Neutral Citation 2026:JHHC:17813-DB FIRST APPEAL NO. 39 OF 2022 1 First Appeal (DB) No. 39 of 2022 (Against the judgment and decree dated 02.05.2022 (decree signed on 04.05.2022) passed by Sri Rasikesh Kumar, learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi in Original Suit No. 506/2016.) Nisha Kumari, W/o Anand Kumar Gupta, D/o Sitaram Sahu, R/o Vill.- Gumla, Tower Chawk, P.O.- Gumla, P.S.- Gumla, Dist.- Gumla. ... Appellant Versus Anand Kumar Gupta, S/o Balram Prasad Gupta, R/o Vill. Qr. No. B 100, Sector-II, H.E.C., Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S.- Jagarnathpur, Dist.- Ranchi. … Respondent ---- PRESENT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI ---- For the Appellant : Mr. Arun Kumar, Adv. For the Respondent : Mr. Jay Shankar Tiwary, Adv. ---- CAV on : 16/01/2025 Pronounced on : 09/06/2026 JUDGMENT Per Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. : 1. Heard Mr. Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Jay Shankar Tiwary, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 02-05-2022 (decree signed on 04-05-2022) passed by Sri Rasikesh Kumar, learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi in Original Suit No. 506 of 2016 whereby and whereunder, the suit preferred by the respondent herein for dissolution of his marriage with the appellant has been allowed and the respondent has been directed to pay a sum of Rs. 7 lakhs to the appellant through Demand Draft and an amount of Neutral Citation 2026:JHHC:17813-DB FIRST APPEAL NO. 39 OF 2022 2 Rs. 5 lakhs through Fixed Deposit in the name of the daughter of the parties till her attaining majority. 3. For the sake of convenience, both parties are referred to in this judgment as per their status before the learned trial court. 4. The petitioner (respondent herein) had filed a suit for dissolution of his marriage with the respondent (appellant herein) under section 13(1)(i) & (iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in which it has been stated that the marriage of the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 11-06-2014 at Gumla as per Hindu rites and customs. After the marriage, the respondent came to her matrimonial house at Daltonganj and the petitioner who used to work in Ranchi frequented Daltonganj on every weekends. Out of the wedlock of the petitioner and the respondent, a daughter was born to them on 29-08-2015. The petitioner and his family members had borne the entire expenses relating to childbirth. Though after the birth of the child, the respondent was taken to the house of the petitioner but neither did she involve herself in any domestic chores nor did she look after the newly born child as the respondent is a mentally retarded lady. The mental sickness of the respondent was not disclosed to the petitioner by the family members of the respondent. The respondent from the very beginning used to misbehave with the petitioner and his family members and also used to go out of the house without informing anybody and return late at night and she also used to break household articles and any resistance to such acts would be met with violence and abuses. The petitioner who is employed in the Vidhan Sabha had lost his reputation and prestige in the society due to the incoherent behavior of the respondent. The petitioner and his family members, on coming to know about the mental health of the respondent, had got her treated on several occasions at Neutral Citation 2026:JHHC:17813-DB FIRST APPEAL NO. 39 OF 2022 3 RINPAS where the respondent was diagnosed with mental illness. The situation has come to such a pass that it has become impossible for the petitioner to continue his marital life with the respondent. Being apprehensive of being implicated in false criminal cases, the petitioner had given information to the various police stations and had also submitted an Informatory Petition before C.J.M., Ranchi. The respondent had voluntarily left the house of the petitioner on 14-06-2015 and has not come back to reside with the petitioner despite several efforts having been made by the petitioner. 5. On being noticed, the respondent had appeared and filed a written statement in which the allegations levelled against her by the petitioner has been denied. It has been stated that the proposal for marriage was finalized after verifying the character, education and family status of the parties and an engagement ceremony was also held. The demand of dowry of the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 7 lakhs and various other articles were fulfilled by the family members of the respondent. After the marriage, there was a demand of additional dowry of Rs. 50,000/- and various other articles for which the respondent was subjected to torture. Despite some of the demands having been fulfilled, the torture continued unabated but the respondent tolerated such torture for better future prospects. It has been stated that when the respondent became pregnant, she was left by the petitioner at her parental house and in spite of the best efforts made by the family members of the respondent, the family members of the petitioner refused to keep her as a result of which the respondent was shifted to a hotel and thereafter, due to the critical condition of the respondent, she was shifted to Jivan Jyoti Nursing Home on 29-08-2015, but the petitioner and his parents refused to visit the nursing home despite having been informed of the condition of the respondent. When a female child was born, the petitioner Neutral Citation 2026:JHHC:17813-DB FIRST APPEAL NO. 39 OF 2022 4 became violent and used abusive language. After birth, when the condition of the child became serious, she was admitted to Rani Children Hospital and all the expenses relating to the delivery and the treatment of the child were borne by the father of the respondent. Due to the pressure created by the society, the petitioner and his parents had come to Gumla on 17-10-2015 and returned back with the respondent and the child with a threat that if the demand of additional dowry is not fulfilled within three days, they will bring back the respondent to her parental house. The said demand, however, could not be fulfilled and resultantly, the petitioner and his maternal uncle had left the respondent and her child at her parental house on 22-10-2015. When the matter was informed to the Police, she was once again taken back to her matrimonial house but was left at her parental house on 05-06-2016 and all the jewelries, educational certificates etc., were kept by the petitioner and his family members. It has been stated that when the respondent and her daughter went to the house of the brother-in-law of the respondent for settlement, she was not permitted to enter the house and was also abused and assaulted. The respondent was thereafter forced to file a complaint case which was sent to the Police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and which resulted in institution of Gumla P.S. Case No. 86/2017. The respondent has expressed her willingness to reside with the petitioner along with her daughter. 6. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed for adjudication: I. Whether the present suit is maintainable in its present form? II. Whether the petitioner has valid cause of action for the suit? Neutral Citation 2026:JHHC:17813-DB FIRST APPEAL NO. 39 OF 2022 5 III. Whether the respondent (wife) is suffering from mental disorder of incurable nature? IV. Whether the petitioner (husband) is taking advantage of his own wrong? V. Whether petitioner is entitled for decree of divorce on the ground of incurable unsound mind of respondent? VI. Whether the petitioner is entitled for any other equitable relief available as per settled matrimonial legal position and/or under the provision of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955? 7. The petitioner has examined five witnesses in support of his case: P.W.1 Balram Prasad Gupta is the father of the petitioner who has stated about solemnization of the marriage of his son with the respondent on 11-06-2014 at Hotel Park in Ranchi as per Hindu rites and customs. Before marriage, he and his family had gone to Gumla on 18-02-2014 to see the respondent and they had seen the respondent from a distance as it was told that the respondent has become nervous and, therefore, she is not coming forward. On 02-05-2014, both sides assembled at Hotel Krishna Inn and on that day, it was told that the respondent has a severe headache and, therefore, she is not in a position to converse. The petitioner had seen the respondent from a distance and finally after the engagement, the marriage was solemnized on 11-06-2014. After two days of the marriage, the family members of the respondent had taken her bidai and had assured to send her back after four months. The two days the respondent was at her matrimonial house, she did not speak with anyone and his wife had told him that the respondent has brought a large no. of medicines with her. At the time of Dussehra, the respondent was brought to her matrimonial house Neutral Citation 2026:JHHC:17813-DB FIRST APPEAL NO. 39 OF 2022 6 and then also she had brought medicines and on being asked, she had disclosed that the medicines were for her headache. In the month of February, the respondent became pregnant and she went back to her parental house at Gumla and after nine months, she gave birth to a female child on 29-08-2015 at Jivan Jyoti Nursing Home. He has stated that the respondent was brought back to Daltonganj and in October 2015, the respondent had a seizure and on enquiry it came to light that the respondent had not taken her medicines relating to her mental illness for the last four months. The respondent was thereafter taken to Gumla where the Police personnel from Gumla P.S. were already present and under coercion, a settlement agreement was forced upon the petitioner. On 23-10-2015, the respondent was admitted in C.I.P. and after 15 days, the family members of the respondent got her discharged from C.I.P. In cross-examination he has deposed that the expenses at the time of childbirth were borne by the petitioner. P.W.2 Pushpa Devi is the mother of the petitioner who has reiterated what has been stated by the father of the petitioner in his sworn statement. In cross-examination, she has deposed that the case for divorce has been filed by the petitioner after being fed up with the behavior of the respondent. The respondent was admitted in C.I.P. for a period of 15 days. P.W.3 Sanju Kumari Gupta is the sister-in-law of the petitioner whose sworn statement is similar to that of P.W.1 and P.W.2. In cross-examination, she has deposed that before marriage of the petitioner, they had seen the respondent and thereafter only the engagement ceremony was held. She had not seen any document regarding the mental illness of the respondent but she had seen the prescription of C.I.P. where the Neutral Citation 2026:JHHC:17813-DB FIRST APPEAL NO. 39 OF 2022 7 respondent was treated. The respondent had instituted a criminal case against her also. P.W.4 Ranjeet Kumar Gupta is the brother of the petitioner who has also reiterated in his sworn statement what has been stated by the other witnesses. In cross-examination, he has deposed that before marriage both the families had acquainted themselves with each other. He had got the respondent admitted in C.I.P., Ranchi during the Dussehra festivals of the year 2015. The respondent was admitted in C.I.P. for one month, but after 15 days both the brother and mother of the respondent had forcibly got her discharged. P.W.5 Anand Kumar Gupta is the petitioner who has also reiterated what has been stated by the other witnesses in their sworn statements. He has also stated that the respondent used to take her medicines at night and it was always difficult to awake her in the morning. On 25-06-2016, he was in his home office when a neighbor called him up at 11:30AM and disclosed that his daughter is alone as the respondent could not be found which information was given to his parents and brother. When despite such the respondent could not be found, an information was given to Jagarnathpur P.S. On the next day, when he went to Gumla along with his daughter and parents he had found the respondent in her room and her mental illness had aggravated and she had also left taking her medicines. His daughter was snatched from him by the respondent and he was asked to leave the home. In cross-examination, he has deposed that on 14-06-2015, the respondent had left her matrimonial house and though attempts were made to bring her back but she levelled charges against him and his family members. 8. The respondent has examined three witnesses in Neutral Citation 2026:JHHC:17813-DB FIRST APPEAL NO. 39 OF 2022 8 support of her case: R.W.1 Usha Sahu is the mother of the respondent who has stated about solemnization of the marriage of the respondent with the petitioner on 11-06-2014. At the time of marriage, the father of the respondent had given as dowry Rs. 4,41,000/- in the bank account of the father of the petitioner, cash of Rs. 2,59,000/- ornaments and other articles. After the marriage, the petitioner and his family members started demanding an amount of Rs. 50,000/- in cash and various other articles and on protest that the demands made have already been fulfilled, the respondent was subjected to abuses and assault. On such information when the father of the respondent and others had gone to the matrimonial house of the respondent, they were pressurized to fulfill the demands. In the meantime, the respondent became pregnant and the petitioner left the respondent at Gumla and made a demand of Rs. 50,000/- and threatened that the entire expenses of the delivery has to be borne by the father of the respondent. On 24-08-2015 when the respondent was having labour pain, she was brought to the residence of the petitioner but she was not allowed to stay as a result of which she, the respondent and others had to shift to a Hotel at Upper Bazaar. She has stated that on 29-08-2015, the respondent had to undergo a caesarean operation at Jivan Jyoti Nursing Home, Upper Bazar, Ranchi and a baby girl was born to her. After much persuasion, the petitioner had come but got agitated on coming to know about the birth of a girl child. When the baby became seriously ill, she was admitted to Rani Children Hospital and after a prolonged treatment, the child could be saved. The entire expenses of the delivery and the treatment of the child were borne by the father of the respondent. After completion of the treatment, the respondent came back to her parental house at Gumla, but the petitioner and his family Neutral Citation 2026:JHHC:17813-DB FIRST APPEAL NO. 39 OF 2022 9 members did not even visit her. After much persuasion the petitioner and his family members came to Gumla on 17-10-2015 to take the bidai of the respondent and her daughter, but while going they had issued a threat that they will not keep the respondent if their demands are not fulfilled within three days. Since the financial condition of the family of the respondent was not good, the demands could not be fulfilled and resultantly, the respondent was stopped giving food and she was also subjected to assault also. On 22-10-2015, the petitioner and his parents had tried to flee away after keeping the respondent at her parental house which information was given by the respondent to the Police and on receiving a phone call from the Police Station the petitioner, out of fear, took back the respondent with a threat that the petitioner will solemnize another marriage after getting a divorce from the respondent. On 05-09-2016, the petitioner and his father after keeping all the ornaments and other belongings of the respondent had left the respondent at her parental house. On account of the torture committed upon the respondent, she had instituted Gumla P.S. Case No. 96/2017 against the petitioner and his family members. It is incorrect to say that the respondent is suffering from mental illness. She has stated that the respondent has been forced to stay at her parental house. In cross-examination, she has deposed that it is not correct to say that the petitioner and the respondent had never met prior to their marriage. The respondent had done her Graduation in Arts from Kartik Oraon College. About 4-5 months after marriage, she could come to know that the petitioner is not an engineer, but a computer operator. At the time of operation of the respondent, the petitioner was present and he had signed on the consent form. The child on becoming seriously ill was taken to Rani Children Hospital by the petitioner and his brother. Neutral Citation 2026:JHHC:17813-DB FIRST APPEAL NO. 39 OF 2022 10 R.W.2 Pawan Kumar Gupta is the brother of the respondent who has reiterated what has been stated by R.W.1 in her sworn statement. In cross-examination, he has deposed that the respondent had informed him over phone about the torture committed upon her. No panchayati was ever held to settle the dispute between the petitioner and the respondent. R.W.3 Nisha Kumari is the respondent who in her sworn statement has supported what has been stated by R.W.1 and R.W.2. In cross-examination, she has deposed that it is incorrect to say that after the birth of her daughter a demand of dowry was made. The demand of dowry was made from the very beginning. It is correct to say that on 05-09-2016, the petitioner had left her and her daughter at Gumla. 9. It has been submitted by Mr. Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant (respondent in the suit) that the learned trial court has not appreciated the materials on record while allowing the suit for dissolution of marriage. It has been submitted that the evidence of the witnesses has not been discussed by the learned trial court and it has also not considered the fact that it was the respondent who was subjected to torture for non-fulfillment of the demand of dowry. The doctor who had examined the respondent at C.I.P., Ranchi has not been examined and merely on account of a preliminary finding regarding the respondent suffering from schizophrenia, bipolar mania and depression, it has been concluded that it would be an impossibility for the petitioner (respondent herein) to continue with his marital life with the respondent. 10. Mr. Jay Shankar Tiwary, learned counsel for the respondent (petitioner in the suit) has submitted that the ingredients of Section 13(1)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 Neutral Citation 2026:JHHC:17813-DB FIRST APPEAL NO. 39 OF 2022 11 has been fulfilled as the respondent was found to be suffering from some mental disorders as per the findings of C.I.P., Ranchi. It has been submitted that at the time of marriage negotiation, the fact with respect to the mental instability of the respondent had been suppressed by her family members. 11. We have heard learned counsel for the respective sides and have also perused the trial court records. 12. Section 13(1)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 reads as follows: “13. Divorce.— (1) Any marriage solemnised, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, may, on a petition presented by either the husband or the wife, be dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground that the other party— [(iii) has been incurably of unsound mind, or has been suffering continuously or intermittently from mental disorder of such a kind and to such an extent that the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with the respondent. Explanation.— In this clause — (a) the expression “mental disorder” means mental illness, arrested or incomplete development of mind, psychopathic disorder or any other disorder or disability of mind and includes schizophrenia; (b) the expression “psychopathic disorder” means a persistent disorder or disability of mind (whether or not including sub-normality of intelligence) which results in abnormally aggressive or seriously irresponsible conduct on the part of the other party, and whether or not it requires or is susceptible to medical treatment; or]”. 13. The case record of C.I.P., Ranchi relating to the Neutral Citation 2026:JHHC:17813-DB FIRST APPEAL NO. 39 OF 2022 12 respondent/wife has been obtained through RTI and has also been exhibited. The diagnosis of the respondent on 24-10-2015 reveals that she is suffering from “Schizophrenia, Bipolar Mania, Depression and healthy control”. 14. As per the case records, the parents and sister of the respondent had come to visit her at C.I.P. on 27-10-2015 and further inputs were given about her personality and her parents had stated that the respondent was not having any past history of mental/psychiatric illness and after marriage she was having frequent quarrels with her husband and her in-law’s family were not giving proper affection to her. In the pre-discharge counselling on 12-11-2015, the petitioner/husband was explained to give a favorable environment to the patient. The discharge note reveals that the patient is manageable and having no active psychopathy. The Psychological Assessment Report dated 26-12-2015 reveals poor reality contact and there might be chances of self-destructive behaviour which needs to be further explored. 15. Section 13(1)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 states about mental disorder being one of the grounds for divorce and mental disorder has been defined in Explanation A which also includes Schizophrenia. As per Section 13(1)(iii), a spouse who is at the receiving end of a divorce petition must be suffering from mental disorder either intermittently or continuously. Merely alleging that the respondent is suffering from mental disorder would not have any potency until and unless; (a) the mental disorder is proved and (b) the sufferance from mental disorder is continuous or intermittent. The petitioner has placed reliance upon the case history of the respondent as noted down in the C.I.P. records, but no conclusive finding has been arrived at by the doctors at C.I.P. that the respondent is indeed suffering from mental disorder. As per the inputs given by the parents of the respondent, she did not have any history of mental illness and Neutral Citation 2026:JHHC:17813-DB FIRST APPEAL NO. 39 OF 2022 13 this has developed after solemnization of her marriage. The petitioner, in the pre-discharge counselling, was advised to give a favorable environment to the respondent. There is no conclusive report to the effect that the respondent is suffering from mental disorder and, in fact, the history sheet shows that there has been a substantial improvement in her condition. The petitioner has failed to show even from his evidence or from the treatment file of C.I.P. that there has been a continuous or intermittent phase highlighting the mental disorder of the respondent. The learned trial court has failed to give a wider construction to Section 13(1)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and has merely restricted itself to the initial diagnosis of the respondent at C.I.P. Issue nos. (III) and (V) are, therefore, decided in favor of the respondent and against the petitioner. As a consequence to the aforesaid conclusion, Issue no. (IV) is also decided against the petitioner. 16. We, therefore, on the basis of the findings recorded by us, set aside the judgment and decree dated 02-05-2022 (decree signed on 04-05-2022) passed by Sri Rasikesh Kumar, learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi in Original Suit No. 506/2016. 17. This appeal is allowed. 18. Pending I.A.s, if any, stands closed. (RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.) (ARUN KUMAR RAI, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated the 9th day of June, 2026 Preet/N.A.F.R. Uploaded on: 22 /06 /2026.