Shyama Devi Vs Sanjay Kumar Suman

Neutral Citation

2025:JHHC:28134-DB

First Appeal (DB) No. 27 of 2021

( Against the judgment and decree dated 18.01.2021(decree signed on 25.01.2021) passed by Sri Alok Kumar Dubey, learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bokaro in Original Suit No. 142/2019. )

¶5

Shyama Devi, W/o Sanjay Kumar Suman, D/o Late Ram Prasad Singh, R/o Sector-IX/C, Qrs. No. 1045, St. 26, B.S. City, P.O.- Sector-IX, P.S.- Harla, Dist.- Bokaro, Permanent Add.- Vill- Bahuara, P.O. & P.S.- Rajapakar, Dist.- Vaishali, Bihar. ... Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Sanjay Kumar Suman, S/o Ram Bilash Roy, R/o SectorIX/D, Qrs. No. 1320, Street-38, B.S. City, P.O.- Sector-IX, P.S.- Harla, Dist.- Bokaro, Permanent Add.- Vill- Sahariya, P.O.- Shekhopur, P.S.- Desari, Dist.- Vaishali, Bihar.

¶8

… Respondent

¶9

¶10

PRESENT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI

¶11

---For the Appellant : Mr. Rahul Kumar, Adv. For the Respondent : None. ----

¶12

Dated : 10/09/2025

¶13

CAV JUDGMENT

¶14

Per Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. :

¶15

1. Heard Mr. Rahul Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. None appears on behalf of the respondent.

¶16

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 18-01-2021 (decree signed on 25-01-2021) passed by Sri Alok Kumar Dubey, learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bokaro in Original Suit No. 142/2019 whereby and whereunder, the suit preferred by the respondent herein for dissolution of his marriage with the appellant has been allowed, subject to payment of Rs. 15 lakhs as permanent alimony.

¶17

FIRST APPEAL NO. 27 OF 2021 1

¶18

Neutral Citation

¶19

2025:JHHC:28134-DB

¶20

3. For the sake of convenience, both the parties are referred to in this judgment as per their status before the learning trial court.

¶21

4. The petitioner/husband (respondent herein) had filed a suit for dissolution of his marriage with the respondent/wife (appellant herein) under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, in which it has been stated that the marriage of the petitioner was solemnised with the respondent on 06-072006 at Sector 9-B, Bokaro Steel City, as per Hindu rites and customs. Out of the said wedlock, a son was born who is aged 9 years and who is residing with the petitioner. It has been stated that the respondent always used to quarrel with the petitioner and his family members on trivial matters and insisted on leaving his ailing parents. The respondent had an illicit relationship with one Sanjeev Kumar Nirala, a contractor, and she used to spend her maximum time with Sanjeev Kumar Nirala and had also given her ornaments to him. On 22-10-2016, when the petitioner went in search of his wife to her parents' house, he found her in a compromising position with Sanjeev Kumar Nirala and when the petitioner tried to bring back the respondent home, he was assaulted by the respondent with the help of Sanjeev Kumar Nirala. The petitioner had filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act in Original Maintenance Suit No. 354/2016 which, however, was dismissed on 28-01-2019. After 10 years of marriage, the respondent had filed a criminal case against the petitioner and his family members in Complaint Case No. 242/2016 on the allegation of demand of dowry. The petitioner had provided the best of facilities, but the respondent had withdrawn herself from the society of the petitioner without any reasonable cause. The father of the respondent had grabbed a huge amount of money from the

¶22

FIRST APPEAL NO. 27 OF 2021 2

¶23

Neutral Citation

¶24

2025:JHHC:28134-DB

¶25

petitioner for purchase of a residential flat. The respondent has already received an amount of Rs. 1,72,500/- from the petitioner in terms of the order passed in Original Maintenance Case No. 211/2016. The respondent has deserted the petitioner since 1901-2016 without any reasonable cause.

¶26

5. The respondent, on being noticed, had appeared and filed a written statement in which it has been stated that on the occasion of Chhath Pooja in the year 2015, the respondent was assaulted by the petitioner at night in presence of the uncle of the respondent. On 30-11-2015, while the respondent was asleep, she was assaulted by the petitioner with fists and iron rod and on 18-01-2016, the respondent was once again subjected to assault by the petitioner and since then the respondent is staying at her parent's place along with her son. However, on 29-06-2016 the petitioner had forcibly taken away the son of the respondent when he was returning from school and since then her son is residing with the petitioner. In the special mediation drive on 24-06-2019, despite the willingness of the respondent to stay with the petitioner, the petitioner had refused to take her back to her matrimonial house. Even now, the respondent is ready and willing to stay with the petitioner and restore her marital ties. It has been stated that the petitioner had wanted one-third share of the retirement benefit of her father who had superannuated from Bokaro Steel Plant. The respondent has denied the allegations made by the petitioner in the application for dissolution of marriage.

¶27

6. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed for adjudication:

¶28

(i) Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form?

¶29

(ii) Whether the petitioner has valid cause of action for the suit?

¶30

FIRST APPEAL NO. 27 OF 2021 3

¶31

Neutral Citation

¶32

2025:JHHC:28134-DB

¶33

(iii) Whether the respondent (wife) subjected to cruelty against the petitioner (husband) after marriage?

¶34

(iv) Whether the respondent (wife) deserted her husband (petitioner) since last two years prior to filing of the suit and is entitled to get a decree of dissolution of marriage on the basis of Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955?

¶35

(v) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get the relief as prayed for?

¶36

7. The petitioner has examined five witnesses in support of its case:

¶37

P.W.1 Sanjay Kumar Suman is the petitioner who has stated that his marriage was solemnized with the respondent on 06-07-2006 as per Hindu rites and customs at Bokaro Steel City. The respondent on 19-01-2016 had left him with her son and had started staying with a contractor, namely, Sanjeev Kumar Nirala. The behaviour of the respondent towards him and his family members was cruel from the beginning and the respondent hated his dark complexion and she had married him only with a view to grab his money. The conduct of the respondent has eroded his respect in the society. On 22-10-2016, the respondent through her paramour had made an attempt on his life for which he had instituted a case which is pending. The respondent is bent upon to take his life and there is always a threat to his life. He had made several attempts with the assistance of his family members and well-wishers to resume his life with the respondent, but all such attempts failed. He had filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights being Matrimonial Title Suit No. 354/2016, but the same was dismissed on 28-01-2019. Several attempts at mediation were made, but all failed. In the maintenance case till date, he has paid an amount of Rs. 2,32,500/-.

¶38

FIRST APPEAL NO. 27 OF 2021 4

¶39

Neutral Citation

¶40

2025:JHHC:28134-DB

¶41

In cross-examination, he has deposed that post-marriage there never was a good relationship between him and the respondent. After the birth of his son, the respondent had left her matrimonial house. From January 2016, the respondent is staying separate from him. He had not lodged any case with respect to the respondent taking away the entire jewellery because she was his wife. He knows Sanjeev Kumar Nirala since 2006. He has instituted three cases against the respondent, while the respondent had instituted five cases against him. There is no question of keeping the respondent with him.

¶42

P.W.2 Hare Krishna Prasad is acquainted with the petitioner who has reiterated what has been stated by P.W.1 in his sworn statement.

¶43

In cross-examination, he has deposed that he was posted as a school teacher at Seema Tand where the petitioner was also posted. He came to know about the relationship between the petitioner and the respondent from the petitioner in a tea shop which they regularly visited. The son of the petitioner stays with the petitioner. He knows Sanjeev Kumar Nirala for the last 10-12 years.

¶44

P.W.3 Vijay Sharma has stated similar to that of P.W.1 in his sworn statement.

¶45

In cross-examination, he has deposed that he is well acquainted with the petitioner since the year 2016. He does not know about any discord in the marital relationship of the petitioner and the respondent pre 2016 and post 2016. He does not know the address of the petitioner.

¶46

P.W.4 Nand Kumar has stated similar to that of the other witnesses.

¶47

In cross-examination, he has deposed that he has a friendship with the petitioner for the last 10 years. In two cases, he has given his evidence against the respondent. He does not

¶48

FIRST APPEAL NO. 27 OF 2021 5

¶49

Neutral Citation

¶50

2025:JHHC:28134-DB

¶51

know of any incident which occurred between the petitioner and the respondent in the year 2016. He does not know as to when an attempt was made on the life of the petitioner at the behest of the respondent.

¶52

P.W.5 Sachhidanand Chouhan has reiterated what has been stated by the other witnesses in their sworn statements.

¶53

In cross-examination, he has deposed that he had given evidence in favour of the petitioner on two occasions. He is acquainted with both the sides due to the fact that he is a neighbour of the petitioner. He cannot throw any light as to whether the respondent wants to reside with the petitioner or not.

¶54

8. The respondent has examined two witnesses on her behalf: R.W.1 Brahamadeo Prasad Yadav has stated that he is acquainted with both the sides. The petitioner used to commit torture and physical assault upon the respondent on trivial matters. The marriage of the petitioner and the respondent was solemnised in the year 2016 and out of the said wedlock, a son was born to them. The petitioner in the night of Chhath Puja in the year 2015 had committed assault upon the respondent in presence of her uncle and in November 2015, she was awakened from her sleep and assaulted as she had a conversation with her mother without the permission of the petitioner. He has stated that on 18-01-2016 at 8:00PM, an assault was committed again due to which the respondent had to be treated by a doctor and since then the respondent is staying at her parents' place. On 24-06-2019 in the mediation centre, the respondent had agreed to go with the petitioner, but the petitioner had flatly refused. The respondent still wants to lead a peaceful conjugal life with the petitioner.

¶55

In cross-examination, he has deposed that the father of the respondent was his colleague for almost 25 years. There are three

¶56

FIRST APPEAL NO. 27 OF 2021 6

¶57

Neutral Citation

¶58

2025:JHHC:28134-DB

¶59

cases between the petitioner and the respondent. Several time attempts were made at a settlement, but each time such efforts failed. The respondent does not do any work and is entirely dependent on her family members for her sustenance.

¶60

R.W.2 Shyama is the respondent who has stated that her marriage was solemnised with the petitioner on 06-07-2006 as per Hindu rites and customs. Out of the said wedlock, a son was born to them. After marriage, the petitioner started committing torture upon her. She was even prevented from showing the child outside the window and the continuous torture was done by the petitioner at the behest of her sister-in-law Sheela Devi. During Chhath puja of the year 2015, she had gone to her parents' place with her son to have prasad and had returned home with her uncle on a scooter and this caused an assault upon her by the petitioner which stopped on the intervention of her uncle. On 3011-2015 at 02:00AM, when she was in a deep slumber, she was awakened by the petitioner who wanted to know as to whether she had a conversation with her mother and when she answered in the affirmative, she was subjected to assault. On 18-01-2016, she was assaulted by the petitioner to such an extent that she had to be treated by a doctor. In the morning, her father had come along with Harinandan Singh and seeing her injured had taken her with them and got her treated. This led to the institution of C.P. Case No. 242/2016 which is still pending. In the special mediation drive conducted on 24-06-2019, she had expressed her desire to stay with the petitioner, but the petitioner had refused to keep her. She is still ready and willing to stay with the petitioner at her matrimonial house. On 29-06-2016, she had sent her son to school from her parent's place but while returning, the petitioner had taken away her son. The petitioner always demands one-third of the amount received by her father towards his retirement benefit. The petitioner had filed a suit

¶61

FIRST APPEAL NO. 27 OF 2021 7

¶62

Neutral Citation

¶63

2025:JHHC:28134-DB

¶64

under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act which was dismissed.

¶65

In cross-examination, she has deposed that she does not remember as to how many days she remained happily at her matrimonial house. In 2007, the dispute between her and the petitioner started due to the demand of a Maruti car having not been fulfilled and the dispute still continues today. She has filed two cases against the petitioner; one under Section 498A IPC and the other is for maintenance. She had also made a complaint before the State Women's Commission, Ranchi. She does not want to withdraw the cases instituted by her against the petitioner. She has deposed that she is ready to stay with the petitioner if the petitioner shows his desire to keep her, but she will also take the maintenance amount. 9. It has been submitted by Mr. Rahul Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/respondent herein that though the petitioner has failed to make any good grounds for grant of divorce, but the learned trial court on the basis of presumptions has allowed the suit. The petitioner has failed to prove “cruelty” and “desertion” and in fact, it was on account of the torture committed upon the respondent that she was forced to leave her matrimonial house.

¶66

10. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and have also perused the trial court records.

¶67

11. The suit was preferred by the petitioner seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of “cruelty” and “desertion”. However, in the application for dissolution of marriage, the petitioner seems to have focused primarily on the purported adulterous relationship between the respondent and Sanjeev Kumar Nirala. Though it has been claimed that the respondent was seen in a compromising position with Sanjeev Kumar Nirala and other instances have also been mentioned, but adultery is not a ground which has been taken by the petitioner seeking divorce. In fact,

¶68

FIRST APPEAL NO. 27 OF 2021 8

¶69

Neutral Citation

¶70

2025:JHHC:28134-DB

¶71

when we look into the evidence of the petitioner (P.W.1), the allegations made with respect to such adulterous relationship seems to have been watered down which would further indicate that vague and unsubstantiated allegations have been made by the petitioner touching upon the character of the respondent. 12. The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 do not define “cruelty”, but in course of time through the various pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the term “cruelty” has been conceptualized and in this context, we may refer to the case of Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi reported (1988) 1 SCC 105 wherein, it has been held as follows:

¶72

in

¶73

“4. Section 13(1)(i-a) uses the words “treated the petitioner with cruelty”. The word “cruelty” has not been defined. Indeed it could not have been defined. 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 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

¶74

FIRST APPEAL NO. 27 OF 2021 9

¶75

Neutral Citation

¶76

2025:JHHC:28134-DB

¶77

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 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.

¶78

13. Similarly, in the case of A. Jayachandra v. Aneel Kaur reported in (2005) 2 SCC 22 , it has been held as follows:

¶79

“ 10. The expression “cruelty” has not been defined in the Act. Cruelty can be physical or mental. Cruelty which is a ground for dissolution of marriage may be defined as wilful and unjustifiable conduct of such character as to cause danger to life, limb or health, bodily or mental, or as to give rise to a reasonable apprehension of such a danger. The question of mental cruelty has to be considered in the light of the norms of marital ties of the particular society to which the parties belong, their social values, status, environment in which they live. Cruelty, as noted above, includes mental cruelty, which falls within the purview of a FIRST APPEAL NO. 27 OF 2021 10

¶80

Neutral Citation

¶81

2025:JHHC:28134-DB

¶82

matrimonial wrong. Cruelty need not be physical. If from the conduct of the spouse same is established and/or an inference can be legitimately drawn that the treatment of the spouse is such that it causes an apprehension in the mind of the other spouse, about his or her mental welfare then this conduct amounts to cruelty. In a delicate human relationship like matrimony, one has to see the probabilities of the case. The concept, proof beyond the shadow of doubt, is to be applied to criminal trials and not to civil matters and certainly not to matters of such delicate personal relationship as those of husband and wife. Therefore, one has to see what are the probabilities in a case and legal cruelty has to be found out, not merely as a matter of fact, but as the effect on the mind of the complainant spouse because of the acts or omissions of the other. Cruelty may be physical or corporeal or may be mental. In physical cruelty, there can be tangible and direct evidence, but in the case of mental cruelty there may not at the same time be direct evidence. In cases where there is no direct evidence, courts are required to probe into the mental process and mental effect of incidents that are brought out

¶83

FIRST APPEAL NO. 27 OF 2021 11

¶84

Neutral Citation

¶85

2025:JHHC:28134-DB

¶86

in evidence. It is in this view that one has to consider the evidence in matrimonial disputes.

¶87

11. The expression “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. Cruelty is a course or conduct of one, which is adversely affecting the other. The cruelty may be mental or physical, intentional or unintentional. If it is physical, the court will have no problem in determining it. It is a question of fact and degree. If it is mental, the problem presents difficulties. First, the enquiry must begin as to the nature of cruel treatment, second the impact of such treatment in the mind of the spouse, whether it caused reasonable apprehension that it would be harmful or injurious to live with the other. Ultimately, it is a matter of inference to be drawn by taking into account the nature of the conduct and its effect on the complaining spouse. However, there may be a case where the conduct complained of itself is bad enough and per se unlawful or illegal. Then the impact or injurious effect on the other spouse need not be enquired into or FIRST APPEAL NO. 27 OF 2021 12

¶88

Neutral Citation

¶89

2025:JHHC:28134-DB

¶90

considered. In such cases, the cruelty will be established if the conduct itself is proved or admitted. (See Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi.)

¶91

12. To constitute cruelty, the conduct complained of should be “grave and weighty” so as to come to the conclusion that the petitioner spouse cannot be reasonably expected to live with the other spouse. It must be something more serious than “ordinary wear and tear of married life”. The conduct, taking into consideration the circumstances and background has to be examined to reach the conclusion whether the conduct complained of amounts to cruelty in the matrimonial law. Conduct has to be considered, as noted above, in the background of several factors such as social status of parties, their education, physical and mental conditions, customs and traditions. It is difficult to lay down a precise definition or to give exhaustive description of the circumstances, which would constitute cruelty. It must be of the type as to satisfy the conscience of the court that the relationship between the parties had deteriorated to such an extent due to the conduct of the other spouse that it would be impossible for them to live together without mental

¶92

FIRST APPEAL NO. 27 OF 2021 13

¶93

Neutral Citation

¶94

2025:JHHC:28134-DB

¶95

agony, torture or distress, to entitle the complaining spouse to secure divorce. Physical violence is not absolutely essential to constitute cruelty and a consistent course of conduct inflicting immeasurable mental and agony torture may well constitute cruelty within the meaning of Section 10 of the Act. Mental cruelty may consist of verbal abuses and insults by using filthy and abusive language leading to constant disturbance of mental peace of the other party.”

¶96

14. Apart from the illicit relationship of the respondent with Sanjeev Kumar Nirala, the further allegation which has been made is of misbehaviour with the petitioner and his parents and insistence on the part of the respondent to leave his parents. These allegations are vague and made in a generalized form. This would also gain strength from the fact that though the petitioner had preferred a suit for restitution of conjugal rights, but the same was dismissed. Both the sides have resorted to filing cases against each other and the respondent also seems to have filed a case under Section 498 IPC as well as a case for maintenance. The respondent in her written statement as well as in her evidence as R.W.2 has clearly expressed her desire to stay with the petitioner and such intention on several occasions also appear in her evidence. However, the petitioner (P.W.1) in his cross- examination has flatly refused to keep the respondent. The entire scenario depicted in the evidence of the witnesses does not substantiate the grounds taken by the petitioner seeking dissolution of marriage. The petitioner has failed to prove that it will be an impossibility for the petitioner to stay with the

¶97

FIRST APPEAL NO. 27 OF 2021 14

¶98

Neutral Citation

¶99

2025:JHHC:28134-DB

¶100

respondent. Neither of the sides have produced any documentary evidence in support of their cases. The order of the learned trial court reveals that since the respondent is not willing to withdraw the criminal case, it would be difficult for the petitioner to take back his wife and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to a decree of divorce on the ground of desertion. The reasoning appears to be totally flawed as the broader angle of the dispute between the parties and the defence of the respondent has not at all been taken into consideration. As we have held above, vague and unstabstantiated allegations cannot form the basis for grant of a divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion. The facts of the case leads us to come to a reverse conclusion to the effect that it was the respondent who was subjected to torture, forcing her to leave her matrimonial house.

¶101

15. We, therefore, on the basis of the discussions made hereinabove, set aside the judgement and decree dated 18-012021 (decree signed on 25-01-2021) passed by Sri Alok Kumar Dubey, learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bokaro in Original Suit No. 142/2019.

¶102

16. This appeal is allowed.

¶103

17. Pending I.A.s, if any, stands closed.

¶104

(RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.)

¶105

(ARUN KUMAR RAI, J.)

¶106

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated the 10^th Day of September, 2025 Preet/N.A.F.R.

¶107

FIRST APPEAL NO. 27 OF 2021 15

Shyama Devi v. Sanjay Kumar Suman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shyama Devi v. Sanjay Kumar Suman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manju Devi Alias Manju Debi Vs Manoj Bhuiyan

Adam Ansari Vs MD Harbul

Awdhesh Mahto Vs State of Bihar

Jamruddin Khan And Ors. Vs State of Bihar

Vijay Kumar Verma Vs Prabha Kumari

Shamseen Khan Alias Shamsin Khan Alias Rani Vs Sagir Khan