Patna High Court
Kumari Sangita Ray @ Sangita Devi vs Rajiv Ranjan @ Bablu on 7 August, 2025
Author: P. B. Bajanthri
Bench: P. B. Bajanthri
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Miscellaneous Appeal No.1149 of 2018
======================================================
Kumari Sangita Ray @ Sangita Devi Wife of Rajiv Ranjan, Daughter of Late
Ram Bahadur Singh at present resident of Bishnu Bhawan, Kurj Balu Par,
P.O. Sadakat Ashram, P.S. Digha, District- Patna.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. Rajiv Ranjan @ Bablu Son of Late Mahesh Prasad Sinha Resident of
Mohalla- Keshwar Ram, Kurji Balu Par, P.S.- Digha,n District- Patna.
2. Vinod Singh Son of not known Resident of Mohalla- Jalalpur, P.S.-
Rupaspur, District- Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Gaurav Govind, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Ranjan Kumar Sinha, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI
And
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. B. PD. SINGH
CAV JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. B. PD. SINGH)
Date : 07-08-2025
Heard learned counsel for both the parties.
2. This Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed
against the judgment and decree dated 31.10.2018 passed
by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna in
Matrimonial Case No. 585 of 2009 whereby and
whereunder the learned Family Court has allowed the
divorce case filed by the respondent-husband under Section
13 (1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
3. The case of the respondent-husband in brief is
that the marriage between the appellant-wife and
Patna High Court MA No.1149 of 2018 dt.07-08-2025
2/22
respondent-husband was solemnized on 21.06.1996
according to Hindu rites and rituals at Patna in presence of
common well-wishers and relatives. After marriage the
appellant-wife came to her Sasural and after staying for two
days, she went to her Naihar with her brother and
respondent no.2 and after passing of one year, the second
marriage (Gauna) was performed and she returned with the
respondent No. 1 at her matrimonial house and she stayed
continuously for about four months. During her stay at her
matrimonial house, respondent No. 2 came to meet the
appellant-wife four or five times and without consent of the
respondent-husband they went to see movie. It is further
alleged that it was routine affairs of the appellant-wife and
respondent No. 2 to go for movie and hither and thither
without consent of the respondent-husband and when he
made objection, the appellant-wife became very angry and
threatened to eliminate him. In the meanwhile, out of the
wedlock, a female child namely Veena Vadini born on
10.11.1997. After birth of child, the appellant-wife stayed at her matrimonial house for about four months and during this period, respondent No. 2 visited her matrimonial house. Patna High Court MA No.1149 of 2018 dt.07-08-2025 3/22 Thereafter, she went to her Naihar. Some days after staying at her Naihar, the appellant-wife went to the house of respondent No.2 at Jalapur without consent of the respondent-husband and returned at her matrimonial house after passing of two and half month and this time she became complete changed and always used filthy languages against the respondent-husband and his mother. On 26.09.2000, the appellant-wife gave birth of one male child namely, Rahul Kumar @ Vivek Raj at the hospital and again after staying for three-four months, she went to her Naihar without consent of the respondent-husband and when the respondent-husband went to his Sasural for Vidaigari of appellant-wife, he came to know that his wife is living in the house of respondent No.2. After birth of child the respondent-husband thought that the behaviour of the appellant-wife will change but she has not changed her behaviour, rather, it was deteriorated and ultimately on 03.06.2005 when the respondent-husband objected the said unsocial act of the appellant-wife with respondent No. 2, she by saying that "Ham Unke Bina Nahi Rah Sakte Hain, Agar Aap Mana Karoge to Ham Kirasan Tel Chidakar Aag Patna High Court MA No.1149 of 2018 dt.07-08-2025 4/22 Laga Lenge Aur Sabko Jail Bhej Denge burnt herself along with two children. The respondent-husband, thereafter admitted them in PMCH but unfortunately, in spite of much efforts and treatment, his minor daughter namely, Veena Vadini died due to burn injury. Due to much care and nursing by the respondent-husband, the appellant-wife cured and started living happily with respondent no.1. However, one day, she came in sentiment and fairly admitted in writing that she is habituated to establish physical relation with the respondent No. 2 from very beginning and that is why she burnt with daughter and son. After passing of fifteen days, the family members of the appellant-wife suddenly attacked the respondent No. 1 in his shop. He somehow saved his life with the help of the villagers and his family members. On 28.09.2006, the appellant-wife again fled away from her matrimonial house and lodged a false case bearing Digha P.S. Case No. 216 of 2006 under Sections 498(A), 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code on 03.10.2006 against the respondent No. 1 and his mother at the instigation of respondent No. 2. In the aforesaid case, the respondent-husband was apprehended. Patna High Court MA No.1149 of 2018 dt.07-08-2025 5/22 The respondent-husband approached this Court. A coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 14.08.2007 has granted bail to the petitioner vide Cr. Misc. No. 27577 of 2007. It is further alleged that when the respondent- husband was enlarged on bail, the appellant-wife again lodged Digha P.S. Case No.180 of 2008 on 17.10.2008 against the respondent-husband under Sections 341, 323, 504 of the Indian Penal Code, however, during investigation, the case as against the appellant was not found true and final form was submitted by the police. The respondent-husband, in spite of all these events, tried his best to continue his matrimonial relationship with the appellant-wife but all his efforts went in vein since the appellant-wife did not agree to leave the respondent No. 2 and in that background, always abused, assaulted, humiliate the respondent-husband and tortured him on one pretext or another and ultimately left the society of the respondent- husband on 28.09.2006. Due to cruel behaviour of the appellant-wife the respondent-husband suffered mental and physical torture and seeing no alternate, he has filed this petition for grant of decree of divorce. Patna High Court MA No.1149 of 2018 dt.07-08-2025 6/22
4. The appellant-wife appeared and filed her written statement and denied the allegation alleged by the respondent-husband and submitted that with a view to take advantage in the divorce case, the false, fabricated and baseless allegations have been levelled against the appellant. The appellant-wife denied any illegal relationship with respondent No. 2, rather she says that she does not know respondent No. 2. She has submitted that her husband is suffering from Philomenia and that is why he is repeating about "Movie" words although in life she has never visited any Cinema Hall. It is therefore, prayed to dismiss the suit filed by the respondent-husband.
5. In this case respondent No. 2, namely, Vinod Singh has also appeared and filed his written statement stating therein that he has not visited any time at the house of the respondent-husband and it is wrong to say that the appellant-wife went to see the movie with him. The allegation levelled against him is completely wrong, false and baseless and the respondent-husband has dragged his name in this case only to create a false defence. It is therefore, prayed to reject the plaint filed by the respondent- Patna High Court MA No.1149 of 2018 dt.07-08-2025 7/22 husband.
6. On the basis of the rival contentions of both the parties, following issues were framed in this case by the learned Trial Court :-
1. Whether the case as framed is maintainable?
2. Whether the appellant has valid cause of action to file this case?
3. Whether the opposite party since after the solemnization of the marriage, treated the petitioner with cruelty as alleged ?
4. Whether the opposite party deserted the petitioner for a period of more than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the instant matrimonial case as alleged ?
5.Whether the petitioner is entitled to dissolution of his marriage with the opposite party by decree of divorce as prayed for?
7. During course of trial, altogether five witnesses have been produced on behalf of the respondent-husband which are P.W.1- Rahul Kumar @ Vivek Raj, P.W. 2- Shakuntala Devi, P.W. 3- Rajiv Ranjan Kumar (respondent- husband), P.W. 4 Nand Kishore, P.W. 5, Gita Devi.
8. The respondent-husband has exhibited following Patna High Court MA No.1149 of 2018 dt.07-08-2025 8/22 documents in this case in support of his case Ext.1- Photocopy of C.C. of Deposition of G.R. 454/2006 Ext.2- Photocopy of C.C. of F.I.R. of Digha P.S. Case No.180/08 Ext.1/A- C.C. of letter dated 28.10.2006 Ext.2/A, & 2/B- C.C. of FIR and charge sheet of Digha P.S. Case No.180/08 Ext.2/C- C.C. of F.I.R of Digha P.S. Case No.96/09 Ext.3- C.C. or order sheet of Digha P.S. Case No.96/09 Ext.3/a- C.C. of order sheet of Complaint Case No.3264(C) 07 Ext.4- C.C. of Deposition of Sangita Rai in 35(M) 13 Ext.5- Photocopy of voter Id card of Nand Kishore
9. On the other hand, appellant-wife has also examined four witness in support of her case which are O.P.W.1- Shika Kumari, O.P.W 2- Urmila Singh, O.P.W 3- Anuj Singh, O.P.W 4- Kumari Sangita Rai (appellant-wife herself).
10. The following documents have been exhibited Patna High Court MA No.1149 of 2018 dt.07-08-2025 9/22 on behalf of appellant-wife which are Ext.A to A/1- C.C. of order dated 14.08.2007 passed in Cr. Misc. No.27577/2007 Ext.B- C.C. of Judgment dated 29.01.2013 passed in G.R. No.4545/2006 Ext.C-C/1- Photocopy of Malguzari receipt Ext.D- C.C. of deposition of Rajiv Ranjan @ Babloo Kumar Ext.D/1- C.C. of deposition of Shakuntala Devi Ext.E- Photocopy of Malguzari receipt of plot no.530 Ext.F to F/3- C.C. of deposition of complaint case no.3264(C)/07.
11. After conclusion of the trial, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court has held that respondent- husband is entitled for a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion and accordingly the marriage between the respondent-husband and appellant-wife has been dissolved by a decree of divorce.
12. Thereafter, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and decree passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court in Matrimonial Case No. 585 of 2009, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant. Patna High Court MA No.1149 of 2018 dt.07-08-2025 10/22
13. The divorce has been granted on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. A perusal of the Impugned judgment would show that the following acts of cruelty and desertion were considered by the Family Court, as proved:-
a) Cruelty:
(i) From oral and documentary evidence, it is evident that the couple got married about thirteen years back. The marriage took place on 21.06.1996 and they are residing separately w.e.f. 28.09.2006.
(ii) Admittedly, the parties got separated on 28.09.2006 and appellant-wife has filed Digha P.S. Case No. 216 of 2006 and Digha P.S. Case No.180 of 2008 against her husband and other in-laws family member.
(iii) The Hon'ble Apex Court in "Jagbir Singh v. Nisha", (2015) 9 RCR (Civil) 873, "Rishipal v. Luxmi Devi", (2009) 4 RCR (Civil) 811, "Dharampal v. Smt. Pushpa Devi", 2004 RCR (Civil) 717, "Major Ashish Poonia Mrs. Nilima Poonia"; "Mangayakarasi v. M. Yuvaraj" (2020) 3 SCC 786, "K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa", (2013) 5 SCC 226 and "K. Srinivas v. K. Suneetha"
(2014) 16 SCC 34, has held that making unfounded Patna High Court MA No.1149 of 2018 dt.07-08-2025 11/22 allegations and filing false complaints against the spouse or his relatives amount to cruelty to the other spouse and by filing false cases against respondent-husband, he has indeed faced matrimonial cruelties at the hands of appellant-wife.
(v) It was observed by the Family Court that the couple have been living separately for about twelve years and this long separation has in fact put them in such a situation that matrimonial bond has broken down beyond repair. It was further observed that there are no chances of the couple living together and such a marriage is now unworkable and can be a source of great misery for the parties, if allowed to be continued.
14. Accordingly, it was concluded that the respondent-husband has been able to prove the ground of cruelty.
b) Desertion:
(i) The Family Court observed that the respondent-
wife left her matrimonial house on 28.09.2006 and since then they are living separately.
(ii) It was concluded that the appellant-wife had put the relationship to a permanent end and had not joined Patna High Court MA No.1149 of 2018 dt.07-08-2025 12/22 the respondent-husband. She has not filed any case under Section 9 of the 1955 Act for restitution of conjugal rights. Hence, it is evident that the factum of separation, intention to bring cohabitation has come to a permanent end which goes to establish that appellant-wife has deserted the respondent-husband continuously for a period of more than two years.
15. We have heard the parties and perused the paper-book as well as the impugned judgment.
16. The following question arises for consideration before this Court:
"Whether the decree for divorce granted on the grounds of cruelty and desertion by the Family Court, requires interference?"
17. The present divorce case has been filed on the composite ground of cruelty, desertion and adulatory.
18. The concept of cruelty within the meaning of Section 13 (1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act has been explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of "Joydeep Majumdar v. Bharti Jaiswal Majumdar", (2021) 2 RCR (Civil) 289, by observing as under: -
Patna High Court MA No.1149 of 2018 dt.07-08-2025 13/22 "10. For considering dissolution of marriage at the instance of a spouse who allege mental cruelty, the result of such mental cruelty must be such that it is not possible to continue with the matrimonial relationship. In other words, the wronged party cannot be expected to condone such conduct and continue to live with his/her spouse. The degree of tolerance will vary from one couple to another and the Court will have to bear in mind the background, the level of education and also the status of the parties, in order to determine whether the cruelty alleged is sufficient to justify dissolution of marriage, at the instance of the wronged party..."
19. In "Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh", (2007) 4 SCC 511, Hon'ble Supreme Court gave illustrative cases where inference of mental cruelty could be drawn even while emphasizing that no uniform standard can be laid down and each case will have to be decided on its own facts.
"85. No uniform standard can ever be Patna High Court MA No.1149 of 2018 dt.07-08-2025 14/22 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 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, Patna High Court MA No.1149 of 2018 dt.07-08-2025 15/22 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 Patna High Court MA No.1149 of 2018 dt.07-08-2025 16/22 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 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..
Patna High Court MA No.1149 of 2018 dt.07-08-2025 17/22
(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..."
20. On the anvil of the aforesaid principle of Hon'ble Apex Court when we examine the present case on the basis of the evidences adduced on behalf of the parties, it becomes clear that appellant-wife is living separately since 28.09.2006 without any reasonable excuse which comes under the purview of the cruelty and thus the matrimonial bond is virtually beyond repair. So, in this circumstance, if divorce is not granted, it will not serve the sanctity of marriage.
Patna High Court MA No.1149 of 2018 dt.07-08-2025 18/22
21. Moreover, all the witnesses examined on behalf of the respondent-husband have fully supported the case that behaviour of the appellant-wife towards her husband and mother-in-law was not good. They also deposed that respondent No. 2 always used to visit at the matrimonial house of the appellant-wife. P.W. 1 namely Rahul Kumar @ Vivek Raj who is non-else but the son of appellant and respondent No. 1 has deposed that her mother (appellant) poured kerosene oil on him (P.W. 1), herself and his sister and lit themselves on fire, as a result of which, they sustained burn injuries and his sister did not survive and died in the incidence. He has further deposed that he lives along with his father and grand-mother in a rented house as his own house was being occupied by her mother (appellant). The aforesaid evidence appears to be more convincing and reliable because it has come from the mouth of appellant's son. The case of the respondent-husband that appellant-wife is living adulterous live with respondent No. 2, Vinod Singh gets corroborated from the hand written note of the appellant-wife which has been exhibited as Ext-1, in which she has admitted that she has intimate relationship Patna High Court MA No.1149 of 2018 dt.07-08-2025 19/22 with respondent No. 2 since her childhood. All the witnesses have supported this fact that due to cruel behaviour of appellant-wife, the respondent-husband was residing in a rented house with his son and mother. The son of the appellant who has been examined as P.W. 1 has also admitted that his mother is a cruel lady so he lives with his father who loves him very much. During cross-examination, the appellant-wife has deposed that she was burnt along with her daughter but she has not filed any complaint against her husband or mother-in-law. At para 28 of her cross-examination, she has stated that after 8-10 months of her treatment, she filed dowry case against husband. At para 31 she has also admitted that her husband and mother-in- law had served her during her burn injury.
22. In "Jagdish Singh v. Madhuri Devi", (2008) 10 SCC 497, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the scope of interference by first appellate court, observed as under:-
"24. It is no doubt true that the High Court was exercising power as first appellate court and hence it was open to the Court to enter into not only questions of law Patna High Court MA No.1149 of 2018 dt.07-08-2025 20/22 but questions of fact as well. It is settled law that an appeal is a continuation of suit. An appeal thus is a re-hearing of the main matter and the appellate court can re- appraise, re-appreciate and review the entire evidence "oral as well as documentary" and can come to its own conclusion.
25. At the same time, however, the appellate court is expected, nay bound, to bear in mind a finding recorded by the trial court on oral evidence. It should not forget that the trial court had an advantage and opportunity of seeing the demeanour of witnesses and, hence, the trial court's conclusions should not normally be disturbed. No doubt, the appellate court possesses the same powers as that of the original court, but they have to be exercised with proper care, caution and circumspection. When a finding of fact has been recorded by the trial court mainly on appreciation of oral evidence, it should not be lightly disturbed unless the approach of the trial court in appraisal of evidence is erroneous, contrary to well-established principles of law or unreasonable..."
23. After going through the impugned judgment, it appears that there is no any apparent error of law and no Patna High Court MA No.1149 of 2018 dt.07-08-2025 21/22 illegality and infirmity in appreciation of evidence of the parties.
24. In view of forgoing discussion, we conclude that respondent-husband has made out a case for grant of decree of dissolution of marriage on the ground as mentioned under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
25. Considering the totality of circumstances, in our considered view, learned Family Court has rightly passed a decree of dissolution of marriage between the parties and we see no reason as to why, the findings as given by the learned trial Court should not be upheld.
26. So, the impugned judgment and decree dated 31.10.2018 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna in Matrimonial Case No. 585 of 2009 is hereby upheld with regard to passing a decree for dissolution of marriage between the parties.
27. If the appellant-wife has any grievance with regard to payment of permanent alimony, she may agitate her grievance under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act before the appropriate forum as the appellant-wife claims Patna High Court MA No.1149 of 2018 dt.07-08-2025 22/22 that she is not working anywhere whereas the respondent- husband claims that appellant-wife is serving as a teacher in Bal Shramik Special School at Makhdumpur, Digha, Patna and learned Family Court has also rejected the petition of the appellant filed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act for grant of maintenance with an observation that she is getting a salary of Rs. 4000/- per month which is sufficient for her survival. However, she is entitled to litigation cost and it is quantified @ Rs. 50,000/-(Fifty Thousands only). The same shall be paid by the 1 st Respondent within a period of three months from today.
28. The present appeal is dismissed accordingly, affirming the impugned judgment.
29. Pending I.A(s), if any, stand disposed of.
( S. B. Pd. Singh, J) (P. B. Bajanthri, J) Shageer/-
AFR/NAFR AFR CAV DATE 15/04/2025 Uploading Date 07/08/2025 Transmission Date N/A