Neutral Citation: ( 2025:JHHC:18246-DB ) F.A. No. 35 of 2023 [Against the judgment and decree dated 18.01.2023 (decree signed on 31.01.2023) passed by Sri Surendra Nath Mishra, learned Addl. Principal Judge, Addl. Family Court, Dhanbad in Original Suit No. 592 of 2018.] Sumit Kumar, S/o Dr. Vijay Kumar, R/o HIG-32 Plot, Housing Colony, P.O. & P.S.- Dhanbad, Dist.- Dhanbad. ... Appellant Versus Ekta Singh, W/o Sumit Kumar, D/o Dr. Surendra Kumar Singh, R/oH. No. K/21, Dalmia Nagar, P.O. & P.S.- Dalmia Nagar, Dist.- Rohtas, Bihar. … Respondent ---- PRESENT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI ---- For the Appellant : Mr. Pradeep Kumar, Adv. For the Respondent : Md. Zaid Ahmed, Adv. ---- CAV on : 27/03/2025 Pronounced on: 08/04/2025 Per Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. : 1. Heard Mr. Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Md. Zaid Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 18.01.2023 (decree signed on 31.01.2023) passed by Sri Surendra Nath Mishra, learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court No.-II, Dhanbad in Original Suit No. 592/18 whereby and whereunder, the suit preferred by the appellant for dissolution of his marriage with the respondent has been dismissed. 3. For the sake of convenience, both parties are referred to in this judgment as per their status before the learned trial court. 4. The petitioner/husband (appellant herein) had preferred a suit under Section 13-(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage, Act 1955 for dissolution of his marriage with the respondent/wife (respondent herein) in which, inter alia, it has been stated that the marriage of the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 29.05.2015 at Kusumbihar Mangalam Vivah Sthan, Dhanbad as per Hindu Neutral Citation: ( 2025:JHHC:18246-DB ) 2 | P a g e rites and customs. After the marriage, the respondent came to reside at her matrimonial house and the marriage was consummated and a male child was also born to them. The petitioner is an MBA graduate, who was doing a private job. It has been stated that after a few days of marital bliss, the respondent started misbehaving and maltreating the petitioner and his parents. The respondent started creating pressure over the petitioner to sever all his ties with his parents and reside separately after taking the entire property from them being the only son of his parents. The respondent would call her parents and, on their instigation, would put pressure on the family of the petitioner to transfer a house property of the father of the petitioner at Patna in her name failing which, the respondent had threatened to implicate the entire family members in a false dowry related case. The mother of the petitioner, due to the cruel behaviour of the respondent, suffered mental trauma and shock. On 07.062015, the respondent had assaulted the petitioner in the presence of his parents and used expletives humiliating him in front of his parents. Due to the constant threat of false implication, the petitioner and his family members informed the father of the respondent, who took her to his house on 08.06.2015 and after staying for two months at her parents’ place and on account of some mediation, she came back to her matrimonial house. The respondent, however, did not change her behaviour and continued to extract huge money from the family of the petitioner and also used to transmit the same on a regular basis to her father. It has been stated that the respondent even on trivial issues started quarrelling, screaming and shouting apart from abusing the petitioner and his family members. On 25.09.2015, the friends of the petitioner along with their wives had come to the house of the petitioner for a family get together, but the respondent was not inclined to interact with them, rather she misbehaved with them and warned the petitioner not to maintain any relationship with them. This resulted in a feeling of deep anguish, frustration Neutral Citation: ( 2025:JHHC:18246-DB ) 3 | P a g e and disappointment in the mind of the petitioner. It has further been stated that on 07.02.2017, the respondent, without any reasonable cause, had left her matrimonial house for her parents’ place and filed false criminal cases relating to dowry and harassment against the petitioner and his family members. Due to the constant act of misbehaviour and threat on the part of the respondent, the parents of the petitioner developed mental stress for which they had to undergo treatment by neuropsychiatrist Dr. P.K. Choudhury. The father of the petitioner developed diabetes due to such mental stress. In the criminal case instituted by the respondent, the petitioner and his family members were discharged as the respondent did not contest the case. The petitioner had filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights before the Family Court, Dhanbad but had to withdraw the same as the respondent had come back to reside with the petitioner. The father of the respondent wrote a letter making false allegations with a warning that the father of the petitioner should not dispose of the property, nor should withdraw money from the bank account of the petitioner. It has been stated that on 14.07.2014, the respondent had called her father, collected jewellery worth Rs. 3 lakhs given to her by the family of the petitioner, abused the petitioner, slapped the mother of the petitioner in his presence and left the house. It has become impossible for the petitioner to stay with the respondent and any further attempt to renew the cohabitation would cause danger to the life, limb and health of the petitioner. 5. On being noticed, the respondent had appeared and filed her written statement in which she has denied the allegations made against her and has further stated that the petitioner had tortured her mentally and physically for non-fulfilment of the demand of dowry and had also ousted her from her matrimonial house for which the respondent had filed a complaint case being Complaint Case No. 80/17. The respondent had also filed a case of maintenance against the petitioner under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The Neutral Citation: ( 2025:JHHC:18246-DB ) 4 | P a g e petitioner, in order to save himself from the said cases, had filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights being Original Suit No. 217/17. All these cases were compromised and disposed of on the basis of undertaking. It has been stated that thereafter the petitioner had brought the respondent and the child to his house and during such period the respondent had conceived but the fetus was aborted in the presence of the petitioner and his relatives due to the unlawful demand of dowry and the respondent was once again subjected to mental and physical torture and was ousted from her matrimonial house which resulted in her taking shelter at her parents’ place. It has been stated that the respondent was compelled to file Complaint Case No. 802/18 under Section 498A and 354B against the petitioner and his relatives, Domestic violence Case No. 05/2018 and M.P. Case No. 180/18 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The respondent, on the earlier occasion, had tried her best to take care of the petitioner as a dutiful wife but the petitioner, after compromising all the previous cases, brought her back to her matrimonial house and once again resorted to his early behaviour and demand of dowry and she was also ousted from 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 petitioner has valid cause of action for the suit? (iii) Whether the marriage of the petitioner and the respondent is fit to be dissolved on the ground of cruelty allegedly administered by respondent? (iv) Whether petitioner is entitled for the relief claimed? 7. The petitioner in support of his case has examined two Neutral Citation: ( 2025:JHHC:18246-DB ) 5 | P a g e witnesses: P.W.1 Sumit Kumar is the petitioner who has stated that his marriage was solemnized with the respondent on 29.09.2015 as per Hindu rites and customs at Mangalam Vivah Sthan, Kusumvihar, Dhanbad in which the expenses incurred was Rs 13 lakhs out of which, Rs 5 lakhs was given by the father of the respondent. After the marriage, the respondent came to stay at her matrimonial house at Dhanbad and out of the said wedlock a son was born. His father is a doctor, who has superannuated from BCCL. He has stated that there was marital bliss at the initial stage of the marriage but later on the respondent started misbehaving with him and his parents and also humiliated him. The respondent started creating pressure upon him to sever all ties with his parents after getting the transfer of all the properties in his name since he was the sole heir to the huge property of his father. The respondent had called her father and started creating pressure upon him to transfer the property at Patna in the name of the respondent. Due to the constant threat and misbehaviour of the respondent, his mother became mentally ill. On 07.06.2015, the respondent in the presence of his parents had abused him and on the fear of being falsely implicated in criminal cases, the father of the respondent was called who had taken the respondent to his house on 08.06.2015. After two months, due to the efforts of the family members for a settlement, the respondent came back to her matrimonial house. However, there was no perceptible change in the behaviour of the respondent and she, after taking money from his family, started sending it to her father. The respondent used to quarrel on trivial issues and abuse him and his family members and had also struck him with a slipper several times. The respondent never did any domestic chores and always used to converse with someone over mobile by closing the door. When some members of his family and friends took the initiative to resolve the attrition between him and the respondent, the respondent misbehaved with them. On Neutral Citation: ( 2025:JHHC:18246-DB ) 6 | P a g e 25.09.2015, some of his friends had come to his house, but the respondent misbehaved with them and warned him not to keep any relation with his friends. He has further stated that on 07.02.2017, the respondent without any justifiable reasons had left her matrimonial house at Dalmia Nagar by issuing a threat of instituting false cases against him and his family members. Due to the mental trauma suffered on account of the acts of the respondent, his father became a patient of diabetes while his mother had to get herself treated by a psychiatrist. On account of the false case instituted against him and his family members, they had to go to Dehri on Sone, where they were discharged since the respondent did not choose to contest the case. He had also filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights which he had withdrawn since the respondent had returned back to her matrimonial house. The respondent had agreed to stay with him on the condition that his property will not be sold and the flat situated at Patna will be transferred in the name of the respondent. The respondent in his absence, and in absence of his parents had taken out the bank records and property related documents from the Almirah and after getting them photocopied, had kept it back in the Almirah. After the criminal case at Dehri on Sone was dropped, there was no change in the behaviour of the respondent who expressed her intention to bring her parents to the house after his parents breathed their last. On 14.07.2018, the respondent had taken away jewellery worth Rs. 8 lakhs which was given to her by his family members. The respondent had abused him in front of his parents and had also slapped his mother. In cross-examination, he has deposed that he does not remember about any pressure created by the father of the respondent to transfer the property in the name of the respondent otherwise, he and his family members will be implicated in dowry related cases. The incidents described at Para 5 of his sworn statement was never reported to any authority or to the Police. Neutral Citation: ( 2025:JHHC:18246-DB ) 7 | P a g e P.W.2 Dr. Vijay Kumar is the father of the petitioner who has reiterated what has been stated by P.W.1 in his sworn statement. In cross-examination, he has deposed that he does not have any knowledge that the father of the respondent had given a written report to the Officer-in-Charge, Mahila P.S. regarding the abortion of the respondent. It is correct to say that in Complaint Case No. 80/17, the petitioner had given a bond undertaking to keep the respondent with him with full dignity and care. 8. The respondent has examined only herself as a witness: D.W.1 Ekta Singh @ Kumari Ekta Singh has stated about the solemnization of her marriage with the petitioner and on 14.06.2015, when she came to her matrimonial house, she found her mother-in-law sick and the petitioner had disclosed that since his brother had committed suicide, his mother had gone into a coma and she is being treated at Ranchi by a psychiatrist. After the birth of a child, the petitioner and his family members started demanding a four-wheeler and on objection, she used to be assaulted. She had gone to her parents' place on 27.04.2016 and after a mediation was made, she returned back to her matrimonial house on 18.08.2016. She has stated that when her son was severely ill, her mother had come to Dhanbad on 30.01.2017 and she stayed for a week. On 06.02.2017, the petitioner at 10:00PM came inside the room and started pressing her neck and when she and her mother, who was also sleeping in the same room raised a cry of alarm, the father of the petitioner came and while abusing started assaulting her mother with slippers. The petitioner had assaulted her with a danda on her left hand. When she had informed her father about the incident, he came on 07.02.2017 at 8:00AM and took away her and her mother with him to Dehri where she was treated by a doctor. She had filed a case related to dowry in Dehri being Case No. 80/17 but later on, due to the bond given by the petitioner and on her prayer, the case was closed. She has stated that on 29.05.2018, she was kicked by the petitioner Neutral Citation: ( 2025:JHHC:18246-DB ) 8 | P a g e and his family members as a result of which she had a miscarriage. The entire episode was informed by her to her father in writing pursuant to which, her father had made a written complaint in Mahila P.S. Dhanbad for registering an FIR, but no FIR was registered. When she expressed her desire to sit in the examination for L.L.B., she was assaulted and the petitioner wanted to keep her in the house as a maid servant. On 14.07.2018, when her father arrived at her matrimonial house to take her back, he was assaulted by the petitioner as a result of which, his father suffered a serious injury on the retina and he lost one eye forever. The petitioner, in front of her father, had torn her clothes making her half naked. When after completion of her examination, she returned to Dhanbad on 05.08.2018, the petitioner and his family members did not allow her entry to the house and chased her away and thereafter, had filed a suit for dissolution of marriage on 10.08.2018. She has expressed her desire to resume a peaceful marital life with the petitioner provided the family members submit a bond before the Court for her security as well as the security of her child failing which she is ready for a one-time settlement. In cross-examination, she has deposed that she is staying separate from the respondent for the last three and half years. She had given an application before the Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court, Dhanbad in which at para-11, it has been stated that she is ready for a settlement if the amount given is Rs. 75 lakhs. It is correct to say that in C.P. Case No. 802/18, on a Court question, she had stated that she does not want to stay with her husband. She is ready to stay with her husband, if her husband and in-laws does not commit mental cruelty upon her. Her husband is a businessman whose annual income is Rs. 60 lakhs. 9. It has been submitted by Mr. Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant that the petitioner has been able to prove cruelty as he had given several instances which would indicate the cruel manner in which the petitioner had been treated Neutral Citation: ( 2025:JHHC:18246-DB ) 9 | P a g e throughout his marital life. In spite of the best efforts of the petitioner, the respondent who had a greedy eye over the property of the petitioner, refused to resume conjugal life with the petitioner and only in order to create mental pressure upon the petitioner, the respondent had filed several cases against the petitioner and his family members. 10. Mr. Md. Zaid Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/wife has submitted that the respondent was repeatedly ousted from her matrimonial house and was tortured for non- fulfilment of the demand of dowry and the criminal cases instituted against the petitioner is a pointer to the said fact. 11. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also perused the trial court records. 12. Issue number (iii) is the pivotal issue as the same relates to the allegation of cruelty inflicted upon the petitioner by the respondent. “Cruelty” is not defined in the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, but the term “cruelty” has gained muscle over a period of time by virtue of several judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court demarcating the ever-expanding features of cruelty. In the case of Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi reported in (1988) 1 SCC 105, it has been held as follows: “4. Section 13(1)(i-a) uses the words “treated the petitioner with cruelty”. The word “cruelty” has not been defined. Indeed it could not have been defined. 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 of one which is adversely affecting the other. The cruelty may be mental or physical, intentional or unintentional. If it is physical the court will have no problem to determine it. It is a question of fact and degree. If it is mental the problem presents difficulty. First, the enquiry must begin as to the nature of the cruel treatment. Second, the impact of such treatment on the mind of the spouse. Whether it caused reasonable apprehension that it would be harmful or injurious to live with the other. Ultimately, Neutral Citation: ( 2025:JHHC:18246-DB ) 10 | P a g e it is a matter of inference to be drawn by taking into account the nature of the conduct and its effect on the complaining spouse. There may, however, be cases where the conduct complained of itself is bad enough and per se unlawful or illegal. Then the impact or the injurious effect on the other spouse need not be enquired into or considered. In such cases, the cruelty will be established if the conduct itself is proved or admitted.” 13. In the case of A.Jayachandra v. Aneel Kaur reported in (2005) 2 SCC 22 it has been held as under: “10. The expression "cruelty" has not been defined in the Act. Cruelty can be physical or mental. Cruelty which is a ground for dissolution of marriage may be defined as willful and unjustifiable conduct of such character as to cause danger to life, limb or health, bodily or mental, or as to give rise to a reasonable apprehension of such a danger. The question of mental cruelty has to be considered in the light of the norms of marital ties of the particular society to which the parties belong, their social values, status, environment in which they live. Cruelty, as noted above, includes mental cruelty, which falls within the purview of a matrimonial wrong. Cruelty need not be physical. If from the conduct of his spouse same is established and/or an inference can be legitimately drawn that the treatment of the spouse is such that it causes an apprehension in the mind of the other spouse, about his or her mental welfare then this conduct amounts to cruelty. In delicate human relationship like matrimony, one has to see the probabilities of the case. The concept, a proof beyond the shadow of doubt, is to be applied to criminal trials and not to civil matters and certainly not to matters of such delicate personal relationship as those of husband and wife. Therefore, one has to see what are the probabilities in a case and legal cruelty has to be found out, not merely as a matter of fact, but as the effect on the mind of the complainant spouse because of the acts or omissions of the other. Cruelty may be physical or corporeal or may be mental. In physical cruelty, there can be tangible and direct evidence, but in the case of mental cruelty there may not at the Neutral Citation: ( 2025:JHHC:18246-DB ) 11 | P a g e same time be direct evidence. In cases where there is no direct evidence, Courts are required to probe into the mental process and mental effect of incidents that are brought out in evidence. It is in this view that one has to consider the evidence in matrimonial disputes. 11. The expression ’cruelty’ 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. Cruelty is a course or conduct of one, which is adversely affecting the other. The cruelty may be mental or physical, intentional or unintentional. If it is physical, the Court will have no problem in determining it. It is a question of fact and degree. If it is mental, the problem presents difficulties. First, the enquiry must begin as to the nature of cruel treatment, second the impact of such treatment in the mind of the spouse, whether it caused reasonable apprehension that it would be harmful or injurious to live with the other. Ultimately, it is a matter of inference to be drawn by taking into account the nature of the conduct and its effect on the complaining spouse. However, there may be a case where the conduct complained of itself is bad enough and per se unlawful or illegal. Then the impact or injurious effect on the other spouse need not be enquired into or considered. In such cases, the cruelty will be established if the conduct itself is proved or admitted (See Sobh Rani v. Madhukar Reddi, AIR 1988 SC 121). 12. To constitute cruelty, the conduct complained of should be "grave and weighty" so as to come to the conclusion that the petitioner spouse cannot be reasonably expected to live with the other spouse. It must be something more serious than "ordinary wear and tear of married life". The conduct, taking into consideration the circumstances and background has to be examined to reach the conclusion whether the conduct complained of amounts to cruelty in the matrimonial law. Conduct has to be considered, as noted above, in the background of several factors such as social status of parties, their education, physical and mental conditions, customs and traditions. It is difficult to lay down a precise definition or to give exhaustive description of the circumstances, which would Neutral Citation: ( 2025:JHHC:18246-DB ) 12 | P a g e constitute cruelty. It must be of the type as to satisfy the conscience of the Court that the relationship between the parties had deteriorated to such an extent due to the conduct of the other spouse that it would be impossible for them to live together without mental agony, torture or distress, to entitle the complaining spouse to secure divorce. Physical violence is not absolutely essential to constitute cruelty and a consistent course of conduct inflicting immeasurable mental agony and torture may well constitute cruelty within the meaning of Section 10 of the Act. Mental cruelty may consist of verbal abuses and insults by using filthy and abusive language leading to constant disturbance of mental peace of the other party.” 14. So far as the present case is concerned, on a consideration of the averments made in the application for dissolution of marriage and the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2, the allegations are centred around the refusal to do domestic chores and not act as a dutiful wife, concentrating on the property of the petitioner and his father in the hope of grabbing the same, putting pressure upon the petitioner to stay separate from his parents and the threat meted out to the petitioner to implicate him in false dowry related cases. All these allegations seem to pale when we consider the written statement and the evidence of the respondent in which apart from denying the allegations, specific instances have been highlighted showing the manner in which the respondent instead have been subjected to torture. As per the admission of P.W.2, the father of the petitioner in Complaint Case No. 80/17, the petitioner had given a bond that he will keep the respondent with him with full dignity and honour. This itself would certify the truthfulness of the allegations made by the respondent. In fact, the petitioner, in his cross examination, has denied about any pressure put by the father of the respondent to transfer the property in the name of the respondent failing which the petitioner and his family members would be implicated in dowry related cases. From the allegations made, it would transpire that the same are vague and general in Neutral Citation: ( 2025:JHHC:18246-DB ) 13 | P a g e nature, most of which have been contradicted by the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and are also not of such nature which would lead to a threat to the life and limb of the petitioner. On the other hand, as noted hereinbefore, it is the respondent who seems to be at the receiving end of the conduct of the petitioner and inspite of the same, she has expressed her inclination to resume her marital life with the petitioner. The learned trial court, on an overall conspectus of the case, has rightly answered issue no. (iii) in favour of the respondent and against the petitioner and having found no error in the impugned judgment dated 18.01.2023, we hereby dismiss this appeal. 15. Pending I.A.s, if any, stands closed. (RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.) (ARUN KUMAR RAI, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi. Dated the 8th Day of April 2025. Preet/N.A.F.R.