2025:JHHC:15393-DB 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI F.A. No. 118 of 2022 ------ Munna Kumar, aged about- 29 years Son of Ram Jivan Ram resident of village Kusua, P.O. Japla P.S. Hussainabad, District – Palamu (Jharkhand) Permanent address Karra Road Torpa P.O. & P.S. Torpa District – Khunti (Jharkhand) ... Appellant/Plaintiff Versus Rumi Singh, wife of Munna Kumar, D/o Late Bishwanath Singh aged about- 31 Years present address Bhuli Nagar, Sector- 3 Room No. 48 P.O. Bhuli P.S. Bank More District- Dhanbad (Jharkhand), Permanent address- Karra Road Torpa P.O. & P.S. Torpa District- Khunti (Jharkhand) ... Respondent/Defendant CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR ------ For the Appellant : Mr. S.K. Vishwakarma, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. ------ 09/Dated: 10th June, 2025 1. It appears from the order dated 09.06.2025 that due to some typographical error, the date of listing of the instant case has wrongly been typed as “16th June, 2025” instead of “10th June, 2025”. 2. This Court, taking into consideration the same, is of the view that the order dated 09.06.2025 needs to be modified to the extent that the date of listing mentioned in paragraph-2 of the said order is to be replaced by “10th June, 2025” in place of “16th June, 2025”. 3. Accordingly, the order dated 09.06.2025 passed by this Court is modified and the date of listing mentioned in paragraph-2 be read as “10th June, 2025” instead of “16th June, 2025”. The rest part of the order shall remain intact. 2025:JHHC:15393-DB 2 4. This appeal is under Clause 19(1) of the Family Court’s Act, 1984 directed against the order dated 05.04.2022 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge (Family Court No. 1) Dhanbad in Original Suit No. 460 of 2020 and decree dated 20.04.2022, whereby and whereunder the petition filed under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act has been dismissed. 5. The brief facts as per the pleading are need to be referred herein which reads as under: 6. The parties have entered into marriage on 15.05.2016 at Liloristhan, Katras Bazar under district Dhanbad, thereafter the respondent and her family member started to torture the appellant physically and mentally repeatedly. In this regard on 26.07.2016 the matter has been settled before the Officer of Superintendent of Police, Dhanbad and the conjugal life of both the parties has been restored but on 15.02.2018 one bond was executed between the parties but respondent refused to live with the plaintiff/appellant and started torturing him by using filthy language, as a result of this, the plaintiff/husband (appellant herein) felt cruelty, and thereafter filed original Suit being Original Suit No. 460 of 2020 under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of their marriage. 7. In support of his case, altogether three witnesses have been examined on behalf of the plaintiff/appellant. The plaintiff/appellant has examined himself as PW1 and brother and friend of the plaintiff/appellant has been examined as P.W.2 & 3 respectively. 2025:JHHC:15393-DB 3 8. The defendant/ respondent wife had not appeared before the learned Family Court in spite of the proper summon and the aforesaid suit was taken ex-parte. 9. On the basis of the testimony of the witnesses and after considering the relevant documents, the learned Family Judge has dismissed the aforesaid against which the present appeal has been preferred. Submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant: 10. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the present appeal has been preferred on the ground that there is no consideration on the issue of cruelty even though the element of cruelty has specifically been stated by the different witnesses produced on behalf of the appellants. It has been contended that the pleading made in the case has fully been supported to establish the issue of cruelty, but even then, cruelty has not been found to be substantiated as per the judgment passed by the learned Family Judge, hence the present appeal. 11. Learned counsel has submitted in course if the argument that the defendant-wife is not living with the husband and as such, the same itself has contained the element of cruelty but even the same has not been taken into consideration. 12. Further, the learned counsel, based upon the aforesaid ground, has submitted that therefore the impugned judgment needs interference. 2025:JHHC:15393-DB 4 Analysis: 13. It needs to refer herein that notice was issued upon the respondent/wife vide order dated 14.07.2023 passed by the Co- ordinate Bench. It appears from the office note dated 01.08.2023 that requisite etc has been filed in time and notice has been issued upon the respondent wife. But the respondent wife has has not appeared. 14. This Court is of the view that the serving of notice is complete and the learned counsel for the appellant admittedly argued has argued the matter on merit. 15. It needs to refer herein that the respondent even has not appeared before the learned Family Judge therefore learned Family Court has constrained to post the matter for ex parte hearing, thereafter the impugned judgment has been passed. 16. This Court, before entering into the legality and propriety of the impugned judgment needs to refer herein the evidence which has been adduced by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, which reads as under: PW-1, Munna Kumar, the plaintiff himself has stated that his marriage was solemnized with the defendant on 15.05.2016 at Lilori sthan Temple, Katras, Dhanbad according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. He has stated that after marriage, the defendant came to his house where she lived properly about 1-2 days but thereafter, she 2025:JHHC:15393-DB 5 started torturing the plaintiff and his family members, physically and mentally. He has stated that the defendant abused him in most filthy language and also threatened him of dire consequences for which, the plaintiff had reported the matter to the concerned Police Station as well as S.P. Dhanbad. He has stated that an agreement was made on 16.07.2018 between him and his wife/defendant to lead their conjugal life peacefully but after few days, she left her matrimonial home along with all her Stridhan. He has stated that whenever he tried to convince his wife and her family members with a view to restore his conjugal life, he was tortured physically and mentally by them. He has stated that the character of defendant is not good and, in this connection, he had filed Information Petion No. 4/2020 before the Court of the learned CJM Khunti. He has stated that the defendant never lived with him as husband and wife resulting therein, they are having no issue out of their wedlock. He has stated that they are having no issue out of their wedlock and in the year- 2018, his wife left him. He tried his best to bring her back but she refused for the same. He has stated that except the present suit, he has not filed any case against his wife-defendant on the other hand, his wife has also not filed any case against him. PW-2, Vivek Kumar is the brother whereas PW-3, Bikash Rabidas is the friend of plaintiff and they have also supported the case of plaintiff as well as evidence in their affidavit examination in chief. They have stated that the marriage of the plaintiff was solemnized 2025:JHHC:15393-DB 6 with the defendant in the year-2016 but they are having no issue out of their wedlock and in the year-2018, the defendant left her matrimonial home. They have stated that the defendant misbehaved with the plaintiff and his family members and treated the plaintiff with cruelty. They have stated that the plaintiff tried his best to restore his conjugal life with the defendant but the defendant refused for the same and left her matrimonial home. They have stated that except the present suit, the plaintiff has not filed any case against his wife, but they are having no knowledge about the fact that whether the defendant has filed any case against the plaintiff or not. 17. The learned Family Judge, after taking into consideration the evidence adduced on behalf of the husband, come to conclusive finding by considering the interpretation/definition of Cruelty as has been propounded by the Hon’ble Apex Court in different decisions and thereafter, came to the conclusion that the element of cruelty has not found and accordingly, the issue has been dismissed against which the present appeal has been preferred. 18. The argument which has been advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant is of no consideration of the evidence adduced by the husband substantiating the element of cruelty. 19. This Court, therefore, needs to refer herein the definition of cruelty has been interpreted by the Hon’ble Apex Court in different decisions which is being referred herein: 2025:JHHC:15393-DB 7 20. The ground for divorce has been taken of cruelty and desertion. The “cruelty” has been interpreted by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dr. N.G. Dastane vs. Mrs. S. Dastana, (1975) 2 SCC 326 wherein it has been laid down that the Court has to enquire, as to whether, the conduct 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. 21. This Court deems it fit and proper to take into consideration the meaning of ‘cruelty’ as has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Shobha Rani v. 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. 22. According to the Hon’ble Apex Court, “cruelty” is the “conduct in relation to or in respect of matrimonial conduct in respect of matrimonial 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.” 23. The Hon’ble Apex Court has further observed therein that while dealing with such complaints of cruelty it is important for the court 2025:JHHC:15393-DB 8 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.” 24. 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 court in judicial proceedings may also be held to constitute cruelty. 25. 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 a cross-examination. The Hon’ble Apex Court held these allegations against the husband to constitute “cruelty”. 26. In Vijaykumar 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. 2025:JHHC:15393-DB 9 27. 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 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. 28. It is, thus, evident that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the recent judgment passed in Joydeep Majumdar v. Bharti Jaiswal Majumdar (supra) has been pleased to lay down 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 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. 29. It is evident from the aforesaid judgments, as laid down by the 2025:JHHC:15393-DB 10 Hon’ble Apex Court that conduct is cruel or not, 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 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. From the perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that learned Family Judge has taken in to consideration the aforesaid aspects of the matter while appreciating the evidences as laid by the plaintiff/appellant. 30. It is evident from statements of the witnesses that cruelty has been tried to be substantiated on the ground that the marriage was solemnized on 15.05.2016. The defendant came to her in-law’s house, lived properly only for 1-2 days, thereafter, she started torturing the plaintiff and his family members, physically and mentally, by using filthy language and also threatened him of consequence of which the plaintiff has reported the matter to the concerned Police Station as well as Superintendent of Police, Dhanbad. 31. The reference of one agreement, said to be executed on 16.07.2018, between the husband and the wife, has also been made in the impugned judgment to live their matrimonial life peacefully but again she has not lived the matrimonial life peacefully and the same has been considered to be cruelty by the husband, based upon the aforesaid ground, it has been filed. 2025:JHHC:15393-DB 11 32. PW-2, the brother of the plaintiff and PW-3, the friend of the plaintiff has supported the case of the plaintiff, the appellant herein. 33. The learned Family Court, while appreciating the testimony of PW-1, the plaintiff himself, who has narrated the story of cruelty and physical and mental torture meted to the husband and his family members has been taken a ground to substantiate the element of cruelty. 34. The learned Family Court has taken into consideration the term Cruelty, which has been interpreted by Hon’ble Apex Court as also referred the judgment rendered in this regard by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sobha Rani V. Madhukar Reddy, (1998) SCC 105 as also considered the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of A. Jayachandra V. Aneel Kaur AIR 2005 SC 534, wherein the term Cruelty has been defined laying down the proposition that Mere trivial irritation, quarrels between spouses, which happen in day-to-day married life, may also not amount to cruelty. 35. It has also been laid down that to constituted cruelty, the conduct complained of should be “grave and weighty” so as to come to the conclusion that the petitioner spouse cannot be reasonably expected to live with the other spouse. It must be something more serious than “ordinary wear and tear of married life”. 36. The learned Court, based upon the aforesaid interpretation of the 2025:JHHC:15393-DB 12 term Cruelty and going through the testimony of the witnesses has come to the conclusion that the element of cruelty has not been found to be substantiated, hence the learned Family Judge dismissed the suit. 37. This Court, on consideration of the aforesaid finding coupled with the interpretation of the term Cruelty and after taking into consideration the testimony of the plaintiff wherein the only reference of trivial irritations has been made which is the admitted case of the husband, no grave and weighty allegations to substantiate the cruelty has been adduced by the husband. 38. The learned Family Judge has considered the aforesaid issues, and the testimony of PW-1 (appellant/ husband) which led the court to dismiss the suit, which in our considered view, needs no interference. 39. Accordingly, the present first appeal being F.A. No. 118 of 2022 stands dismissed. 40. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Rajesh Kumar, J.) Samarth/A.F.R.