Patna High Court
Kumari Sangita Ray @ Sangita Devi vs Rajiv Ranjan @ Bablu on 7 August, 2025
Author: P. B. Bajanthri
Bench: P. B. Bajanthri
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Miscellaneous Appeal No.1149 of 2018
======================================================
Kumari Sangita Ray @ Sangita Devi Wife of Rajiv Ranjan, Daughter of Late
Ram Bahadur Singh at present resident of Bishnu Bhawan, Kurj Balu Par,
P.O. Sadakat Ashram, P.S. Digha, District- Patna.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. Rajiv Ranjan @ Bablu Son of Late Mahesh Prasad Sinha Resident of
Mohalla- Keshwar Ram, Kurji Balu Par, P.S.- Digha,n District- Patna.
2. Vinod Singh Son of not known Resident of Mohalla- Jalalpur, P.S.-
Rupaspur, District- Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Gaurav Govind, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Ranjan Kumar Sinha, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI
And
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. B. PD. SINGH
CAV JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. B. PD. SINGH)
Date : 07-08-2025
Heard learned counsel for both the parties.
2. This Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed
against the judgment and decree dated 31.10.2018 passed
by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna in
Matrimonial Case No. 585 of 2009 whereby and
whereunder the learned Family Court has allowed the
divorce case filed by the respondent-husband under Section
13 (1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
3. The case of the respondent-husband in brief is
that the marriage between the appellant-wife and
Patna High Court MA No.1149 of 2018 dt.07-08-2025
2/22
respondent-husband was solemnized on 21.06.1996
according to Hindu rites and rituals at Patna in presence of
common well-wishers and relatives. After marriage the
appellant-wife came to her Sasural and after staying for two
days, she went to her Naihar with her brother and
respondent no.2 and after passing of one year, the second
marriage (Gauna) was performed and she returned with the
respondent No. 1 at her matrimonial house and she stayed
continuously for about four months. During her stay at her
matrimonial house, respondent No. 2 came to meet the
appellant-wife four or five times and without consent of the
respondent-husband they went to see movie. It is further
alleged that it was routine affairs of the appellant-wife and
respondent No. 2 to go for movie and hither and thither
without consent of the respondent-husband and when he
made objection, the appellant-wife became very angry and
threatened to eliminate him. In the meanwhile, out of the
wedlock, a female child namely Veena Vadini born on
10.11.1997
. After birth of child, the appellant-wife stayed at
her matrimonial house for about four months and during
this period, respondent No. 2 visited her matrimonial house.
Patna High Court MA No.1149 of 2018 dt.07-08-2025
3/22
Thereafter, she went to her Naihar. Some days after staying
at her Naihar, the appellant-wife went to the house of
respondent No.2 at Jalapur without consent of the
respondent-husband and returned at her matrimonial house
after passing of two and half month and this time she
became complete changed and always used filthy languages
against the respondent-husband and his mother. On
26.09.2000, the appellant-wife gave birth of one male child
namely, Rahul Kumar @ Vivek Raj at the hospital and
again after staying for three-four months, she went to her
Naihar without consent of the respondent-husband and
when the respondent-husband went to his Sasural for
Vidaigari of appellant-wife, he came to know that his wife
is living in the house of respondent No.2. After birth of
child the respondent-husband thought that the behaviour of
the appellant-wife will change but she has not changed her
behaviour, rather, it was deteriorated and ultimately on
03.06.2005 when the respondent-husband objected the said
unsocial act of the appellant-wife with respondent No. 2,
she by saying that “Ham Unke Bina Nahi Rah Sakte Hain,
Agar Aap Mana Karoge to Ham Kirasan Tel Chidakar Aag
Patna High Court MA No.1149 of 2018 dt.07-08-2025
4/22
Laga Lenge Aur Sabko Jail Bhej Denge burnt herself along
with two children. The respondent-husband, thereafter
admitted them in PMCH but unfortunately, in spite of much
efforts and treatment, his minor daughter namely, Veena
Vadini died due to burn injury. Due to much care and
nursing by the respondent-husband, the appellant-wife
cured and started living happily with respondent no.1.
However, one day, she came in sentiment and fairly
admitted in writing that she is habituated to establish
physical relation with the respondent No. 2 from very
beginning and that is why she burnt with daughter and son.
After passing of fifteen days, the family members of the
appellant-wife suddenly attacked the respondent No. 1 in
his shop. He somehow saved his life with the help of the
villagers and his family members. On 28.09.2006, the
appellant-wife again fled away from her matrimonial house
and lodged a false case bearing Digha P.S. Case No. 216 of
2006 under Sections 498(A), 323/34 of the Indian Penal
Code on 03.10.2006 against the respondent No. 1 and his
mother at the instigation of respondent No. 2. In the
aforesaid case, the respondent-husband was apprehended.
Patna High Court MA No.1149 of 2018 dt.07-08-2025
5/22
The respondent-husband approached this Court. A
coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 14.08.2007
has granted bail to the petitioner vide Cr. Misc. No. 27577
of 2007. It is further alleged that when the respondent-
husband was enlarged on bail, the appellant-wife again
lodged Digha P.S. Case No.180 of 2008 on 17.10.2008
against the respondent-husband under Sections 341, 323,
504 of the Indian Penal Code, however, during
investigation, the case as against the appellant was not
found true and final form was submitted by the police. The
respondent-husband, in spite of all these events, tried his
best to continue his matrimonial relationship with the
appellant-wife but all his efforts went in vein since the
appellant-wife did not agree to leave the respondent No. 2
and in that background, always abused, assaulted, humiliate
the respondent-husband and tortured him on one pretext or
another and ultimately left the society of the respondent-
husband on 28.09.2006. Due to cruel behaviour of the
appellant-wife the respondent-husband suffered mental and
physical torture and seeing no alternate, he has filed this
petition for grant of decree of divorce.
Patna High Court MA No.1149 of 2018 dt.07-08-2025
6/22
4. The appellant-wife appeared and filed her
written statement and denied the allegation alleged by the
respondent-husband and submitted that with a view to take
advantage in the divorce case, the false, fabricated and
baseless allegations have been levelled against the
appellant. The appellant-wife denied any illegal relationship
with respondent No. 2, rather she says that she does not
know respondent No. 2. She has submitted that her
husband is suffering from Philomenia and that is why he is
repeating about “Movie” words although in life she has
never visited any Cinema Hall. It is therefore, prayed to
dismiss the suit filed by the respondent-husband.
5. In this case respondent No. 2, namely, Vinod
Singh has also appeared and filed his written statement
stating therein that he has not visited any time at the house
of the respondent-husband and it is wrong to say that the
appellant-wife went to see the movie with him. The
allegation levelled against him is completely wrong, false
and baseless and the respondent-husband has dragged his
name in this case only to create a false defence. It is
therefore, prayed to reject the plaint filed by the respondent-
Patna High Court MA No.1149 of 2018 dt.07-08-2025
7/22
husband.
6. On the basis of the rival contentions of both the
parties, following issues were framed in this case by the
learned Trial Court :-
1. Whether the case as framed is
maintainable?
2. Whether the appellant has valid cause
of action to file this case?
3. Whether the opposite party since after
the solemnization of the marriage, treated the
petitioner with cruelty as alleged ?
4. Whether the opposite party deserted
the petitioner for a period of more than two
years immediately preceding the presentation
of the instant matrimonial case as alleged ?
5.Whether the petitioner is entitled to
dissolution of his marriage with the opposite
party by decree of divorce as prayed for?
7. During course of trial, altogether five witnesses
have been produced on behalf of the respondent-husband
which are P.W.1- Rahul Kumar @ Vivek Raj, P.W. 2-
Shakuntala Devi, P.W. 3- Rajiv Ranjan Kumar (respondent-
husband), P.W. 4 Nand Kishore, P.W. 5, Gita Devi.
8. The respondent-husband has exhibited following
Patna High Court MA No.1149 of 2018 dt.07-08-2025
8/22
documents in this case in support of his case
Ext.1- Photocopy of C.C. of Deposition of
G.R. 454/2006
Ext.2- Photocopy of C.C. of F.I.R. of Digha
P.S. Case No.180/08
Ext.1/A- C.C. of letter dated 28.10.2006
Ext.2/A, & 2/B- C.C. of FIR and charge
sheet of Digha P.S. Case No.180/08
Ext.2/C- C.C. of F.I.R of Digha P.S. Case
No.96/09
Ext.3- C.C. or order sheet of Digha P.S.
Case No.96/09
Ext.3/a- C.C. of order sheet of Complaint
Case No.3264(C) 07
Ext.4- C.C. of Deposition of Sangita Rai in
35(M) 13
Ext.5- Photocopy of voter Id card of Nand
Kishore
9. On the other hand, appellant-wife has also
examined four witness in support of her case which are
O.P.W.1- Shika Kumari, O.P.W 2- Urmila Singh, O.P.W 3-
Anuj Singh, O.P.W 4- Kumari Sangita Rai (appellant-wife
herself).
10. The following documents have been exhibited
Patna High Court MA No.1149 of 2018 dt.07-08-2025
9/22
on behalf of appellant-wife which are
Ext.A to A/1- C.C. of order dated 14.08.2007
passed in Cr. Misc. No.27577/2007
Ext.B- C.C. of Judgment dated 29.01.2013
passed in G.R. No.4545/2006
Ext.C-C/1- Photocopy of Malguzari receipt
Ext.D- C.C. of deposition of Rajiv Ranjan @
Babloo Kumar
Ext.D/1- C.C. of deposition of Shakuntala Devi
Ext.E- Photocopy of Malguzari receipt of plot
no.530
Ext.F to F/3- C.C. of deposition of complaint
case no.3264(C)/07.
11. After conclusion of the trial, the learned
Principal Judge, Family Court has held that respondent-
husband is entitled for a decree of divorce on the ground of
cruelty and desertion and accordingly the marriage between
the respondent-husband and appellant-wife has been
dissolved by a decree of divorce.
12. Thereafter, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with
the aforesaid judgment and decree passed by the learned
Principal Judge, Family Court in Matrimonial Case No. 585
of 2009, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant.
Patna High Court MA No.1149 of 2018 dt.07-08-2025
10/22
13. The divorce has been granted on the grounds of
cruelty and desertion. A perusal of the Impugned judgment
would show that the following acts of cruelty and desertion
were considered by the Family Court, as proved:-
a) Cruelty:
(i) From oral and documentary evidence, it is
evident that the couple got married about thirteen years
back. The marriage took place on 21.06.1996 and they are
residing separately w.e.f. 28.09.2006.
(ii) Admittedly, the parties got separated on
28.09.2006 and appellant-wife has filed Digha P.S. Case
No. 216 of 2006 and Digha P.S. Case No.180 of 2008
against her husband and other in-laws family member.
(iii) The Hon’ble Apex Court in “Jagbir Singh v.
Nisha“, (2015) 9 RCR (Civil) 873, “Rishipal v. Luxmi
Devi”, (2009) 4 RCR (Civil) 811, “Dharampal v. Smt.
Pushpa Devi”, 2004 RCR (Civil) 717, “Major Ashish
Poonia Mrs. Nilima Poonia”; “Mangayakarasi v. M.
Yuvaraj” (2020) 3 SCC 786, “K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A.
Deepa“, (2013) 5 SCC 226 and “K. Srinivas v. K. Suneetha”
(2014) 16 SCC 34, has held that making unfounded
Patna High Court MA No.1149 of 2018 dt.07-08-2025
11/22allegations and filing false complaints against the spouse or
his relatives amount to cruelty to the other spouse and by
filing false cases against respondent-husband, he has indeed
faced matrimonial cruelties at the hands of appellant-wife.
(v) It was observed by the Family Court that the
couple have been living separately for about twelve years
and this long separation has in fact put them in such a
situation that matrimonial bond has broken down beyond
repair. It was further observed that there are no chances of
the couple living together and such a marriage is now
unworkable and can be a source of great misery for the
parties, if allowed to be continued.
14. Accordingly, it was concluded that the
respondent-husband has been able to prove the ground of
cruelty.
b) Desertion:
(i) The Family Court observed that the respondent-
wife left her matrimonial house on 28.09.2006 and since
then they are living separately.
(ii) It was concluded that the appellant-wife had
put the relationship to a permanent end and had not joined
Patna High Court MA No.1149 of 2018 dt.07-08-2025
12/22
the respondent-husband. She has not filed any case under
Section 9 of the 1955 Act for restitution of conjugal rights.
Hence, it is evident that the factum of separation, intention
to bring cohabitation has come to a permanent end which
goes to establish that appellant-wife has deserted the
respondent-husband continuously for a period of more than
two years.
15. We have heard the parties and perused the
paper-book as well as the impugned judgment.
16. The following question arises for consideration
before this Court:
“Whether the decree for divorce granted on the
grounds of cruelty and desertion by the Family Court,
requires interference?”
17. The present divorce case has been filed on the
composite ground of cruelty, desertion and adulatory.
18. The concept of cruelty within the meaning of
Section 13 (1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act has been
explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of
“Joydeep Majumdar v. Bharti Jaiswal Majumdar“,
(2021) 2 RCR (Civil) 289, by observing as under: –
Patna High Court MA No.1149 of 2018 dt.07-08-2025
13/22“10. For considering dissolution
of marriage at the instance of a spouse
who allege mental cruelty, the result of
such mental cruelty must be such that it is
not possible to continue with the
matrimonial relationship. In other words,
the wronged party cannot be expected to
condone such conduct and continue to live
with his/her spouse. The degree of
tolerance will vary from one couple to
another and the Court will have to bear in
mind the background, the level of
education and also the status of the parties,
in order to determine whether the cruelty
alleged is sufficient to justify dissolution of
marriage, at the instance of the wronged
party…”
19. In “Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh“, (2007) 4
SCC 511, Hon’ble Supreme Court gave illustrative cases
where inference of mental cruelty could be drawn even
while emphasizing that no uniform standard can be laid
down and each case will have to be decided on its own
facts.
“85. No uniform standard can ever be
Patna High Court MA No.1149 of 2018 dt.07-08-2025
14/22laid down for guidance, yet we deem it
appropriate to enumerate some instances
of human behaviour which may be relevant
in dealing with the cases of ‘mental
cruelty’. The instances indicated in the
succeeding paragraphs are only illustrative
and not exhaustive.
(i) On consideration of complete
matrimonial life of the parties, acute
mental pain, agony and suffering as would
not make possible for the parties to live
with each other could come within the
broad parameters of mental cruelty.
(ii) On comprehensive appraisal of the
entire matrimonial life of the parties, it
becomes abundantly clear that situation is
such that the wronged party cannot
reasonably be asked to put up with such
conduct and continue to live with other
party.
(iii) Mere coldness or lack of affection
cannot amount to cruelty, frequent
rudeness of language, petulance of manner,
indifference and neglect may reach such a
degree that it makes the married life for the
other spouse absolutely intolerable.
(iv) Mental cruelty is a state of mind.
The feeling of deep anguish,
Patna High Court MA No.1149 of 2018 dt.07-08-2025
15/22disappointment, frustration in one spouse
caused by the conduct of other for a long
time may lead to mental cruelty.
(v) A sustained course of abusive and
humiliating treatment calculated to torture,
discommode or render miserable life of the
spouse.
(vi) Sustained unjustifiable conduct
and behaviour of one spouse actually
affecting physical and mental health of the
other spouse. The treatment complained of
and the resultant danger or apprehension
must be very grave, substantial and
weighty.
(vii) Sustained reprehensible conduct,
studied neglect, indifference or total
departure from the normal standard of
conjugal kindness causing injury to mental
health or deriving sadistic pleasure can
also amount to mental cruelty.
(viii) The conduct must be much more
than jealousy, selfishness, possessiveness,
which causes unhappiness and
dissatisfaction and emotional upset may
not be a ground for grant of divorce on the
ground of mental cruelty.
(ix) Mere trivial irritations, quarrels,
normal wear and tear of the married life
Patna High Court MA No.1149 of 2018 dt.07-08-2025
16/22which happens in day to day life would not
be adequate for grant of divorce on the
ground of mental cruelty.
(x) The married life should be
reviewed as a whole and a few Isolated
instances over a period of years will not
amount to cruelty. The ill-conduct must be
persistent for a fairly lengthy period, where
the relationship has deteriorated to an
extent that because of the acts and
behaviour of a spouse, the wronged party
finds it extremely difficult to live with the
other party any longer, may amount to
mental cruelty.
(xi) If a husband submits himself for
an operation of sterilisation without
medical reasons and without the consent or
knowledge of his wife and similarly if the
wife undergoes vasectomy or abortion
without medical reason or without the
consent or knowledge of her husband, such
an act of the spouse may lead to mental
cruelty.
(xii) Unilateral decision of refusal to
have Intercourse for considerable period
without there being any physical incapacity
or valid reason may amount to mental
cruelty..
Patna High Court MA No.1149 of 2018 dt.07-08-2025
17/22
(xiii) Unilateral decision of either
husband or wife after marriage not to have
child from the marriage may amount to
cruelty.
(xiv) Where there has been a long
period of continuous separation, it may
fairly be concluded that the matrimonial
bond is beyond repair. The marriage
becomes a fiction though supported by a
legal tie. By refusing to sever that tie, the
law in such cases, does not serve the
sanctity of marriage; on the contrary, it
shows scant regard for the feelings and
emotions of the parties. In such like
situations, it may lead to mental cruelty…”
20. On the anvil of the aforesaid principle of
Hon’ble Apex Court when we examine the present case on
the basis of the evidences adduced on behalf of the parties,
it becomes clear that appellant-wife is living separately
since 28.09.2006 without any reasonable excuse which
comes under the purview of the cruelty and thus the
matrimonial bond is virtually beyond repair. So, in this
circumstance, if divorce is not granted, it will not serve the
sanctity of marriage.
Patna High Court MA No.1149 of 2018 dt.07-08-2025
18/22
21. Moreover, all the witnesses examined on
behalf of the respondent-husband have fully supported the
case that behaviour of the appellant-wife towards her
husband and mother-in-law was not good. They also
deposed that respondent No. 2 always used to visit at the
matrimonial house of the appellant-wife. P.W. 1 namely
Rahul Kumar @ Vivek Raj who is non-else but the son of
appellant and respondent No. 1 has deposed that her mother
(appellant) poured kerosene oil on him (P.W. 1), herself and
his sister and lit themselves on fire, as a result of which,
they sustained burn injuries and his sister did not survive
and died in the incidence. He has further deposed that he
lives along with his father and grand-mother in a rented
house as his own house was being occupied by her mother
(appellant). The aforesaid evidence appears to be more
convincing and reliable because it has come from the mouth
of appellant’s son. The case of the respondent-husband that
appellant-wife is living adulterous live with respondent No.
2, Vinod Singh gets corroborated from the hand written note
of the appellant-wife which has been exhibited as Ext-1, in
which she has admitted that she has intimate relationship
Patna High Court MA No.1149 of 2018 dt.07-08-2025
19/22
with respondent No. 2 since her childhood. All the
witnesses have supported this fact that due to cruel
behaviour of appellant-wife, the respondent-husband was
residing in a rented house with his son and mother. The son
of the appellant who has been examined as P.W. 1 has also
admitted that his mother is a cruel lady so he lives with his
father who loves him very much. During cross-examination,
the appellant-wife has deposed that she was burnt along
with her daughter but she has not filed any complaint
against her husband or mother-in-law. At para 28 of her
cross-examination, she has stated that after 8-10 months of
her treatment, she filed dowry case against husband. At para
31 she has also admitted that her husband and mother-in-
law had served her during her burn injury.
22. In “Jagdish Singh v. Madhuri Devi“, (2008)
10 SCC 497, the Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering
the scope of interference by first appellate court, observed
as under:-
“24. It is no doubt true that the High
Court was exercising power as first
appellate court and hence it was open to the
Court to enter into not only questions of law
Patna High Court MA No.1149 of 2018 dt.07-08-2025
20/22but questions of fact as well. It is settled law
that an appeal is a continuation of suit. An
appeal thus is a re-hearing of the main
matter and the appellate court can re-
appraise, re-appreciate and review the entire
evidence “oral as well as documentary” and
can come to its own conclusion.
25. At the same time, however, the
appellate court is expected, nay bound, to
bear in mind a finding recorded by the trial
court on oral evidence. It should not forget
that the trial court had an advantage and
opportunity of seeing the demeanour of
witnesses and, hence, the trial court’s
conclusions should not normally be
disturbed. No doubt, the appellate court
possesses the same powers as that of the
original court, but they have to be exercised
with proper care, caution and
circumspection. When a finding of fact has
been recorded by the trial court mainly on
appreciation of oral evidence, it should not
be lightly disturbed unless the approach of
the trial court in appraisal of evidence is
erroneous, contrary to well-established
principles of law or unreasonable…”
23. After going through the impugned judgment, it
appears that there is no any apparent error of law and no
Patna High Court MA No.1149 of 2018 dt.07-08-2025
21/22
illegality and infirmity in appreciation of evidence of the
parties.
24. In view of forgoing discussion, we conclude
that respondent-husband has made out a case for grant of
decree of dissolution of marriage on the ground as
mentioned under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act,
1955.
25. Considering the totality of circumstances, in
our considered view, learned Family Court has rightly
passed a decree of dissolution of marriage between the
parties and we see no reason as to why, the findings as
given by the learned trial Court should not be upheld.
26. So, the impugned judgment and decree dated
31.10.2018 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family
Court, Patna in Matrimonial Case No. 585 of 2009 is hereby
upheld with regard to passing a decree for dissolution of
marriage between the parties.
27. If the appellant-wife has any grievance with
regard to payment of permanent alimony, she may agitate
her grievance under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act
before the appropriate forum as the appellant-wife claims
Patna High Court MA No.1149 of 2018 dt.07-08-2025
22/22
that she is not working anywhere whereas the respondent-
husband claims that appellant-wife is serving as a teacher in
Bal Shramik Special School at Makhdumpur, Digha, Patna
and learned Family Court has also rejected the petition of
the appellant filed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage
Act for grant of maintenance with an observation that she is
getting a salary of Rs. 4000/- per month which is sufficient
for her survival. However, she is entitled to litigation cost
and it is quantified @ Rs. 50,000/-(Fifty Thousands only).
The same shall be paid by the 1 st Respondent within a
period of three months from today.
28. The present appeal is dismissed accordingly,
affirming the impugned judgment.
29. Pending I.A(s), if any, stand disposed of.
( S. B. Pd. Singh, J)
(P. B. Bajanthri, J)
Shageer/-
AFR/NAFR AFR CAV DATE 15/04/2025 Uploading Date 07/08/2025 Transmission Date N/A