Jharkhand High Court
(Against The Judgment And Decree Dated ... vs Smt. Suv Laxmi Varati @ Doly Kumari on 17 February, 2026
Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay, Deepak Roshan
Neutral Citation
2026:JHHC:4499-DB
First Appeal (DB) No. 421 of 2018
(Against the judgment and decree dated 29.08.2018 (decree
signed on 31.08.2018) passed by Sri Yogeshwar Mani, learned
Principal Judge, Family Court, Bokaro in Original Suit No.
323/2015.)
Ajay Kumar Barnwal, S/o Sri Kedar Prasad Barnwal, R/o
Bihar Colony, Chas, P.O.- Chas, P.S.- Chas, Dist.- Bokaro.
... Appellant
Versus
Smt. Suv Laxmi Varati @ Doly Kumari, W/o Ajay Kumar
Barnwal, D/o Sri Satya Narayan Barnwal, R/o Durbiniya
Goryari Chandan, P.O.- Lohari, P.S.- Chandan, Dist.- Banka,
Bihar. ... Respondent
----
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
----
For the Appellant : Mr. Sanjeev Thakur, Adv.
For the Respondent : Mr. Anshuman Mishra, Adv.
----
Dated : 17/02/2026
JUDGMENT
Per Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. :
1. Heard Mr. Sanjeev Thakur, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Anshuman Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 29-08-2018 (decree signed on 31-08-2018) passed by Sri Yogeshwar Mani, learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bokaro in Original Suit No. 323/2015, whereby and whereunder, the suit preferred by the appellant for dissolution of his marriage with the respondent under Section 13(1)(i)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 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.
FIRST APPEAL NO. 421 OF 2018 1 Neutral Citation 2026:JHHC:4499-DB
4. The petitioner/husband (appellant herein) had filed a suit for dissolution of his marriage with the respondent/wife (respondent herein also) in which it has been stated that the marriage of the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized as per Hindu rites and customs at Swayamwar Vatika, Deoghar on 02-06-2013. After the marriage was solemnized, the respondent came to her matrimonial house at Chas, Bokaro where she stayed for 6 days. The respondent is a temperamental and whimsical lady and had emanated rude behavior with the petitioner and his parents. The marriage of the petitioner and the respondent was never consummated as the respondent had shown her disinclination to have a child. It has been stated that after 6 days of marriage, the respondent had left her matrimonial house and after much persuasion, the respondent had returned to her matrimonial house on 03-09-2013. There was, however, no change in the behavior of the respondent and the father of the petitioner was abused when he interrupted the respondent talking to someone over phone for long hours asking her to concentrate on domestic chores. The respondent had once again left her matrimonial house only to be persuaded by the petitioner again to return and the petitioner had agreed to the condition of the respondent to have a separate kitchen for herself. It has been stated that once when the petitioner was searching for his clothes in the almirah, he came across a letter hidden in the clothes written by the respondent which indicated that the respondent had physical relationship with another person. On being confronted, the respondent became enraged and told the petitioner that she enjoys the company of her friend more than the petitioner. The respondent had left her matrimonial house on 05-10-2013 along with her clothes and jewelry with the threatening that the petitioner and his parents will be implicated by her in false and fabricated cases. Despite attempts made by FIRST APPEAL NO. 421 OF 2018 2 Neutral Citation 2026:JHHC:4499-DB the petitioner, the respondent refused to return to her matrimonial house. The petitioner had filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights being Title (Matrimonial) Suit No. 158/2014 and when the respondent, during the conciliation proceedings, had refused to reside with the petitioner, the petitioner was compelled to file an application for withdrawal of the suit. The respondent had filed a complaint case being Complaint Case No. 382/2014 against the petitioner and his parents and she had also submitted two written complaints in the office of the petitioner. The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent has broken down irretrievably due to the circumstances created by the respondent.
5. On being noticed, the respondent had appeared and filed a written statement in which the allegations made against the respondent has been denied. The respondent had stayed at her matrimonial house for six months and during this period she was subjected to torture and a demand of Rs. 5 lakhs was also made. It was the petitioner who had manufactured the letter in order to create a ground for divorce. The respondent was compelled to leave her matrimonial house due to the torture committed upon her and she has been forced to stay at her parental house from 03-03-2014 onwards. The respondent was constrained to file a criminal case against the petitioner and his parents and the copy of the complaint was also forwarded to the superiors of the petitioner. The suit for restitution of conjugal rights was filed in order to secure bail in the criminal case and once the petitioner got bail, he had filed an application for withdrawal of the suit.
6. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the following issues have been framed for adjudication.
i. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form? ii. Whether there is any valid cause of action for filing this suit?
FIRST APPEAL NO. 421 OF 2018 3
Neutral Citation
2026:JHHC:4499-DB
iii. Whether the respondent has not allowed the petitioner to consummate the marriage after solonization of marriage?
iv. Whether the petitioner has been subjected to cruelty by the respondent after solonization of marriage? v. Whether the petitioner is entitled to get relief as prayed for by him?
7. The petitioner has examined four witnesses including himself, while the respondent has examined three witnesses. Some documents were also exhibited. Since the petitioner had failed to prove cruelty, the suit was dismissed vide judgment dated 29-08-2018 which is impugned to the present appeal.
8. The petitioner has filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC for adducing additional evidence bearing I.A. No. 14344/2024 based on the grounds stated therein.
9. Mr. Sanjeev Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that despite the petitioner having given instances with respect to the manner of cruelty meted out to him by the respondent, the learned trial court had come to an erroneous conclusion without any proper appreciation of the materials on record and without any sound reasonings. Dwelling on the interlocutory application for additional evidence, submission has been advanced that the respondent has solemnized another marriage despite the subsistence of the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent and this would amount to cruelty committed upon the petitioner.
10. Mr. Anshuman Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent though has supported the impugned judgment, but has not disputed the subsequent development regarding the marriage of the respondent to another person.
11. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective sides and have also perused the trial court records.
FIRST APPEAL NO. 421 OF 2018 4 Neutral Citation 2026:JHHC:4499-DB
12. "Cruelty" is an ever-expanding concept based on divergent circumstances and though "cruelty" has not been defined in the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, but the various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court gives a diverse platform to the said term and in this context, we may refer to the case of Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh reported in (2007) 4 SCC 511 wherein, it has been held as follows:
"101. No uniform standard can ever be 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 FIRST APPEAL NO. 421 OF 2018 5 Neutral Citation 2026:JHHC:4499-DB makes the married life for the other spouse absolutely intolerable.
(iv) Mental cruelty is a state of mind. The feeling of deep anguish, 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 which happens in day-to-day life would not be FIRST APPEAL NO. 421 OF 2018 6 Neutral Citation 2026:JHHC:4499-DB 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.
(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 FIRST APPEAL NO. 421 OF 2018 7 Neutral Citation 2026:JHHC:4499-DB 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.
102. When we take into consideration aforementioned factors along with an important circumstance that the parties are admittedly living separately for more than sixteen-and-a-half years (since 27-8-1990) the irresistible conclusion would be that matrimonial bond has been ruptured beyond repair because of the mental cruelty caused by the respondent."
13. 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 matrimonial FIRST APPEAL NO. 421 OF 2018 8 Neutral Citation 2026:JHHC:4499-DB 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 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 FIRST APPEAL NO. 421 OF 2018 9 Neutral Citation 2026:JHHC:4499-DB 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 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, FIRST APPEAL NO. 421 OF 2018 10 Neutral Citation 2026:JHHC:4499-DB 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 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."
14. The subsequent development which is enunciated in I.A. No. 14344/2024 gives a new dimension to the case of the petitioner. As per the averments in the said application, the FIRST APPEAL NO. 421 OF 2018 11 Neutral Citation 2026:JHHC:4499-DB respondent has solemnized marriage with one Shailendra Kumar on 22.11.2024 in support of which, the Marriage Card and some photocopies of the photographs of marriage have been brought on record. The said assertion has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent as is reflected in the order dated 08.10.2025. Solemnizing marriage with another person during the subsistence of the earlier marriage would act as a scar to the psychology of the husband and such act would come within the domain of the term "cruelty" accentuating the prayer for divorce made by the petitioner. Therefore, in the circumstances noted above, the prayer for adducing additional evidence is allowed and consequently, issue no. iv is decided against the respondent and in favor of the petitioner. Based on such conclusion, the impugned judgment and decree dated 29-08-2018 (decree signed on 31-08-2018) passed by Sri Yogeshwar Mani, learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bokaro in Original Suit No. 323/2015 is hereby set aside and the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent is dissolved.
15. This appeal is allowed.
16. Pending I.A.(s), if any, stands closed.
(RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.) (DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated the 17th Day of February, 2026.
Preet/N.A.F.R. Uploaded on: 17 /02 /2026.
FIRST APPEAL NO. 421 OF 2018 12