was not
operated upon and rather she was provided the medical
treatment by Dr. Shobha Chakravorty. She however was
ignorant about the nature of illness for which she was
treated upon. It is further deposed that at the time of her
treatment nobody had visited her from her Sasural.
42. Besides oral evidence, documentary evidences were also
adduced, which were marked as exhibits.
43. From the testimony, as referred hereinabove, it is
evident that the appellant-husband has been examined as
P.W.3 before the Family Court, who in his deposition has
mainly taken the ground of bad behaviour of his wife,
constant threats of committing suicide or killing people in
the family and for getting the family members implicated in
the false cases. He has deposed that his wife has
misbehaved with him and treated him with cruelty.
44. In cross-examination, he has deposed that even if his
wife desires to live and stay with him with good behaviour
32
2025:JHHC:14956-DB
and attitude then also he would not keep his wife with him
because he has no faith and confidence upon her.
45. From the aforesaid testimony of the appellant-husband
it is evident that though cruelty, desertion as well as his
wife’s status of being an individual having an unsound
mind has been pleaded by him in his petition, but no
cogent evidence has been produced by him to prove
these allegations.
46. The father of the respondent-wife who has been
examined as OPW- 5 Indradeo Singh, has fully supported the
fact of marriage being solemnized on 16th February, 2017 and
at the time of marriage, all dowry and gifts in the form of
jewelry, cash Rs. 10,00,000/-, household articles and clothes
had been given. Further, the father of the respondent-wife
has deposed that after upon her Vidai, the OP went along
with petitioner to her Sasural and began to lead her conjugal
life with him. She could barely live peacefully for six months
whereafter her husband, the appellant and other members of
her in-laws family began to abuse her, ridicule her for
insufficient dowry and began to make dowry demands further
and when this dowry demand could not be met, then the
husband-petitioner has brought the instant suit for
dissolution of his marriage with the OP-wife. He has also
stated that he has instituted a dowry harassment case
33
2025:JHHC:14956-DB
against his son-in- law and his parents as they were
demanding dowry from him.
47. The respondent-wife has been examined as OPW-6 who
has stated that her marriage was solemnized as per Hindu
rites and customs with the petitioner on 16th February, 2017
and after her marriage, she went to her Sasural along with
the petitioner and there the conjugal relations between the
couple were established and they began to lead a married
life and the OP is still very keen and desirous to stay and
spend her entire life with the petitioner-husband and
establish conjugal and physical sexual relationship with him.
She has further stated that she is too keen and desirous to
lead a familial blissful marital life with the petitioner-
husband and she would always give all love, respect,
regard, care and her services as a dutiful wife all through
her life and she would never ever breach these future
commitments to her husband and the in-laws.
48. The learned Principal Judge, from the statements of
the witnesses so produced on behalf of the parties, has come
to the conclusion that plaintiff/petitioner Jitendra Kumar
has miserably failed to prove the grounds of alleged cruelty
and desertion pleaded by him in his petition and as well as
his wife’s status of being an individual having an unsound
mind.
49. From the testimony so recorded of the appellant-
34
2025:JHHC:14956-DB
husband, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court has
come to the conclusion that in the instant case, except
the vague and omnibus allegations made by husband
against his respondent-wife, no cogent convincing,
clinching evidence, no concrete documentary evidence
has been led to substantiate the charges of cruelty,
desertion and mental illness. The onus to prove the
grounds taken for divorce squarely rests on the
husband which are required to be discharged by
leading a cogent, tangible and reliable evidence.
50. In the context of the aforesaid factual aspect only
seminal issue has to be decided herein that “Whether
the plaintiff is entitled to get divorce dissolving the
marriage of the petitioner/appellant with OP/wife U/s
13(1) (i-a)(i-b) & iii of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955?
51. It needs to refer herein that so far the allegation of
cruelty is concerned, the ‘cruelty’ as has been defined by
Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgment rendered in Dr. N.G.
Dastane Vs. Mrs. S. Dastane [(1975) 2 SCC 326], wherein
it has been held that the Court is to enquire as to whether
the charge as cruelty, is of such a character, as to cause in
the mind of the petitioner, a reasonable apprehension that,
it will be harmful or injurious for him to live with the
respondent.
52. The cruelty has also been defined in the case of
35
2025:JHHC:14956-DB
Shobha Rani Vs. Madhukar Reddi [(1988) 1 SCC 105],
wherein the wife alleged that the husband and his parents
demanded dowry. The Hon’ble Apex Court emphasized that
“cruelty” can have no fixed definition.
53. According to the Hon’ble Apex Court, “cruelty” is the
“conduct in relation to or in respect of matrimonial conduct
in respect of matrimonial duties and obligations”. It is the
conduct which adversely affects the spouse. Such cruelty
can be either “mental” or “physical”, intentional or
unintentional. For example, unintentionally waking your
spouse up in the middle of the night may be mental cruelty;
intention is not an essential element of cruelty but it may be
present. Physical cruelty is less ambiguous and more “a
question of fact and degree.”
54. The Hon’ble Apex Court has further observed therein
that while dealing with such complaints of cruelty that it is
important for the Court to not search for a standard in life,
since cruelty in one case may not be cruelty in another case.
What must be considered include the kind of life the parties
are used to, “their economic and social conditions”, and the
“culture and human values to which they attach
importance.”
55. The nature of allegations need not only be illegal
conduct such as asking for dowry. Making allegations
against the spouse in the written statement filed before the
36
2025:JHHC:14956-DB
court in judicial proceedings may also be held to constitute
cruelty.
56. In V. Bhagat vs. D. Bhagat (Mrs.), (1994)1 SCC 337,
the wife alleged in her written statement that her husband
was suffering from “mental problems and paranoid
disorder”. The wife’s lawyer also levelled allegations of
“lunacy” and “insanity” against the husband and his family
while he was conducting cross-examination. The Hon‟ble
Apex Court held these allegations against the husband to
constitute “cruelty”.
57. In Vijay Kumar Ramchandra Bhate v. Neela Vijay
Kumar Bhate, (2003)6 SCC 334 the Hon’ble Apex Court
has observed by taking into consideration the allegations
levelled by the husband in his written statement that his
wife was “unchaste” and had indecent familiarity with a
person outside wedlock and that his wife was having an
extramarital affair. These allegations, given the context of an
educated Indian woman, were held to constitute “cruelty”
itself.
58. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Joydeep Majumdar v.
Bharti Jaiswal Majumdar, (2021) 3 SCC 742, has been
pleased to observe that while judging whether the conduct is
cruel or not, what has to be seen is whether that conduct,
which is sustained over a period of time, renders the life of
the spouse so miserable as to make it unreasonable to make
37
2025:JHHC:14956-DB
one live with the other. The conduct may take the form of
abusive or humiliating treatment, causing mental pain and
anguish, torturing the spouse, etc. The conduct complained
of must be “grave” and “weighty” and trivial irritations and
normal wear and tear of marriage would not constitute
mental cruelty as a ground for divorce.
59. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vidhya
Viswanathan v. Kartik Balakrishnan, (2014) 15 SCC 21
has specifically held that cruelty is to be determined on
whole facts of the case and the matrimonial relations
between the spouses and the word ‘cruelty’ has not been
defined and it has been used in relation to human conduct
or human behaviour. It is the conduct in relation to or in
respect of matrimonial duties and obligations. It is a course
of conduct and one which is adversely affecting the other.
60. It needs to refer herein that the appellant husband at
para-6 of his cross-examination, has deposed that the basic
cause for seeking divorce from his wife-OP is the bad
behaviour of his wife, constant threats of committing suicide
or killing people in the family and for getting the family
members be implicated in the false cases. He has further
deposed that his wife has misbehaved with him and treated
him with cruelty but he has not filed any documentary
evidence to this effect before this Court. He has, however,
claimed that his wife continues to serve him threats of
38
2025:JHHC:14956-DB
putting herself on fire and committing suicide and he has
earlier filed documentary evidence to this effect before this
Court. At para-7, he has deposed that at Delhi, when his
wife had gone missing for two days from their house, then
he had not lodged any informatory petition (Sanha) before
any police station in Delhi, but, suo motu he exclaims that
he had stated this fact back home at Chatra. At para-8 of
his cross- examination, he has admitted that with respect to
the contents of para 10 of his matrimonial petition/plaint,
he has not filed any documentary evidence in support of the
same.
61. This Court, based upon the aforesaid discussions on
the issue of cruelty, is of considered view that the issue of
cruelty as has been alleged by the appellant-husband
against his wife could not be proved because no concrete
evidence to that effect has been produced by the appellant.
62. Thus, as per the discussions made hereinabove and
law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court which has also been
referred herein above this Court has no reason to take
different view that has been taken by the learned Family
Court proving the ground of cruelty.
63. Now coming to the issue of desertion, which is also
taken as a ground for decree of divorce. It is evident from the
from the plaint of the petitioner before Family Court which
has also taken note in the impugned order, that the
39
2025:JHHC:14956-DB
husband and wife are living separately which has not been
denied by the husband. The respondent-wife in her
testimony has also reiterated the same version stating that
the appellant-husband sent her in maike and since then
there is no relationship as wife and husband in between
them.
64. Learned Principal Judge, taking into consideration the
fact that since even otherwise there is no desertion on
the part of respondent-wife as she in her evidence
also has deposed that she is very keen and desirous
to live and stay with her husband all through her
life and perform her wifely duties. Thus, although the
husband appellant had filed petition under sub-section
(ib) of Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 but no
evidence was led in this respect, as such the same was
discarded by the learned family court.
65. It needs to refer herein that the word ‘desertion’ has
been given in Explanation to Section 13 (1) wherein it has
been stated that “the expression desertion means the
desertion of the petitioner by the other party to the marriage
without reasonable cause and without the consent or
against the wish of such party, and includes the wilful
neglect of the petitioner by the other party to the marriage,
and its grammatical variations and cognate expressions
shall be construed accordingly.”
40
2025:JHHC:14956-DB
66. It is pertinent to note that the word ‘desertion’, as has
been defined in Explanation part of Section 13 of the Act,
1955, means the desertion of the petitioner by the other
party to the marriage without reasonable cause and without
the consent or against the wishes of such party, and
includes the wilful neglect of the petitioner by the other
party to the marriage, and its grammatical variations and
cognate expressions shall be construed accordingly.
67. Rayden on Divorce ,which is a standard work on the
subject at p. 128 (6th Edn.), has summarised the case-law
on the subject in these terms:
“Desertion is the separation of one spouse from
the other, with an intention on the part of the
deserting spouse of bringing cohabitation
permanently to an end without reasonable
cause and without the consent of the other
spouse; but the physical act of departure by one
spouse does not necessarily make that spouse
the deserting party.”
68. The legal position has been admirably summarised
in paras-453 and 454 at pp. 241 to 243 of Halsbury’s Laws of
England (3rd Edn.), Vol. 12, in the following words:
“In its essence desertion means the intentional
permanent forsaking and abandonment of one
spouse by the other without that other’s consent,
and without reasonable cause. It is a total
repudiation of the obligations of marriage. In view of
the large variety of circumstances and of modes of
life involved, the Court has discouraged attempts at
41
2025:JHHC:14956-DBdefining desertion, there being no general principle
applicable to all cases.”
69. Desertion is not the withdrawal from a place but from a
state of things, for what the law seeks to enforce is the
recognition and discharge of the common obligations of the
married state; the state of things may usually be termed, for
short, ‘the home’. There can be desertion without previous
cohabitation by the parties, or without the marriage having
been consummated. The person who actually withdraws
from cohabitation is not necessarily the deserting party.
70. The offence of desertion is a course of conduct which
exists independently of its duration, but as a ground for
divorce it must exist for a period of at least two years
immediately preceding the presentation of the petition or,
where the offence appears as a cross-charge, of the answer.
71. Desertion as a ground of divorce differs from the
statutory grounds of adultery and cruelty in that the offence
founding the cause of action of desertion is not complete,
but is inchoate, until the suit is constituted, desertion is a
continuing offence.
72. It is, thus, evident from the aforesaid reference of
meaning of desertion that the quality of permanence is one
of the essential elements which differentiate desertion from
wilful separation. If a spouse abandons the other spouse in
a state of temporary passion, for example, anger or disgust,
without intending permanently to cease cohabitation, it will
42
2025:JHHC:14956-DB
not amount to desertion. For the offence of desertion, so far
as the deserting spouse is concerned, two essential
conditions must be there, namely, (1) the factum of
separation, and (2) the intention to bring cohabitation
permanently to an end.
73. Similarly, two elements are essential so far as the
deserted spouse is concerned: (1) the absence of consent,
and (2) absence of conduct giving reasonable cause to the
spouse leaving the matrimonial home to from the necessary
intention aforesaid.
74. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Debananda Tamuli vs.
Kakumoni Kataky, (2022) 5 SCC 459 has considered the
definition of ‘desertion’ on the basis of the judgment
rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Lachman
Utamchand Kirpalani v. Meena, AIR 1964 SC 40 which
has been consistently followed in several decisions of this
Court.
75. The law consistently has been laid down by the Court
that desertion means the intentional abandonment of one
spouse by the other without the consent of the other and
without a reasonable cause. The deserted spouse must
prove that there is a factum of separation and there is an
intention on the part of deserting spouse to bring the
cohabitation to a permanent end. In other words, there
should be animus deserendi on the part of the deserting
43
2025:JHHC:14956-DB
spouse. There must be an absence of consent on the part of
the deserted spouse and the conduct of the deserted spouse
should not give a reasonable cause to the deserting spouse
to leave the matrimonial home.
76. From impugned order it is evident that desertion has
not been proved before the Family Court through
concrete and tangible evidence and further it has
come on the record that even otherwise there is no
desertion on the part of respondent-wife as she in
her evidence also has deposed that she is very keen
and desirous to live and stay with her husband all
through her life and perform her wifely duties
77. This Court, on the basis of discussions made
hereinabove, is of the view that the appellant husband has
not been able to prove the ground of desertion for one of the
grounds for divorce before the learned Family Court. As
such, we have no reason to take a different view that has
been taken by the learned Family Court.
78. So far as the issue of mental illness is concerned it is
evident from the impugned order that the learned Family
Court has categorically held that no documentary
evidence has been adduced by the plaintiff/husband in
order to prove the mental illness of OP- wife and
therefore the Family Court has also decided this issue
against the appellant/husband.
44
2025:JHHC:14956-DB
79. In the aforesaid context, it needs to refer herein Section
13(1) (iii) of the Act 1955 which reads as under:
13. Divorce. — (1) Any marriage solemnized, whether before or after
the commencement of the Act, may, on a petition presented by either
the husband or the wife, be dissolved by a decree of divorce on the
ground that the other party–
————-
(iii) has been incurably of unsound mind, or has suffering
continuously or intermittently from mental disorder of such a kind and
to such an extent that the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to
live with the respondent.
Explanation- In this clause–
(a) the expression “mental disorder” means mental illness, arrested
or incomplete development of mind, psychopathic disorder or any
other disorder or disability of mind and include schizophrenia;
(b) the expression “psychopathic disorder” means a persistent
disorder or disability of mind (whether or not including subnormality
of intelligence) which results in abnormally aggressive or seriously
irresponsible conduct on the part of the other party and whether or
not it requires or is susceptible to medical treatment; or………”
80. The aforesaid provision shows that there are two
separate grounds in the provision viz. (a) incurable unsound
mind; and, (b) respondent spouse has been suffering
continuously or intermittently from mental disorder and the
disorder is of such kind and of such extent that the
petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with the
respondent.
81. From the wording of the aforesaid provision it can be
said that the mental condition like incurable unsound mind
mentioned in the first part or the mental disorder mentioned
45
2025:JHHC:14956-DB
in the second part needs to be proved by expert evidence
and that evidence needs to satisfy the Court that such
mental condition exists. From the wording of the provision,
it can be said that the second part of the provision has wide
scope. For this part, it is not necessary that mental disorder
is incurable. However, the mental disorder must be of such
kind and extent that the Court needs to be satisfied that it is
not advisable to ask the petitioner to live with the
respondent. The scope shows that there is no limit to the
kind of mental disorder as no specific kind is mentioned.
However, the term “has been suffering” shows that the
period of illness must not be too short or the petition should
not be based on one or two instances showing such mental
disorder. The term “intermittently” cannot be misread in this
provision to infer that the mental illness returns after the
treatment within few days. The term “extent” is also
important and on that also the Court needs to be satisfied to
come to the conclusion that the petitioner cannot reasonably
be expected to live with the husband.
82. Thus, it is evident that the relief is discretionary and
while using discretion, the Court is expected to keep in mind
the aforesaid things as mentioned above. Further, the burden
to prove mental disorder mentioned as second part of the
aforesaid provision or the burden to prove incurable
unsound mind lies on the party who seeks to use the
46
2025:JHHC:14956-DB
ground. In the instant from perusal of record as well as
impugned order it is evident that no concrete evidence like
psychiatrist opinion or prescription of continuous treatment
has been led by the appellant husband in this regard.
83. It needs to refer herein that Psychiatrist is an expert
but in view of provision of section 45 of the Evidence Act, it
is up to the Court to either rely on the opinion or to refuse to
do so. Further, he being a witness, his credibility can be
impeached like the credibility of any other witnesses and his
veracity can be tested as provided in section 146 and other
provisions of Evidence Act. As psychiatrist is expected to
give evidence on the basis of the examination of the patient
done by him, the symptoms noted by him, the treatment
and the follow up treatment given by him and the record
created by him needs to be considered both for
corroboration and contradiction purpose. In such a case the
evidence of other witnesses or the circumstances which
relates to the behaviour of the respondent can be considered
by the Court as that can help strengthening the opinion or
create probability that the opinion has no justification and it
is weak.
84. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kollam
Chandra Sekhar v. Kollam Padma Latha, (2014) 1 SCC
225 has categorically observed that the ideas of
unsoundness of ‘mind’ and ‘mental disorder’ occur in the
47
2025:JHHC:14956-DB
section as grounds for dissolution of a marriage, require the
assessment of the degree of the ‘mental disorder’. Its degree
must be such that the spouse seeking relief cannot
reasonably be expected to live with the other. All mental
abnormalities are not recognised as grounds for grant of
decree. If the mere existence of any degree of mental
abnormality could justify dissolution of a marriage few
marriages would, indeed, survive in law. For ready reference
the relevant paragraph of the aforesaid judgment is being
quoted as under:
22. The relevant portions with regard to “unsoundness
of mind” and “mental disorder” from the case referred to
supra are extracted hereunder: (Ram Narain Gupta
case [(1988) 4 SCC 247] , SCC pp. 254-56, paras 20-24)“20. The context in which the ideas of unsoundness of
‘mind’ and ‘mental disorder’ occur in the section as
grounds for dissolution of a marriage, require the
assessment of the degree of the ‘mental disorder’. Its
degree must be such that the spouse seeking relief
cannot reasonably be expected to live with the other.
All mental abnormalities are not recognised as grounds
for grant of decree. If the mere existence of any degree
of mental abnormality could justify dissolution of a
marriage few marriages would, indeed, survive in law.
21. The answer to the apparently simple–and perhaps
misleading–question as to ‘who is normal?’ runs
inevitably into philosophical thickets of the concept of
mental normalcy and as involved therein, of the ‘mind’
itself. These concepts of ‘mind’, ‘mental phenomena’,
etc. are more known than understood and the theories
of ‘mind’ and ‘mentation’ do not indicate any internal
consistency, let alone validity, of their basic ideas.
Theories of ‘mind’ with cognate ideas of ‘perception’
48
2025:JHHC:14956-DB
and ‘consciousness’ encompass a wide range of
thoughts, more ontological than epistemological.
Theories of mental phenomena are diverse and include
the dualist concept–shared by Descartes and
Sigmund Freud–of the separateness of the existence
of the physical or the material world as distinguished
from the non-material mental world with its existence
only spatially and not temporally. There is, again, the
theory which stresses the neurological basis of the
‘mental phenomenon’ by asserting the functional
correlation of the neuronal arrangements of the brain
with mental phenomena. The ‘behaviourist’ tradition,
on the other hand, interprets all reference to mind as
‘constructs’ out of behaviour. ‘Functionalism’, however,
seems to assert that mind is the logical or functional
state of physical systems. But all theories seem to
recognise, in varying degrees, that the psychometric
control over the mind operates at a level not yet fully
taught to science. When a person is oppressed by
intense and seemingly insoluble moral dilemmas, or
when grief of loss of dear ones etch away all the bright
colours of life, or where a broken marriage brings with
it the loss of emotional security, what standards of
normalcy of behaviour could be formulated and
applied? The arcane infallibility of science has not fully
pervaded the study of the non-material dimensions of
‘being’.
22. Speaking of the indisposition of science towards
this study, a learned author says:
‘… we have inherited cultural resistance to treating the
conscious mind as a biological phenomenon like any
other. This goes back to Descartes in the seventeenth
century. Descartes divided the world into two kinds of
substances: mental substances and physical
substances. Physical substances were the proper
domain of science and mental substances were the
property of religion. Something of an acceptance of this
division exists even to the present day. So, for example,49
2025:JHHC:14956-DBconsciousness and subjectivity are often regarded as
unsuitable topics for science. And this reluctance to
deal with consciousness and subjectivity is part of a
persistent objectifying tendency. People think science
must be about objectively observable phenomena. On
occasions when I have lectured to audiences of
biologists and neurophysiologists, I have found many
of them very reluctant to treat the mind in general and
consciousness in particular as a proper domain of
scientific investigation.
… the use of the noun ‘mind’ is dangerously inhabited
by the ghosts of old philosophical theories. It is very
difficult to resist the idea that the mind is a kind of a
thing, or at least an arena, or at least some kind of
black box in which all of these mental processes
occur.’ [ John R. Searle, Minds, Brains and Science-
Reith Lectures (Harvard University Press, 1984), pp. 10
and 11.]
23. Lord Wilberforce, referring to the psychological
basis of physical illness said that the area of ignorance
of the body-mind relation seems to expand with that of
knowledge. In McLoughlin v. O’Brian [(1983) 1 AC 410 :
(1982) 2 WLR 982 : (1982) 2 All ER 298 (HL)] , the
learned Lord said, though in a different context: (AC p.
418 B : All ER p. 301)
‘… Whatever is unknown about the mind-body
relationship (and the area of ignorance seems to
expand with that of knowledge), it is now accepted by
medical science that recognisable and severe physical
damage to the human body and system may be caused
by the impact, through the senses, of external events
on the mind. There may thus be produced what is as
identifiable an illness as any that may be caused by
direct physical impact. It is safe to say that this, in
general terms, is understood by the ordinary man or
woman who is hypothesised by the courts….’
50
2025:JHHC:14956-DB
24. But the illnesses that are called ‘mental’ are kept
distinguished from those that ail the ‘body’ in a
fundamental way. In Philosophy and Medicine, Vol. 5 at
p. X the learned editor refers to what distinguishes the
two qualitatively:
‘Undoubtedly, mental illness is so disvalued because it
strikes at the very roots of our personhood. It visits us
with uncontrollable fears, obsessions, compulsions and
anxieties….
… This is captured in part by the language we use in
describing the mentally ill. One is an hysteric, is a
neurotic, is an obsessive, is a schizophrenic, is a
manic-depressive. On the other hand, one has heart
disease, has cancer, has the
flu, has malaria, has smallpox….'”
(emphasis in original)
The principle laid down by this Court in the aforesaid
case with all fours is applicable to the fact situation on
hand wherein this Court has rightly referred to Section
13(1)(iii) of the Act and Explanation to the said clause
and made certain pertinent observations regarding
“unsound mind” or “mental disorder” and the
application of the same as grounds for dissolution of
marriage. This Court cautioned that Section 13(1)(iii) of
the Act does not make a mere existence of a mental
disorder of any degree sufficient in law to justify the
dissolution of marriage.
35. In the English case of Whysall v. Whysall [1960 P 52
: (1959) 3 WLR 592 : (1959) 3 All ER 389] , it was held
that a spouse is “incurably of unsound mind” if he or she
is of such mental incapacity as to make normal married
life impossible and there is no prospect of any
improvement in mental health, which would make this
possible in future. The High Court of Judicature of
Calcutta, in Pramatha Kumar Maity v. Ashima Maity [AIR
1991 Cal 123] has held that mental disorder of the wife,
even if proved, cannot, by itself, warrant a decree of51
2025:JHHC:14956-DBdivorce and it must be further proved that it is of such a
nature as the husband could not be expected to live with
the wife.
38. We are of the view that the High Court in exercise of
its appellate jurisdiction has rightly come to a different
conclusion that the respondent is not suffering from the
ailment of schizophrenia or incurable unsoundness of
mind. Further, the High Court has rightly rejected the
finding of the trial court which is based on Ext. B-10 and
other documentary and oral evidence by applying the
ratio laid down by this Court in Ram Narain
Gupta v. Rameshwari Gupta [(1988) 4 SCC 247] referred
to supra. A pertinent point to be taken into consideration
is that the respondent had not only completed MBBS but
also did a postgraduate diploma in Medicine and was
continuously working as a Government Medical Officer
and had she been suffering from any serious kind of
mental disorder, particularly, acute type of
schizophrenia, it would have been impossible for her to
work in the said post. The appellant husband cannot
simply abandon his wife because she is suffering from
sickness. Therefore, the High Court allowed both the
CMAs and dismissed OP No. 203 of 2000 filed by the
appellant for divorce and allowed OP No. 1 of 1999 filed
by the respondent for restitution of conjugal rights
wherein the High Court granted decree of restitution of
conjugal rights in favour of the respondent.
42. Marriage is highly revered in India and we are a
nation that prides itself on the strong foundation of
our marriages, come hell or high water, rain or
sunshine. Life is made up of good times and bad, and
the bad times can bring with it terrible illnesses and
extreme hardships. The partners in a marriage must
weather these storms and embrace the sunshine with
equanimity. Any person may have bad health, this is
not their fault and most times, it is not within their
control, as in the present case, the respondent was
unwell and was taking treatment for the same. The52
2025:JHHC:14956-DBillness had its fair share of problems. Can this be a
reason for the appellant to abandon her and seek
dissolution of marriage—- .”
85. Thus, the Hon’ble Apex Court cautioned that Section
13(1)(iii) of the Act does not make a mere existence of a
mental disorder of any degree sufficient in law to justify the
dissolution of marriage.
86. Thus, on basis of discussion made hereinabove, it
appears that the aforesaid ground of mental illness has been
raised by the appellant husband on the flimsy ground and
taking in to consideration the aforesaid factual aspect the
learned Family Court has rightly decided the said issue
against the plaintiff husband as such requires no
interference by this Court.
87. Accordingly, issue as framed by this Court is decided
against the appellant-husband and it is held that the
learned Family Court had rightly not granted the decree of
divorce in favour of the appellant husband on the ground of
cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act or
on the ground of desertion under Section 13(1)(ib) or even on
the ground of mental illness under Section 13(1)(iii) of the
Act 1955, as such same is requires no interference by this
Court.
88. This Court, on the basis of discussions made
hereinabove, is of the view that the judgment passed on
53
2025:JHHC:14956-DB
30.06.2022 and decree signed on 08.07.2022 by the learned
Principal Judge, Family Court, Chatra, whereby and
whereunder the Original Suit No. 29 of 2019 filed by the
petitioner-appellant-husband under Section 13(1), (i-a), (i-b)
& iii of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for a decree of divorce
has been dismissed, requires no interference by this Court.
89. Accordingly, the instant appeal fails and is dismissed.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
I agree.
(Rajesh Kumar, J.) (Rajesh Kumar, J.)
Birendra / A.F.R.
54
[ad_2]
Source link