Neutral Citation 2025:JHHC:32925-DB FIRST APPEAL NO. 26 OF 2024 1 First Appeal (DB) No. 26 of 2024 (Against the judgment dated 16.01.2024 passed by Sri Alok Kumar Dubey, learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bokaro in Original Suit No. 184/2022.) Devashish Kumar Rajak, S/o Manes Rajak, R/o Gumla Nagar, Sector 12/E, P.O. & P.S.- Sector-12, Dist.- Bokaro. ... Appellant Versus Laxmi Devi, W/o Devashish Kumar Rajak, D/o Prabhu Narayan Baitha, A/P R/o Madavpur Colony, Gajodhar, P.O.- Dhandadih, P.S.- Andal, Dist.- West Burdwan, West Bengal. R/o Gumla Nagar, Sector 12/E, P.O. & P.S.- Sector-12, Dist.- Bokaro. … Respondent ---- PRESENT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI ---- For the Appellant : Mr. Arun Kumar Dubey, Adv. For the Respondent : None. ---- CAV On : 16/12/2024 Pronounced on : 03/11/2025 JUDGMENT Per Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. : 1. Heard Mr. Arun Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the appellant. None appears on behalf of the respondent. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 16.01.2024 passed in Original Suit No. 184/2022 by Sri Alok Kumar Dubey, learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bokaro whereby and whereunder, the suit referred by the appellant for dissolution of his marriage with the respondent has been dismissed. 3. For the sake of convenience, both parties are referred to in this judgment as per their status before the learned trial court. Neutral Citation 2025:JHHC:32925-DB FIRST APPEAL NO. 26 OF 2024 2 4. The petitioner (appellant herein) had filed a suit for dissolution of his marriage with the respondent (respondent herein also) under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, in which it has been stated that the marriage of the petitioner was solemnized with the respondent on 06.05.2013 as per Hindu rites and customs and after marriage, both started residing together at Gumla Nagar, Sector 12/E, District-Bokaro. Out of the said wedlock, a son and a daughter were born to them. After marriage, the petitioner and the respondent stayed happily together, but after four years, there appeared a perceptible change in the behaviour of the respondent as she started putting pressure upon the petitioner to stay separate from his joint family. Despite the petitioner making efforts to convince the respondent, the respondent was rigid in her stance of staying separately. The petitioner had stated in clear terms to the respondent that he will not stay separate from his parents and the respondent may stay with him or leave him. It has been stated that on 19.09.2018, the respondent, without informing the petitioner or his family members, had called her father and had left her matrimonial house along with her clothes, jewelry and other articles and she had also taken the children with her. The petitioner had gone to Andal to bring back the respondent and his children, but such effort proved futile and instead the petitioner was threatened that he would be implicated in dowry related case as a result of which, the petitioner returned back to his house on 03.10.2018. The petitioner had filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights which is still pending. The petitioner and the respondent are living separate for the last 03 years and during this period, no conjugal relationship has been established between them. 5. The respondent on being noticed had appeared and filed a written statement in which the allegations made by the petitioner Neutral Citation 2025:JHHC:32925-DB FIRST APPEAL NO. 26 OF 2024 3 has been denied. It has been stated that the respondent was subjected to torture at her matrimonial house due to non- fulfillment of the demand of Rs. 2 lakhs. On information, the father and some relatives of the respondent had come to her matrimonial house on 10.10.2013 and tried to pacify the situation and also expressed their inability to fulfil the demand at which the petitioner and his family members abused and assaulted the father of the respondent and her other relatives. Due to the intervention of the local relatives, the petitioner and his family members undertook not to abuse and assault the respondent in future but after 6 months the same behaviour and demand of Rs. 2 lakhs resurfaced. The respondent continued to tolerate such behaviour considering the future of her infant son and in the meantime, on 08.05.2017, the respondent was assaulted by the mother of the petitioner and kerosene oil was sprinkled upon her and she was attempted to be set ablaze. The respondent had fled from the house by raising a cry of alarm at which the neighbours assembled and pacified the situation and sent back the respondent to her matrimonial house. The respondent in order to save her pregnancy and with the permission of the petitioner had come back to her parent's house where she gave birth to a child on 23.01.2018. The entire expenses of child birth were borne by the parents of the respondent. It has been stated that after a few months of the birth of the child, the respondent came back to her matrimonial house but the behaviour of the petitioner and his family members towards her remained unchanged and the respondent continued to tolerate such behaviour. On 19.09.2018, the respondent after being assaulted, was ousted from her matrimonial house along with her infant child and her son was also assaulted. The respondent being constrained had filed a dowry related case before A.C.J.M., Durgapur being C.R. Case No. 644/2018 and a Neutral Citation 2025:JHHC:32925-DB FIRST APPEAL NO. 26 OF 2024 4 case of maintenance as well, being Misc. Case No. 329/2018. It has been stated that the petitioner had filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights and when the respondent had appeared, the suit was withdrawn by the petitioner. On 08.01.2019 at about 06-07:00PM, the petitioner had come to her parental house at Madhavpur Colony, Burdwan and started abusing the respondent and when she objected, she was subjected to assault. When the father of the respondent tried to intervene, he was also abused and assaulted. After the petitioner had left, he had made a phone call and gave threats to the respondent. The incident was reported by the Respondent to Andal P.S. It has been stated that despite an order of maintenance having been passed in favour of the respondent, the petitioner has not paid any amount till date. 6. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the following issues have been framed for adjudication: i. Is the suit maintainable in its present form? ii. Whether the Plaintiff has got valid cause of action for the suit? iii. Whether the respondent (wife) had subjected the petitioner (husband) to mental and physical cruelty after marriage? iv. Whether the petitioner is entitled to get a decree of dissolution of marriage on the basis of Section 13(1)(ia)of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955? v. Whether the petitioner is entitled to get the relief as prayed for? 7. The petitioner has examined three witnesses in support of his case: P.W.1 Jaya Devi is acquainted with both the sides and she has stated about solemnisation of marriage of the petitioner with the respondent on 06.05.2013 and the birth of two children out of the said wedlock. After four years of happy marital life, the Neutral Citation 2025:JHHC:32925-DB FIRST APPEAL NO. 26 OF 2024 5 respondent expressed a desire to stay separate from the parents of the petitioner and also indulged in cruel behaviour as well as committing assault upon the petitioner and his parents. On 19.09.2018, the respondent had left for her parental home and had taken with her jewellery, clothes and other articles. The petitioner had gone to Andal to bring back the respondent, but he was unsuccessful and he was abused and was on the verge of being assaulted by the parents of the respondent. The petitioner had gone to his in-laws’ place on several occasions to bring back his wife, but she refused. The respondent so long as she remained in her matrimonial house, was kept by the petitioner with dignity and honour. The respondent had left her matrimonial house when the petitioner had flatly refused to leave his parents. In cross-examination, she has deposed that the petitioner is employed in the Police Department. She does not know that the respondent had instituted a dowry related case against the petitioner. P.W.2 Devashish Kumar Rajak is the petitioner who has stated about solemnisation of his marriage with the respondent on 06.05.2013 as per Hindu rites and customs and after marriage, the respondent started residing at Gumla Nagar, Sector 12/E, Bokaro. Out of the said wedlock, two children were born. After marriage, for a period of four years, the respondent stayed with him happily, but from June 2017, there was a marked change in the behaviour of the respondent as she did not want to stay in a joint family. This led to a daily quarrel and the entire ambience of the house became suffocating. The respondent did not agree to the efforts made by him to convince her taking recourse to the future of the children. He had clearly spelt out to the respondent that he cannot leave his parents and this resulted in misbehaviour on the part of the respondent. He Neutral Citation 2025:JHHC:32925-DB FIRST APPEAL NO. 26 OF 2024 6 has stated that on 19.09.2018, the respondent, without informing him or his parents, went to her parental house and she took with her ornaments, clothes and other articles apart from his two children. On 02.10.2018, he had gone to bring back the respondent to his in-laws' place, but she refused and instead threatened to implicate him in a dowry related case. He had instituted a suit for restitution of conjugal rights being Original Suit No. 495/2018. He and the respondent are living separately for the last three years and there has been no conjugal relationship between them during this period. In cross-examination, he has deposed that the respondent had remained at his house for five years. In the case of maintenance instituted by the respondent at Raniganj, he has made a payment of Rs. 34,000/- and Rs. 5 lakhs is still due. It is correct to say that he had withdrawn the suit for restitution of conjugal rights. After the case was instituted by the respondent, his mother had lodged a case against the respondent, her mother and brother. He is ready to keep the respondent if the respondent shows dignity and respect towards him. P.W.3 Manmathan Rajak has stated similar to that of P.W.1 and P.W.2. In cross-examination, he has deposed that he is well acquainted with the petitioner. It is true that it was not the respondent who had left the petitioner, but it was the petitioner who had left her. The petitioner is his nephew in relation. 8. The Respondent has examined only herself as a witness: R.W.1 Laxmi Devi has stated about the solemnization of her marriage with the petitioner on 06.05.2013 and the birth of two children out of the said wedlock. The petitioner and his family members had demanded an amount of Rs. 2 lakhs and she was subjected to torture. When her father was informed, he had come in October 2013 along with some relatives to her matrimonial Neutral Citation 2025:JHHC:32925-DB FIRST APPEAL NO. 26 OF 2024 7 house and requested the petitioner and her in-laws to restrain themselves from such behaviour at which they were abused and assaulted. When the local relatives intervened, the petitioner and his family members assured them not to repeat such acts in future but after 6 months, the demand of Rs. 2 lakhs as well as torture resurfaced. She tolerated such torture thinking about the future and in the month of May 2017, the mother of the petitioner had assaulted her and by sprinkling kerosene oil upon her body tried to set her ablaze and when she raised an alarm, the neighbours arrived and the matter was somehow pacified. At the time of the said incident, she was pregnant and in order to save the pregnancy, she after taking permission of the petitioner had come to her parental house where in January 2018, she gave birth to a daughter and the entire expenses were borne by her father. During her stay at her matrimonial house, she was always respectful towards the petitioner and her in-laws and had never put pressure upon the petitioner to stay separate from his parents. After a few months of the birth of the daughter, she had come back to her matrimonial house where once again the demand of Rs. 2 lakhs and torture started upon her. In 19.09.2018, she along with her children were ousted from her matrimonial house and all her articles and belongings including ornaments were forcibly kept by the petitioner. She has further stated that in 02.10.2018, the petitioner along with his parents and sister had come to her parent's house and abused and assaulted her. When the neighbours assembled, the petitioner and his family members by leaving her son had fled away in a Maruti van. This information was given to the local police station, but the police refused to accept such application on the ground that it was a family dispute. She had instituted a dowry related case as well as a case for maintenance and despite an order of maintenance having been passed, no amount has been extended Neutral Citation 2025:JHHC:32925-DB FIRST APPEAL NO. 26 OF 2024 8 by the petitioner. In January 2019, the petitioner had come to her parental home and started abusing her and when she objected, she was assaulted by the petitioner. The petitioner had threatened and also abused and assaulted her family members. This information was given to Andal P.S. Prior to the institution of the present suit, the petitioner had instituted a suit for restitution of conjugal rights being Mat. Suit No. 495/2018 which was withdrawn by the petitioner. In cross-examination, she has deposed that there are 4 cases pending between her family and the family of the petitioner. She is staying separate from her husband from September 2018. After marriage, she has stayed at her matrimonial house for 1- 1.5 years. 9. It has been submitted by Mr. Arun Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant that several instances have been given by the petitioner regarding “cruelty” but none of the grounds have been appreciated by the learned trial court. The respondent was pressurizing the petitioner to leave the joint family and take up a separate accommodation and on refusal on the part of the petitioner, he was subjected to abuses and humiliation. The learned trial court has failed to take into consideration that the atmosphere of the house of the petitioner was vitiated due to the quarrelsome and cruel behaviour of the respondent. 10. None appears on behalf of the respondent despite service of notice. 11. Issue No. (iii) and (iv) are related to cruelty, the main plank of the petitioner seeking dissolution of marriage with the respondent. It is the case of the petitioner that there was cordial relationship between the petitioner and the respondent for a period of 4 years after marriage, but things took an ugly turn due to the adamant attitude of the respondent not to stay in the joint Neutral Citation 2025:JHHC:32925-DB FIRST APPEAL NO. 26 OF 2024 9 family of the petitioner and he was being pressurized to leave his parents and take up a separate accommodation which was refused by the petitioner which according to the petitioner further aggravated the situation. 12. Before arriving at a conclusion as to whether cruelty has been committed upon the petitioner by the respondent or not, it is necessary to refer to certain judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court which has considered the ever-expanding feature of cruelty. 13. In the case of Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi reported in (1988) 1 SCC 105 it has been held as follows: “4. Section 13(1)(i-a) uses the words “treated the petitioner with cruelty”. The word “cruelty” has not been defined. Indeed it could not have been defined. It has been used in relation to human conduct or human behaviour. It is the conduct in relation to or in respect of matrimonial duties and obligations. It is a course of conduct of one which is adversely affecting the other. The cruelty may be mental or physical, intentional or unintentional. If it is physical the court will have no problem to determine it. It is a question of fact and degree. If it is mental the problem presents difficulty. First, the enquiry must begin as to the nature of the cruel treatment. Second, the impact of such treatment on the mind of the spouse. Whether it caused reasonable apprehension that it would be harmful Neutral Citation 2025:JHHC:32925-DB FIRST APPEAL NO. 26 OF 2024 10 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 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. 14. 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 Neutral Citation 2025:JHHC:32925-DB FIRST APPEAL NO. 26 OF 2024 11 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 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 Neutral Citation 2025:JHHC:32925-DB FIRST APPEAL NO. 26 OF 2024 12 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 Neutral Citation 2025:JHHC:32925-DB FIRST APPEAL NO. 26 OF 2024 13 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 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 Neutral Citation 2025:JHHC:32925-DB FIRST APPEAL NO. 26 OF 2024 14 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.” 15. In the present case, the cruelty which has been sought to be projected is a mere wear and tear of a marital relationship and so far as the demand of the respondent to stay separate is concerned, none of the immediate family members of the petitioner has been examined to enhance such allegations. In fact, the assertion of the petitioner seems to have been contradicted by his own witness P.W.3, who has stated that it was the petitioner who had left the respondent which gains strength from the evidence of the respondent (R.W.1) who has stated about her being ousted from her matrimonial house. It also appears that a suit for restitution of conjugal rights was preferred by the petitioner which was withdrawn by him and immediately thereafter, the present suit has been preferred. The petitioner in his cross-examination has expressed his desire to keep the respondent with him. It also appears that the respondent himself was subjected to torture for non-fulfillment of the demand of Rs. 2 lakhs for which she had instituted a case under Section 498A IPC. None of the ingredients constituting cruelty has been proved by the petitioner and the learned trial Neutral Citation 2025:JHHC:32925-DB FIRST APPEAL NO. 26 OF 2024 15 court has rightly answered issue no. (iii) and (iv) in favour of the respondent and against the petitioner. 16. We, therefore, in the circumstances noted above, do not find any reasons to interfere in the impugned judgement dated 16.01.2024 passed in Original Suit No. 184/2022 by Sri Alok Kumar Dubey, learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bokaro and consequently, we dismiss this appeal. 17. Pending I.A.s, if any, stands closed. (RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.) (ARUN KUMAR RAI, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated the 3rd Day of November, 2025 Preet/N.A.F.R.