2025:JHHC:38776 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI First Appeal No.513 of 2018 ------ Sourabh Jain, son of Suresh Kumar Jain, permanent resident of Bengali Colony, Barkagaon Road, Hazaribagh, P.O. and P.S. Hazaribagh, District Hazaribagh. ------- Appellant Versus Sonal Jain, wife of Sourabh Jain, daughter of Nirmal Kumar Gangwal, at present resident of Main Road (Opposite Mohan Talkies), P.O. and P.S. Sadar, District Hazaribagh and permanent resident of Bengali Colony, Barkagaon Road, Hazaribagh, P.O. and P.S. Hazaribagh, District Hazaribagh. ------ Respondent PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN ------- For the Appellant : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Mr. Akhouri Awinash Kr., Adv. For the Respondent : Mr. Piyush Chitresh, Advocate ------- 35/20.11.2025 Heard Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Piyush Chitresh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 30-11-2018 passed by Sri Akhil Kumar, learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Hazaribagh in Original Suit No. 297 of 2014, whereby and whereunder the suit preferred by the petitioner/ appellant under Section 13(1)(i-a)(i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of his marriage with the respondent herein 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 for dissolution of his marriage with the respondent (respondent 2 herein also) under Section 13(1)(i-a)(i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, in which it has been stated that the marriage of the petitioner was solemnized with the respondent on 27-11-2009 at Hazaribagh as per their religious rites and customs. After the marriage, the respondent came to reside at her matrimonial house at Bengali Colony, Barkagaon Road, Hazaribagh. It has been stated that the petitioner and the respondent had lastly resided as husband and wife till 05-06- 2011 and on 06-06-2011, the respondent had left her matrimonial house without any sufficient cause and without the consent of the petitioner or his parents, in spite of the love and affection showered upon her by the petitioner and his family members. The petitioner, after his engagement with the respondent had, as per the desire of the respondent admitted her in MBA course in Vinoba Bhave University and got the course completed in two years at his own expense. During the period the respondent resided with the petitioner at her matrimonial house, she had treated the petitioner as well as his parents with cruelty to such an extent that a reasonable apprehension had crept up in the mind of the petitioner that it will be harmful and injurious for the petitioner to reside with the respondent. It has been stated that soon after the marriage, the petitioner had gone with the respondent for their honeymoon to Bangkok via Delhi and during the honeymoon period, the respondent on several occasions had insulted, humiliated and abused the petitioner and even on several nights did not allow him to share her bed with him. After returning to Hazaribagh, the respondent, who is a short- tempered lady, had continued with her abusive behaviour with his parents also and when agitated, the respondent used to scratch the body of the petitioner with nails. Even the parents were not spared from such obnoxious behaviour. The Respondent did not cook food and also did not serve food to the petitioner or his parents. In the month of February 2011, 3 the mother of the petitioner had to undergo an operation for replacement of her knees and after the operation was done, she had returned back to Hazaribagh and she was advised complete bed rest but the respondent even during such period of distress never took care of the mother of the petitioner. The respondent had thereafter left her matrimonial house on 06- 06-2011. The respondent had on several occasions threatened to commit suicide and entangle all the family members of the petitioner in criminal cases. An instance has been projected that once the respondent was travelling in a car with the petitioner when the respondent had opened the door and threatened to jump out of the car. The petitioner was once admitted in Orchid Hospital, Ranchi where he had undergone a major surgery for which he had to remain in ICU for several days but during the entire period neither the respondent nor his parents had visited him despite knowing the fact that the petitioner was in hospital. Even when the mother of the Petitioner was admitted in the hospital on 28-12-2012 as her hip bone had been fractured and she was advised to take complete bed rest, the respondent did not visit the house of the petitioner to look after his mother who was recuperating. The marriage of the petitioner and the respondent has broken down to the point of no return. 5. The respondent on being noticed had appeared and had filed a written statement in which she has denied the allegations made against her by the petitioner. It has been submitted that the petitioner is an alcoholic who used to abuse and assault the respondent mercilessly. The respondent tolerated such violent behaviour in the hope of a better tomorrow for her conjugal life. The in-laws of the respondent blindly supported the petitioner. On 03-06-2011 when the respondent was waiting for the petitioner for dinner, he did not respond to her calls and when he returned in the late hours in a drunken state, he was served food with tea at 4 which the petitioner threw the tea on the face of the respondent scalding her. The parents of the petitioner instead of supporting the respondent instigated the petitioner to commit assault upon her. It has been stated that the father of the respondent was called at 1.30 am and was told to take her away. The father of the respondent believing the stories spun by her husband and in-laws that they would be going out and the respondent has to stay alone, took her away. When after two days the respondent returned back to her matrimonial house with her father, the house was found locked. When the respondent called up the petitioner over phone, it was informed that he was at Ranchi and assured her that on his return, the petitioner would bring back the respondent to his house. Unfortunately, the petitioner never came and even the parents-in-law of the respondent did not even contact her which prompted the respondent and her father to go to her matrimonial house but she was rebuked and derogated. This fact would show that it was the respondent who was subjected to cruelty and was ousted from her matrimonial house in a planned manner. When the respondent came to know about the petitioner having been admitted in Orchid Hospital, the petitioner refused to meet her when she had visited him in the hospital. The respondent has denied that it was the petitioner who had got her admitted in Vinoba Bhave University for her MBA course and the expenses were borne by the petitioner, rather it was the father of the respondent who had incurred the expenses. It has been stated that there was no permanent cook and servant at her matrimonial house and it was the respondent who had to perform all the domestic chores including cooking. The father of the petitioner had to undergo an eye operation at Ranchi in December 2009 and hernia and piles operation at Ranchi in 2010 and it was the respondent who took care of him at both times and had also looked after her mother-in-law. At the time of knee replacement of the 5 mother-in-law of the respondent, it was the respondent who took care of all her needs. Even when the petitioner got admitted in the hospital with slip disc as also for other ailments, the respondent was always besides him taking care of his needs. Despite all the suffering, the respondent is still ready and willing to reside with the petitioner at her matrimonial house. 6. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed for adjudication:- (i) Is the suit as framed maintainable? (ii) Whether the petitioner has valid cause of action for the suit? (iii) Whether the respondent treated the petitioner with cruelty after solemnization of marriage with the petitioner? (iv) Whether the respondent has deserted the petitioner for continuous period of more than 2 years immediately preceding the presentation of divorce petition of the Petitioner? (v) Whether the petitioner is entitled for dissolution of his marriage with the respondent by a decree of divorce? (vi) Whether the applicant is entitled to relief or reliefs as claimed? 7. The petitioner has examined as many as 5 witnesses in support of its case. 8. P.W.1 Sourav Jain is the petitioner who has stated about solemnization of his marriage with the respondent on 27-11-2009 as per Jain rites and customs at Hazaribagh and after marriage the respondent came to reside at her matrimonial house at Bengali Colony, Hazaribagh where she stayed till 5-6-2011 and on 6-6-2011 the respondent without any reasonable cause had left her matrimonial house despite the respondent being treated with all care and affection. He 6 has stated that after his engagement with the respondent he had got her admitted in MBA course and incurred all the expenses of such course. Till the time the respondent stayed at her matrimonial house she always misbehaved with him and his parents. When the respondent was taken to Bangkok after the marriage there also he was insulted and humiliated and the respondent even refused to share her bed with him. The respondent is a hot-headed lady who used to frequently abuse and on several occasions out of anger she had scratched his body with her nails. The respondent never cooked nor did she serve food to his parents. In February 2011 his mother was operated in Delhi and she was under bed rest but the respondent did not have any concern and on 6-6-2011 she had left for her parent’s house without taking his permission. The respondent used to issue threats of committing suicide and framing him and his family members. He was admitted in Orchid Hospital on 27-06-2011 and was operated upon and on 9-7-2011 he was discharged but in spite of knowing the said fact the respondent never came back to take care of him. His mother had a hip bone fracture and on 28-12-2012 she was admitted to the hospital and on 02- 01-2013 she was discharged but the respondent had not taken pains to take care of his mother. He has stated that despite his best efforts the respondent never came to her matrimonial house to reside with him which forced him to file the suit. In cross-examination he has deposed that the friction started in his marital life after 1-1.5 months of marriage. Before the respondent had finally left her matrimonial house, she had visited her parents’ place 8-10 times. The distance between his house and the house of the respondent is 1-1.5 km. During his marital life, he had gone to Bangkok for his honeymoon and to no other place as the respondent was reluctant to go because of her studies. He had 7 not got himself treated on account of the scratches on his body inflicted by the respondent. He has proved 9 photographs of his visit to Bangkok with the respondent which have been marked as Exhibit 1, 1/1, 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, 1/5, 1/6, 1/7, 1/8 and 1/9. In the Dussehra holidays, he had gone to Rajgir with the respondent and two photographs relating to the same have been marked as Exhibit 2 and 2/1. He has proved a photograph shot during Holi 2010 which has been marked as Exhibit 3. He has proved another photograph which has been marked as Exhibit 4. When his mother was admitted to a hospital in Delhi, the respondent had gone to visit him. He had not reported to the police the threat given by the respondent of committing suicide, but he had informed the parents of the respondent. The threat perception from the side of the respondent started within 2-3 months of marriage. He and his father had made at least 100 attempts to bring back the respondent to her matrimonial house. 9. P.W.2 Suresh Kumar Jain is the father of the petitioner who has stated about solemnization of marriage of his son Sourav Jain with the respondent on 27-11-2009 at Hazaribagh. The respondent had stayed at her matrimonial house till 5-6-2011 and on 6-6-2011 the respondent without any permission had left for her parents’ place. Despite best efforts made by him and his family members, the respondent did not return and even though the petitioner and his mother were operated upon, the respondent did not come to her matrimonial house to look after them. As long as the respondent stayed at his house, she used to abuse and humiliate her in-laws. Even in Bangkok where the petitioner and the respondent had gone for their honeymoon, she had misbehaved with the petitioner and on 6-6-2011 she had left her matrimonial house without any reason and started residing at her parents’ place. In cross examination, he has deposed that the in- 8 laws of the petitioner stay at Hazaribagh and they were known to him from before. After the respondent left for her parents’ place, he had made attempts to know the reason for such conduct of the respondent by talking with the father of the respondent but till date he has not been able to ascertain the reason for the respondent leaving her matrimonial house. When his wife was operated on her knees, the brother-in-law of his son had given blood. On the date of the operation, his son and daughter-in-law had gone to Delhi and returned to Hazaribagh after 1-2 days of the operation. He does not have any objection to take back his daughter-in-law if his son accepts her. He had always seen the respondent in an irritating mood. He has proved the letters written to his society which have been marked as Exhibit E, E/1 and E/2. The reply given by the society has been proved and marked as Exhibit-D. The letters were written to his society 4 years back when he was ready to bring back the respondent but since no response had come from the side of the respondent, he is now not willing to accept the respondent. 10. P.W.3 Pratap Jain has stated that after marriage, the petitioner had got the respondent enrolled in MBA course and had also borne the expenses but the respondent never resided peacefully at her matrimonial house and used to constantly quarrel and this information was shared with him by the petitioner and his father. On 6-6-2011, the respondent had left her matrimonial house without any permission and has not returned despite the efforts made by the petitioner. The petitioner was admitted in the ICU in Orchid Hospital from 27-6-2011 to 9-7-2011 but in spite of learning of the same, the respondent never came to visit the petitioner in the hospital. The mother of the petitioner was treated at Delhi but the respondent never visited her. He along with the father of the petitioner and a friend of the petitioner namely Pritam Singh had gone to the house of the respondent on 14-7-2013 9 but the father of the respondent refused to talk with them and did not even allow them to meet the respondent. In cross-examination, he has deposed that the father of the petitioner is his cousin brother. He had never tried to personally mediate between the petitioner and the respondent. After he became the Secretary of the Society, no application was received by him either from the respondent or her father. His wife is close to the family of the respondent. 11. P.W.4 Raj Kumar Ajmera is the president of Digambar Jain Society who had received several letters from the father of the petitioner wherein the marital discord between the petitioner and the respondent had been highlighted. He along with some other members of the society had tried to resolve the dispute but the father of the respondent and her other family members shirked off such efforts on the pretext that it is an internal family matter and they will do the needful. It appears that in four years, no dialogue was initiated from the side of the respondent to resolve the dispute. In cross examination, he has deposed that he had remained the President of the Society till December 2015. The father of the petitioner is not related to him. He had given a reply to the letter of Sourav Jain but he does not remember the date. 12. P.W.5 Vijay Kumar has in his sworn statement reiterated what has been stated by the other witnesses. In cross-examination, he has deposed that he works in the house of the petitioner since the age 22. He does not have any connection with the personal life of the petitioner and his family members but sometimes he has some personal talks with Suresh Jain and Sourav Jain. He never had any conversation with the respondent. He does not have any personal knowledge of the dates the respondent had gone to her parents’ house and the reason for the same. 10 13. The respondent has examined as many as eight witnesses on her behalf. 14. D.W.1 Pulkit Khemka is the friend of the younger brother of the respondent who was present at the time of marriage of the petitioner and the respondent. One day his friend Rohit Jain (brother of respondent) had called him up and disclosed that the petitioner is admitted in some hospital in Ranchi and when he asked about the respondent, Rohit Jain had disclosed that the respondent has been assaulted and ousted from her matrimonial house a few days back. He found out that the petitioner is admitted in Orchid Hospital and thereafter he, the respondent, her parents and her aunt Chandrakala Devi had visited the hospital. The respondent had expressed her desire to stay at her matrimonial house. In cross-examination he has deposed that he does not converse with the petitioner. 15. D.W.2 Vineet Jain is acquainted with both the sides. He is the Executive Council Member of Digambar Jain Panchayat for the last two terms. He knows Nirmal Jain, the father of the respondent, who is a social and religious person. He had disclosed that his daughter is tortured in various ways by her husband and parents-in-law and on 3-6-2011 she has been ousted from her matrimonial house. He had received a letter written by the respondent on 27-07-2016 in response to which he had written a letter to the Secretary of the Society to take appropriate measures. No attempts were made by the society to mediate in the dispute. Recently he had come to know that the father of the respondent along with some elderly persons, had gone to the house of the petitioner to settle the matter but they were subjected to threats and humiliation. In cross-examination he has deposed that he has personally not met the respondent. He was frightened of the petitioner and his father that they would institute a case 11 against him. 16. D.W.3 Amit Jain @ Rinku Jain has stated about the marriage solemnized between the petitioner and the respondent. The petitioner and his parents under a conspiracy had ousted the respondent from her matrimonial house. After the marriage the parents-in-law of the respondent were operated upon and the respondent stayed with them and looked after them and also did the domestic chores. In cross-examination he has deposed that the respondent had disclosed to him that she had on several occasions called her in-laws over phone but they did not reply and they were also not ready to accept her despite making several efforts. 17. D.W.4 Sajjan Agarwal is acquainted with both the sides and he had also attended the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent. In cross-examination he has deposed that he has not gone to the house of the petitioner. When the police had come he had come to know about the respondent being tortured by the petitioner and his parents. 18. D.W.5 Aniket Jain is acquainted with both the sides whose marriage was solemnized on 27-11-2009 at Hazaribagh. The petitioner is a drunkard and he used to come late into his house and also used to abuse and assault the respondent. The parents of the petitioner always supported the petitioner in such conduct of the petitioner. On 3-6-2011 the petitioner and his parents on some pretext had turned out the respondent from her matrimonial house. They had never made any attempts to take back the respondent to their house. After marriage the parents-in-law of the respondent had to undergo separate operations and the respondent took care of them and also did the domestic chores. Whenever he had gone to the house of the petitioner he had seen the 12 respondent working and taking care of her parents-in-law. The family members of the respondent had made several attempts to send the respondent to her matrimonial house but the petitioner and his parents never agreed. He has stated that on 06-02-2017 the respondent, his father, brother, uncle and some elderly persons of the society had gone to the house of the petitioner to settle the issue but they had called the police and made false allegations against them. The respondent has always desired to stay at her matrimonial house. In cross-examination he has deposed that there is no harmony between the petitioner and the respondent. He had gone to the house of the petitioner 5-7 times and he had found the parents-in-law of the respondent very well behaved persons. The respondent is his cousin sister. The respondent had disclosed to him about the frequent consumption of liquor by the petitioner and his cruel behavior after such consumption. One of the reasons for coming back to her parents place by the respondent was the consumption of liquor. 19. D.W.6 Rajat Jain had attended the marriage ceremony of the petitioner and the respondent. On 3-6-2011 the respondent was ousted from her matrimonial house. Whenever he had gone to the matrimonial house of the respondent, he had seen the mother-in-law of the respondent scolding the respondent on trivial issues. After 3-6-2011 the petitioner or his family members had never come to meet the respondent. The respondent had never misbehaved with any person at her matrimonial house. In cross-examination he has deposed that he is the brother of the respondent. There was no cordial relationship between the petitioner and the respondent on account of the physical and mental cruelty meted out to the respondent. The respondent had never lodged any case of torture against the 13 petitioner or his parents. 20. D.W. 7 Nirmal Gangwal is the father of the respondent who has stated that after marriage the respondent went to her matrimonial house but after some time he came to know that the respondent is not happy as the petitioner used to consume liquor and torture the respondent. The parents of the petitioner used to support such act of the petitioner. On 3-6-2011 the petitioner came in an intoxicated state and started committing assault upon the respondent and at 1.30 am he was called by the petitioner to take back his daughter. In the night itself the respondent was ousted from her matrimonial house. In the morning the father of the respondent called him and asked him to take back the respondent as they were going outside. On being confronted with such reasons he took back the respondent to his house but neither the petitioner nor his parents had either come to see her or take her back. He had made several attempts to send back the respondent to her matrimonial house but such attempts were resisted by the parents of the petitioner. He has stated that the ex-president of the society Raj Kumar Ajmera had in league with the father of the petitioner, prepared some false letters exchanged between them but he was not aware about the said letters. During the illness of the parents of the petitioner, the respondent had taken care of them and had also done the domestic chores. His son had given blood at the time of operation of the mother of the petitioner. He had gone to the house of the petitioner along with some members of the society for a compromise but they were humiliated and a false criminal case was instituted against them. The certified copy of the complaint lodged by the petitioner has been marked as Exhibit 11. In cross-examination he has deposed that the respondent was never treated by a doctor on account of the torture committed upon her. When he had gone to the house 14 of the petitioner on the calling of the petitioner he found the respondent crying but she was not willing to go to her parents’ place. He had met the petitioner only once during his treatment at Orchid Hospital. 21. D.W.8 Sonal Jain is the respondent who has stated about solemnization of her marriage with the petitioner on 27- 11-2009 and after marriage she had gone to her matrimonial house at Bengali Colony. It is incorrect to allege that she had left her matrimonial house without any reasons. The petitioner was a drunkard and he used to abuse and assault her in an inebriated state. She tolerated the torture committed upon her by the petitioner and her parents-in-law in the hope of a better tomorrow. Her parents-in-law never had any compassion for her rather they blindly supported the act of the petitioner. On 3-6-2011 the petitioner had come home late at night in a fully intoxicated state and started committing assault upon her as to why she had disturbed him by calling him over phone. Her parents-in-law were standing watching the assault committed upon her. They were in fact instigating the petitioner to commit assault upon her. The petitioner had called his father at 1.30 am to take her back and thereafter she was ousted from the house. She had spent hours outside the house crying. Thereafter the petitioner and her in-laws had called her father once again and informed him that they are going to Jaipur for some work and the petitioner is also going to Durgapur and since she will be left alone, they had wanted him to take her back to his house. She was sent to her father's place and since then her in-laws and the petitioner have not even made efforts to know about her whereabouts. After the said incident, her father had taken her to her matrimonial house on several occasions but on some pretext or the other, they kept on postponing the issue of taking her back. She has denied the aspersion cast upon her that so long she was in her matrimonial house, she used to misbehave 15 with her parents-in-law. She used to do the cooking as well as domestic chores since her mother-in-law had a problem in her legs. She had accompanied her father-in-law to Ranchi where he had an eye operation as well as an operation for piles and for one year after the operation, she had taken care of him by giving medicines on time and also taking care of his diet. She has stated that she had accompanied her mother-in-law in February 2011 to MAX Hospital, Delhi where she had to undergo a knee operation and she had taken care of her both at the pre-operation stage as well as the post-operative stage. Despite being treated with cruelty, she had gone to meet the petitioner at Orchid Hospital, but she was not allowed to meet him. She had also written several letters to the Digambar Jain Panchayat, Hazaribagh and she has proved the letters dated 27.07.2016, 13.09.2016, 19.12.2016, 04.02.2017 and 20.08.2017. Taking into consideration her desire to restore marital ties with the petitioner, the court had made an attempt at a reconciliation on 13.01.2017 and pursuant to the same, she along with some of her family members and some elders of the society had gone to the house of the petitioner on 06.03.2017 but the petitioner and her father-in-law started shouting and abusing them. The police was called and a false case was instituted against all the persons who had gone for a settlement. The petitioner has made false allegations against him only to get the marriage dissolved so that he can solemnise another marriage. In cross-examination she has deposed that it is correct that before the marriage with the petitioner, an engagement ceremony was held in the house of the petitioner. On the same day, a house warming party was also organised by the petitioner. Her father is an agent in Sahara India. She has denied the suggestion that during honeymoon she had not allowed the petitioner to establish physical relationship with her. When the petitioner was admitted in Orchid 16 Hospital, she had asked about his condition from his relatives and not from any doctor or nurse. She had not seen the petitioner in the ICU. On 03.06.2011, the petitioner had ousted her from his house at 1.30 am and since then she is staying at her parents' place, though she had made intermittent attempts to come back to her matrimonial house. There has been no physical relationship between her and the petitioner since 03.06.2011. 22. It has been submitted by Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner /appellant that the learned Family Court, while deciding the suit, has relied upon several letters filed by the respondent, which were written by the father of the respondent to Jain Society. In those letters, there is an express willingness of the respondent to reside at her matrimonial house, but the learned trial court has failed to appreciate the provisions of Section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, to the effect that the respondent had completely deserted the petitioner for more than two years, i.e. from 06.06.2011 to 02.05.2015, without any rhyme or reason and it was only after a lapse of four years, she has written those letters and thereafter failed to produce any evidence to indicate that the respondent had made efforts to resume her conjugal life with the petitioner. It has been submitted that the learned trial court has failed to appreciate the oral and documentary evidence produced on behalf of the petitioner to prove the ground of cruelty and has thus come to an incorrect and erroneous conclusion. Reference has been made to the case of Rakesh Raman versus Kavita, reported in 2023 SCC Online (SC) 497. Mr. Sinha, while referring to the evidence of the petitioner, who has been examined as P.W.1, has submitted that several instances emanate from his evidence, which clearly demonstrates the nature and gravity of the cruelty inflicted upon the petitioner by the respondent. The petitioner was also subjected to physical harm and not 17 allowing the petitioner to consummate the marriage would act as a cause for agony and mental cruelty of the petitioner. The respondent is living separate from the petitioner, as per her own admission, since the year 2011, and such separate living without any reasonable cause would amount to desertion. The petitioner and his father had tried to resolve the dispute, but the respondent refused to come back to her matrimonial house. If the respondent was truly willing to reside with the petitioner and reignite her marital life, she could easily have filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights. Mr. Sinha, in support of his contention that desertion has been proved by the petitioner, has relied upon the case of Debananda Tamuli Versus Kakumoni Kataky reported in (2022) 5 SCC 459. 23. Based on the aforementioned grounds, Mr. Sinha has prayed that the judgment of the learned trial court be set aside and the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent be dissolved. 24. Mr. Piyush Chitresh, learned counsel for the respondent, has submitted that false and frivolous allegations have been levelled by the petitioner against the respondent. The respondent was and still is willing to reside with the petitioner at her matrimonial house. The respondent, during her stay at her matrimonial house, had fulfilled her duties and responsibilities towards the petitioner and her parents-in- law. The respondent was involved in domestic chores, including cooking and when her parents-in-law were admitted in the hospital, she had taken care of them at the post- operative stage as well as the pre-operative stage, giving medicines on time and following the dietary instructions. When the petitioner was admitted in Orchid Hospital, the respondent had visited him, but the petitioner had refused to meet her. He has submitted that the petitioner is addicted to liquor and in an inebriated state, the petitioner had inflicted 18 bodily injury upon the respondent. It was in fact the petitioner who had tortured the respondent despite which the respondent is still ready and willing to reside at her matrimonial house. The respondent was ousted from her matrimonial house by the petitioner and her in-laws, and she has been compelled to stay at her parental home. The petitioner has failed to show that there was a willful abandonment of the petitioner without any reasonable cause by the respondent, and therefore, the issue of desertion also could not be proved by the petitioner. The learned trial court has correctly decided the issue of cruelty and desertion and the petitioner has failed to make out a case for interference with respect to the findings recorded on the said issues. 25. We have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and have also perused the trial court records. 26. Cruelty has not been defined in the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. However, in a plethora of judgments the Hon’ble Supreme Court has construed the broad parameters constituting ‘cruelty’ and in this context we may refer to the case of Samar Ghosh versus Jaya Ghosh reported in (2007) 4 SCC 511 wherein it has been held as follows :- “101. No uniform standard can ever be laid down for guidance, yet we deem it appropriate to enumerate some instances of human behaviour which may be relevant in dealing with the cases of “mental cruelty”. The instances indicated in the succeeding paragraphs are only illustrative and not exhaustive: (i) On consideration of complete matrimonial life of the parties, acute mental pain, agony and suffering as would not make possible for the parties to live with each other could come within the broad parameters of mental cruelty. (ii) On comprehensive appraisal of the entire matrimonial life of the parties, it becomes abundantly clear that situation is such that the wronged party cannot reasonably be asked to put up with such conduct and continue to live with 19 other party. (iii) Mere coldness or lack of affection cannot amount to cruelty, frequent rudeness of language, petulance of manner, indifference and neglect may reach such a degree that it makes the married life for the other spouse absolutely intolerable. (iv) Mental cruelty is a state of mind. The feeling of deep anguish, disappointment, frustration in one spouse caused by the conduct of other for a long time may lead to mental cruelty. (v) A sustained course of abusive and humiliating treatment calculated to torture, discommode or render miserable life of the spouse. (vi) Sustained unjustifiable conduct and behaviour of one spouse actually affecting physical and mental health of the other spouse. The treatment complained of and the resultant danger or apprehension must be very grave, substantial and weighty. (vii) Sustained reprehensible conduct, studied neglect, indifference or total departure from the normal standard of conjugal kindness causing injury to mental health or deriving sadistic pleasure can also amount to mental cruelty. (viii) The conduct must be much more than jealousy, selfishness, possessiveness, which causes unhappiness and dissatisfaction and emotional upset may not be a ground for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty. (ix) Mere trivial irritations, quarrels, normal wear and tear of the married life which happens in day- to-day life would not be adequate for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty. (x) The married life should be reviewed as a whole and a few isolated instances over a period of years will not amount to cruelty. The ill conduct must be persistent for a fairly lengthy period, where the relationship has deteriorated to an extent that because of the acts and behaviour of a spouse, the wronged party finds it extremely difficult to live with the other party any longer, may amount to mental cruelty. (xi) If a husband submits himself for an operation of sterilisation without medical reasons 20 and without the consent or knowledge of his wife and similarly, if the wife undergoes vasectomy or abortion without medical reason or without the consent or knowledge of her husband, such an act of the spouse may lead to mental cruelty. (xii) Unilateral decision of refusal to have intercourse for considerable period without there being any physical incapacity or valid reason may amount to mental cruelty. (xiii) Unilateral decision of either husband or wife after marriage not to have child from the marriage may amount to cruelty. (xiv) Where there has been a long period of continuous separation, it may fairly be concluded that the matrimonial bond is beyond repair. The marriage becomes a fiction though supported by a legal tie. By refusing to sever that tie, the law in such cases, does not serve the sanctity of marriage; on the contrary, it shows scant regard for the feelings and emotions of the parties. In such like situations, it may lead to mental cruelty. 102. When we take into consideration aforementioned factors along with an important circumstance that the parties are admittedly living separately for more than sixteen-and-a-half years (since 27-8-1990) the irresistible conclusion would be that matrimonial bond has been ruptured beyond repair because of the mental cruelty caused by the respondent.” 27. Similarly, in the case of A. Jayachandra v. Aneel Kaur reported in (2005) 2 SCC 22 it has been held as follows:- “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 21 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 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 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 22 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 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 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.” 28. Issue No.(iii) as framed by the learned trial court governs cruelty and it is to seen as to whether the petitioner has been able to make out a case of cruelty or not. Admittedly the marriage was solemnized on 27.11.2009 and it is the case of the petitioner that the respondent had lastly resided at her matrimonial house on 06.06.2011. The petitioner has predominantly focused on the conduct of the respondent after the solemnization of marriage despite the respondent being showered with love and affection by the petitioner and his 23 family members and the petitioner had also encouraged and borne the expenses of further studies of the respondent. As per the petitioner, the respondent was not interested in indulging herself in domestic chores and she sometimes used to resort to violence. Despite the petitioner having remained in ICU for a few days on account of him suffering from certain serious ailments, the respondent never cared or bothered about the health issues of the petitioner and had also not visited the petitioner in the hospital. The petitioner in his evidence as P.W.1 and his other witnesses have supported the factum of cruelty suffered by the petitioner at the hands of the respondent. The respondent has examined herself as D.W.8 and though she has refuted the allegations made against her and has stated about taking care of her parents- in-law at the time of distress, but incidentally in her cross-examination she has not specifically stated about visiting the hospital when the petitioner was in ICU. The expression of desire on the part of the respondent to restore marital ties with the petitioner would have gone a long way in nourishing such relationship if the respondent had stood by the petitioner at his hour of need. The respondent as D.W.8 has stated about intermittent attempts made by her to return back to her matrimonial house but whatever has been stated by her, seems to be a vague and unsubstantiated attempt in order to support her cause and deny the petitioner his prayer for dissolution of marriage. Since June2011 both the parties are residing separately and the respondent, if at all, was serious of continuing with her marital ties with the petitioner could have at least filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights. Mere writing of some letters to the Digambar Jain Society expressing her willingness to stay with the petitioner would not concretize such blurry proclamation. In fact, what transpires from the maze of allegations and counter allegations is that the relationship between the petitioner and 24 the respondent has become acrimonious and bitter over the course of their marital journey and as we have noticed above, the act(s) of the respondent which has/have surfaced during her evidence would cement the allegation of cruelty as alleged by the petitioner. We may, at this stage, refer to the case of Rakesh Raman versus Kavita reported in (2023) 17 SCC 433 wherein it has been held as follows:- “23. In our considered opinion, a marital relationship which has only become more bitter and acrimonious over the years, does nothing but inflict cruelty on both the sides. To keep the façade of this broken marriage alive would be doing injustice to both the parties. A marriage which has broken down irretrievably, in our opinion spells cruelty to both the parties, as in such a relationship each party is treating the other with cruelty. It is therefore a ground for dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Act.” 29. On the basis of the discussions made herein above, we come to the conclusion that Issue No.(iii) has been proved by the petitioner and is accordingly answered in his favor. 30. The other issue of relevance is ‘desertion’ which has been formulated as Issue No.(iv). The explanation to Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 specifies the term ‘desertion’ and the same reads as under:- “Explanation.-- In this sub-section, the expression “desertion” means the desertion of the petitioner by the other party to the marriage without reasonable cause and without the consent or against the wish of such party, and includes the wilful neglect of the petitioner by the other party to the marriage, and its grammatical variations and cognate expressions shall be construed accordingly.” 31. In the case of Devananda Tamuli versus Kakumani Katakireported in (2022) 5 SCC 459 it has been held as follows: 25 “7. We have given careful consideration to her submissions. Firstly, we deal with the issue of desertion. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant relied upon the decision of this Court in Lachman Utamchand Kirpalani which has been consistently laid down by this Court is that desertion means the intentional abandonment of one spouse by the other without the consent of the other and without a reasonable cause. The deserted spouse must prove that there is a factum of separation and there is an intention on the part of deserting spouse to bring the cohabitation to a permanent end. In other words, there should be animus deserendi on the part of the deserting spouse. There must be an absence of consent on the part of the deserted spouse and the conduct of the deserted spouse should not give a reasonable cause to the deserting spouse to leave the matrimonial home. The view taken by this Court has been incorporated in the explanation added to sub- section(1) of Section 13 by Act 68 of 1976. 32. As we have considered in the issue of cruelty the conduct of the respondent in making attempts to resume her matrimonial relationship with the petitioner does not speak of a genuine desire on the part of the respondent; rather such desire appears to be a mere formality to curtail the grievance of the petitioner regarding the willful abandonment of the petitioner by the respondent without any reasonable cause. The evidence of the petitioner and his father seems to suggest attempts made to restore normalcy in the marital ties but such attempts appears to have fizzled out due to the unresponsive respondent. We, therefore, construe the act of the respondent as a conscious abandonment of the petitioner without any justifiable cause making such act(s) come within the purview of the defined term ‘desertion’ and consequently Issue No. (iv) is also answered in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent. 33. The learned trial court has come to an erroneous conclusion while answering Issue No.(iii) and Issue No.(iv) in 26 favour of the respondent and against the petitioner. After giving our anxious consideration to the materials on record and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the respective sides and the conclusive reasonings given by us as noted above, we hereby set aside the judgment dated 30.11.2018 passed by Sri Akhil Kumar, learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Hazaribagh in Original Suit No. 297 of 2014 and consequently dissolve the marriage between the petitioner / appellant and the respondent. 34. This appeal is allowed. 35. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stand(s) closed. (Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.) (Deepak Roshan, J.) Dated: 20 .11.2025 Shamim/- Uploaded on: 13/02/2026