Neutral Citation 2025:JHHC:32921-DB FIRST APPEAL NO. 48 OF 2023 1 First Appeal (DB) No. 48 of 2023 (Against the judgment and decree dated 27.02.2023(decree signed on 09.03.2023) passed by Sri Alok Kumar Dubey, learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bokaro in Original Suit No. 15/2020.) Pratibha, D/o Late Parshu Ram Prasad Bhagat, R/o Jyanti- 08, Phase-01, Road No. 1, Vastu Vihar, Chira Chas, P.O. & P.S.- Chas, Dist.- Bokaro. ... Appellant Versus Manoj Kumar, S/o Kamal Kishore Bhagat, R/o Referral Hospital, Amor, P.O. & P.S.- Amor, Dist.- Purnia, Bihar. … Respondent ---- PRESENT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ---- For the Appellant : Ms. Saumya Pandey, Adv. For the Respondent : Mr. Nisith Kr. Sahani, Adv. ---- Dated : 03/11/2025 JUDGMENT Per Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. : 1. Heard Ms. Saumya Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. N.K. Sahani, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgement and decree dated 27.02.2023 (decree signed on 09.03.2023) passed by Sri Alok Kumar Dubey, learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bokaro in Original Suit No. 15/2020 whereby and whereunder, the suit preferred by the respondent for dissolution of his marriage with the appellant has been allowed. 3. For the sake of convenience, both the parties are referred to in this judgment as per their status before the learned trial court. Neutral Citation 2025:JHHC:32921-DB FIRST APPEAL NO. 48 OF 2023 2 4. The petitioner/husband (respondent herein) had filed a suit for dissolution of his marriage with the respondent/wife (appellant herein) under Section 13(1)(i-a)(i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 wherein it has been stated that the marriage of the petitioner was solemnised with the respondent on 20.02.2007 at Alkapuri, Ratu Road, Ranchi, according to Hindu rites and customs. Out of the said wedlock, a daughter was born who was named Krishna. In the first night of the marriage, the respondent had forced the petitioner not to sleep on the bed and had used vulgar language as a result of which the petitioner had to spend the entire night sleeping on the ground. The respondent always used to issue threats of committing suicide and falsely implicating the petitioner and his family members. The respondent always neglected the parents of the petitioner and when the petitioner refused to reside separately from his parents as was desired by the respondent, the respondent started unnatural behaviour with them. Due to such behaviour and the use of filthy language, the father of the petitioner had filed an Information Petition before C.J.M. Bokaro vide Informatory Petition No. 374/2010. It has been stated that the petitioner has joined as a Pharmacist on 31.12.2014 at Referral Hospital, Amor, Purnia, Bihar and since the date of his joining, the respondent and her brothers had a greedy eye over the land and double-storied building of the mother of the petitioner situated at Chas, Bokaro. The respondent had lodged a false criminal case against the petitioner and his family members in Chas P.S. Case No. 457/2015 and the petitioner was sent to jail on 20.10.2015. The parents and brother of the petitioner were ousted from the building of the mother of the petitioner and since then, the respondent is residing in the said building. After the petitioner had come out of jail, he was threatened by the respondent and her brother for which the petitioner had filed an Neutral Citation 2025:JHHC:32921-DB FIRST APPEAL NO. 48 OF 2023 3 informatory application being Informatory Petition No. 31/2016. The respondent had thereafter, filed a case for maintenance being O.M.C. No. 89/2017 and the respondent is getting an amount of maintenance of Rs. 11,500/- per month. The petitioner has always been willing to discharge the duties of a husband, but the respondent on the other hand, has treated the petitioner with cruelty and has also deserted him. 5. On being noticed, the respondent has appeared and filed her written statement in which the allegations made by the petitioner has been denied. The respondent had given due respect to the petitioner and his family members and had never misbehaved with them. When the respondent became pregnant, the petitioner had a prenatal test and on coming to know about the gender of the fetus, pressure was created upon the respondent to abort the fetus but when she resisted, she was subjected to physical and mental torture. On 18.12.2008, the respondent gave birth to a daughter and the entire medical expenses were borne by her parents. When the respondent went to her matrimonial house after the birth of her daughter, she was given one room to stay and she was repeatedly subjected to torture by the petitioner and his family members. On 18.10.2015, the respondent was pressurised to leave her matrimonial house and when she refused, she was assaulted for which she had made a complaint to Chas P.S. The petitioner was sent to jail on account of his rigid stance towards the respondent despite the Police and the administration making efforts by advising the petitioner not to repeat such acts. When the respondent had asked for maintenance from the petitioner for herself as well as her daughter, the petitioner flatly refused and ultimately, the respondent had filed a case for maintenance in which an order was passed for making payment of maintenance of Rs. 11,500/- per month. Due to this reason, the petitioner had Neutral Citation 2025:JHHC:32921-DB FIRST APPEAL NO. 48 OF 2023 4 got disconnected the electrical connection in the house at Chira Chas and the respondent is still staying in the said house without any electricity. 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 got valid cause of action for the suit? (iii) Whether the respondent committed subjected to cruelty against the petitioner after marriage? (iv) Whether the respondent deserted her husband since last two years prior to filing of the suit and is entitled to get a Decree of dissolution of marriage on the basis of Section 13(1)(i-a)(i-b) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955? (v) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for? 7. The petitioner has examined as many as two witnesses in support of his case: P.W.1 Manoj Kumar is the petitioner who has stated about solemnisation of his marriage with the respondent on 20.02.2007 and out of the wedlock, a daughter was born. In the first night, no conjugal relationship was established and he had to sleep on the ground and the respondent used to abuse and humiliate him. The respondent used to commit cruelty upon him and his family members and used to issue threats of implicating them by committing suicide. The respondent also pressurised him to get separated from his parents, but he did not agree. He has stated that the behaviour of the respondent had gone to such an extent that she had alleged of his having an affair with his mother. Due to the inhuman behaviour of the respondent, his father had given an information to the C.J.M., Bokaro through Informatory Petition No. 374/2010. He used to work in Bokaro as a Medical Neutral Citation 2025:JHHC:32921-DB FIRST APPEAL NO. 48 OF 2023 5 Representative and on 31.12.2014, he was appointed as a Pharmacist in Referral Hospital, Amor, Purnia and since then he started residing at his workplace. The respondent and her family members had an eye for the double storeyed house in the name of his mother and in order to grab the property, Chas P.S. Case No. 457/15 was instituted for which he had to remain in custody for three months. The respondent had ousted his parents from their house and took possession of the said house and she is still in possession of the same. After coming out of jail, he and his parents were subjected to threats and torture for which an Informatory Petition was submitted before the C.J.M., Bokaro. The respondent is taking an amount of maintenance of Rs. 11,500/- per month pursuant to the order passed in Maintenance Case No. 89/17. In cross-examination, he has deposed the respondent and his daughter stays at the house of his mother at Chira Chas. The electrical connection to the said house has been cut due to non- payment of the bills by the respondent. P.W.2 Tribhuwan Singh has more or less reiterated what has been stated by P.W.1. In cross-examination, he has deposed that the petitioner stays adjacent to his house. The petitioner and the respondent are staying separate since the year 2011. 8. The respondent has examined four witnesses in support of her case. R.W.1 Pratibha is the respondent and the wife of the petitioner who has stated that after marriage she had gone to her matrimonial house at Bokaro and out of the wedlock, a daughter was born to her. When she had become pregnant, a prenatal test was undergone by her due to the pressure of the petitioner and his family members and since it was a female fetus, she was asked to abort the fetus and when she objected, she was Neutral Citation 2025:JHHC:32921-DB FIRST APPEAL NO. 48 OF 2023 6 subjected to physical and mental torture. She had gone to her parents' place to save the fetus and ultimately, she gave birth to a daughter, the medical expenses of which was borne by her parents. When after the birth of a child, the petitioner did not take her bidai, she had gone to her matrimonial house herself where she was ignored and reprimanded and given one room to stay while the other rooms were kept under lock and key. She used to stay alone in the house and the petitioner never took her to Purnia and she was also not given any maintenance. In October 2015, she was assaulted with fists and slaps as a result of which she sustained injuries on her person. She has stated that she was compelled to lodge a case in the Police Station to save herself from the torture and the petitioner was arrested and sent to jail. At the time of bail, she had compromised the matter in the hope that she would be kept by the petitioner with dignity but after being granted bail, she was threatened by some anti-social elements to leave the house but she continued to stay there in the hope of a better future. When the petitioner had neglected to maintain her and her child, she had filed a case for maintenance and the Court had ordered payment of maintenance of Rs. 11,500/- per month. Since it became difficult to maintain herself and her daughter within the amount of Rs. 11,500/-, she has filed an application for enhancement of the maintenance amount in Maintenance Alteration Case No. 8/2021 which is pending. The petitioner had got disconnected the electrical line in his house at Chira Chas and she is compelled to reside there without any electricity. She had respected the petitioner and her in-laws and never misbehaved with them. She still desires to lead a happy conjugal life with the petitioner. In cross-examination, she has deposed that she has never filed any application before the Court that she wants to stay with Neutral Citation 2025:JHHC:32921-DB FIRST APPEAL NO. 48 OF 2023 7 the petitioner. She had also not made any complaint regarding the pressure created upon her to abort the child. After she had instituted the criminal case, there has been no conjugal relationship between her and the petitioner. It is true that since the year 2015, she is staying at Vastu Bihar. R.W.2 Shatrudhan Prasad is acquainted with both the sides who has reiterated what has been stated by R.W.1. In cross-examination, he has deposed that he knows the respondent for the last 15 years. He had attempted to get the issue resolved through the panchayat. After the case was filed by the petitioner, the respondent is staying at Vastu Bihar. R.W.3 Nageshwar Prasad is acquainted with both the sides who has also stated similar to that of R.W.2 in his sworn statement. In cross-examination, he has deposed that he is a social worker. He has not read his sworn statement nor he knows the person who has prepared such statement. He has never gone to the parent's place of the respondent. The petitioner and the respondent are staying separate for the last 7 years. R.W.4 Rajesh Kumar Prasad has also reiterated what has been stated by R.W.1 and R.W.2. In cross-examination, he has deposed that he knows the respondent for the last 13 years. 9. It has been submitted by Ms. Saumya Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant/wife that the impugned judgement is bereft of any reason which would validate the order of dissolution of marriage. Irretrievable breakdown of marriage cannot be a ground for dissolution of marriage as the same is beyond the purview of the learned trial court. It has been submitted that FRT was not submitted in favour of the respondent herein and in fact, subsequently the respondent has been convicted for the offence under Section 498A IPC vide judgement dated 19.09.2024. The Neutral Citation 2025:JHHC:32921-DB FIRST APPEAL NO. 48 OF 2023 8 respondent pursuant to the impugned order dated 27.02.2023 had deposited an amount of Rs. 15 lakhs towards permanent alimony as per the order of the learned trial court, but the appellant has not spent a single farthing and the money could not be returned in absence of the account details of the respondent. 10. Mr. N.K. Sahani, learned counsel for the respondent/ husband has submitted that “cruelty” has been proved by the respondent primarily on the ground that the respondent had to go to jail on account of a false criminal case instituted against him. The final form submitted in favour of the other accused of the case proves the falsity of the allegation and that precisely has been appropriately considered by the learned trial court. Several instances have been projected by the respondent which proves beyond doubt the manner in which the respondent was subjected to torture. 11. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective sides and have also perused the trial court records. 12. The respondent had filed the suit on the ground of cruelty and desertion. The learned trial court while allowing the suit has taken recourse to irretrievable breakdown of marriage and cruelty which stems from the fact that FRT was submitted by the Police in favour of the accused persons. 13. Both the sides have made allegations and counter allegations against each other. The respondent in this appeal has made some vague allegations regarding misbehaviour of the appellant towards him and his family members and grabbing the property of the respondent standing in the name of his mother at Chira Chas. Despite making such allegations, the respondent has failed to examine any of his family members rather he has examined an acquaintance of his as R.W.2. 14. “Cruelty” has not been defined in the Hindu Marriage Act Neutral Citation 2025:JHHC:32921-DB FIRST APPEAL NO. 48 OF 2023 9 1955. However, the same has evolved with time and in this context, we may refer to the case of Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi reported in (1988) 1 SCC 105, wherein 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, 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 Neutral Citation 2025:JHHC:32921-DB FIRST APPEAL NO. 48 OF 2023 10 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. 15. 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 wilful 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 the 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 Neutral Citation 2025:JHHC:32921-DB FIRST APPEAL NO. 48 OF 2023 11 her mental welfare then this conduct amounts to cruelty. In a delicate human relationship like matrimony, one has to see the probabilities of the case. The concept, 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 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 Neutral Citation 2025:JHHC:32921-DB FIRST APPEAL NO. 48 OF 2023 12 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 Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi.) 12. To constitute cruelty, the conduct complained of should be “grave and weighty” so as to come to the Neutral Citation 2025:JHHC:32921-DB FIRST APPEAL NO. 48 OF 2023 13 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 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 Neutral Citation 2025:JHHC:32921-DB FIRST APPEAL NO. 48 OF 2023 14 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.” 16. So far as the finding recorded by the learned trial court regarding submission of FRT in the Police case lodged by the appellant is concerned, the same is vague and not borne out from the records of the case. Such finding is based on a legal notice marked ‘X/4’ dated 25.04.2019 which has been sent to the appellant for vacating the dwelling house situated at Chira Chas and it clearly reveals that FRT was submitted in favour of the parents of the respondent and not the respondent himself. Incidentally, the respondent was convicted by the learned trial court subsequently as would appear from the rejoinder filed by the appellant. The learned trial court, therefore, committed an error in answering the issue of cruelty in the affirmative without any basis. So far as the other allegations which have been made by the respondent herein apart from being vague and general in nature also does not make it an impossibility for the respondent to stay with the appellant. 17. The other ground which has been considered by the learned trial court is irretrievable breakdown of marriage. This finding is without any basis or reasoning and in fact such finding is beyond the domain of the learned trial court in absence of any such provision in the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 18. No finding has been recorded by the learned trial court with respect to the issue of desertion but on consideration of the materials on record, there does not appear to be any willful abandonment or forsaking of the marital ties on the part of the appellant which would constitute desertion. The said issue is Neutral Citation 2025:JHHC:32921-DB FIRST APPEAL NO. 48 OF 2023 15 therefore answered in favour of the appellant and against the respondent. 19. It is thus concluded that the learned trial court has come to an erroneous finding while dissolving the marriage between the appellant and the respondent and considering the reasons enumerated aforesaid, we hereby set aside the judgement and decree dated 27.02.2023 (decree signed on 09.03.2023) passed by Sri Alok Kumar Dubey, learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bokaro in Original Suit No. 15/2020. 20. This appeal is allowed. 21. Pending I.A.s, if any, stands closed. (RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.) (PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated the 3rd Day of November, 2025 Preet/N.A.F.R.