1 | P a g e IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI First Appeal No. 49 of 2021 Ram Kumar Mandal, son of Jagat Mondol, resident of Damodarpur, P.O. Damodarpur, P.S. Dhanbad, District Dhanbad (Jharkhand) ... Appellant Versus Kalpana Mondal, wife of Ram Kumar Mandal, resident of Sonbad, P.O. Benagoria, P.S. Nirsa, District Dhanbad (Jharkhand) … Respondent --- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI For the Appellant : Mr. Pradeep Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Naresh Prasad Thakur, Advocate --- Dated 14.01.2025 Per R. Mukhopadhyay, J. JUDGMENT 1. Heard Mr. Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Naresh Prasad Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 11.04.2019 (decree signed on 26.04.2019) passed by Kumari Ranjana Asthana, learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court, Dhanbad in Original Suit No. 633 of 2016, whereby and whereunder, the suit preferred by the appellant for dissolution of his marriage with the respondent u/s 13(1)(ia) (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has been dismissed. 3. For the sake of convenience both the parties are referred to in this judgment as per their status before the learned trial court. 4. The plaintiff/ husband (appellant herein) had filed a suit for dissolution of his marriage with the defendant/wife (respondent herein) u/s 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in which, inter alia, it has been stated that the marriage of the plaintiff was solemnised with the defendant on 07.06.2005 at Dhanbad as per Hindu rites and 2 | P a g e customs and out of the said wedlock two children were born to the couple who were named Sumit and Nisha. The plaintiff and the defendant had stayed together as husband and wife for ten years and during this period, the defendant always used to abuse and treat the plaintiff with cruelty. The defendant used to issue threats to commit suicide and the defendant on 2-3 occasions had tried to hang herself and once she had poured kerosene oil over her. The defendant never indulged herself in domestic chores. The plaintiff and his family members tried their best to make the defendant understand to have a cordial relationship with the plaintiff, but the defendant was adamant in continuing with her behaviour and issuing threats to the plaintiff of committing suicide. The conduct of the defendant was informed to her parents, but of no avail. The uncle of the defendant, namely, Kailash Mandal had extended threats to the plaintiff and his family members. The defendant is residing at her parental house since 11.08.2014 and she has deserted the plaintiff. 5. The defendant on being noticed had appeared and filed a written statement in which the allegations made by the plaintiff have been denied. It has been stated that the plaintiff and his family members used to demand dowry and abused and assaulted her. The son of the couple is residing with the defendant while the daughter is staying with the plaintiff. The defendant has been ousted from her matrimonial house on 11.08.2016 and since then she is residing at her parents’ house. The defendant has expressed her desire to stay with the plaintiff at her matrimonial house. 6. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed for adjudication:- I. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form? II. Whether the plaintiff has got a valid cause of action for the suit? 3 | P a g e III. Whether the marriage between the plaintiff and the defendant is fit to be dissolved on the ground of cruelty and desertion? IV. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief claimed? 7. The plaintiff has examined three witnesses in support of his case and the plaintiff has himself been examined as PW 2 which we are dealing with at the initial stage. 8. PW 2 Ram Kumar Mandal is the plaintiff who has stated about solemnization of his marriage with the defendant on 07.06.2005 and out of the said wedlock two children were born. After the marriage, the defendant had maintained a cordial relationship with the plaintiff for a few days, but thereafter she started misbehaving with her in-laws and also used to abuse him and his family members, but in spite of the same, he tried to pacify the situation so that the atmosphere in the family remains cordial. The defendant never involved herself in domestic chores and always threatened him of committing suicide. Attempts were made by the defendant to hang herself and once she had poured kerosene oil upon herself. Efforts made by him and his family members to inculcate good sense upon the defendant did not yield any result. The family members of the defendant were informed about the conduct of the defendant, but they had supported her actions and had also threatened him. The defendant was suffering from T.B. which fact was suppressed by her family members and he had given her the best of medical treatment which saved her life. When the defendant recovered from T.B., her family members started visiting her regularly and he was also put under severe mental stress. The defendant is staying at her parental house since 11.08.2014 and in this way, the defendant has destroyed his marital life. The defendant and her family members did not even abide by the decision of the Panchayat. In cross examination he has deposed that he had not made any complaints to any authority about the attempts of committing suicide 4 | P a g e made by the defendant. The defendant has not instituted any case against him or his family members. He had a very good relationship with the defendant and that was the reason he had got her treated. No document was prepared at the Panchayat. P.W. 1 Jagat Mandal has stated in almost similar terms as to what has been stated in the plaint. In cross examination he has deposed that he is the father of the plaintiff. The defendant has not filed any case against his family or against his son. He does not know the grounds which have been taken by his son in the suit. It is not true that the defendant does not want to stay at her matrimonial house. P.W. 3 Subhash Mandal is the brother of the plaintiff who has supported what has been stated by the plaintiff and P.W.-2. In cross examination he has deposed that the plaintiff and the defendant stayed peacefully for a period of one year. There used to be quarrels between the defendant and the plaintiff and his parents. The defendant has not lodged any case against him or his family members. There was a settlement between both the parties and though he and his family members were ready to keep the defendant, but the defendant did not agree to such proposal. 9. The defendant has examined four witnesses on her behalf. 10. D.W. 1 Kalpana Mondal is the defendant who has stated about solemnization of her marriage with the plaintiff and the birth of two children; the son is at present staying with her while the daughter is staying with the plaintiff. She had spent at her matrimonial house 11 years and during this period, she had never indulged in any quarrel or abusive behaviour with either the plaintiff or his family members. She was instead subjected to torture and demand of dowry made by the plaintiff and her in-laws. In cross examination she has deposed that she is staying at her parents’ house since 2016. She was afflicted with T.B. and the plaintiff had got 5 | P a g e her treated. She had not called the plaintiff over phone since 2016. The plaintiff had come to her parental house and had taken away her daughter. She had followed the plaintiff who had refused to take her back. D.W. 2 Santosh Kumar Mandal has reiterated what has been stated by D.W. 1. In cross examination he has deposed that the defendant had confided in him that she wants to stay with the plaintiff, but the plaintiff does not want to keep her. D.W. 3 Bishwanath Mandal who is the father of the defendant has stated similar to that of D.W. 1 and D.W. 2. In cross examination he has deposed that his daughter stays with him since 11.08.2016. D.W. 4 Sanatan Mandal has reiterated the evidence of the other witnesses. In cross examination he has deposed that he is the brother-in-law of the defendant. 11. Mr. Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellant has submitted that the plaintiff had given several instances which would indicate that the plaintiff was subjected to mental cruelty. It has also been submitted that without any reasonable cause and without the consent of the plaintiff, the defendant had left her matrimonial house on 11.08.2014 and the same clearly proves desertion. None of the features constituting cruelty and desertion have been able to be disputed by the defendant. 12. Mr. Naresh Prasad Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the defendant/ respondent has submitted that the defendant was forced to leave her matrimonial house on account of the torture and demand of dowry made by the plaintiff and his family members. 13. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also perused the trial court records. 6 | P a g e 14. Issue Nos. III constitutes ‘Cruelty’ and ‘desertion’. The term ‘Cruelty’ has not been defined in the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, but its wide import has been encapsulated in the various judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In the case of case of Vishwanath Agrawal v. Sarla Vishwanath Agrawal, (2012) 7 SCC 288, it has held as follows:- 22. The expression “cruelty” has an inseparable nexus with human conduct or human behaviour. It is always dependent upon the social strata or the milieu to which the parties belong, their ways of life, relationship, temperaments and emotions that have been conditioned by their social status. 25. After so stating, this Court observed in Shobha Rani case about the marked change in life in modern times and the sea change in matrimonial duties and responsibilities. It has been observed that: (SCC p. 108, para 5) “5. … when a spouse makes a complaint about the treatment of cruelty by the partner in life or relations, the court should not search for standard in life. A set of facts stigmatised as cruelty in one case may not be so in another case. The cruelty alleged may largely depend upon the type of life the parties are accustomed to or their economic and social conditions. It may also depend upon their culture and human values to which they attach importance.” : 26. Their Lordships in Shobha Rani case referred to the observations made in Sheldon v. Sheldonwherein Lord Denning stated, “the categories of cruelty are not closed”. Thereafter, the Bench proceeded to state thus: (Shobha Rani case, SCC p. 109, paras 5-6) “5. … Each case may be different. We deal with the conduct of human beings who are not generally similar. Among the human beings there is no limit to the kind of conduct which may constitute cruelty. New type of cruelty may crop up in any case depending upon the human behaviour, capacity or incapability to tolerate the conduct complained of. Such is the wonderful (sic) realm of cruelty. 6. These preliminary observations are intended to emphasise that the court in matrimonial cases is not concerned with ideals in family life. The court has only to understand the spouses concerned as nature made them, and consider their particular grievance. As Lord Reid observed in Gollins v. Gollins: (All ER p. 972 G-H) ‘… In matrimonial affairs we are not dealing with objective standards, it is not a matrimonial offence to fall below the standard of the reasonable man (or the reasonable woman). We are dealing with this man or this woman.’” 7 | P a g e 15. In Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh reported in (2007) 4 SCC 511 it has been held as follows:- 99. Human mind is extremely complex and human behaviour is equally complicated. Similarly human ingenuity has no bound, therefore, to assimilate the entire human behaviour in one definition is almost impossible. What is cruelty in one case may not amount to cruelty in other case. The concept of cruelty differs from person to person depending upon his upbringing, level of sensitivity, educational, family and cultural background, financial position, social status, customs, traditions, religious beliefs, human values and their value system. 100. Apart from this, the concept of mental cruelty cannot remain static; it is bound to change with the passage of time, impact of modern culture through print and electronic media and value system, etc. etc. What may be mental cruelty now may not remain a mental cruelty after a passage of time or vice versa. There can never be any straitjacket formula or fixed parameters for determining mental cruelty in matrimonial matters. The prudent and appropriate way to adjudicate the case would be to evaluate it on its peculiar facts and circumstances while taking aforementioned factors in consideration. 16. In the backdrop of the essence of ‘Cruelty’ as noted above, we now venture into the factual aspects so to consider as to whether the plaintiff has been able to demonstrate that he was subjected to cruelty or not. The instances which according to the plaintiff constitutes cruelty against him are the misbehaviour of the defendant, at her matrimonial house, refusal to do domestic chores and the attempts made by the defendant on several occasions to commit suicide. The insinuations cast by the plaintiff upon the defendant have been categorically and emphatically denied by her. All the allegations made by the plaintiff are vague and without any substantive prove. The plaintiff has alleged about the defendant attempting to hang herself on two occasions and had once poured kerosene upon her to immolate herself. These are serious allegations which would have necessitated appropriate remedy on the part of the plaintiff. However, the plaintiff seems to have neither informed the authorities about such act of the defendant nor has he taken any steps to intimate the family members of the defendant. Keeping silent on the repeated acts of attempting to commit suicide by 8 | P a g e the defendant would itself reveal the farcical nature of such allegations. The plaintiff has asserted that the defendant was suffering from T.B. and he had taken all efforts in her recovery by getting her the best of medical treatment. This fact has been supported by the defendant in her evidence as D.W. 1. The plaintiff cannot derive any mileage from such act of his as being the husband it was his bounden duty to have taken care of his wife. In fact, this would show the love and affection of the plaintiff towards the defendant and his claim of being subjected to cruelty becomes more susceptible. The instances highlighted by the plaintiff barring the attempts to commit suicide which we have already negated are the mere wear and tear, a marital life undergoes with its distinctive trials and tribulations. Nothing has been stated by the plaintiff which would make it an impossibility for the plaintiff to continue with his marital life with the defendant. 17. So far as ‘Desertion’ is concerned, the defendant has stated that demand of dowry was made and she was subjected to torture. There appears to be a discrepancy with respect to the date of desertion as though the plaintiff and his witnesses have stated about 11.08.2014 being the date when the defendant left for her parental house never to come back again, the defendant and her witnesses have mentioned 11.08.2016, which if taken into consideration would frustrate the claim of the plaintiff regarding desertion as the same would be within the period of two years preceding the presentation of the petition by the plaintiff. Even if we leave aside the inconsistency in the date of desertion, the other features prevalent in the case also does not point to the desertion of the plaintiff by the defendant. The plaintiff has not stated about any attempts made by him to restore normalcy in his marital life and the willingness of the defendant to live with the plaintiff has been thwarted by him which can be deciphered from the cross examination of the defendant (DW-1). Thus there has been no willful abandonment on the part of the defendant of the plaintiff and hence ‘desertion’ also could not be proved by the plaintiff. 9 | P a g e 18. The learned trial court has rightly considered Issue No. 3 in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiff. We do not find any reasons to conclude otherwise and consequently, we dismiss this appeal. Pending I.As., if any, stand closed. (RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.) (ARUN KUMAR RAI, J.) MK