2026:JHHC:6883-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI First Appeal No.187 of 2017 Chiranjeev Kumar Jha, son of Shri Jagannath Jha, resident of Shastri Nagar, Banderjori, P.O. Dumka, P.S. Dumka (T), District Dumka. ----- Appellant Versus Smt. Rekha Kumari Jha, wife of Shri Chiranjeev Kumar Jha, daughter of Shri Santosh Kumar Jha, resident of Q.No.MG/9A, Ranchi Colony, P.O. and P.S. Maithan, District Dhanbad. ----- Respondent ------ CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN ------- For the Appellant : Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, Sr. Advocate For the Respondent : Mrs. Swati Shalini, Advocate ------- 34/11.03.2026 Heard Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, learned senior counsel for the appellant and Mrs. Swati Shalini, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 31.05.2017 (decree signed on 09.06.2017) passed by Shri Niraj Kumar Srivastav, learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court, Dhanbad in T (M) S No. 542 of 2013 whereby and whereunder the suit preferred by the appellant for dissolution of his marriage with the respondent has been dismissed. 3. For the sake of convenience, both the parties are referred to in this judgment as per their status before the learned trial court. 4. The plaintiff (appellant herein) had preferred a suit for dissolution of his marriage with the defendant (respondent herein) under Section 13(1)(1a) of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 in which it has been stated that the marriage of the plaintiff was solemnized with the defendant on 24.06.2005 at Maithan 2 according to Hindu rites and customs. After marriage both the plaintiff and the defendant started residing at Dumka and out of the said wedlock two daughters were born to them. There was peace in the marital life of the plaintiff and the defendant for about 1-1.5 years. The plaintiff had encouraged the defendant to obtain a law degree and in pursuance of which the defendant got herself enrolled in Law College, Dhanbad for which the plaintiff helped her in various manners with the support of his parents. In the meantime, the defendant was pressurizing the plaintiff to sell the house at Dumka, send his parents to their native village and start staying with the defendant at Maithan. Since the plaintiff did not accede to such demands of the defendant, he was subjected to ill-treatment at the hands of the defendant and her family members. It has been stated that after obtaining law degree the defendant had started her practice without any consent or consultation with the plaintiff and his family members. The defendant was not willing to reside with the plaintiff who is unemployed as his wife. The plaintiff could not attend the birthday celebration of his second daughter on 10.07.2009 at Maithan due to sudden illness and when he reached Maithan on the following day he was abused and tortured. It has been stated that on a request made by the plaintiff in writing the parents of the defendant had come and a detailed discussion had taken place. The matter was amicably settled and the plaintiff went to Maithan on the next day and brought back the defendant to Dumka. On 12.07.2011 the plaintiff had met with an accident causing fracture of his right arm and for better treatment the plaintiff was sent to Dhanbad by his father in consultation with the father of the defendant on 13.07.2011. On 15.07.2011 the plaintiff underwent an operation and the entire expenses were borne by the father of the plaintiff. Since the plaintiff had to undergo a final checkup after a week, he stayed at Maithan. The plaintiff after conversation with his 3 father had informed the defendant and her family members that he will go back to Dumka on 29.07.2011, but on 27.07.2011 a quarrel had taken place between the plaintiff and his brother-in- law and the plaintiff was abused and was on the verge of being assaulted. When the plaintiff was leaving for Dumka the defendant had refused to accompany him and the plaintiff returned to Dumka with Suraj Mishra and his wife. The defendant and her family members did not enquire about the health condition of the plaintiff from 27.07.2011 to 06.09.2011. There was an exchange of letters and the defendant had specifically stated that she is not willing to live as the wife of the plaintiff. Due to such dispute a meeting was held in the residence of the father of the defendant at Maithan in which others were also present and despite some proposal given by the father of the plaintiff to iron out the differences, the defendant did not accept such proposal and refused to enter into an agreement. The plaintiff had filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights bearing Case No. 103/2011 and on 10.09.2012 an application was filed by the plaintiff for withdrawal of the suit. 5. On being noticed, the defendant had appeared and filed a written statement in which the allegations levelled against the defendant in the plaint has been denied. It has been stated that the defendant had always tried to maintain a cordial relationship with the plaintiff and her parents-in-law. After the operation of the plaintiff at Maithan when the defendant went to stay at her matrimonial house at Dumka, the plaintiff had expressed his desire to oust her and solemnize another marriage. The suit itself is not maintainable since the suit for restitution of conjugal rights is already pending. The defendant has also expressed her desire to reside with the plaintiff and her parents without any condition. 4 6. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the following issues have been framed for adjudication:- 1. Whether the suit as framed is maintainable? 2. Whether the plaintiff has got a valid cause of action for the suit? 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty? 4. What are the relief or reliefs the plaintiff is entitled? 7. The plaintiff has examined three witnesses in support of his case. 8. P.W.1 Jagannath Jha is the father of the plaintiff who has stated that the marriage of the plaintiff was solemnized in the year 2005 with the defendant as per Hindu rites and customs and after two years of marriage disputes cropped up between them. The defendant did not want to stay at Dumka and put pressure upon the plaintiff to stay with her on a permanent basis at Maithan. The defendant had expressed a desire to study law which was encouraged by him and the plaintiff and in the year 2011 the defendant had obtained her law degree. He has stated that the plaintiff had gone to Maithan for his treatment and on 15.07.2011 he was operated upon and a plate was inserted in his fractured arm. At the time of treatment the defendant, Subhash Kumar Jha and his son as well as Kameshwar Mandal were present along with him. He had asked the plaintiff to return to Dumka along with his wife and children on 29.07.2011 but on 27.07.2011 the plaintiff had called him over phone and informed him that he is being abused and assaulted. He had offered to come to Maithan with a car but after sometime the defendant called him and asked him not to come as she will not rent a car and come back to Dumka. On the same day at about 4.30-5.00 p.m the plaintiff came back to Dumka 5 along with the brother-in-law of the plaintiff but the defendant and her child had not come. He has stated that his wife has several ailments but in spite of the same the defendant did not return and the health condition of his wife and the plaintiff made him miserable. The defendant and her family members for the next two months did not even come to know about the condition of the plaintiff and his parents. In order to restore normalcy in the marital life of the plaintiff and defendant he had gone to Maithan on 18.10.2011 along with Kashinath Mishra, Basukinath Pandey and Raghunath Jha and they had a discussion with the family members of the defendant but the defendant refused to go back to Dumka. On 18.11.2011 he had once again gone to Maithan accompanied by the persons who had earlier come on 18.10.2011 as also with the plaintiff when the situation was found to be tense and he had asked the defendant to come to Dumka on Sunday and the plaintiff will take her back. When he was going back to Dumka, the younger sister of the defendant spat at the car and started muttering something. The plaintiff had filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights which was not taken seriously by the defendant and instead she had filed an application in the High Court for transfer of the suit. He had come to know a year back that the defendant has started practice in Civil Court, Dhanbad. The defendant is a selfish woman and has a rude behavior. In cross-examination he has deposed that the plaintiff is not capable to bear the expenses of the family. Sometimes the plaintiff asks him for money for his own personal need. He had not given permission to the defendant to practice law. He has deposed that it is true that at the time of fracture of the arm of the plaintiff, the father of the defendant stood beside him at the time of distress. It is also true that the defendant and her family members had looked after the plaintiff and gave him proper 6 treatment. After the checkup of the plaintiff it was the father of the defendant who had sent his son-in-law to accompany the plaintiff in coming back to Dumka. The relationship deteriorated after the plaintiff came back to Dumka. 9. P.W.2 Kashinath Mishra has stated that he had attended the Barat of the plaintiff. In the year 2008-09 the defendant had created so much of trouble that he had to accompany the father of the plaintiff to Maithan to leave the defendant at her parents' house. He had gone to Maithan on 18.10.2011 and 18.11.2011 along with Satish Jha to resolve the dispute. The defendant despite repeated efforts refused to come back to Dumka. On both the dates the defendant had behaved very rudely and she did not even extend the basic courtesy. In July 2011 the defendant had taken the plaintiff to Maithan for treatment and she had never come back to Dumka thereafter. In cross-examination he has deposed that he does not have a family relation with the plaintiff. He does not know as to whether the plaintiff has filed any suit for restitution of conjugal rights or not. The plaintiff will take the Bidai of the defendant and her children. 10. P.W.3 Chiranjeev Kumar Jha is the plaintiff who has reiterated what has been stated by P.W.1 in his sworn statement. He has also referred to the exchange of letters through which the defendant had threatened him. Several times counseling had been done but the defendant was not ready to accept any condition. He has lost confidence on the defendant and it is too late in the day to restore normalcy in his marital life. In cross-examination he has deposed that in the legal notice dated 16.09.2011 the defendant had expressed her intention to stay with him. He has instituted the suit for dissolution of marriage after filing a withdrawal application in the suit for restitution of conjugal rights. The suit for restitution 7 of conjugal rights was disposed of in the year 2014-15. He has an income of Rs. 2000-4000/- per month. He is not financially capable to take care of his wife and children. The defendant during her stay at her matrimonial house used to cook only and his parents were looked after by a maid servant. 11. The defendant has examined herself as a witness. 12. D.W.1 Rekha Kumari Jha is the defendant who has stated about solemnization of her marriage with the plaintiff on 24.06.2025 at Maithan as per Hindu rites and customs and out of the said wedlock two daughters were born to the couple. In T(M)S No.542 of 2013 she had filed a reply in which she has expressed her willingness to stay with the plaintiff at her matrimonial house. When T(M)S No.542 of 2013 was dismissed, she had filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights being T(M)S No.398/2015. In cross-examination she has deposed that in her legal practice she has only one brief at present. In her application dated 03.03.2015 she had mentioned the income of the plaintiff as Rs. 65,000/- per month which is correct. 13. It has been submitted by Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, learned senior counsel for the petitioner/appellant that the petitioner has been able to show the manner by which he was subjected to cruelty and several instances have been given by him to highlight such assertion. Despite the best efforts made by the plaintiff, he was subjected to humiliation and was ousted from his in-laws place at Maithan. There has been no conjugal relationship since 27.07.2011 and the marriage has, for all practical purposes, become dead. The defendant, in fact, during her marital journey with the plaintiff, had herself stayed for a year at her matrimonial house. Mr. Sharma, learned senior counsel has submitted that it is to be borne in mind that the defendant had never alleged any atrocity or torture committed 8 upon her by the plaintiff. The defendant could obtain a law degree only on account of the active support of the plaintiff and his father. 14. Mrs. Swati Shalini, learned counsel appearing for the defendant/respondent has submitted that the learned trial court has correctly appreciated the nuances of the case while dismissing the suit. It was the defendant and his family members who had looked after the plaintiff when he had suffered a fractured arm, but the plaintiff had never cared to lead a peaceful marital life with the defendant. The defendant has always expressed her desire to reside with the plaintiff at her matrimonial house. 15. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also perused the trial court records. 16. The only issue of substance is whether the plaintiff was treated with cruelty by the defendant or not. The learned trial court has answered the said issue in the negative and therefore the plaintiff has assailed the impugned judgment in this appeal. As per the plaintiff, after his marriage with the defendant, the defendant had resided peacefully at her matrimonial house for 1-1.5 years after which the relationship deteriorated and the plaintiff has sought to give various instances which, according to him, are the focal points in his endeavor to seek dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty. The evidence of the plaintiff and his witnesses do not suggest of even a solitary incident which can be construed to be a compelling situation for the plaintiff not to stay with the defendant. Even the plaintiff and his witnesses have admitted that when the plaintiff met with an accident and fractured his arm, it was the defendant and his family members who got him treated and took care of him. Even after an operation was conducted and a plate inserted in his arm, the plaintiff 9 recuperated at Maithan and during this period the operating Surgeon had also reviewed the progress of the plaintiff. 17. On consideration of the pleadings and the evidence there apparently does not seem to be any justifiable reasons which could have implored the plaintiff leading to his instituting a suit for divorce. Earlier the plaintiff had filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights in which he had also filed an application for withdrawal followed by the present suit. This sequence of events does not lend any credibility to the claim of the plaintiff that he was subjected to cruelty. Nothing of substance has emanated either from the plaintiff or from the evidence of the witnesses of the plaintiff which would even show a semblance of truthfulness to the effect that the acts of the defendant had made it an impossibility for the plaintiff to reside with the defendant. The learned trial court, on consideration of the entire factual matrix of the case, has rightly decided Issue No. 3 in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiff. 18. Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, learned senior counsel has strenuously pointed out the long separation of the plaintiff and the defendant which would indicate that the marriage has broken down irretrievably and no fruitful purpose will be served in prolonging the marital ties. This, in our considered opinion, cannot be answered by us for the simple reason that the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 does not contain “irretrievable breakdown of marriage” as one of the conditions by which dissolution of marriage can be sought. The said contention of Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, learned senior counsel for the appellant is beyond the domain of this Court. 19. Thus, on consideration of the entire aspects of the case, we affirm the judgment and decree dated 31.05.2017 (decree signed on 09.06.2017) passed by Shri Niraj Kumar Srivastav, learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family 10 Court, Dhanbad in T (M) S No. 542 of 2013 and consequently we dismiss this appeal. 20. Pending Interlocutory application(s), if any, stand(s) closed. (Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.) (Deepak Roshan, J.) Dated: 11.03.2026 Shamim/- Uploaded on: 16/03/2026