Jharkhand High Court
Moushami Kumari vs Kshitij Ranjan on 16 July, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Rajesh Kumar
2025:JHHC:19671-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
F.A. No.94 of 2024
-----
Moushami Kumari, aged about 29 years, W/o Kshitij Ranjan,
D/o Manikant Roy, Resident of Bompass Town, Dew Sangh,
Rani Manal Road, Deoghar, P.O. and P.S. Deoghar, District-
Deoghar, Jharkhand.... ... Respondent/Appellant
Versus
Kshitij Ranjan, aged about 37 years, S/o Dr. J.R. Prasad,
Resident of 3G, Prestige Apartment, Near Durga Mandir,
Hirapur, P.O. and P.S. Dhanbad, Jharkhand.
... ... Respondent/Petitioner
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
.....
For the Appellant : Mr. Mahesh Tewari, Advocate
: Mr. Ritesh Kumar Mahto, Advocate
: Mr. Shubham Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
: Mr. Akhouri Avinash Kumar, Advocate
.....
C.A.V. on 18.06.2025 Pronounced on 16/07/2025
Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
Prayer:
1. The instant appeal has been filed challenging the legality and propriety of impugned judgment passed on 16.12.2023 and decree signed on 23.12.2023 by learned Principal Judge, Additional Family Court No.II, Dhanbad whereby and whereunder the Original Suit No. 407 of 2020 filed by the respondent-husband under Section 13(1), (i-a) of 1 2025:JHHC:19671-DB the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for a decree of divorce has been allowed.
Factual Matrix
2. The brief facts of the case, as narrated in the plaint, which are required to be enumerated, read herein :-
It is the case of the appellant that she is legally married with the respondent and their marriage was solemnized on 24.04.2019 at Deoghar, according to Hindu Rites and Customs. After the marriage both the appellant and respondent had been living together as wife and husband at Dhanbad and Bangkok. Out of the wedlock the couple was blessed with no child.
It is the case of the respondent-husband that the appellant-wife, in order to satisfy her demands would often, threaten to commit suicide and to self-inflict herself with injury and on various occasion she has also misbehaved with the respondent and his family members.
It is further case of the respondent that on 13.08.2019 just few days before "TEEJ", a pious festival for married Hindu woman, the appellant left the respondent's father's house in Dhanbad to stay with her parents in Deoghar and did not perform "TEEJ" causing mental trauma, pain and agony to respondent and his family members.2
2025:JHHC:19671-DB It has been further stated that the appellant is also well qualified and is a graduate lady and she has also teaching experience in schools and private teaching apart from some other work experience.
It is the further case of the respondent that after marriage the relationship between appellant and respondent started witnessing marital trouble which deteriorated with passage of time due to appellant's unpredictable nature, erratic and abusive behaviour, short temper and high ambition & expectation out of life.
It has been stated that the appellant, within 2-3 days after marriage, made her intention very clear while the relatives of respondent's family were still around by declaring that till the time arrangements are made and formalities are completed for her travel to Bangkok, during the interim period the appellant will live only with her parents at Deoghar.
It has further been stated that the appellant had gone to her parent's house in Deoghar in May 2019, she had messaged respondent-husband on WhatsApp that her mother-in-law had said some objectionable things to appellant which if she shares with her mother, her mother would not allow her to return to Sasural in Dhanbad.
The respondent told to appellant that saying such 3 2025:JHHC:19671-DB false things against caring mother-in-law is not right and she is free to tell everything to her mother and then decide whether she wants to come to Sasural or not.
It is the further case of the respondent that the appellant started misbehaving with him and his parents. On 14.09.2019 the respondent's mother asked the appellant to drink milk, the appellant denied to drink milk on the reason that milk increases cough. On this respondent's mother remarked that whosoever has advised the appellant, he must be a "Dehati Doctor". Hearing this, the appellant lost her temper and started using harsh and uncivilized words against respondent's mother which generally is not expected from a daughter-in-law in traditional family.
It is further stated that the appellant-wife refused to go to Thailand on 26.09.2019 despite having a confirmed ticked causing deep mental anguish to the respondent.
It is further stated that after few days stay in her sasural, behaviour of the appellant towards the respondent and his parents became all the ruder and harsher which is incommensurate' with the etiquette that is expected from a wife and daughter in law in traditional family in India.
On 03.02.2020 when the appellant was residing in Deoghar with her parents, she again started sending several Whatsapp messages to the respondent saying that she has 4 2025:JHHC:19671-DB suffered a lot. The respondent objected to such message on the pretext that such baseless allegations would not be good to anyone. The appellant kept harassing the respondent by sending irrelevant messages during the day knowing well that the petitioner is working in office.
It is the case of the respondent that on 25/26.04.2020 the father of the appellant/wife called father of respondent/husband. He threatened the respondent and his family of dire consequences and the appellant's father supported by appellant and her mother also gave various threats to respondent/husband's father.
Upon this, the mother of the respondent has instituted a Complaint Case No.821/20 in Civil Court, Dhanbad.
It is further stated that the marital relationship between petitioner and respondent has deteriorated beyond repair.
It is further stated that the marriage between appellant and respondent has broken down irretrievably and there is almost remote possibility of reconciliation between the Parties. The respondent and his family members were subjected to immense mental agony harassment, cruelty and tortured on account of the willful actions and neglect of the appellant, towards the matrimonial bond. The 5 2025:JHHC:19671-DB appellant's conduct further reflects that from the very outset, she had no intention to live peacefully or cordial despite respondent's earnest efforts made within his ability to appease the appellant and have a cordial matrimonial life.
The respondent/husband had filed for divorce against his wife/appellant herein and prayed to dissolve the marriage between appellant and respondent.
3. The wife(appellant) has appeared and filed written statement denying the element of cruelty and stating the following facts therein: -
The wife stated that the present case filed by the respondent/husband is not at all maintainable either in fact or in the eye of law.
It has been stated in the written statement that the mother of the respondent/husband is a mischievous lady and she is the master mind for creating everything of mischief and she has adopted all cunning procedures to separate the appellant/wife and the respondent/husband.
She has been subjected to cruelty for demand of dowry and when the appellant expressed her incapability to fulfill the illegal demand of the respondent, filed the present suit.
It is further stated that the mother of the respondent has previously destroyed the life of girl namely Roma Srivastava and now she has hatched up the same 6 2025:JHHC:19671-DB conspiracy against the appellant.
It has been denied that in order to satisfy her demand the appellant threatened to commit suicide or inflicted herself with injuries on various occasions. She has never attempted to commit suicide. The appellant has never threatened the respondent/husband, his brother and parents to implicate them in false criminal case to ruin their lives.
It is further stated that she was strictly directed not to return on the occasion to TEEJ as the mother and father were the joint couple in the house and it was odd for the appellant to remain there.
It is further stated that the mother of the respondent was not at all happy at the return of the appellant at her matrimonial home and she abused and humiliated the respondent and her parents and this caused great mental shock to the appellant as a result she fainted but even then, there was no change in the harshness, rigidity, attitude of the parents of the respondent.
It is further stated that the mother of respondent is the king pin lady of each and every kind of disputes and differences between the appellant and the respondent. She is strong and stout physically and mentally and there is no health issue for her. The parents of the respondent have got 7 2025:JHHC:19671-DB no love affection or anxiety for the appellant. The appellant is a fit and fine lady without any physical ailments or any issue but the chocking situation and the atmosphere created in her matrimonial home by the parents of the respondent definitely resulted in the fainting of the respondent.
It has been stated in the written statement that the father of the respondent is no doubt a gentle and respectable person but he is a puppet in the hands of his wife.
The respondent had divorced his first wife. The appellant and her parents had anticipated that there may be a similar occurrence with the appellant. When this matter was raised before the respondent and his parents, they had promised to get the marriage registered and they had only completed the formalities of registration of the marriage but when it was to be registered the respondent and his parents did not appear before the marriage Registrar at Dhanbad and now they are trying to shift the responsibilities upon the appellant in a most cunning manner.
It has been stated that the respondent, in connivance with his parents, has repeatedly committed the fact of physical and mental torture upon the appellant. The mother of the respondent is a litigant type lady and the mother of the respondent has filed the C.P. Case with 8 2025:JHHC:19671-DB malafide intention with false and fabricated allegations only to cause harassment and suffering to the appellant and her family members.
It has been stated that the appellant has been deserted from her matrimonial home by respondent/husband without any valid or cogent reasons only with a malafide intention. The appellant is always ready to lead conjugal life with the respondent.
4. After hearing the parties, the learned Family Judge has framed the following issues: -
(i) Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form ?
(ii) Whether the petitioner has got valid cause of action for the suit.
(iii) Whether the marriage of the petitioner and respondent is fit to be dissolved on the ground of cruelty u/s 13(1) (i-a) of H. M. Act?
(iv) Whether petitioner is entitled for the relief as Claimed for?
5. The learned Family Judge, after framing the issues, has allowed the parties to adduce evidence. Accordingly, evidences were recorded which are being referred herein.
6. In order to prove and substantiate his case, the respondent-husband has produced and examined altogether 9 2025:JHHC:19671-DB three witnesses: -
(i) PW-1 Kshitij Ranjan (respondent herein)
(ii) PW-2 Aloka Ranjan
(iii) PW-3 Jyoti Ranjan Prasad
7. PW-1 Kshitij Ranjan is respondent-petitioner himself who has stated in his examination-in- chief that he was married with Smt. Moushami Kumari (appellant herein) on 24.04.2019 in Deoghar without any dowry as per Hindu rites and customs, in the presence of both parties and other persons of society.
The expenses of marriage such as fooding Lodging, transportation jewellery and cloths expenses, staying were borne by his parents. The appellant herein (wife) has falsely stated in her written statement that at the time of Marriage rupees ten lakh cash and a car was demanded by his mother. The appellant-wife has stated in her written statement that marriage was solemnized without dowry which has been mentioned in the marriage card of the marriage. But it is false to say that the aforesaid fact "without dowry" has been mentioned in pressure put by him upon her family members.
He has further stated in examination-in-chief that after two months of being failed mediation and after three months of filing of written statement a C.P. Case No.990/20 10 2025:JHHC:19671-DB u/s 498A, 307 and 379 IPC was instituted by the appellant- wife in Deoghar Civil court.
He has further stated that a criminal case is pending against the brother of appellant namely Kishlay Raj in which he has gone to jail also. There is criminal history of Kishlay Raj and he is involved in several other Criminal cases including the cybercrime. The aforesaid fact was not disclosed knowingly by the appellant and her family members prior to marriage.
There has been marital relationship between both parties but out of the wedlock the couple was blessed with no child. Just after the marriage some rift arose between both parties manifold day by day. The reason behind same is that appellant misbehaved with her in laws and she got annoyed on very trivial grounds. The appellant has falsely stated in her written statement that main reason behind the rift between both Parties is his mother.
He has stated that two-three days after marriage she threatened and also taunted him for solemnizing of third marriage and stated that she will leave him. Hearing the same he got 'mentally shocked. When appellant/wife went to her maika in May 2019 she has sent some objectionable whatsapp messages in respect of his mother. The appellant has falsely stated in her written statement that she was 11 2025:JHHC:19671-DB misbehaved by his mother. She used to quarrel with his parents on very trivial grounds, which caused him mentally agony. The appellant-wife often insulted and abused to him and taunted by making false allegations in day-to-day life. She also threatened that if he(respondent) does not fulfill her demands she will commit suicide and will implicate him in false case.
On July 2019, the appellant threatened by speaking loudly that she will leave his house if she was told to consume onion and garlic. Whereas before marriage she was ready to consume garlic and onion. He has further stated that he never forced to appellant to consume garlic onion or non-vegetarian food. On the contrary she was free to take her meal as per her choice. On 13.08.2019 some days prior to Teej festival she knowingly went away to her Malika whereas his mother had requested her to return back in sasural and celebrate the first Teej. But she neither returned to sasural nor celebrated Teej.
He has further stated that on 07/08.09.2021 the appellant-wife came to her sasural with her parents and brother Kislay Raj and after being proceeded by her family members from his house she created drama of unconsciousness. When she was medically checked up all reports came normal. On 21.09.2021 her parents came and, 12 2025:JHHC:19671-DB in their presence, she was asked as to whether she wants to reside either in Dhanbad or her maika then she refused to reside in Dhanbad and expressed her desire to live in her maika at Deoghar.
He has further stated that her ticket was booked for Bangkok but she had flatly refused to go to Bangkok and the ticket was wasted.
He has further stated that she had demanded Rs. five lakh by saying that his father has taken debt and if the same was not paid her father's house will be sold. She also has demanded Rs. 20,000/- for the mobile set of her brother Apurba Raj. She has further demanded Rs.50,000/- in August 2019 for cousin sister and Rs. 25,000/- for the job of her brother Kishlay Raj.
He has further stated that he again booked the ticket for the appellant for Bangkok along with his mother on 22.12.2019 with hope that in changed atmosphere everything will be all right. Thereafter respondent came to Bangkok but her behavior did not change. Even in Bangkok she was regularly putting pressure upon him to reside separately with his parents and pursuant thereto she tried to commit suicide on 27.12.2019 but anyhow she was rescued by him. Ultimately the appellant-wife returned back to India on 04.01.2020.
13
2025:JHHC:19671-DB She has filed false case bearing C.P. Case No.990/20 against him whereas in "Whatsapp" call she told several times that she was rescued by him. She has made several false allegations against him and his parents.
He has further stated that the appellant/wife knowingly and with her free will has deserted him and his family members and residing in her parent's house in Deoghar. She has falsely stated that she was driven out from her matrimonial home.
In cross-examination, he has stated that the negotiation of marriage between both parties was done on telephone. In January, 2020 the mother of appellant- Moushmi had made telephone call to his mother seeing his marriage advertisement. In advertisement it was written that he is divorcee person and will perform marriage without any dowry. In course of negotiation the family members of Moushmi had to come to Dhanbad. After negotiation he came to know that appellant is an educated lady and she is capable for her self-employment. Only eight to nine persons had participated from his side in the marriage. All the expenses of marriage were borne by his parents. The family members of Moushmi Kumari had written in the marriage card as without dowry with their free will.
Prior to this marriage, he had performed his first 14 2025:JHHC:19671-DB marriage but now divorce has been taken place with his first wife. The decree of divorce was granted of first marriage in June 2018 and he solemnized the second marriage on 24.04.2019. It is true that firstly his mother had filed a C.P. case against Moushmi Kumari and her family members and thereafter he had filed the divorce case and thereafter Moushmi Kumari has filed the C.P. case against him u/s 498A, 307, 379 IPC. She also has filed maintenance case against him. His second wife Moushmi Kumari resided with him for 40-50 days. At the time of first Teej he was not present in India and appellant was present in Deoghar. Being husband, he fulfilled all demands of Moushmi and ignored her rude behavior. He properly cared of her fooding and lodging and took care that she eats only vegetarian food. After marriage he along with his wife and her brother and parents has visited in a Mall in Delhi. He never visited and roamed alongwith his wife alone. His second meeting with his wife was held on 11/12.07.2019 and prior to 05/06.05.2019 they resided together for about 10 days. After returning from Bangkok his wife resided with his parents. He again came to Dhanbad in December 2019 and by that time his wife was living in his house along with his parents. On 22.12.2019 he went to Bangkok along with his wife and brother where she resided together 10-15 days. Thereafter, he did not meet with his wife as because she 15 2025:JHHC:19671-DB went away to her maike on 24.01.2020. He is not interested to restore his marital life with his wife as because she has filed false case against him.
8. PW-2 Aloka Ranjan is mother of the respondent herein who has supported the evidence of PW-1 in examination-in-chief.
In cross she has stated that earlier her son had filed a divorce case against first wife in which she has recorded her evidence. This divorce case was filed by her son on 18.08.2020. She has filed a C.P. case no-831/20 in March 2020 against Moushmi Kumari, her mother Geeta Devi and her father Manikant Roy. She had given advertisement for the marriage of her son. The marriage of both parties was performed with consent of both parties and their respective family members.
The appellant herein had tried to commit suicide also. From the very second day of the marriage the appellant started threatening her son by saying that she will leave him and thereafter, he may be perform his third marriage. The appellant herein continuously put pressure upon her husband to live separately and also demanded money with him. They tried to take the appellant to Bangkok two times, but first time she refused to go there and next time she went to Bangkok where on 27.12.2019 she tried to commit 16 2025:JHHC:19671-DB Suicide which was rescued by her son.
The marriage of her son was solemnized two times but no any child was born by the both marriages and after blood test the report of Moushmi Kumari was found to be normal. This marriage was performed by cheating to respondent-petitioner. The criminal incident of appellant's father was not disclosed at the time of marriage. Her daughter-in-law had demanded money. She has knowledge that her son has provided money to her daughter-in-law but she cannot say when and what amount was given. Since her daughter in law has filed Criminal case against her son, she does not want to keep her. It is not true that the rift arose between husband and wife due to her.
She has further stated that it is false to say that after being beaten they driven out the appellant-wife prior to Teej. It is false to say that only with purpose to grab money she solemnized this marriage. It is false to say that only to get money her son wants to solemnize third marriage and so has filed this divorce case. It is false to say that appellant was ready to go to Bangkok but neither she nor her husband allowed her to go to her husband. Her daughter- in-law and son resided together as husband and wife till 30th July 2019. It is false to say that appellant-wife had never deserted her husband and she still wants to live with her 17 2025:JHHC:19671-DB husband.
9. PW-3 Jyoti Ranjan Prasad is the father of the respondent herein who has supported the evidence of PW-1 (respondent-husband) in examination-in- chief.
In cross he has stated that the marriage of his son was solemnized through a marriage bureau and they had given advertisement in Newspaper. In the advertisement it has been mentioned that his son was divorcee and marriage will be performed without dowry. After being satisfied he visited to the house of appellant-wife. He had given costly suitcase and purse etc. by purchasing the same to his daughter-in-law. After marriage his daughter-in law resided peacefully for about 4 to 5 months and in the meantime, they provided Rs. 10-15 thousand and again Rs. 40,000/- was given.
He has further stated that he cannot say as to why the first marriage of his son could not be successful. Due to wrong behavior of his first daughter-in-law the said marriage was broken. The appellant-wife has falsely made allegations on the character of his son. Appellant performed this marriage with respondent herein by fetching conspiracy only purpose to grab money.
He has further stated that it is false to say that they had compelled the respondent to consume onion, garlic 18 2025:JHHC:19671-DB knowing the fact that she is vegetarian. It is false to say that Moushmi Kumar was beaten by them and she was not allowed to go to Bangkok. It is true has that the case of dowry has been filed by the appellant in which he and his wife are on bail. It is not true that appellant herein never demanded money with respondent-husband. It is false to say that on dt. 27.12.2019 in the night his wife and son had tried to kill the appellant/wife.
10. The appellant-wife has produced and examined altogether three witnesses:-
(i) DW-1 Moushmi Kumari (appellant herein)
(ii) DW-2 Manikant Roy
(iii) DW-3 Geeta Devi
11. DW-1 Moushmi Kumari is appellant (wife) herself who has Stated in her examination-in-chief that she was married with respondent-petitioner Kshthij Ranjan on 24.04.2019 with Hindu Rites and Customs. At the time of marriage Rs. Ten lakh was demanded by her in-laws from her parents. Her mother-in-law demanded a car also. When her family members expressed their inability to fulfill the illegal demand of her in-laws, they started torturing her physically and mentally.
12. She was treated as maid in her sasural. Her mother- in-law always made effort to deteriorate the relationship of 19 2025:JHHC:19671-DB husband and wife. Due to the torturing by her in laws once she got unconscious and she got nerves and thereafter they prepared video recording also to utilize the same for undue benefit. The intention of her in-laws was not clear prior to marriage. They also edited the "whatsapp" messages. On 27.12.2019 her husband and mother-in-law tried to kill her by putting cloths rope around her neck in Bangkok. On being raised alarm due to fear of gathering nearby people she got free. They have recorded video clip also of the incident by narrating the different story. She was forcibly sent to her maika. On being requested several times by her parents, her in-laws flatly refused to keep her as because her parents could not fulfill their illegal demands. Her parents and brother Spent huge amount in marriage. Due to pressure of respondent-petitioner and his parents it has been written in Marriage card as "without dowry" (Dehej Rahit). At the time of her marriage respondent-petitioner was posted in Bangkok. Her mother-in-law Aloka Ranjan is shrewd lady and she is master mind of all activities. It is her second Marriage with the respondent/husband as he had given divorce to his first wife.
It is true that she resided with the respondent as husband and wife in different places but it is also true that her mother-in-law Aloka Ranjan accompanied with both of them at different places. She always made effort and created 20 2025:JHHC:19671-DB hurdle in their conjugal life. It is not true that she was incompetent to conceive. The respondent and his parents made several allegations against his first wife namely Roma Srivastawa and they had also made similar allegations against the appellant and filed divorce case against her. She has never threatened the respondent and his family members to ruin their life. She is pure vegetarian lady and the same was informed to the petitioner and his family members. But after marriage her mother-in-law forced her to consume non- vegetarian food. On being denied by her she was not provided food and water.
It is false to say that she had promised to take non vegetarian food after marriage. At the time of Teej she was asked by her mother-in-law that her husband is in abroad so there is no need for her to reside in her sasural. She was misbehaved and compelled to go to her maika. It is true that her father-in-law is a gentle man and a respected person but he is yes man of his wife. She has further denied all allegation made by the petitioner (respondent herein) in his plaint.
In cross-examination, she has stated that why the respondent had filed this divorce case, she cannot say the reason behind the same. She has not stated to her friend and other persons that respondent is divorcee person. She 21 2025:JHHC:19671-DB came to know about respondent and his family members through the add published in Newspaper. She has knowledge that prior to marriage respondent and his family members consumed onion garlic and non-vegetarian food and her in-laws assured, they are ready to eat food as cooked by her. After marriage she cooked vegetarian food by mixing onion and garlic as per the direction of her mother- in-law. She is separated with respondent and his family members from 24.01.2020. At the time of her marriage no any criminal case was pending against her brother Kishlay Raj.
She had talked with respondent/husband last time on 16.04.2020 in the morning on 6.00 AM to 10.00AM on telephone. She visited to Bangkok with respondent-husband and her mother-in-law on 22.12.2019 only once. The said ticket was booked by her husband. In Bangkok she cooked her food sometimes where she was kept starved whole day. She traveled by air first time while going to Bangkok. She never asked her husband to perform third Marriage. When she had gone to Bangkok on 27.12.2019, she was in touch with her family members in India through "whatsapp". The incident as mentioned in para-8 was informed by her to her parents. The said matter was not informed to Bangkok police or Indian Embassy. After returning from Bangkok she came to Government residential house along with her 22 2025:JHHC:19671-DB mother-in-law and father-in-law in Daltonganj and resided there for two months.
She agreed for marriage as because she was asked for marriage without dowry. She and her family members met with Roma Srivawastwa once or twice after the marriage. She did not make any complaint regarding allegation made in para-59 as because she wanted to maintain her conjugal life.
13. DW-2 Manikant Roy is father of the appellant herein who has supported the evidence of DW-1 in examination-in-chief.
In cross-examination, he has stated that this suit was filed by Kshitij Ranjan against her daughter for decree of divorce. In the criminal case against his son Kishlay Raj but in the said case his son was acquitted by Deoghar Court. It is not true that his family is needed money and so his son has committed serious crime of snatching the chain. It is not true that Kshitij Ranjan is having good salary and so by fetching conspiracy, he performed the marriage of his daughter with petitioner (respondent herein). He has not made complaint at any platform against the respondent- husband and his family members. Presently his daughter resides with him. She is not doing job at any place. He has borrowed money of Rs. five lakhs from Nawal Singh. The 23 2025:JHHC:19671-DB said amount has been paid to Nawal Singh in different period. For borrowing the aforesaid money, he has not mortgaged any document. Since he has no sufficient income and so he does not file income -tax return. He has mortgaged his house to Nawal Singh for 4-5 months. His daughter has no any boyfriend. It is not true that appellant was tortured by the respondent in various ways and on the said ground respondent is entitled for divorce.
14. DW-3 Geeta Devi is mother of the appellant herein who has supported the evidence of DW-1 in examination-in- chief.
In cross-examination, she has stated that this case was filed by Kshitij Ranjan against Moushmi Kumari for divorce. He has made allegation against his wife that appellant tortured the respondent. Presently Moushmi Kumari is residing in her maika. Her daughter cooks food in house for entire family. Her daughter uses the android mobile given by Kshitij Ranjan to her. Her daughter has filed a case against her in- laws u/s 498A IPC. She is housewife and resides in the house.
15. The learned Family Judge, based upon the evidence adduced on behalf of the parties, has found the element of cruelty to be proved by taking into consideration the telephonic conversation in between the appellant-wife and 24 2025:JHHC:19671-DB respondent-husband wherein in course of talking, the attempt to commit suicide has been accepted to be admitted by the appellant-wife and the same has been taken as a ground to substantiate the element of cruelty which led the learned family court to pass the decree of divorce by passing the impugned judgment.
Submission made on behalf of the appellant-wife
16. Mr. Mahesh Tewari, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-wife, has taken the following grounds in assailing the impugned judgment: -
(i) The learned Family Judge has not appreciated the exact meaning of cruelty as has been interpreted by Hon'ble Apex Court in the decisions wherein it has been established that wear and tear type of quarrel will not come under the fold of cruelty.
(ii) It has been contended that the element of cruelty has been found to be substantiated by the learned Family Judge on the basis of a telephonic chat which has been produced by the respondent-husband and that has been accepted by the learned Family Judge and not only that the conversation of the appellant wife has been accepted to be acceptance by the appellant wife of committing suicide.
(iii) The ground has been taken that learned Family Judge, while doing so, has not taken any endeavour to 25 2025:JHHC:19671-DB substantiate from getting an expert opinion regarding veracity of the telephonic conversation which has been said to be produced by way of Compact Disc (CD).
(iv) The contention has been raised that the learned Family Judge ought to have sent the said CD to the FSL along with sample of the voice of appellant wife to have the satisfaction regarding corroboration of the voice said to be of the appellant-wife but in absence thereof, the conversation has been accepted to be of the appellant-
wife and that has been taken as a ground to substantiate the element of cruelty based upon that the decree of divorce has been passed.
(v) It has been contended by referring to page 48 of the impugned judgment at para 13 wherein the deposition of the petitioner-husband (respondent herein) has been incorporated wherein the reference of WhatsApp message has been made but no document has been produced regarding the WhatsApp chat, rather, contrary to the testimony, the CD and the scripted conversation in between the appellant-wife and the respondent-husband has been taken into consideration, hence the learned Family Judge has gone into wrong premise in order to have the satisfaction to substantiate the element of cruelty by 26 2025:JHHC:19671-DB deviating itself contrary to the testimony of the respondent-husband.
(vi) It has been contended that the present marriage is the second marriage of the respondent-husband. He has solemnized first marriage and in the like manner, he has got divorce by filing application under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The same ground has been taken to prove the element of cruelty that the first wife has admitted to commit suicide. The same being an ex parte decree, the learned Family Judge in the said case being Original Suit No.194 of 2016, has dissolved the marriage on the ground of cruelty. Submission, therefore, has been made by referring to the fact of the present case that same modus operandi has been adopted for getting divorce by trying to prove the element of cruelty on the ground of attempt to commit suicide based upon the telephonic conversation.
(vii) It has been submitted that in the first divorce suit also, the similar approach was adopted by the respondent- husband, i.e., to prove the element of cruelty the telephonic conversation has been taken recourse to.
(viii) The learned counsel has further submitted that the present marriage with the appellant-wife has been solemnized in a concealed way as has been admitted 27 2025:JHHC:19671-DB himself by the respondent-husband that the second marriage was solemnized in Deoghar while the first marriage was solemnized in Jamshedpur. The respondent-husband is the resident of the district of Dhanbad.
(ix) It has also been stated that in the present marriage ceremony, only two friends and parents total eight persons had participated. This conduct of the present respondent-husband reflects that what type of status he is having in the society.
17. The learned counsel, based upon the aforesaid grounds, has submitted that it is, therefore, a case where the learned Family Judge has dissolved the marriage without any cogent evidence and, as such, the impugned judgment is fit to be quashed and set aside. Submission made on behalf of respondent-husband
18. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-husband, has taken the following grounds while defending the impugned judgment: -
(i) It has been contended that what has been stated by Mr. Tewari, learned counsel for the appellant regarding the issue of dissolution of first marriage or the participants in the marriage, few in number, are admitted one but the divorce since has been granted only on one ground, i.e., first attempt to commit 28 2025:JHHC:19671-DB suicide which has been taken into consideration as having element of cruelty.
(ii) It has been submitted that one attempt to commit suicide is sufficient to prove the element of cruelty.
(iii) The learned Family Judge has gone into the aforesaid aspect of the matter and considering the Ext.X/7 (whatsapp chat between the appellant and respondent), Material Ext.-I (CD audio/video clip) and Material Ext.-
II (Record audio/video in CD).
(iv) The telephonic conversation of the respondent-
husband with the appellant-wife wherein the fact about attempt to commit suicide has been admitted which has been taken as a substance to prove the element of cruelty. Hence, the judgment of dissolution of marriage as impugned herein cannot be said to suffer from an error, since, one attempt to commit suicide is sufficient to prove the element of cruelty.
19. Learned counsel for the respondent-husband on the aforesaid grounds has submitted that the impugned judgment requires no interference by this Court. Analysis
20. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleading made as available in the plaint and the written statement.
29
2025:JHHC:19671-DB
21. We have also gone through the evidence as recorded of the witnesses adduced on behalf of the appellant-wife and the respondent-husband as also the exhibits as available in the trial court record.
22. This Court, on consideration of the argument advanced on behalf of the parties and based upon the pleading made in the written statement, is of the view that following issues are to be considered :-
(i) Whether on the basis of telephonic conversation as scripted by the respondent-husband containing the normal conversation in between the wife and husband wherein the fact of attempt to commit suicide, in normal course of conversation, if said to be accepted by the respondent-wife, can it be said to be substantive evidence to prove the element of cruelty.
(ii) Whether accepting transcript form of the audio conversation of the appellant-wife and respondent-
husband based upon the CD which has been taken into consideration by the learned Family Judge can be said to be correct approach wherein there is no reference of CD containing the audio conversation, rather, reference of WhatsApp chat has been made in the evidence as recorded by the respondent-husband.
23. Both the issues since are interlinked and, as such, both are being taken into consideration together but before 30 2025:JHHC:19671-DB considering the aforesaid issues, once again the admitted fact is to be reiterated herein, i.e., the present marriage is the second marriage of the respondent-husband which was solemnized on 24.04.2019 with the appellant-wife, who is resident of the district of Deoghar. While the respondent- husband is the resident of district of Dhanbad. The marriage was solemnized on the basis of advertisement issued by the respondent-husband.
24. The respondent-husband was working in the Bank and posted in Bangkok during the time when the second marriage was solemnized in the district of Deoghar. As on date also, the respondent-husband is working in Bank Manager posted in Bangkok.
25. It is admitted fact as has been admitted by the respondent-husband in his evidence that in the marriage ceremony, only eight persons including two friends had participated.
26. The first marriage of the respondent-husband was solemnized with a girl in Jamshedpur in the district of East Singhbhum since the said girl belongs to Chhattisgarh.
27. The petition being Original Suit No. 194 of 2016 was filed by the respondent-husband for dissolution of marriage with the said girl under Section 27(1)(d) of the Special Marriage Act 1954 by taking various ground of cruelty including the citing one instance of jumping of the said girl 31 2025:JHHC:19671-DB (first wife of the respondent husband) on 23.11.2015 from the first floor of Bedok MRT station at Singapore. It has been pleaded in the said plaint that the husband (respondent herein) somehow manage to stop the first wife from jumping and killing herself. For ready reference the relevant paragraph of the said pleading available on record is being quoted as under:
16. That the situation took an ugly turn when on 23.11.2015 the respondent even tried to hurt herself by jumping from the first floor of Bedok MRT Station at Singapore, over the fact that the petitioner was not agreeing with the Respondent's unjustified demand of sending the parents of petitioner back to India before the return date. The petitioner somehow managed to stop the respondent from jumping and killing herself but it shattered the petitioner and his parents completely.
24. That, on 9th December 2015, the mother of the respondent informed the petitioner by messaging on Whatsapp mobile at around 4 PM (Singapore time) that the respondent has locked herself in a room and she is trying to hang herself and the petitioner should do something by persuading her failing which petitioner shall be responsible for such consequences. Panicking after receiving the message the petitioner made several calls to the respondent but the responded did not respond to frantic call of the petitioner. The petitioner was scheduled to attend a global conference at 4:30 P.M. (Singapore time). The incident caused acute mental stress and trauma to the petitioner which greatly hampered his performance at the work place. However at around 11PM (Singapore time), the respondent Informed by messaging that she is fine. It was yet one of several other acts of the respondent perpetrating acts of 32 2025:JHHC:19671-DB cruelty on the petitioner on a continuing basis. The petitioner is apprehensive that his troubled married life may seriously jeopardise his career prospects as well, the negative consequence of which has ready started haunting the petitioner causing severe mental, emotional and psychological stress.
28. Thus, from the aforesaid it is evident that the cruelty has been tried to be substantiated in the said also on the ground of attempt of suicide by the first wife, for ready reference, the evidence to the said effect is being referred herein above which pertains to the first matrimonial suit in between the respondent-husband and his first wife, which was passed ex-parte in favour of the husband (respondent herein).
29. This Court has thought it proper to refer the extract of the said judgment (Original Suit No. 194 of 2016) which reads as under:-
3.That on behalf of the petitioner altogether three witnesses namely Kahinj Ranjan, the petitioner himself as PWI, Aloka Ranjan as PW-2 and Dr. you Ranjan Prested as PW-3 have been examined in support of his case.
4. The petitioner has also produced some documentary evidence ... ... ... ...
5. PWI Kshitij Ranjan, the petitioner himself has been fully supported his pleadings of the plaint.
6. PW-2 Aloka Ranjan and PW-3 Dr. Jyoti Ranjan Prasad have stated the same and similar stereotype version of the petitioner in his deposition.
7. On perusal of the record, it is clear from the record that the respondent of this case has not appeared in spite of taking all recourse of the appearance of the petitioner, therefore, due to non-rebuttal of pleading 33 2025:JHHC:19671-DB as well as oral and documentary evidence of the petitioner are intact in favour of the petitioner against the respondent.
8. On perusal of the record, it appears that the second relief taken by the petitioner for cancellation of marriage certificate between the parties bearing Certificate No.32/2015 dated 18.02.2015 which was granted jointly between the parties in the Marriage Officer-cum-Marriage Registrar, Dhanbad is hereby cancelled.
9. On the basis of discussion, made-above, and evidence, I have come to clear conclusion that petitioner has been able to prove his case against the respondent even to the extent of preponderance of probabilities. Accordingly, I find and hold that he is entitled to a decree as claimed for it is, therefore, Order
10.That the suit be and the same is decreed against the respondent ex-parte without cost. The marriage solemnized on 01.12.2014 between the petitioner Kshitij Ranjan and the respondent Roma Srivastava is hereby dissolved and the petitioner will never made any claim against the respondent in future. Let a decree be prepared accordingly. The dissolution of marriage will take effect from the date of decree.
30. Herein, the respondent-husband filed an application under Section 13(1), (i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of marriage and in order to prove the element of cruelty, the ground of attempt to commit suicide said to be single instance was taken.
31. The appellant has tried to prove the instance of attempt to commit suicide on the basis of telephonic conversation as recorded in the Compact Disc (CD) which was transcript and produced before the concerned court, marked as Ext.X/7. 34
2025:JHHC:19671-DB
32. The law is well settled that the divorce can be granted on the ground of cruelty as per the provision provided under Section 13(1), (i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
33. The cruelty has not been defined under the Act, 1955, however, the cruelty has been interpreted by the Hon'ble Apex Court in several decisions, some of which, having bearing on the issue, are being referred herein.
34. The word 'cruelty' has been defined by Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment rendered in Dr. N.G. Dastane Vs. Mrs. S. Dastane [(1975) 2 SCC 326], wherein it has been held that the Court is to enquire as to whether the charge as cruelty, is of such a character, as to cause in the mind of the petitioner, a reasonable apprehension that, it will be harmful or injurious for him to live with the respondent.
35. The cruelty has also been defined in the case of Shobha Rani Vs. Madhukar Reddi [(1988) 1 SCC 105], wherein the wife alleged that the husband and his parents demanded dowry. The Hon'ble Apex Court emphasized that "cruelty" can have no fixed definition.
36. According to the Hon'ble Apex Court, "cruelty" is the "conduct in relation to or in respect of matrimonial conduct in respect of matrimonial duties and obligations". It is the conduct which adversely affects the spouse. Such cruelty can be either "mental" or "physical", intentional or unintentional. For example, unintentionally waking your 35 2025:JHHC:19671-DB spouse up in the middle of the night may be mental cruelty; intention is not an essential element of cruelty but it may be present. Physical cruelty is less ambiguous and more "a question of fact and degree."
37. The Hon'ble Apex Court has further observed therein that while dealing with such complaints of cruelty that it is important for the Court to not search for a standard in life, since cruelty in one case may not be cruelty in another case. What must be considered include the kind of life the parties are used to, "their economic and social conditions", and the "culture and human values to which they attach importance."
38. The nature of allegations need not only be illegal conduct such as asking for dowry. Making allegations against the spouse in the written statement filed before the court in judicial proceedings may also be held to constitute cruelty.
39. In V. Bhagat vs. D. Bhagat (Mrs.), (1994)1 SCC 337, the wife alleged in her written statement that her husband was suffering from "mental problems and paranoid disorder". The wife's lawyer also levelled allegations of "lunacy" and "insanity" against the husband and his family while he was conducting cross-examination. The Hon'ble Apex Court held these allegations against the husband to constitute "cruelty".
36
2025:JHHC:19671-DB
40. In Vijay Kumar Ramchandra Bhate v. Neela Vijay Kumar Bhate, (2003)6 SCC 334 the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed by taking into consideration the allegations levelled by the husband in his written statement that his wife was "unchaste" and had indecent familiarity with a person outside wedlock and that his wife was having an extramarital affair. These allegations, given the context of an educated Indian woman, were held to constitute "cruelty" itself.
41. In the case of Savitri Pandey v. Prem Chandra Pandey reported in (2002) 2 SCC 73, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:
"6. Treating the petitioner with cruelty is a ground for divorce under S.13(1)(i-a) of the Act. Cruelty has not been defined under the Act but in relation to matrimonial matters it is contemplated as a conduct of such type which endangers the living of the petitioner with the respondent Cruelty consists of acts which are dangerous to life, limb or health. Cruelty for the purpose of the Act means where one spouse has so treated the other and manifested such feelings towards her or him as to have inflicted bodily injury, or to have caused reasonable apprehension of bodily injury, suffering or to have injured health. Cruelty may be physical or mental. Mental cruelty is the conduct of other spouse which causes mental suffering or fear to the matrimonial life of the other. "Cruelty", therefore, postulates a treatment of the petitioner with such cruelty as to cause a reasonable apprehension in his or her mind that it would be harmful or injurious for the petitioner to live with the other party. Cruelty, however, has to be distinguished from the ordinary wear and tear of family life. It cannot be decided on the basis of the sensitivity of 37 2025:JHHC:19671-DB the petitioner and has to be adjudged on the basis of the course of conduct which would, in general, be dangerous for a spouse to live with the other. ... ... ..."
42. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Joydeep Majumdar v. Bharti Jaiswal Majumdar, (2021) 3 SCC 742, has been pleased to observe that while judging whether the conduct is cruel or not, what has to be seen is whether that conduct, which is sustained over a period of time, renders the life of the spouse so miserable as to make it unreasonable to make one live with the other. The conduct may take the form of abusive or humiliating treatment, causing mental pain and anguish, torturing the spouse, etc. The conduct complained of must be "grave" and "weighty" and trivial irritations and normal wear and tear of marriage would not constitute mental cruelty as a ground for divorce.
43. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vidhya Viswanathan v. Kartik Balakrishnan, (2014) 15 SCC 21 has specifically held that cruelty is to be determined on whole facts of the case and the matrimonial relations between the spouses and the word 'cruelty' has not been defined and it has been used in relation to human conduct or human behaviour. It is the conduct in relation to or in respect of matrimonial duties and obligations. It is a course of conduct and one which is adversely affecting the other.
44. It is evident from the aforesaid judgments that wear and tear dispute in between the husband and wife on quarrel has 38 2025:JHHC:19671-DB been held to be not cruelty, rather, serious nature of quarrel, if meted out either by the husband towards the wife or by the wife towards the husband can be a ground of cruelty and in such circumstances, cruelty will be said to be proved for the purpose of dissolution of marriage.
45. Thus, Section 13 of the Act, 1955 specifies the grounds on which a decree of divorce may be obtained by either party to the marriage. Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Act, 1955 uses the words "treated the petitioner with cruelty". Cruelty has been used in relation to human conduct or human behaviour. It is the conduct in relation to or in respect of matrimonial duties and obligations. It is a course of 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 to determine it. It is a question of fact and degree. If it is mental the problem presents difficulty. First, the enquiry must begin as to the nature of the cruel treatment. Second, the impact of such treatment on 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. There may, however, be cases where the conduct complained of itself is bad enough and per se unlawful or illegal. Then the impact or the injurious effect on 39 2025:JHHC:19671-DB 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.
46. Further, this Court is conscious with the settled position of law that threat or attempt to commit suicide, come under the purview of cruelty as has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Narendra v. K. Meena, (2016) 9 SCC 455 wherein it has been held which reads as under:
11. We feel that there was no fault on the part of the appellant nor was there any reason for the respondent wife to make an attempt to commit suicide. No husband would ever be comfortable with or tolerate such an act by his wife and if the wife succeeds in committing suicide, then one can imagine how a poor husband would get entangled into the clutches of law, which would virtually ruin his sanity, peace of mind, career and probably his entire life. The mere idea with regard to facing legal consequences would put a husband under tremendous stress. The thought itself is distressing. Such a mental cruelty could not have been taken lightly by the High Court. In our opinion, only this one event was sufficient for the appellant husband to get a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty. It is needless to add that such threats or acts constitute cruelty. Our aforesaid view is fortified by a decision of this Court in Pankaj Mahajan v. Dimple [Pankaj Mahajan v. Dimple, (2011) 12 SCC 1 : (2012) 1 SCC (Civ) 685 : (2012) 1 SCC (Cri) 345] wherein it has been held that giving repeated threats to commit suicide amounts to cruelty.
47. Further, in the case of Harbhajan Singh Monga v. Amarjeet Kaur [AIR 1986 MP 41] it has been held 40 2025:JHHC:19671-DB that attempt to commit suicide by one spouse has been found to amount to cruelty to other.
48. This Court, based upon the aforesaid legal proposition, is now proceeding to examine whether in the facts and circumstances, can it be said that the respondent-husband has been able to prove the element of cruelty said to be based upon attempt to commit suicide, i.e. single attempt, while in Bangkok, the place of posting of the respondent-husband.
49. The sole ground has been taken to substantiate the element of cruelty, i.e., the first attempt to commit suicide, and that has been tried to be establish/substantiated on the basis of a telephonic conversation which has been recorded in the Compact Disc by the respondent-husband which has been transcript and produced before the court along with the Compact Disc.
50. It is evident from record that the said evidence of telephonic conversation, as available in the CD, Material Ext.-I & II, and transcript document, Ext./7, is the sole evidence to substantiate the element of cruelty and based upon that the learned Family Judge has found the availability of element of cruelty and hence, the decree of divorce has been passed. It needs to refer herein that the said telephonic transcript is only evidence available on record in order to substantiate the claim of the respondent husband. 41
2025:JHHC:19671-DB
51. The submission, therefore, has been made by the learned counsel for the respondent that the aforesaid evidence is only required to be considered by this Court in order to come to the conclusion as to whether the respondent-husband has been able to prove the element of cruelty or not.
52. Contrary to the same, Mr. Mahesh Tewari, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-wife, has submitted before this Court that there is no dispute regarding the transcript of the conversation of the audio recording in the CD which is the sole evidence having been marked as Ext.X/7, but, for the purpose of scrutinizing the judgment passed by the learned Family Judge, the other part of the evidence of the witnesses are required to be considered for the purpose of assessing the conduct of the respondent- husband.
53. As such, this Court once again, at the risk of repetition, reiterating the evidence of PW-1, respondent-husband and other relevant witnesses.
54. PW-1 Kshitij Ranjan is respondent-husband himself who has stated in his examination-in- chief that he was married with Smt. Moushami Kumari on 24.04.2019 in Deoghar without any dowry as per Hindu rites and customs, in the presence of both parties and other persons of society.
The expenses of marriage such as fooding Lodging, 42 2025:JHHC:19671-DB transportation jewellery and cloths expenses, staying were borne by his parents. The appellant herein (wife) has falsely stated in her written statement that at the time of Marriage rupees ten lakh cash and a car was demanded by his mother. The appellant-wife has stated in her written statement that marriage was solemnized without dowry which has been mentioned in the marriage card of the marriage. But it is false to say that the aforesaid fact "without dowry" has been mentioned in pressure put by him upon her family members.
He has further stated in examination-in-chief that after two months of being failed mediation and after three months of filing of written statement a C.P. Case No.990/20 u/s 498A, 307 and 379 IPC was instituted by the appellant- wife in Deoghar Civil court.
He has further stated that a criminal case is pending against the brother of appellant namely Kishlay Raj in which he has gone to Jail also. There is criminal history of Kishlay Raj. He is involved in several other Criminal cases including the cybercrime. The aforesaid fact was not disclosed knowingly by the appellant and her family members prior to marriage.
There has been marital relationship between both parties but out of the wedlock the couple was blessed with 43 2025:JHHC:19671-DB no child. Just after the marriage some rift arose between both parties increased day by day. The reason behind same is that appellant misbehaved with her in laws and she got annoyed on very trivial grounds. The appellant has falsely stated in her written statement that main reason behind the rift between both Parties is his mother. He has stated that two-three days after marriage she threatened and also taunted him for solemnizing of third marriage and stated that she will leave him. Hearing the same he got 'mentally shocked. When appellant went to her maika in May 2019 she has sent some objectionable whatsapp messages in respect of his mother. The appellant has falsely stated in her written statement that she was misbehaved by his mother. She used to quarrel with his parents on very trivial grounds, which caused him mentally shocked. The appellant-wife often insulted and abused to respondent-husband and taunted by making false allegations in day to day life. She also threatened that if he does not fulfill her demands she will commit suicide and will implicate him in false case.
On July 2019, the appellant threatened by speaking loudly that she will leave his house if she was told to consume onion and garlic. Whereas before marriage she was ready to consume garlic and onion. He has further stated that he never forced to appellant to consume garlic onion or non-vegetarian food. On the contrary she was free to take 44 2025:JHHC:19671-DB her meal as per her choice. On 13.08.2019 some days prior to Teej festival she knowingly went away to her Malika whereas his mother had requested her to return back in sasural and celebrate the first Teej. But she neither returned to sasural nor celebrated Teej.
He has further stated that on 07/08.09.2021 the appellant-wife came to her sasural with her parents and brother Kislay Raj and after being proceeded by her family members from his house she created drama of unconsciousness. When she was medically checked up all reports came normal. On 21.09.2021 her parents came and, in their presence, she was asked as to whether she wants to reside either in Dhanbad or her maika then she refused to reside in Dhanbad and expressed her desire to live in her maika at Deoghar.
He has further stated that her ticket was booked for Bangkok but she flatly refused to go to Bangkok and the ticket was wasted.
He has further stated that she had demanded Rs. five lakh by saying that his father has taken debt and if the same was not paid her father's house will be sold. She also has demanded Rs. 20,000/- for the mobile set of her brother Apurba Raj. She has further demanded Rs.50,000/- in August 2019 for cousin sister and Rs. 25,000/- for the job of 45 2025:JHHC:19671-DB her brother Kishlay Raj.
He has further stated that he again booked the ticket for the appellant for Bangkok along with his mother on 22.12.2019 with hope that in changed atmosphere everything will be all right. Thereafter respondent came to Bangkok but her behavior did not change. Even in Bangkok she was regularly putting pressure upon him to reside separately with his parents and pursuant thereto she tried to commit suicide on 27.12.2019 but anyhow she was rescued by him. Ultimately the appellant-wife returned back to India on 04.01.2020.
She has filed false case bearing C.P. Case No.990/20 against him whereas in whatsapp call she told several times that she was rescued by him. She has made several false allegations against him and his parents. She falsely raised doubt on her character several times.
He has further stated that the respondent knowingly and with her free will has deserted him and his family members and residing in her parent's house in Deoghar. She has falsely stated that she was driven out from her matrimonial home.
In cross-examination, he has stated that the negotiation of marriage between both parties was done on telephone. In January, 2020 the mother of appellant- 46
2025:JHHC:19671-DB Moushmi had made telephone call to his mother seeing his marriage advertisement. In advertisement it was written that he is divorcee person and will perform marriage without any dowry. In course of negotiation the family members of Moushmi had to come to Dhanbad. After negotiation he came to know that appellant is an educated lady and she is capable for her self-employment. His no relative had participated the marriage. Only eight to nine persons had participated from his side in the marriage. All the expenses of marriage were borne by his parents. The family members of Moushmi Kumari had written in the marriage card as without dowry with their free will.
Prior to this marriage, he had performed his first marriage but now divorce has been taken place with his first wife. The decree of divorce was granted of first marriage in June 2018 and he solemnized the second marriage on 24.04.2019. It is true that firstly his mother had filed a C.P. case against Moushmi Kumari and her family members and thereafter he had filed the divorce case and thereafter Moushmi Kumari has filed the C.P. case against him u/s 498A, 307, 379 IPC. She also has filed maintenance case against him. His second wife Moushmi Kumari resided with him for 40-50 days. At the time of first Teej he was not present in India and respondent was present in Deoghar. Being husband, he fulfilled all demands of Moushmi and 47 2025:JHHC:19671-DB ignored her rude behavior. He properly cared of her fooding and lodging and took care that she eats only vegetarian food. After marriage he along with his wife and her brother and parents has visited in a Mall in Delhi. He never visited and roamed alongwith his wife alone. His second meeting with his wife was held on 11/12.07.2019 and prior to 05/06.05.2019 they resided together for about 10 days. After returning from Bangkok his wife resided with his parents. He again came to Dhanbad in December 2019 and by that time his wife was living in his house along with his parents. On 22.12.2019 he went to Bangkok along with his wife and brother where she resided together 10-15 days. Thereafter, he did not meet with his wife as because she went away to her maike on 24.01.2020. He is not interested to restore his marital life with his wife as because she has filed false case against him.
55. PW-2 Aloka Ranjan is mother of the respondent herein who has supported the evidence of PW-1 in examination-in-chief.
In cross she has stated that earlier her son had filed a divorce case against first wife in which she has recorded her evidence. This divorce case was filed by her son on 18.08.2020. She has filed a C.P. case no-831/20 in March 2020 against Moushmi Kumari, her mother Geeta Devi and 48 2025:JHHC:19671-DB her father Manikant Roy. She had given advertisement for the marriage of her son. The marriage of both parties was performed with consent of both parties and their respective family members.
The appellant herein had tried to commit suicide also. From the very second day of the marriage the appellant started threatening her son by saying that she will leave him and thereafter, he may be perform his third marriage. The appellant herein continuously put pressure upon her husband to live separately and also demanded money with him. They tried to take the respondent to Bangkok two times, but first time she refused to go there and next time she went to Bangkok where on 27.12.2019 she tried to commit Suicide which was rescued by her son.
The marriage of her son was solemnized two times but no any child was born by the both marriages. After blood test the report of Moushmi Kumari was found to be normal. This marriage was performed by cheating to respondent-petitioner. The criminal incident of appellant's father was not disclosed at the time of marriage. Her daughter-in-law had demanded money. She has knowledge that her son has provided money to her daughter in law but she cannot say when and what amount was given. Since her daughter in law has filed Criminal case against her son, she 49 2025:JHHC:19671-DB does not want to keep her. It is not true that the rift arose between husband and wife due to her.
She has further stated that it is false to say that after being beaten they driven out the appellant-wife prior to Teej. It is false to say that only with purpose to grab money she solemnized this marriage. It is false to say that only to get money her son wants to solemnize third marriage and so he has filed this divorce case. It is false to say that respondent was ready to go to Bangkok but neither she nor her husband allowed her to go to her husband. Her daughter- in-law and son resided together as husband and wife till 30th July 2019. It is false to say that appellant-wife had never deserted her husband and she still wants to live with her husband.
56. PW-3 Jyoti Ranjan Prasad is the father of the respondent herein who has supported the evidence of PW-1 (respondent-husband) in examination-in- chief.
In cross he has stated that the marriage of his son was solemnized through a marriage bureau and they had given advertisement in Newspaper. In the advertisement it has been mentioned that his son was divorcee and marriage will be performed without dowry. After being satisfied he visited to the house of appellant-wife. He had given costly suitcase and purse etc. by purchasing the same to his 50 2025:JHHC:19671-DB daughter-in-law. After marriage his daughter-in law resided peacefully for about 4 to 5 months and in the meantime, they provided Rs. 10-15 thousand and again Rs. 40,000/- was given.
He has further stated that he cannot say as to why the first marriage of his son could not be successful. Due to wrong behavior of his first daughter-in-law the said marriage was broken. The appellant-wife has falsely made allegations on the character of his son. Appellant performed this marriage with respondent herein by fetching conspiracy only purpose to grab money.
He has further stated that it is false to say that they had compelled the appellant to consume onion, garlic knowing the fact that she is vegetarian. It is false to say that Moushmi Kumar was beaten by them and she was not allowed to go to Bangkok. It is true has that the case of dowry has been filed by the appellant in which he and his wife are on bail. It is not true that appellant herein never demanded money with respondent-husband. It is false to say that on dt. 27.12.2019 in the night his wife and son had tried to kill the appellant.
57. The appellant herein (defendant in original suit) has been examined as DW-1. In her deposition she has stated that she was married with respondent-petitioner Kshitij Ranjan on 24.04.2019 with Hindu Rites and Customs. At the 51 2025:JHHC:19671-DB time of marriage Rs. Ten lakh was demanded by her in-laws from her parents. Her mother-in-law demanded a car also. When her family members expressed their inability to fulfill the illegal demand of her in-laws, they started torturing her physically and mentally. She was treated as maid in her sasural. Her mother-in-law always made effort to deteriorate the relationship of husband and wife. Due to the torturing by her in laws once she got unconscious and she got nerves and thereafter they prepared video recording also to utilize the same for undue benefit. The intention of her in-laws was not clear prior to marriage. They also edited the whatsapp messages. On 27.12.2019 her husband and mother-in-law tried to kill her by putting cloths rope around her neck in Bangkok. On being raised alarm due to fear of gathering nearby people she got free. They have recorded video clip also of the incident by narrating the different story. She was forcibly sent to her maika. On being requested several times by her parents, her in-laws flatly refused to keep her as because her parents could not fulfill their illegal demands. Her parents and brother Spent huge amount in marriage. Due to pressure of respondent-petitioner and his parents it has been written in Marriage card as "without dowry" (Dehej Rahit). At the time of her marriage respondent-petitioner was posted in Bangkok. Her mother-in-law Aloka Ranjan is shrewd lady and she is master mind of all activities. It is her 52 2025:JHHC:19671-DB second Marriage with the respondent and he had given divorce to his first wife.
It is true that she resided with the respondent as husband and wife in different places but it is also true that her mother-in-law Aloka Ranjan accompanied with both of them at every places. She always made effort and created hurdle in their conjugal life. It is not true that she was incompetent to conceive. The respondent and his parents made several allegations against his first wife namely Roma Srivastawa and filed divorce case against her. She has never threatened the respondent and his family members to ruin their life. She was pure vegetarian lady and the same was informed to the petitioner and his family members. But after marriage her mother-in-law forced her to consume non- vegetarian food. On being denied by her she was not provided food and water.
It is false to say that she had promised to take non vegetarian food after marriage. At the time of Teej she was asked by her mother-in-law that her husband is in abroad so there is no need for her to reside in her sasural. She was misbehaved and compelled to go to her maika. It is true that her father-in-law is a gentle man and a respected person but he is yes man of his wife. She has further denied all allegation made by the petitioner in his plaint. 53
2025:JHHC:19671-DB In cross-examination, she has stated that why the respondent had filed this divorce case, she cannot say the reason behind the same. She has not stated to her friend and other persons that respondent is divorcee person. She came to know about respondent and his family members through the add published in Newspaper. She has knowledge that prior to marriage respondent and his family members consumed onion garlic and non-vegetarian food and her in- laws assured, they are ready to eat food as cooked by her. After marriage she cooked vegetarian food by mixing onion and garlic as per the direction of her mother-in-law. She is separated with respondent and his family members from 24.01.2020. At the time of her marriage no any criminal case was pending against her brother Kishlay Raj. She had talked with respondent last time on 16.04.2020 in the morning on 6.00 AM to 10.00AM on telephone. She visited to Bangkok with respondent-husband and her mother-in-law on 22.12.2019 only once. The said ticket was booked by her husband. In Bangkok she cooked her food sometimes where she was kept starved whole day. She traveled by air first time while going to Bangkok. She never asked her husband to perform third Marriage. When she had gone to Bangkok on 27.12.2019, she was in touch with her family members in India through whatsapp. The incident as mentioned in para- 8 was informed by her to her parents. The said matter was 54 2025:JHHC:19671-DB not informed to Bangkok police or Indian Embassy. After returning from Bangkok, she came to Government residential house along with her mother-in-law and father-in-law in Daltonganj and resided there for two months. She agreed for marriage as because she was asked for marriage without dowry. She and her family members met with Roma Srivastava once or twice after the marriage. She did not make any complaint regarding allegation made in para-59 as because she wanted to maintain her conjugal life.
58. It is evident from the evidence of the respondent- husband that he himself has admitted that the present marriage is the second marriage. The first marriage has been dissolved on the ground of cruelty, in ex-parte judgment.
59. Thus, from the aforesaid factual aspect it is not in dispute that the petition for dissolution of marriage for granting a decree of divorce under Section 13 (1) (i-a) of the Act 1955 came to be filed by the respondent husband before the learned Family Court. The fact remains that it was the respondent husband who approached the court for a decree of divorce on the grounds of "cruelty" of the appellant/wife as she had tried to commit suicide, hence, this Court has to access whether the respondent/husband has made out a case for divorce on these grounds.
60. It is also admitted fact, as would be evident from the evidence that the ground of cruelty has been proved in suit 55 2025:JHHC:19671-DB no.194 of 2016 by taking the instance of attempt to commit suicide by the first wife, for ready reference the relevant part of the pleading, as has been incorporated in the evidence, are being referred hereinabove in the preceding paragraph.
61. The purpose of referring this evidence is to show the conduct of the respondent-husband, since, herein also, the same ground has been taken to get the decree of divorce and in order to prove the element of cruelty, the instance of attempt to commit suicide has been alleged against the appellant-wife.
62. The said instance is based upon the telephonic/audio conversation said to be available in the Compact Disc having been converted into the transcript, which has been marked as Ext./7.
63. Serious objection has been raised by Mr. Tewari, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-wife that the said CD has not been displayed in the court and, therefore, the same has not been seen/listened by the learned Family Judge and further, the said CD has not been sent to FSL to assess its correctness.
64. The submission has also been made that the sole piece of evidence to prove the element of cruelty is the transcript of the so-called conversation in between the appellant-wife and the respondent-husband.
56
2025:JHHC:19671-DB
65. Before appreciating the said contention of the learned counsel for the appellant it needs to refer herein that this Court is conscious with the settled position of law that in suits between a couple the right to privacy is not a relevant consideration, since it is not the rationale under which spousal communications were deemed privileged under Section 122 of the Indian Evidence Act, therefore the evidence procured by using the technology and modern electronic devices is admissible as the evidence in the matrimonial suit.
66. However, herein we are not mooting upon the admissibility of the said evidence i.e. transcript of the conversation rather this Court is concerned with the authenticity of said evidence reason being that it is equally settled position of law the Courts are to be circumspect in relying upon such evidence without satisfying itself as to the authenticity and reliability of such evidence recorded on the electronic devices.
67. This Court, before considering the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, needs to refer herein the transcript conversation between the parties:
KSHITIU- क्या आया था?
MOUSHAMI- नह ीं दिख रहा...... हमको नह ीं दिख रहा है वह चेहरा KSHITIJ - अभ बोल 25 दिन में आया था MOUSHAMI- 25 दिन में आया था, कुछ दिन ब च में KSHITIJ- उसके बाि क्या क्या हुआ? वह सब भूल जात हो? उससे टें शन नह ीं होगा ?
MOUSHAMI- कुछ नह ीं भूलते हैं . हमको सब याि है 57 2025:JHHC:19671-DB KSHITIJ- वह सब च ज से कोई टें शन नह ीं होगा? फाींस लगाने का सामने कोदशश कर रह हो दकतना मुश्किल से रोके हैं , समझ में नह ीं आया था ? ..उसके बाि daily रात में कुछ ना कुछ कुछ ना कुछ हमेशा....... उससे टें शन नह ीं होगा? बोल रह हो आप हींसते क्योीं नह ीं है? बात क्योीं नह ीं करते हैं ?
MOUSHAMI <3:45>-हा. ये बात तो सच है . आज हम दजींिा हैं तो आप ह क वजह से हैं KSHITIJ- बहुत अच्छा च ज था सुसाइड करने का कोदशश करना करने का कोदशश क्या? वह तो कर रह थ रोकने में दकतना मुश्किल हुआ मेरा पूरा पैंट फट गया MOUSHAMI हाहाहा KSHITU- हस आ रहा है . बहुत अच्छा MOUSHAMI और मेरा पेट दिख रहा था सो ?
KSHITU- ये हस का बात है ? मजाक तुम को कैसे लगता है इसमें? बोलत हो आप हमसे अच्छे से बात नह ीं करते हैं MOUSHAMI- अच्छा होता ना चले जाते, आप का टें शन ...... बहुत बुरा लगा था आपको उसदिन?
KSHITIJ- क्या?
MOUSHAMI- बोले उस दिन आपको बहुत बुरा लगा था? KSHITIJ- दकस दिन?
MOUSHAMI- उस दिन 27 दिसींबर KSHITIJ - दजस दिन सुसाइड कर रह थ MOUSHAMI- हााँ KSHITIJ- तो क्या हम ख़ुश मनाते उस दिन में क्या करता कोई आिम ? बुरा लगता अच्छा लगता , अच्छा लगता क्या? बुरा नह ीं लगता, तो अच्छा लगता? यह िो च ज हो सकता, आिम को या तो अच्छा लगेगा या बुरा लगेगा।.............. ऐसे situation में अच्छा दकसको लग सकता है ?
MOUSHAMI- दकस को नह ीं KSHITIJ - हााँ MOUSHAMI- िु श्मन को भ नह ीं दकस को भ नह ीं KSHITIJ- तो बुरा ह लगेगा, तो यह कोई सवाल में सवाल है ? MOUSHAMI- ठ क है सो जाइए KSHITIJ- हाीं कल तुमको जो मन दकया सब दलख ि थ , क्या क्या नह ीं दलख थ ?
MOUSHAMI - क्या दलखे थे बतलाइए तो ?
KSHITIU- सब च ज़ दलख थ और दडल ट करने से क्या होता है ? हम नह ीं पढे हैं क्या ?
MOUSHAMI-हमको पता है आप पढे हैं KSHITIU- तो बहुत अच्छा च ज सब दलख थ MOUSHAMI-हमको पता है आप पढे हैं KSHITU- पूरा फ्राइडे को दलख थ बैठ कर के वह same च ज सब दलख रह थ ....... झूठ बोल रहे हैं , यह कर रहे हैं ..... दलख दिए दक घर बात कर रहे हैं तो भ झूठ बोल रहे है , जो समझना है समझत रहो MOUSHAMI- लडाकू पदतिे व झगडाहा KSHITIU- हम कोई लडाकू नह ीं हैं MOUSHAMI-झगडाहा है न, खडूस हैं न ?
KSHITII- खडूस खडूस कुछ नह ,ीं अभ तुम िे ख कहाीं हो झगडालू और खडूस जो हम तुमको झगडालू और खिू स लग रहे हैं MOUSHAMI-क्या बोले 58 2025:JHHC:19671-DB KSHITIJ- अपने आप को आईना में िे ख लो पता चल जाएगा झगडालू खडूस क्या होता है MOUSHAMI-हम िे खें आईना में ?
KSHITU- अपने आपको िे ख लो आईना में सब पता चल जाएगा झगडालू और खडूस क्या होता है MOUSHAMI-झगडालू नह ीं हैं , हम खिू स नह ीं है KSHITIU- रहने िो MOUSHAMI ना हम झगडालू हैं , ना हम खडूस हैं KSHITU- िु सरा ह आिम बताएगा न ?
MOUSHAMI <1:19> हााँ एक च ज है थोडा सा नाक पे गुस्सा आ जाता है KSHITIJ- थोडा सा?
MOUSHAMI- हाीं थोडा सा KSHITIJ- अरे तुमरा थोडा तो मतलब बहुत होता MOUSHAMI- थोडा सा KSHITIJ- बहुत आएगा तो पता नह ीं का तूफान ह आ जाएगा पूरा िु दनया में MOUSHAMI <1:37> -हाीं लेदकन वह 27 दिसींबर को हुआ था वह थोडा सा नह ीं था KSHITIJ- पता नह ीं तुमरा थोडा और बहुत MOUSHAMI- वहः थोडा सा नह ीं था खुि में काबू नह ीं थे हम उस दिन KSHITIU <1:47>- बहुत अच्छा खुि में काबू नह ीं थे फाींस लगा रहे थे. चाक़ू खोज रहे थे, भोींक रहे थे िौड रहे थे, दचल्ला रहे थे कोई मतलब नह ,ीं सब बोल रहे थे ये सब.......ऊल जलूल च ज सब MOUSHAMI- अच्छा हो रहा है ना जान आज हमसे इस तरह से बोल रहे हैं , कम से कम उस दिन चले जाते इस िु दनया से तो कम से कम इतना तो आपको झेलना नह ीं पडता ना KSHITU- हाीं MOUSHAMI- झेलना नह ीं पडता ना <2:15> तो क्योीं बचाए हमको आप KSHITIU- हाीं ठ क है MOUSHAMI-एकिम पकडकर, एकिम, KSHITU- ठ क है MOUSHAMI <2:23> रुदकए, रुदकए........ एकिम पकडकर, एकिम िबोच के दक उस दिन हम KSHITU- हमको मोक दिया गया बहुत अच्छा, खून दनकल गया था मेरा MOUSHAMI- हमको पता है जान हम आपको नह ीं भोींके ये वह तो च ज पेन के बिले कैच होता चाक होता तो दफर तो हो गया होता MOUSHAMI <2:52 हम आपको नह शोक थे हम खुि को भोक रहे थे - हाीं हाीं उस समय पता चलता है दकसको भोींक रहे हैं बस भॉक िे ना है ........ दकस को भूक जाएगा MOUSHAMI - नह ीं KSHITIJ- बच्चा होता उसके सामने ये सब करोग तो हो जाएगा दफर तमाशा MOUSHAMI- क्या बोले ?
KSHITIJ <3:06>- कोई छोटा बच्चा होगा उसके सामने यह सब होगा तो हो जाएगा तमाशा 59 2025:JHHC:19671-DB आप हमको MOUSHAMI <3:13> -हम आपको नह ीं भोींक रहे थे, वो तो आप आगे आ गए बधा रहे थे तो वह लग गया उस समय तो हम को ऐसा लग रहा था सच्च बोल रहे हैं दक कैसे करके हम अपने आपको खत्म कर ले ऐसा लग रहा था उस दिन कभ मन कर रहा था उस दिन बालकोन से कUST आप हमको रूम से दनकालने नाह ीं दिए अपना जान िे िे इस दिन इशा जो उस दिन KSHITIJ- हॉ MOUSHAMI <03:59>- सुबह हुआ तब हम शाींत हुए रात भर यातना हेलो KSHITU- ठ क है हम रखते हैं MOUSHAMI- हाीं रुदकए ना और आप भ उस तरह एकिम पकड के हमको एक जगह, मतलब वॉश रूम तक जाने नह ीं दिये KSHITU- हाीं MOUSHAMI- खोने का डर था?
KSHITU- क्या खोने का डर था भाई यह सब कोई करे गा उसके बाि तुमको तो ये सब मजाक ह लगता है MOUSHAMI-मजाक नह ीं कर रहे थे जान हम सच में मजाक नह ीं कर रहे थे लेदकन <4:41> शाप अगर इस दिन आप अचार को इस दिन नह ीं पाते ना सर में बोलते हैं तो आज हम आपले धात नाह ीं कर रहे होते आज भ उसका असर आज तक हम को पड रहा है ... उस दिन का असर....... उस हाल में जो सब दचल्ला दलए, बोल दिए शर र को इधर-उधर कर दिए प ररयड के पहले रे स्ट करने का होता है ...... हेलो KSHITU- हाीं ठ क है अब हम रखते हैं ...... हम जाएीं गे घर भ बात करें गे दफर थोडा सोएीं गे (Conversation on 3rd Feb 2020 where Moushami accepts that she was also threatened to commit suicide on 21st Jan 2020. Moushami always asks whether this marriage should be continued or not and Kshitij has never raised this point even once.) Moushaml घर में नह ीं बताते हैं , तो आपके घर से मेरे guardian को फोन कैसे आता है ?
Kshitij - क्या? आज तो हम बताएाँ हैं .. हम तो बोल रहे हैं हम बताए हैं... क्योींदक तुम परसोीं बताय थ Moushami परसोीं भ फोन आया था Kshitij - परसोीं क्या? हााँ तो परसोीं जब तुम्हारे पापा हमको बोलेंगे तो हम नह ीं बताएीं गे घर में दक यह सब हुआ था आज बात Moushami <0:18>- हााँ उसके बाि उस दिन रात में 21 तार ख (21 जनवर 2020) को जो बात था हम बोले आपको हम मर जाएीं गे, हम है कर लेंगे, उस दिन रात में पदत पत्न में बात हुआ last message है . हमको अपना चेहरा दिखा ि दजए, जब मम्म पापा पास गए तो आपक मम्म ये बात क्योीं उठाई?"
Kshitij - हााँ , और एक बात सुनो. हााँ तो इतना बडा बडा बात तुम ऐसे बोल िोग और उस पर िू सरे पर क्या फकक पड रहा उससे नह ीं मतलब है? तुम्हार मम्म खुि बोल है 31 अगस्त से तुम्हारा हर बात पर ध्यान िे रह हैं तो ये सब छोटा मोटा बात है ? यह सब छोटा मोटा बात है दक तुम बोलोग दक हम अींदतम बार बात कर रहे हैं आपसे? यह सब बहुत छोटा मोटा बात है ?
Moushami- मन नह ीं लग रहा था, घुटन हो रहा था Kshitij- घुटन हो रहा था? यह सब बात तो है ..... यह सब छोटा मोटा बात है ऐसे ह बोल दिया जाता । लोगोीं को Moushaml <1:00>- माि रश्कखएगा, अब वो सब था ना हम कर दलए कर दलए अब वो सब हम कुछ करने वाले हैं नह ीं 60 2025:JHHC:19671-DB Kshitij- िे खो ऐसा तुम बहुत बार बहुत कुछ बोल चुक हो िे खेंगे वो समय ह हमको दिखाएगा क्या िे खना है Moushami और ये बोदलए, दक क्या बोलते हैं , ढीं ग से मेरे.. हमलोग अच्छा से रहना चाहते हैं दक नह ?ीं Kshitij - ये तुम ह answer िो इसका हम नह ीं िे ने वाले हैं ... बार बार तुम ह बोल हो.. तुम हर बार यह point.. हम कभ ये point ना raise दकए हैं, कभ कुछ नह ीं बोले हैं हर बार तुम ह raise क हो तो तुम ह decide करो यह सब"
68. It appears from the said transcript that it is a talk going on in between the wife and husband. The talk appears to be very normal and the reply is being given by the appellant-wife on the query being made by the respondent-husband.
69. We all know that the relationship of wife and husband depends upon trust and having the said trust, the appellant- wife has responded to the query made by the respondent- husband and one of the queries is regarding the attempt to commit suicide.
70. The learned Family Judge has taken into consideration the part of the said evidence without taking into consideration the entirety of the said recorded conversation. If one line of the said conversation will be picked up then certainly the adverse opinion is very easy to derive as has been derived by learned Family Judge by coming to the conclusion that the fact about attempt to commit suicide has been admitted by the appellant wife. But, if the entire recording of the conversation will be taken into consideration, then certainly it appears to be a normal conversation in between the wife and husband, herein the appellant and the respondent.
61
2025:JHHC:19671-DB
71. The law is well settled that if any evidence is being taken into account, then the evidence is to be taken into consideration in entirety for the purpose of coming to the rightful conclusion to have an opinion in the mind regarding the element found to be proved on the basis of consideration of the said evidence in entirety and picking one line or two lines of the said evidence cannot be said to be just approach by the Court.
72. Exactly the same thing has been done herein by the learned Family Judge, that too, without taking into consideration that the appellant wife was away from the residence of the respondent-husband and over telephone, by virtue of audio conversation the respondent-husband has started talking with his wife and having trust upon him, she has started giving answers and very peculiarly and with ulterior mind, the respondent-husband has started recording the said conversation. The recording of said conversation can only be construed to be the mala fide approach of the respondent-husband only to create evidence in order to substantiate the element of cruelty.
73. Further, it is evident from the deposition of the respondent-husband which is based upon the plaint wherein the reference of WhatsApp message has been given, as is evident from the pleading made in the plaint which is being referred herein: -
62
2025:JHHC:19671-DB
33. That during that day (20 Jan 2020) the brother of respondent- Kishloy Raj also threatened petitioner with dire consequence. On mentioning the intimidating behavior of Kishloy Raj to respondent, respondent openly remarked that her brother Kishloy can do any wrongful act against the petitioner. Kishloy Raj also sarcastically remarked to petitioner that "Aapke ghar mein jents log sahi nahi hai isliye ladies log bahak rahi hain, Idhar aapki maa udhar aapki biwi." Usage of such filthy and derogatory language by respondent's younger brother who is around 25 years of age against his sister (respondent)'s mother in law who is approaching the age of senior citizen is unacceptable behavior which caused acute mental agony to petitioner.
Photocopy of hard copy of the whatsapp messages is annexed and marked as Annexure VII
74. But, very surprisingly and contrary to the procedure, in the evidence there is no reference of any WhatsApp chat, rather, the evidence has been produced in the shape of the telephonic conversation. But, this aspect of the matter has also not been taken into consideration, which according to the considered view of this Court, is contrary to the settled position of law that if any pleading is made in the plaint, then the same is to be proved in the evidence and there cannot be any deviation in the evidence from the pleading, as has been done by the respondent-husband.
75. The respondent-husband, in place of substantiating the said statement of WhatsApp chat through the WhatsApp 63 2025:JHHC:19671-DB details procured from its source for the purpose of proving the pleading made in the plaint, has produced the audio conversation and its transcription before the court and peculiarly the same has been accepted by the learned Family Judge deviating from the procedure of law that it is bounden duty of the plaintiff or the defendant to substantiate the pleading either made in the plaint or written statement by the evidence.
76. Further, it needs to refer herein that the Compact Disc, although said to be exhibited but we, after going through the entire judgment, has not found any reference as to whether the learned Family Judge has even taken any endeavour to listen to the conversation in order of corroboration from the transcript, rather, whatever has been written by the respondent-husband, the same has been accepted even though the content of he said transcript has seriously been disputed by the appellant-wife, as would be evident the deposition of appellant-wife, examined as DW-1.
77. Admittedly, the Evidence Act is not applicable in strict sense in the matrimonial adjudication but it does not mean that the principle of fairness and transparency is to be given go bye.
78. Particularly, in the present case, where the basis of dissolution of marriage has been considered by the learned Family Judge to be the conversation recorded in the Compact 64 2025:JHHC:19671-DB Disc. The basis of divorce, therefore, is conversation in between the wife and husband. But without verifying their voices in order to come to the conclusion, that the voice actually is of wife or not.
79. Even in divorce proceeding, requirement is of presentation of credible evidence to support the grounds of divorce. If voice recording is presented as evidence, that needs to be authenticated and verified by the Forensic Science Laboratory or other appropriate means to confirm their genuineness before being considered by the court.
80. The importance of corroboration is having bearing since there is possibility of manipulation of the voice by manipulating from its digital source itself.
81. It further needs to refer herein that the transcript or the Compact Disc is although not admissible in the facts of the case since contrary to the plaint but even if the learned Family Judge has taken into consideration these evidences for the purpose of coming to the conclusion, then it was his bounden duty to have the corroboration by sending the transcript and the Compact Disc to the Forensic Science Laboratory in order to have a report as to whether the voice which has been said to be of appellant-wife is actually of the appellant-wife or not, particularly in the case where the content of the said conversation has seriously been disputed. 65
2025:JHHC:19671-DB
82. The cruelty can be a ground for divorce but while proving the element of cruelty, since the same is going to make an irreparable loss to one of the parties, herein the appellant-wife, then the court is to be more careful and stricter in proving the element of cruelty from the cogent evidence only and not on the basis of conjectures and surmises.
83. The learned court has also not taken into consideration, even though the same is part of the evidence, the past conduct of the respondent-husband who has got decree of divorce from first wife also on the ground of cruelty based upon the attempt to commit suicide by adopting the same modus operandi.
84. This Court, on basis of discussion made hereinabove, has found following infirmities in the impugned judgment :-
(i) The learned family court has not taken into consideration, the past conduct of the respondent-husband who has got decree of divorce from first wife also on the ground of cruelty based upon the attempt to commit suicide by adopting the same modus operandi.
(ii) The purpose of referring the past conduct of the respondent-husband that herein also, the same ground has been taken to get the decree of divorce and in order to prove the element of cruelty, the instance of attempt to commit suicide has been alleged against the appellant-wife.66
2025:JHHC:19671-DB
(iii) The sole piece of evidence to prove the element of cruelty is the transcript of the so called conversation in between the appellant-wife and the respondent-husband but the talk appears to be very normal and the reply is being given by the appellant-wife on the query being made by the respondent-husband. The learned family court has failed in sensing that the said conversation has been staged by the respondent husband in order to fetch the evidence against the appellant wife.
(iv) The learned family judge has ignored the fact that the recording of said conversation can only be construed to be the mala fide approach of the respondent-husband in order to create evidence to substantiate the element of cruelty.
(v) Further the learned family court has taken the said conversation into piecemeal and has not taken the said conversation in entirety and if the entire recording of the conversation will be taken into consideration, then certainly the said conversation appears to be a normal conversation in between the wife and husband based upon the mutual trust.
(vi) The learned family court has ignored the settled position of law that if any evidence is being taken into account, then the evidence is to be taken into consideration in entirety for the purpose of coming to the rightful conclusion.
67
2025:JHHC:19671-DB
(vii) the Compact Disc, although said to be exhibited but we, after going through the entire judgment, has not found any reference as to whether the learned Family Judge has even taken any endeavour to listen to the conversation in order of corroboration from the transcript, rather, whatever has been written by the respondent- husband, the same has been accepted even though the content of he said transcript has seriously been disputed by the appellant-wife, as would be evident the deposition of appellant-wife, examined as DW-1.
(viii) It was bounden duty of the family court to have the corroboration by sending the transcript and the Compact Disc to the Forensic Science Laboratory in order to have a report as to whether the voice which has been said to be of appellant-wife is actually of the appellant-wife or not.
(ix) Learned family judge the cruelty can be a ground for divorce but while proving the element of cruelty, since the same is going to make an irreparable loss to one of the parties, herein the appellant-wife, then the court is to be more careful and stricter in proving the element of cruelty from the cogent evidence only and not on the basis of conjectures and surmises.
68
2025:JHHC:19671-DB
85. Further, it would be apt to refer herein that a duty is cast on the Court to scrutinize the evidence placed on record to find out the truth and the Court cannot be a silent spectator and it should itself endeavour to find out the truth even by putting questions to the witnesses and eliciting answers from them.
86. We find that the evidence adduced on behalf of the respondent-husband was not of such a nature as to place implicit reliance upon it. It appears to us that the whole thing has been stage-managed by the respondent-husband to suit his convenience in the case. The acts of cruelty in form of tried to commit suicide attributed to the appellant-wife, being not proved Satisfactorily, and other acts were not of such a nature as to constitute a ground for divorce to the respondent-husband.
87. On a careful scrutiny of the entire evidence on record we are of the view that there was absolutory no cruelty on the part of the appellant so as to be of such a nature to compel the respondent to seek for divorce. We find that various allegations made against the appellant-wife have not been satisfactorily proved and the conduct of the respondent in the circumstances of the case does not appear to be above board.
88. It requires to refer herein that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi, (supra) has observed that a set of facts stigmatised as cruelty in one case 69 2025:JHHC:19671-DB 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. Further It has been held that it would be also better if we less depend upon precedents as each case may be different.
89. Viewed in this context we find that the decree for divorce granted by the learned Family Judge cannot be sustained in law and it needs to be set aside. We have carefully perused the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent. There can be no dispute with regard to the principle enunciated therein i.e. threat or attempt to commit suicide amounts to cruelty to partner husband or wife, but the difficulty is about its application to the facts and circumstances of the case. We find that the said decisions have absolutely no application to the facts and circumstances of this case.
90. In the result, therefore, this First Appeal filed by the appellant-wife is allowed. The impugned judgment and decree for divorce made by the learned Family Court is hereby set aside. Consequently, the petition filed by the respondent- husband before the learned Family Court for divorce stands dismissed.
91. Accordingly, the instant appeal needs to be allowed. 70
2025:JHHC:19671-DB
92. The judgment and decree dated 16.12.2023 and 23.12.2023 respectively passed by the learned Principal Judge, Additional Family Court No. II, Dhanbad in Original Suit No. 407 of 2020 are hereby quashed and set aside.
93. Pending interlocutory application, if any, also stands disposed of.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) I agree.
(Rajesh Kumar, J.) (Rajesh Kumar, J.)
Birendra / A.F.R.
71