The High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:38772-DB ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI First Appeal No. 281 of 2019 Smt. Vidya Kumari, wife of Chandresh Karn and daughter of Upendra Nath Dutta, resident of Village Rakhabani, Karpur Niwas Rakhabani (Bagnocha), P.O. & P.S. Dumka (T), District Dumka, Jharkhand and permanent address Village Karka Basant, P.S. Nanpur, District Sitamarhi, Bihar Versus ... Appellant Chandresh Karn, son of Kaushlendra Karn, resident of Village Karka Basant, P.O. & P.S. Nanpur, District Sitamarhi, Bihar --- … Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN For the Appellant For the Respondent : Mr. Niraj Kishore, Advocate : None --- CAV on 07.12.2023 Delivered on 03.11.2025 Per Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. JUDGMENT 1. 2. 3. 4. Heard Mr. Niraj Kishore, learned counsel for the appellant. None appears on behalf of the respondent. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 27.04.2019 passed by Shri Nalin Kumar, learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dumka in Original Suit No. 30 of 2018, whereby and whereunder, the suit preferred by the appellant for dissolution of her marriage with the respondent has been dismissed. For the sake of convenience both the parties are referred to in this
Legal Reasoning
judgement as per their status before the learned trial court. The petitioner/ wife (appellant herein) had filed a suit for dissolution of her marriage with the respondent/ husband (respondent herein also) in which it has been stated that the marriage of the petitioner was solemnized with the respondent on 17.06.2009 at Madhubani in the
Legal Reasoning
State of Bihar as per Hindu rites and customs. After marriage, the petitioner started residing with the respondent and also spent some time at her parental place. It has been stated that on the next day of 1 | P a g e marriage, the respondent with the assistance of his family members started making a demand of a fridge, cooler, four-wheeler and Rs. 2 Lakhs cash for which she was subjected to torture. When the petitioner became pregnant, the respondent wanted to abort the foetus, but she managed to wriggle out from such situation and ultimately gave birth to a female child in a private nursing home at Bhagalpur and the entire expenses were borne by her parents. After the birth of a child, the cruel behaviour and the demand of dowry became frequent and during the visit of the petitioner to Dumka, his sister and nephew were assaulted by the respondent for non-fulfillment of the demand of dowry by the parents of the petitioner. The petitioner had made a complaint to the Dumka Mahila P.S. on 23.05.2012 in which the respondent appeared and gave an assurance to take back the petitioner, but he never did so. Due to the cruel behaviour and demand of dowry, the petitioner had filed P.C.R. Case No. 482 of 2012 u/s 498A I.P.C. and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the respondent and his family members, which is still pending. The petitioner had also filed a case of maintenance before the Family Court, Dumka in Original Maintenance Case No. 15 of 2014 in which an amount of Rs. 6,000/- per month to the petitioner and Rs. 6,000/- per month for maintenance of the child and to fix deposit an amount of Rs. 25,000/- in the name of the daughter of the petitioner was ordered. The respondent had entered into a compromise in the complaint case, but he had never fulfilled the terms and conditions of the compromise. It has been stated that when the petitioner had filed a case for execution of the order of maintenance, the respondent had appeared on 01.03.2018 in the house of the petitioner at Bhagalpur with his parents and misbehaved with the petitioner and her minor daughter and refused to give any kind of maintenance to the petitioner. 5. On being noticed, the respondent had appeared and filed a written statement in which the allegations made by the petitioner have been denied. It has been stated that the respondent always took care of the 2 | P a g e petitioner with great love and affection and it was the respondent who had borne the entire expenses incurred at the time of delivery of child at Bhagalpur Nursing Home. The petitioner had no respect for the respondent and she did not like to reside at her matrimonial house. The petitioner did not like the respondent and used to humiliate him in many ways. The petitioner had a superiority complex on account of her higher educational qualification than the respondent. It has been stated that the petitioner had made a false complaint in Dumka Mahila P.S. and since the respondent had a desire to lead a happy conjugal life with the petitioner, he had entered in a compromise with the petitioner in the Police Station. The petitioner did not agree to adhere to the compromise and refused to go to her matrimonial house. The petitioner had instituted a false criminal case being PCR Case No. 482 of 2012 against the respondent and his relatives and the order taking cognizance against the father, brother and sister of the respondent was quashed by the Jharkhand High Court in Cr.M.P. No. 186 of 2016. The final order granting maintenance to the petitioner in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been quashed by the Jharkhand High Court in Criminal Revision No. 366 of 2017 and the matter has been remanded back to pass a fresh order with respect to the quantum of maintenance. The respondent has always been ready and willing to keep the petitioner and his daughter and this prompted him to enter into a compromise at the Mediation Centre, Dumka and accept all the terms and conditions of the compromise. In terms of the said compromise, the respondent had withdrawn Matrimonial Suit No. 135 of 2012 instituted u/s 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 which was pending before the Family Court, Sitamarhi and started residing with the petitioner at village Rangra, P.S. Naugachhia, District Bhagalpur where the petitioner is posted as a teacher in a plus two school. The respondent returned back various articles to the petitioner and also started providing money to the petitioner on a regular basis. It was the petitioner who backed out from the compromise as she was not ready 3 | P a g e to go to her matrimonial house, even for a day and on 15.11.2015, the petitioner ousted the respondent from the house and the respondent continued to reside at Bhagalpur in a rented house. The respondent had continued to provide necessary articles for daily use to the petitioner and also visited the petitioner and his daughter. It has been stated that the respondent is still ready and willing to keep the petitioner and his daughter with love and affection. Due to the behaviour of the petitioner, the respondent was constrained to leave Bhagalpur and by that time, he had lost his job also. After January, 2017, the respondent had never met the petitioner. 6. Based on the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed for adjudication:- Is the suit maintainable in its present form? (i) (ii) Has the petitioner got valid cause of action for the suit? (iii) Whether this Court has the jurisdiction to hear the suit as framed? (iv) Whether the respondent after solemnization of his marriage with the petitioner, treated the petitioner with cruelty? (v) Whether the respondent deserted the petitioner without any reasonable cause or consent of the parties, and the respondent has deserted the petitioner for continuous period of not less than two years immediately preceding the joint petition? (vi) Whether the petitioner/ wife has been able to prove any of the conditions mentioned in Section 13(2)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 against respondent/ husband? (vii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for decree of divorce? (viii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for any other relief or reliefs? 4 | P a g e 7. 8. The petitioner has examined four witnesses in support of her case including herself. PW-1 Vidya Kumari is the petitioner who has deposed that her marriage was solemnized with the respondent on 17.06.2009 as per Hindu rites and customs and after marriage, the couple stayed sometimes at Sitamarhi and sometimes at Dumka. Out of the wedlock, a daughter was born to her. After the marriage, a demand of Rs. 2 Lakhs in cash, fridge, cooler, etc. were made by the respondent and his family members and she was also subjected to torture. The respondent and his family members had also gone to Dumka and misbehaved with her sister and nephew for which an application was made to Mahila P.S. Dumka on 23.05.2012 which was compromised and the respondent had also signed on the same. In spite of the compromise, she and her daughter were not taken to either the house of the respondent or to his work place. The respondent works in a multinational company and earns a salary of Rs. 50,000/- per month. She has stated that when she had become pregnant, she was taken to Delhi to ascertain the gender of the foetus and made efforts to carry out an abortion, but somehow she managed to come back and gave birth to a daughter in a private nursing home at Bhagalpur, the entire expenses of which were borne by her father. After the birth of her daughter, the demand of dowry made by the respondent become more persistent and intense. She had instituted a case u/s 498A IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act being PCR Case No. 482 of 2012 against the respondent and his family members which is still pending. She had also filed an application for maintenance u/s 125 Cr.P.C. in which an amount of Rs. 6,000/- per month had been ordered and fix deposit of Rs. 25,000/- per year in the name of the daughter was also ordered to be done. The respondent in order to get bail had entered into a joint compromise before the Mediation Centre, Dumka in PCR Case No. 482 of 2012, but he never adhered to the terms and conditions agreed upon. The 5 | P a g e petitioner is continuously suffering from mental and physical cruelty at the hands of the respondent. In cross examination she has deposed that after 14-15 days of marriage, she had gone for her honeymoon to Sikkim and they had stayed at Gangtok for 6-7 days. Thereafter they had gone to Bhadrapur in Nepal to celebrate Madhushravani festival and they stayed for 14-15 days. None of her family members had gone to Bhadrapur, but her parents- in-law and her brother-in-law as also her sister-in-law had accompanied her. They had thereafter comeback to Dumka and at that time she was working in Eklavya School, Kathijoria. On the second day after coming back to Dumka, she had lost her job. During the summer break in school, she used to go to her matrimonial house, where she spent her holidays. She had joined as a teacher in T.N. Inter School, Rangra, Bhagalpur on 07.08.2010, where she is still working. After marriage she had stayed with the respondent at Bangalore, Delhi, Nepal, Muzaffarpur apart from staying at her matrimonial house. The demand of dowry was made by the respondent on 18.06.2009. After six days of the birth of her daughter, her in-laws had left her. The entire expenses of the hospital were borne by her family. After the mediation was done in Dumka, she had gone to Muzaffarpur during Diwali and Durga Puja holidays as the respondent was posted there. She had deposed that she used to come to Dumka Court from Bhagalpur though not with the respondent, but on the same train and bus. The respondent had lastly come to Bhagalpur in the year 2016 and committed assault upon her. She had always respected the respondent and has never humiliated him. PW-2 Pushpa Devi is the sister of the petitioner who has reiterated what has been stated by PW-1 in her sworn statement. In cross examination she has deposed that she had given evidence in the maintenance case instituted by the petitioner and she had stated about the torture inflicted upon the petitioner by the respondent on account of illegal demands made by him. She does not know that after 6 | P a g e 2015 there has been no conjugal relationship between the petitioner and the respondent. The petitioner earns an amount of Rs. 24,000-25,000/- per month and her daughter studies at Mount Asisi School, where the admission was done by the petitioner and the respondent as told to her by the petitioner. PW-3 Nitu Kumari is acquainted with the petitioner who has stated similar to that of PW-1 and PW-2. In cross examination she has deposed that she had joined as a teacher in T.N. Inter School, Rangra in the year 2013 and the petitioner was working in the said school prior to her joining. She had seen the respondent staying with the petitioner in a rented house of Bablu Thakur. She does not have any personal knowledge about the petitioner and the respondent, but she knows that they do not share a cordial relationship. In March, 2018, the petitioner had informed her over phone that the respondent along with her parents had come and they had left after staying for one hour. PW-4 Chanda Kumari is acquainted with the petitioner and her family members who has also stated in similar terms as that of the other witnesses. In cross examination she has deposed that the petitioner is her childhood friend and both their houses are adjacent to each other. The petitioner is working in Dumka for the last 7 years. A compromise was effected between the petitioner and respondent in the year 2014. The petitioner used to spend most of her time at Bhagalpur as she worked there and in holidays she used to come to Dumka. She had not seen the petitioner and the respondent staying together at Bhagalpur. The petitioner used to disclose from time to time, the misbehaviour done by the respondent at Rangra and Bhagalpur. The respondent has examined only himself as a witness. 9. 10. RW 1 Chandresh Karn is the respondent who has denied that he or his family members had ever demanded dowry from the petitioner or had ever tortured her. The petitioner was treated with respect and she used 7 | P a g e to be appreciated for attaining her educational qualification. He had borne the entire expenses incurred at the time of the birth of his daughter. In order to save his marital life, he had entered into a compromise at Mediation Centre Dumka on 22.02.2014 and pursuant to the same, he had withdrawn Mat. Suit No. 35 of 2012 and had also returned various articles to the petitioner. It was the petitioner who did not adhere to the settlement and did not withdraw any of the cases instituted against him by the petitioner. He had gone with the petitioner for admission of his daughter at Mount Asisi School, Bhagalpur and twice in the year 2016 and once in January, 2017 he had gone to the school along with the petitioner. It is true that he had not met the petitioner and his daughter after January, 2017 since he had lost his job and he was compelled to leave Bhagalpur. He and the petitioner used to come together to Dumka Court from Bhagalpur in the year 2016 and both used to return together. He had expressed his fervent desire to stay with the petitioner and his daughter. In cross examination he has deposed that he is a citizen of Nepal. He has not complied with the order dated 05.09.2018 passed in Maintenance Case No. 15 of 2014. Due to the dispute with the petitioner, he has not extended the amount which he had undertaken. The mediation failed because the petitioner did not fulfill the terms and conditions of the settlement. In the year, 2016 he used to go to the house of the petitioner. It is correct to say that he and the petitioner are staying separate for the last two years and there has been no conjugal relationship between them. 11. During the pendency of this appeal, an application has been filed by the petitioner/ appellant under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC for adducing additional evidence. Mr. Niraj Kishore, learned counsel for the petitioner/ appellant has submitted that the conviction of the respondent in PCR Case No. 482 of 2012 lodged by the petitioner enhances the claim of the petitioner that she was subjected to cruelty 8 | P a g e and therefore such additional evidence be taken on record and considered appropriately. 12. So far as the merits of the case of the case is concerned, Mr. Niraj Kishore, learned counsel for the petitioner/ appellant has submitted that from the time of marriage of the petitioner she was subjected to torture on account of the nonfulfillment of the demand of dowry and he has referred to several instances which according to him proved mental cruelty. There has been a willful abandonment by the respondent of the petitioner and desertion has therefore been proved, but the learned trial court has not at all considered the issues in its proper perspective and consequently the present appeal deserves to be allowed. 13. None has appeared on behalf of the respondent despite valid service of notice. 14. The marital bliss between the petitioner and the respondent did not last long and dispute and differences crept up leading to a strained relationship between them. The petitioner who is a school teacher had lodged two cases; one for maintenance and the other u/s 498A IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. It is the case of the petitioner that a settlement was arrived at, but the respondent had failed to implement the terms and conditions of the settlement though a denial has been made by the respondent to the effect that despite withdrawing the suit for restitution of conjugal rights it is the petitioner who was not interested to restore her marital life with the respondent. It is a fact that matrimonial case No. 135/2012 instituted by the respondent u/s 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was withdrawn vide order dated 02.06.2015, but the same would hardly be of any consequence so far as the respondent is concerned since the respondent was staying with the petitioner. 15. The term ‘Cruelty’ has not been defined in the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and its meaning and purport has evolved with time and the various judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court are a testimony to 9 | P a g e the said fact. In this context we may refer to the case of case of Vishwanath Agrawal v. Sarla Vishwanath Agrawal, (2012) 7 SCC 288, wherein it has held as follows:- 22. The expression “cruelty” has an inseparable nexus with human conduct or human behaviour. It is always dependent upon the social strata or the milieu to which the parties belong, their ways of life, relationship, temperaments and emotions that have been conditioned by their social status. 25. After so stating, this Court observed in Shobha Rani case about the marked change in life in modern times and the sea change in matrimonial duties and responsibilities. It has been observed that: (SCC p. 108, para 5) “5. … when a spouse makes a complaint about the treatment of cruelty by the partner in life or relations, the court should not search for standard in life. A set of facts stigmatised as cruelty in one case may not be so in another case. The cruelty alleged may largely depend upon the type of life the parties are accustomed to or their economic and social conditions. It may also depend upon their culture and human values to which they attach importance.” 26. Their Lordships in Shobha Rani case referred to the observations made in Sheldon v. Sheldonwherein Lord Denning stated, “the categories of cruelty are not closed”. Thereafter, the Bench proceeded to state thus: (Shobha Rani case, SCC p. 109, paras 5-6) “5. … Each case may be different. We deal with the conduct of human beings who are not generally similar. Among the human beings there is no limit to the kind of conduct which may constitute cruelty. New type of cruelty may crop up in any case depending upon the human behaviour, capacity or incapability to tolerate the conduct complained of. Such is the wonderful (sic) realm of cruelty. 6. These preliminary observations are intended to emphasise that the court in matrimonial cases is not concerned with ideals in family life. The court has only to understand the spouses concerned as nature made them, and consider their particular grievance. As Lord Reid observed in Gollins v. Gollins: (All ER p. 972 G-H) ‘… In matrimonial affairs we are not dealing with objective standards, it is not a matrimonial offence to fall below the standard of the reasonable man (or the reasonable woman). We are dealing with this man or this woman.’” Similarly in Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh reported in (2007) 4 SCC 511 it has been held as follows:- 10 | P a g e : 16. 99. Human mind is extremely complex and human behaviour is equally complicated. Similarly human ingenuity has no bound, therefore, to assimilate the entire human behaviour in one definition is almost impossible. What is cruelty in one case may not amount to cruelty in other case. The concept of cruelty differs from person to person depending upon his upbringing, level of sensitivity, educational, family and cultural background, financial position, social status, customs, traditions, religious beliefs, human values and their value system. 100. Apart from this, the concept of mental cruelty cannot remain static; it is bound to change with the passage of time, impact of modern culture through print and electronic media and value system, etc. etc. What may be mental cruelty now may not remain a mental cruelty after a passage of time or vice versa. There can never be any straitjacket formula or fixed parameters for determining mental cruelty in matrimonial matters. The prudent and appropriate way to adjudicate the case would be to evaluate it on its peculiar facts in and circumstances while consideration. taking aforementioned factors 17. The act of torture committed by the respondent upon the petitioner for nonfulfillment of demand of dowry has gained strength on account of the subsequent conviction of the appellant u/s 498A IPC vide judgment dated 30.06.2023 and which has been sought to be brought on record by way of additional evidence. The foundation of the case of the petitioner lies on ‘Cruelty’ and the same has been solidified by virtue of such allegations having been proved in a court of law. The additional evidence will have a significant effect in the case of the parties. The evidence of the petitioner (PW-1) reveals about a blissful marital life at the initial stage as the couple had gone to various places for their honeymoon as well as for attending to the festivities in Nepal. The respondent incidentally as per his evidence as RW-1 is a citizen of Nepal where his father has a business. However, the initial bliss soon evaporated and acrimonious relationship between them emerged which led to institution of cases. The settlement was short lived and the matrimonial dispute resurrected itself. 18. Issue No. IV is related to cruelty which the learned trial court has not considered in its proper perspective coupled with the subsequent development leading to conviction of the respondents and these factors 11 | P a g e would lead to allowing of the application for additional evidence and consequently the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent is dissolved on the ground of cruelty. 19. This appeal is allowed. 20. We make it clear that the issue of desertion has not been gone into by us on account of Issue No. IV having been answered in the affirmative. Pending I.As., if any, stand closed. (RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.) (DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated the 03rd November, 2025 MK/N.A.F.R. Uploaded on 13.02.2026 12 | P a g e