1 | P a g e Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:38770 ) IN THEHIGH COURTOF JHARKHANDAT RANCHI First Appeal No. 279 of 2019 Shashi Prakash Mishra, son of Ganga Sagar Mishra, resident of Dundas Point, P.O. & P.S. Ograbraj, Andaman and Nicobar Island, at present resident of MGIRI WARDHA, P.O. & P.S. Wardha, Maharastra ... Appellant Versus Nisha Mishra, wife of Shashi Prakash Mishra, resident of Qr. No. F/1/84, B.I.T. Mishra, P.O. & P.S. Mishra, District Ranchi … Respondent --- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI For the Appellant : Mr. Sameer Saurabh, Advocate For the Respondent : Mrs. Shilpi Sandil Gadodia Mr. Prabhar Harit, Advocate --- CAV on 10.02.2025 Delivered on 01.12.2025 Per Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. JUDGMENT 1. Heard Mr. Sameer Saurabh, learned counsel for the appellant and Mrs. Shilpi Sandil Gadodia, learned counsel on behalf of the respondent. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 18.07.2019 (decree signed on 31.07.2019) passed by Smt. Prem Lata Tripathi, learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court, Ranchi in Original Suit No. 24 of 2016, 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 the parties are referred to in this judgment as per their status before the learned trial court. 4. The petitioner (appellant herein) had filed a suit u/s 13(1)(1a)(1b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of his marriage with the respondent/ wife (respondent herein also) in which it has been stated that the marriage of the petitioner was solemnized with the respondent on 04.07.1995 at Babugaon, Hazaribagh as per Hindu rites 2 | P a g e and customs. At the time of negotiation of marriage, the petitioner was falsely informed that the respondent is normal, very cultured, sweet natured lady, who will be suitable to adjust in a joint family. The petitioner and the elders on good faith trusted the said representation of the relatives of the respondent and agreed for marriage with the respondent. However, it was detected later on that such representations were false baseless and concocted and even the information regarding the academic qualification of the respondent was also false. After marriage on account of the cooperation from the side of the petitioner, the respondent completed her graduation from Women’s College Hazaribagh and she also completed her post graduation from Vinoba Bhawe University in the year 2001. It has been stated that the petitioner hails from a respectable family and was born and brought up at South Andaman & Nicobar Island. The petitioner had completed the course of M.Tech. (Agriculture Engineering) and due to his service, he was posted at various places and at the present moment, the petitioner is residing at Wardha, Maharashtra. In course of marriage, the petitioner and his family members had noticed that the respondent was looking extremely exhausted and fatigued, but neither the petitioner nor his family members gave any importance to such affairs and as per their custom after returning home, the petitioner and his family members became busy to celebrate the nuptial night. It has been stated that the dream of the petitioner of celebrating the nuptial night soon turned bitter in the face of an extremely unusual behaviour on the part of the respondent. The respondent did not agree to the physical advances of the petitioner and on repeated queries made by the petitioner, the respondent disclosed that she was not agreeable for marriage with the petitioner as she wanted to marry a person from the Agrawal community with whom she had a love affair. The disclosure of the respondent left an indelible trauma in the mind of the petitioner and he was greatly disturbed by the ominous thoughts of his future 3 | P a g e marriage journey. It has been stated that the respondent stayed at her matrimonial house till 02.10.1995 and during her stay, the respondent had failed to adjust with the family members of the petitioner despite their love and affection showered upon her. After a great deal of persuasion, the respondent agreed for sexual intercourse with the petitioner, but failed to essay any active role which caused mental injury to the petitioner. During the stay of the respondent at Hazaribagh, the boyfriend of the respondent came to meet her, but the petitioner managed to make him understand that the status of the respondent has changed and being convinced, the said person had left never to return back. After the departure of the boyfriend of the respondent, the respondent started to torture the petitioner in various manners and on her repeated insistence and instigation, the petitioner had sent the respondent on 02.10.1995 to her parental house. The respondent after reaching her parental house had refused to come back to her matrimonial house and after much persuasion, she returned in February, 1996 to her matrimonial house, but did not even stay for a month. The respondent thereafter had started visiting her parental house intermittently without the knowledge and consent of the petitioner and on being asked about such behaviour threats were meted out to the petitioner. Out of the wedlock of the petitioner and the respondent three children were born out of which two survived and the son Vishal Mishra is aged 18 years, while the daughter Shristi Mishra is aged 16 years. The petitioner in the initial period of his marital life was Trainee Associate at Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Hazaribagh, but due to the frequent absence of the respondent, the petitioner was mentally affected which consequently lefts its mark on his performance and he lost his job. The petitioner had thereafter succeeded in getting a job at Vikas Bharti, Ranchi, IIT Delhi and BIT Mesra on contract basis. Presently, the petitioner is working as a Scientific Officer at MGIRI, Vardha, Maharashtra. On 28.06.2001, the petitioner met with a serious accident and lost his forelimb and was 4 | P a g e admitted at RMCH, Ranchi for treatment. The respondent and her parents used to visit the petitioner in the hospital, but the respondent never gave proper nursing to the petitioner and berated him of having survived the accident. The petitioner due to the accident became physically handicapped. On 14.08.2001, the respondent left the petitioner and went to her parental house and since then there is no conjugal life in existence between the petitioner and the respondent. On account of the pressure of the respondent and her relatives, the petitioner was forced to return all the belongings including the ornaments of the respondent on 07.07.2002. The petitioner had filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights bearing Matrimonial Title Suit No. 117 of 2003 u/s 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in which the respondent appeared and in the application preferred before the Jharkhand High Court by the respondent for transfer of the suit a conciliation proceeding was initiated and the respondent had ultimately agreed to join the company of the petitioner which resulted in the withdrawal of the matrimonial suit. Despite the respondent joining the services of the petitioner, the relationship was not cordial. The respondent in absence of the petitioner started inviting several persons and when the petitioner objected, he used to be insulted by the respondent. It has further been stated that on the occasion of Holi in the month of March, 2005, the petitioner had seen one Devdas Latta who was one of the neighbours pressing the breast of the respondent in the kitchen and the petitioner had also found out that one S.C. Mishra who was residing in the upper floor of the petitioner’s house frequently visiting his residence with ulterior motive. The sister of the petitioner was residing with the petitioner and in order to oust her, the respondent quarreled with her on trivial matters and also insulted and humiliated her. Due to the atrocities committed by the respondent, the petitioner started becoming panicky. The petitioner was also subjected to assault by the respondent. On the pretext that the petitioner was having an illicit affair with his sister, he was mentally and physically 5 | P a g e tortured. The respondent refused to take care of the children and the petitioner was forced to do all the domestic chores. The petitioner on being continuously assaulted and humiliated gave up his job at BIT, Mesra and left Ranchi on 12.12.2006 and since then both the parties are residing separately. The respondent was provided a job as a Warden in BIT, Mesra within two months of the leaving of the petitioner. The petitioner was providing sufficient amount for the maintenance of the children, but despite the said fact, the respondent had filed a case for maintenance which was dismissed as the respondent did not give her evidence. The petitioner has lost all hopes to continue with the marital ties with the respondent on account of the cruelty committed upon him by the respondent. 5. On being noticed, respondent had appeared and filed a written statement in which the allegations levelled against her has been denied. The respondent on the nuptial night was commented upon and taunted by the petitioner and his family members for not bringing dowry as per their expectations. It was the petitioner who had committed cruelty upon the respondent and also made baseless allegations touching upon the character of the respondent. 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 to file the present suit? (iii) Whether the petitioner has been treated with cruelty by the respondent? (iv) Whether the respondent has deserted the society of the petitioner? (v) What relief/ reliefs the petitioner is entitled to get? 7. The petitioner has examined three witnesses in support of his case. 8. PW-1 Shashi Prakash Mishra is the petitioner who has stated about solemnization of his marriage with the respondent as per Hindu rites 6 | P a g e and customs at Hazaribagh on 04.07.1995. At the time of negotiation of marriage it was informed that the respondent is a cultured, well behaved lady and is also a graduate, but all these assertions were found to be false and it was he who had assisted her in completing her post graduation. In the first night of the marriage, the respondent did not cooperate and did not even permit him to touch her. The respondent had disclosed that she had intention to solemnize marriage with another person, but on account of the pressure created upon her by her family members, she was compelled to marry him. The respondent had stayed at her matrimonial house till 02.10.1995 and during this period she had not made any efforts to adjust in her matrimonial house despite the love and affection showered upon her by his family members. In the meantime, the boyfriend of the respondent started frequenting his house and he had convinced the boyfriend of the respondent not to come after which he had left and had never ever come back to his house. This was used as a tool by the respondent to commit torture upon him which compelled him to leave her at her parental house on 02.10.1995. The respondent had thereafter refused to return back to her matrimonial house and in 1996, the respondent all of a sudden came to his house, but she did not stay even for a month. The behaviour of the respondent had undergone a perceptible change and she had become more aggressive and cruel in her behaviour towards him and his family members. He despite being subjected to mental torture continued to tolerate the same in the hope that in future, the behaviour of the respondent will change for the better. Out of his wedlock with the respondent, three children were born, but two survived and the son is aged 18 years, while the daughter is now aged 16 years.On account of the cruel behaviour of the respondent, he became afflicted with several ailments as a result of which, he had to leave his job. He had thereafter worked in Vikas Bharti, Ranchi, IIT Delhi and BIT Mesra on contractual basis.At present,he is working as a Scientific Officer in MGIRI, Wardha, 7 | P a g e Maharashtra. He has stated that on 28.06.2001, he had met with a road accident which severely impaired his movement and he was admitted in RMCH, Ranchi, but the respondent did not take any care of him, rather she had taunted him on his surviving the accident. Due to the accident, he had become disabled, but the respondent left him despite his sufferance for her parental house on 14.08.2001. The respondent had not sent his son for the Mundan ceremony which greatly hurt him. Due to the pressure created by the family members of the respondents, all the jewelleries of the respondent had to be returned by him. In order to save his marital life, he had instituted a suit for restitution of conjugal rights being MTS No. 117/2003 in which ad interim maintenance was prayed for by the respondent which was dismissed against which the respondent had moved the Jharkhand High Court wherein a conciliation was effected and the respondent became ready to lead her marital life with him. However, there was no change in the behaviour of the respondent and she started visiting some persons in his absence. When he had made objection it was met with humiliation. His sister used to stay with him, but due to the torture committed by the respondent, she was forced to leave his house. The respondent had alleged against him of having an illicit affair with his sister which mentally disturbed him. The respondent never looked after the children and used to regularly assault and abuse him. Due to such torture, he had left his job and on 12.02.2006 had also left Ranchi. Since then there is no conjugal relationship between him and the respondent. After he left, the respondent had managed to secure a job at BIT Mesra of Hostel Warden with the active support of Devdas Latta and S.C. Mishra. The respondent had also instituted a case of maintenance which was dismissed. Due to the acts of the respondent, his academic career had greatly suffered. In cross examination he has deposed that after marriage, the respondent had stayed at her matrimonial house from 04th of July to 2nd of October. His son was born on 31.05.1997. He had not made any 8 | P a g e complaint against Devdas Latta and Shubh Chandra Mishra for their indecent act with the respondent. Both his children stay with the respondent since 12.12.2006. He has been tortured by the respondent for 10 years, both physically and mentally. He always has a threat to his life from the respondent and he therefore does not want to keep her with him. PW-2 Ajit Choudhary is acquainted with the petitioner who has stated that on going to the house of the petitioner, he could find that the relationship between the petitioner and the respondent is not good. He along with his companion had on several occasions tried to patch up the difference between the petitioner and the respondent, but the same was met with abuses. The respondent has an independent mind of her own and she dislikes any shackles being put on her for going around various places. The respondent also had a perennial demand of money which was not being able to be fulfilled by the petitioner which further eroded the relationship. Due to the threat in the life of the petitioner, he had left his job at Ranchi and also permanently left Ranchi. In cross examination he has deposed that he is the Manager of the Soap Factory of Pankaj Jee. Whenever, he had gone to the house of the petitioner, he had found his sister and father present. The petitioner had come to him and had disclosed that due to family problems, he is leaving his job. PW-3 Chhotu Kumar has stated that he sometimes used to work as a gardener in the quarter of the petitioner. The respondent used to scold him whenever he had asked for water. The respondent never behaved properly and she used abusive language and always quarrelled loudly with the petitioner, the sound of which could be heard outside. Sometimes a man used to come with whom, the respondent used to go outside and sometime Shubh Chandra Mishra used to come who was always taken inside by the respondent and at that time she used to properly behave with him. 9 | P a g e In cross examination he has deposed that he had never entered inside the house of the petitioner. He had not met the petitioner during the period 2006 to 2016 and he had met with the petitioner in the year 2017 at Namkum Bazar only for the purposes of giving evidence in this case. 9. The respondent has examined two witnesses on her behalf. 10. RW 1 Nisha Mishra is the respondent who has stated about the solemnization of her marriage with the petitioner on 04.07.1995 and out of the said wedlock three children were born and one child died immediately after birth while two children are surviving. After her marriage, she was tortured by her in-laws on account of the demand of dowry made from her. She used to spend days without food and she was compelled to leave her matrimonial house. In the year 1996, she had once again gone to her matrimonial house, but the torture upon her continued unabated, but she tolerated such torture in the hope that the petitioner will change in future for the better. One day, the petitioner had thrown out her articles and told her that she has no place in the house which forced her to leave the house of the petitioner. She has expressed her willingness to stay with the petitioner. In cross examination she has deposed that there never existed a cordial relationship between her and the petitioner. Before her marriage, her mother-in-law used to stay at Andaman, but after marriage, she came to Hazaribagh and stayed for many days. It was not possible for her to stay with her mother-in-law and sister-in-law as both of them used to torture her and humiliate her. She had not complained of such torture anywhere. There has been no dispute in the house relating to S.C. Mishra. She had joined at BIT, Mesra in December, 2009. RW 2 Gangadhar Dubey has reiterated what has been stated by RW-1 In cross examination he has deposed that he is a neighbor of the respondent. He had never visited BIT, Mesra. The maintenance of the children is done by the respondent and sometimes her parents provide her with financial assistance. He does not have any knowledge since when the petitioner and the respondent are staying separate. 10 | P a g e 11. It has been submitted by Mr. Sameer Saurabh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/ appellant that the petitioner has been able to prove cruelty as well as desertion, but the learned trial court has misdirected itself while coming to an erroneous conclusion. The reply of the respondent at Para-17 of the written statement clearly indicates about the respondent not willing to stay with the petitioner. Most of the findings recorded by the learned trial court are beyond the evidence led by both the sides. Neither the petitioner, nor the respondent are willing to reside together and the marriage for all practical purposes has become dead. The learned trial court has not given any finding with respect to the issue of desertion and the impugned judgment is devoid of any conclusive reasons and therefore the same deserves to be set aside. 12. Mrs. Shilpi Sandil Gadodia, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the allegations made by the petitioner are not to such an extent that it would an impossibility for the petitioner to stay with the respondent. In fact it is the respondent who was at the receiving end of the torture and cruelty at the hands of the petitioner and unsubstantiated allegations would in fact enhance the cruelty meted out to the respondent. The petitioner has failed to give any instance which would act as a credible source for proving cruelty. It has been submitted that wild allegations bordering on character assassination of the respondent would be a sufficient reason for the respondent not to stay with the petitioner. 13. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also perused the trial court records. 14. Issue No. (iii) deals with ‘cruelty’. The term ‘Cruelty’ has not been defined in the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and its meaning and purport has evolved with time which can be derived from the various judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the said issue. In this context we may refer to the case of case of Vishwanath Agrawal v. 11 | P a g e Sarla Vishwanath Agrawal, (2012) 7 SCC 288, wherein 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.’” 15. Similarly 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 12 | P a g e 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. The petitioner has given some instances which according to the petitioner amounts to cruelty. Allegation has been made that after marriage, the behaviour of the respondent towards the petitioner and his family members was not cordial and in course of time, the behaviour of the respondent became rude and she used abusive language and regularly quarrelled with the petitioner. Infidelity has also been alleged making reference to certain persons who were having a close relationship with the respondent. The accident suffered by the petitioner did not evoke any sympathy from the respondent and the torture upon the petitioner continued unabated despite the petitioner becoming physically disabled on account of such accident. Certain other instances have been alleged and all such insinuations cast upon the respondent has been denied by her and in fact, the respondent has stated about the demand of dowry made from the side of the petitioner and the torture committed upon her, which compelled her to leave her matrimonial house. 17. None of the allegations made can be said to be of such an extent which can be termed to be decisive in nature in proving the issue of ‘Cruelty’. The instances cited by the petitioner can at best be termed to be normal 13 | P a g e wear and tear, a marital relationship undergoes. The claim of the petitioner that a volatile relationship existed between the petitioner and the respondent right from the inception of the marriage and reluctance of the respondent to have physical relationship with the petitioner are contradicted by the fact that during the short marital journey of the petitioner and the respondent three children were born to them and both the surviving children are adults now. This would indicate a semblance of love and affection existing between them. The petitioner himself seems to have created the story of infidelity of the respondent and these allegations are not only unsubstantiated but also reckless touching upon the character of the respondent. The witnesses examined by the petitioner apart from him do not throw any light on such allegations, neither have they strengthened the case of the petitioner in relation to the purported cruelty. Issue No. (iii) has therefore rightly been answered in favour of the respondent. 18. So far as desertion is concerned, Issue No. (iv) governs the same. The petitioner has failed to prove that there was a willful abandonment on the part of the respondent and that the respondent had forsaken all her responsibilities and duties towards the petitioner and that such abandonment was without the consent of the petitioner. As we have discussed above, the torture committed by the petitioner and the character assassination of the respondent forced her to leave her matrimonial house. Moreover, the petitioner (PW-1) has himself stated that he had permanently left Ranchi in the year 2006 leaving behind the respondent to fend for herself and her two children. The learned trial court has rightly considered the issue of desertion while answering the same against the petitioner. Both the issues in our considered opinion have rightly been answered against the petitioner and in favour of the respondent. 19. Since we have not found any justifiable reasons to come to a different conclusion, we hereby dismiss this appeal and affirm the judgment and decree dated 18.07.2019 (decree signed on 31.07.2019) passed by 14 | P a g e Smt. Prem Lata Tripathi, learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court, Ranchi in Original Suit No. 24 of 2016. Pending I.As., if any, stand closed. (RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.) (ARUN KUMAR RAI, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated the 1st December, 2025 MK/N.A.F.R. Uploaded on 11.02.2026