Sangeet Kumar Dubey Vs Kriti Tiwari Alias Kriti Kumari

2025:JHHC:23071-DB

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI F.A. No.50 of 2025

----- -

SANGEET KUMAR DUBEY, aged about 42 years, son of Late Ramesh Kumar Dubey, by faith Hindu, permanent resident of YB 339, Anandam NTPC SAS Ltd., Near AWHO Township, Sector-P6, Omega-1, Greater Noida, Kasana, Gautam Buddha Nagar, P.O. & P.S. Gautam Buddha Nagar, District Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh, 201310.

¶5

… … Appellant / Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

KRITI TIWARI alias KRITI KUMARI, wife of Sangeet Kumar Dubey, by faith Hindu, having present residence in India at Shyam Nikunj, Circular Road, Bela Bagan, Near Satsang Chowk, Deoghar, P.O. & P.S. Deoghar 814112.

¶8

… … Respondent/Respondent

¶9

P R E S E N T

¶10

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI

¶11

For the Appellant : Mr. Prakhar Harit, Advocate : Ms. Divya, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Shailesh Kumar Singh, Advocate

¶12

Order No.03/Dated 4^th August, 2025

¶13

Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

¶14

Prayer:

¶15

1. The instant appeal has been filed challenging the legality and propriety of impugned judgment passed on 22.10.2024 and decree signed on 13.11.2024 by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Deoghar whereby and whereunder the Original Suit No. 16 of 2023 filed by the petitioner-appellant-husband under Section 13(1), (i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for a decree of divorce has been dismissed.

¶16

1

¶17

2025:JHHC:23071-DB

¶18

Factual Matrix

¶19

2. The brief facts of the case of the appellant-husband as narrated, is that the respondent happens to be legally married wife of the petitioner-appellant and their marriage was solemnized on 08^th March 2019 at Deoghar according to the Hindu rites and ceremonies. After marriage, the respondent informed the petitioner-appellant that she is not happy with him and she did not want to get marry with him. The behaviour and conduct of respondent were abnormal and she denied the petitioner-appellant from matrimonial pleasure and enjoyment of sex and she got her bed separated to ensure that there will be no physical contact between the two. The respondent maintained a very indifferent attitude towards the petitioner-appellant and his family members and she showed utter disrespect to the father, sisters and brother-in-laws of the petitionerappellant. She did not like to live with the family members of petitioner and wanted to live separately from them. The said behaviour of respondent caused great mental tension, worries and agony in the petitioner's mind.

¶20

It is further case of the appellant that just within a couple of days of the marriage, the respondent, picked up a fight on a petty issue and she attacked the petitionerappellant physically by digging her nails on the petitioner's

¶21

2

¶22

2025:JHHC:23071-DB

¶23

face and neck due to which blood oozed from there. The said physical assault by the respondent had continued for further 15-20 days. She had quarreled with the petitioner in car also on a day before the Raksha Bandhan festival when they had gone to buy sweets and she damaged the petitioner's glasses and slapped him hard due to which the petitioner's face was swollen. The bahaviour of respondent towards her husband was very destructive and she never took her household responsibilities seriously. She used to show arrogance and lack of culture towards the relatives and guests of petitioner who used to come to visit his house and she had endangered the social reputation of the petitioner and his family members by her said conduct. She had no respect for her father-in-law and she used to abuse him also. She used to torture the petitioner for expensive gifts and made his life difficult in expectations of such expensive articles. She was continuously asking her husband to earn more for enjoying a luxurious life. The respondent is a very self obsessed, arrogant, egoistical, shopaholic, stubborn, shot tempered and aggressive woman, who always disrespected the petitioner and his family members and she always used to hit the petitioner and throw anything upon him. The respondent is in habit of denying from a normal sex without any reasonable or

¶24

3

¶25

2025:JHHC:23071-DB

¶26

justifiable cause and she used to tell the petitioner that if he intends to enjoy normal sexual life with her, then he must behave in the manner in which she wants her to behave and should not bother for his parents.

¶27

It has further been stated that the barbaric act of respondent started from 1" January 2020, when during a petty fight, all of a sudden, the respondent slapped the petitioner so hard that his ear drum was damaged and the petitioner had to rush to the hospital for a checkup as to whether the eardrums are not permanently damaged. Thereafter, on the next day i.e. on 2^nd January 2020, the respondent called her parents, aunt and uncle and all of them started to insult and threaten the petitioner and his father. The petitioner's father was a man of dignity and he could not take this insult and he was so much stressed and frustrated due to the said incident that he left this world on the very next day i.e. on 3rd January 2020.

¶28

It is the further case of the appellant that right after the funeral of his father, the petitioner requested the respondent to change her indifferent attitude towards the petitioner and his family members and objected the rude behaviour of respondent, the respondent created a scene in the house by shouting and abusing the petitioner, his sisters and brother-in-laws in vulgar language and she told

¶29

4

¶30

2025:JHHC:23071-DB

¶31

the petitioner that she is not married to your family and the marriage is union of two individuals and not two families. The respondent threatened the petitioner with dire consequences and thereafter, she left for her parent's house at Banka, Bihar in mid of the February 2020 but even thereafter, she continued to fight with petitioner telephonically from her Naihar.

¶32

It has been stated that petitioner asked the respondent for the reasons of quarrels between them in a simple manner for sorting the differences, if any, but the respondent did not give any plausible reason and started to misbehave with the petitioner. The petitioner intimated this incident to the respondent's parents also but they did not take the matter seriously, however they assured that the respondent will take care of the petitioner in future and she would not misbehave with the petitioner and his parents. Thereafter, on 17^th June 2020, the parties were blessed with a baby boy, but due to Corona Pandemic and his ailments, the petitioner didn't come to Deoghar at that time. But, even after the birth of child, she continued to harass the petitioner for the next 2-3 months causing the mental agony and harassment to the petitioner. The respondent used to demoralize the petitioner by passing malicious and sarcastic comments about his clothes, skin, texture and on other

¶33

5

¶34

2025:JHHC:23071-DB

¶35

body parts. The petitioner's father-in-law also threatened him on telephone and used derogatory language and slangs for the petitioner and his family. This scenario continued for the whole next week which caused immense mental agony, torture, suffering, misery, emotional pain, torment and persecute to the petitioner and his family.

¶36

3. In the aforesaid circumstances as alleged by the appellant, an application under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 had been preferred by him for a decree of divorce before the Court of Learned District Court, Surajpur, Greater Noida numbered as H.M.A. No.100 of 2020 but by the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, passed in Transfer Petition (Civil) No.2038 of 2021, this case was transferred to the Family Court, Deoghar and the same has been numbered as the Original Suit No. 16 of 2023.

¶37

4. The case was admitted for hearing and upon notice the respondent wife appeared in this case and sought time to file her written statement.

¶38

5. Thereafter, the respondent-wife filed her written statement and strongly denouncing the contentions of the appellant, as made in the plaint and refuted the allegations made against her.

¶39

6. By virtue of her written statement, the respondent-

¶40

6

¶41

2025:JHHC:23071-DB

¶42

wife had inter alia stated that the present matrimonial suit is not legally maintainable in law as well as on the facts of the case and it is a fit case to be dismissed.

¶43

7. It has been contented that the present suit has been filed by the appellant only to get rid from the respondent by hook or crook and the appellant is making all efforts in this regard. The respondent had never denied from sexual relationship with the appellant and actually she had conceived due to cohabitation with the appellant and gave birth to a male child also. The appellant has no cogent and reliable grounds to file this matrimonial suit against the appellant since she is a woman of good character and has always provided respect and regards to the appellant and his entire family members.

¶44

8. It has been stated that in fact respondent desires and wants to spend her entire life with the appellant and is still ready to live with the appellant to lead her conjugal life with him.

¶45

9. The learned Family Judge has taken into consideration the pleading made by the parties in the plaint as well as in the written statement.

¶46

10. The case proceeded for evidence during which the appellant has produced and examined three witnesses including himself.

¶47

7

¶48

2025:JHHC:23071-DB

¶49

11. The respondent-wife has also produced and examined altogether three witnesses including herself.

¶50

12. The learned Principal Judge, after hearing learned counsel for the parties, framed four issues for adjudication of the lis , which are being referred as under:

¶51

Whether the suit as framed is maintainable for the reliefs claimed?

¶52

Whether the petitioner has a valid cause of action to file this suit?

¶53

Whether the respondent has subjected the petitioner with cruelty?

¶54

Whether the petitioner is entitled to get the reliefs claimed or any other relief?

¶55

13. The aforesaid issues were decided against the appellant-husband and in favour of respondent-wife and decreed the suit on contest in the following terms :

¶56

“ … … this Court finds that as the petitioner has been failed to establish cruelty on the part of respondent, the instant suit by the petitioner, seeking a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty is not maintainable and the petitioner has no cause of action for it. The petitioner is not entitled to get the relief claimed or any other relief and his instant suit is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, these three issues are being decided negatively against the petitioner.

¶57

Therefore, on the basis of aforesaid discussion, this Court finds that the petitioner has been completely failed in establishing any such act of respondent which can be termed as cruelty and hence, he is not entitled to get the decree of divorce on this ground and the instant suit is liable to be dismissed.

¶58

8

¶59

2025:JHHC:23071-DB

¶60

Therefore, it is hereby ordered that the suit is dismissed on contest and with cost…. ”

¶61

14. The appellant-husband, being aggrieved with the judgment passed on 22.10.2024 and decree signed on 13.11.2024 by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Deoghar approached this Court by filing the instant appeal.

¶62

Submission made on behalf of the appellant-husband

¶63

15. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-husband has submitted that the Learned Family Court below has failed to appreciate that the petitioner/appellant has produced credible evidence which are sufficient to establish that the respondent-wife has subjected him to cruelty and on account of cruelty and desertion, the petitioner / appellant is entitled for grant of decree of divorce.

¶64

16. Further, it has been submitted that the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court while answering issue no.3 (cruelty) are perverse and based on mere presumption, therefore, the same will not stand in the eye of law.

¶65

17. Submission has also been made that the learned Court below also failed to appreciate that the petitioner / appellant has successfully substantiated the allegation that the respondent has deprived him from cohabitation and, therefore, the petitioner / appellant is entitled for grant of decree of divorce. But that aspect of the matter has not been

¶66

9

¶67

2025:JHHC:23071-DB

¶68

taken into consideration by the learned Family Court.

¶69

18. It has lastly been submitted that the learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate the oral evidence produced on behalf of petitioner / appellant and, thus, came to wrong conclusion.

¶70

19. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant, on the basis of aforesaid grounds, has submitted that the judgment passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Deoghar requires interference.

¶71

Submission made on behalf of respondent-wife

¶72

20. Learned counsel for the respondent-wife, defending the impugned order, has submitted that the appellant has sought divorce on the ground that the behaviour of respondent-wife towards the appellant and his family members is torturous and the appellant cannot reasonably be expected to live with the respondent but the learned Family Court, after taking into consideration the evidence, has held that the entire allegations levelled in are absolutely illegal, uncalled for and has rightly dismissed the suit.

¶73

21. Learned counsel for the respondent has further submitted that learned trial court has rightly held that the appellant is not entitled for the decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty because the appellant has miserably failed to prove the allegation of cruelty against her.

¶74

10

¶75

2025:JHHC:23071-DB

¶76

22. Learned counsel for the respondent-wife has submitted that the appellant and their family members who demanded dowry from her parents and when her poor parents failed to fulfill the illegal dowry demands of the appellant and his family members, she was subjected to constant torture, harassment and cruelty (both physically and mentally) by the appellant and her in-laws and learned Family Court, taking into consideration the evidence led by the respondent-wife, has rightly rejected the prayer for divorce made by the appellant.

¶77

23. Submission has been made that the learned Principal Judge, Family Court on the backdrop of the evidence led by the parties has come to the conclusion that the appellanthusband has miserably failed to establish the grounds of cruelty without any valid, cogent and tenable evidence and he is just cooking up flimsy grounds to avoid keeping his wife with him, who otherwise is very keen to rehabilitate her marital life with the appellant and except the vague and omnibus allegations made by husband against his respondent-wife, no cogent convincing, clinching evidence, no concrete documentary evidence has been led to substantiate the charges of cruelty, desertion and mental illness.

¶78

24. Learned counsel for the respondent-wife on the

¶79

11

¶80

2025:JHHC:23071-DB

¶81

aforesaid grounds has submitted that the impugned judgment requires no interference by this Court

¶82

Analysis

¶83

25. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellanthusband as also learned counsel for the respondent-wife and perused the material available on record and the finding recorded in the impugned order.

¶84

26. This Court, before looking into the legality and propriety of the impugned order, requires to refer the testimonies of the witnesses, as available on record.

¶85

27. The appellant, in support of his case, has adduced three witnesses including himself. The relevant portion of the testimonies of the witnesses are mentioned as under:-

¶86

PW-1, Sangeet Kumar Dubey (appellant himself) has said that he was married with the respondent on 08.03.2019, at Deoghar according to the Hindu religion and rites. Thereafter, the respondent told him that she is not happy with her marriage with him and she did not want to solemnize her marriage with him. She had deprived him from the right of a husband and she used to ill-treat his family members by saying that she has to live separate.

¶87

He had further stated that just after one month of marriage, the Mousa of respondent namely Manoj Mishra and Rajnikant Mishra put a proposal before him to give them

¶88

12

¶89

2025:JHHC:23071-DB

¶90

the front portion of his house for opening showroom of Jawa motorcycle. His father did not accept the said proposal, whereafter the behaviour of his wife towards his father and sister was deteriorated and the intervention of the respondent's family members was increased due to which he suffered from mental stress and he was mentally tortured. He had further stated that the respondent used to assault me even on petty matters and she used to scratch his face by her Nails due to which injuries were caused to him. On the day of Raksha Bandhan the respondent had quarreled with him in his Car and she had assaulted him due to which there was swelling on his face and his Goggles were also broken. The respondent was not co-operating in domestic works but inspite of that he was tolerating her in hope of a better future. But, there was no improvement in the respondent's behaviour despite of repeated persuasion She was always demanding costly clothes and ornaments and pressurizing him to purchase the said things by throwing the articles like Box of Cream etc and on showing inability by him, she was abusing and assaulting him. Respondent had called her mother and father as well as Mousa and Mousi also and all of them together abused and humiliated his father and his father could not tolerate the said insult and he was died on 03.01.2020, just within 24 hours of humiliation.

¶91

13

¶92

2025:JHHC:23071-DB

¶93

This witness has further said that after the last ceremony of his father, the respondent and her sister and sister-in-law were abusing and humiliating me. On 17.06.2020, a son was born from conjugal life but due to the Pandemic of Covid 19, he could not arrive there. But, even after the birth of a son, there was no reform in the bahaviour of his wife and his wife entered into his house by removing the lock with Gas cutter at the instance of her parents and she made my tenants to vacate the house forcibly by disconnecting their electricity and water supply. The respondent had entered into my house illegally and she started to keep unauthorized persons in my wife for the maintenance of his son, but inspite of that his wife and her parents were torturing him mentally and blackmailing for extorting money forcibly from him and they were threatening to kill him also. He has further stated his wife is residing in his house illegally with her mother and father as well as some unauthorized persons and lodged several baseless Civil and Criminal cases against him. The respondent used to make sarcastic remarks against my physique and she was telling me as 'Kala Koluta, Muh Chura and Dharti Ka Bojh'. His wife was humiliating him and inducing him to commit suicide. It has become difficult for him to lead his matrimonial relation with his wife due to her aforesaid

¶94

14

¶95

2025:JHHC:23071-DB

¶96

conduct and there is apprehension of his life in the hands of his wife and his family members. He had further deposed that they are living separate from the month of February 2020 and there has been no marital relation between us during this period. The respondent is residing in his house situated in the Deoghar and she is not allowing him to enter into my house.

¶97

He had further stated that she had lodged a false case against him and his two sisters in the Deoghar Mahila Police Station by making false allegations of demanding dowry and assaulting her and causing termination of her pregnancy vide the Mahila Police Station Case No. 24/2021. He has filed a case against the respondent and his family members vide the case No. 167/2023, after knowing about the said forged certificate of termination of pregnancy.

¶98

Further, in his cross-examination this witness has said that he had lived with his wife in the Deoghar lastly till the month of February 2020 and presently he is residing in the Greater Noida. He had filed this case in the month of November, 2020. He did not give information of the incident of scratching his face by his wife in any police station or in any Court earlier. He was present in the Deoghar at the time of death of his father and there was no opportunity of getting his treatment. His son was born on 17.06.2020, but he could

¶99

15

¶100

2025:JHHC:23071-DB

¶101

not come to the Deoghar at the time of his birth. However, he had sent its expense which was returned by the respondent. He did not come to the Deoghar till six months after the birth of his son. After six months, when he came to the Deogarh did not live with his wife in his house, because the atmosphere was not proper. He had lodged a Sanaha against the incident of not allowing him to live in his house by his wife in the month of January 2021. Further, he has denied from this suggestion that he was demanding Rs. 10,00,000/from his wife as dowry and on non-fulfillment of his said demand, he was assaulting and torturing her.

¶102

He has further denied from this suggestion that when his said demand was not fulfilled by the parents of respondent due to their poverty, he has filed the present case by making false statements so that he may solemnize his second marriage. He has further admitted in para-73 of his cross-examination that his marriage was solemnized pleasantly and there was no force or fear in it. Further, he has denied from this suggestion that his wife had never assaulted or ill-treated him or his family members and she wants to live with him.

¶103

The P.W.2 Shiwani Dubey is the sister of petitioner (appellant herein). She has said that after marriage the respondent told her husband that she is not happy with her

¶104

16

¶105

2025:JHHC:23071-DB

¶106

marriage and she did not want to marry with him. The respondent was ill-treating the inmates of her matrimonial home and she was saying that it is not possible for her to live in joint family. The Mousa of respondent, namely Manoj Mishra and one Rajnikant Mishra started to demand the front portion of our house for opening a showroom of JAWA motorcycle and when the petitioner and his father expressed their inability in doing so, the behaviour of respondent towards the petitioner and his father became worst and her family members were unnecessarily interfering in the matrimonial relation of petitioner.

¶107

The petitioner had suffered from mental stress due to the said conduct of respondent and he was being tortured by the respondent even on petty matters. The respondent used to assault the petitioner on petty matters and she used to scratch on face of the petitioner. The respondent had assaulted the petitioner on the occasion of Raksha Bandhan of 2019, in his Car due to which the face of petitioner was swollen and his Goggles were broken. The respondent was taking no interest in the domestic works but the petitioner was tolerating all these things in hope of a better future. The respondent used to abuse and insult the petitioner's old father also. She was always pressurizing her husband to purchase costly clothes and ornaments etc. and when

¶108

17

¶109

2025:JHHC:23071-DB

¶110

petitioner was restraining the respondent from doing so, she was fulfilling her desire anyhow.

¶111

She had further stated that on 02.01.2020, the

¶112

respondent had called her parents and relatives who also abused and insulted us due to which the petitioner's father was died on 03.01.2020. The respondent had given birth of a son on 17.06.2020, but her brother could not arrive in time due to the Pandemic of Covid-19. The respondent and her parents had forcibly broken the lock of petitioner's house by Gas Cutter and thereafter, they had llegally entered into the house and got vacated the house from the tenants. The respondent has illegally occupied the petitioner's house and she has kept unauthorized persons in it and earns fent from it. The respondent is not allowing us to enter into the said house. One day, myself and my elder sister Soni Dubey, alongwith her little child and her brother Sangeet Kumar Dubey, had gone to their house of Deoghar but the respondent and her men did not allow us to enter into the house and ousted us from there. We had given its information to the Sadar Police Station also. The respondent used to taunt my brother Sangeet Kumar Dubey on the basis of his physical structure and she used to tell him as काला - कलूटा , म ु हचुरा and धरती का बोझ ". It has become difficult for my brother to live with respondent due to her aforesaid act and

¶113

18

¶114

2025:JHHC:23071-DB

¶115

there is danger of his life with the respondent. The respondent had filed a false case by using a forged certificate of termination of her pregnancy and she tried to falsely implicate them.

¶116

Further, in her cross-examination this witness has said that her marriage was solemnized before the marriage of her brother. She resides with her husband at the place of his work and she do not live in her Maikay. she did not attend the marriage of petitioner due to her illness. She did not come on the death of her father also because her son was ill at that time.

¶117

Further, she has denied from this suggestion that the petitioner and this witness were torturing the respondent for dowry and they want to solemnize the second marriage of petitioner. She has further admitted that she has solemnized inter-caste marriage. However, she has denied from this suggestion that her father was annoyed with her due to intercaste marriage and he was not allowing her to come to the Deoghar due to his said annoyance.

¶118

P.W. 3 Soni Dubey has said that the respondent had deprived the petitioner from his marital rights and she was ill-treating him by saying that she cannot live in joint family. The maternal uncle and aunt of respondent had demanded the front portion of house just within a month of marriage for

¶119

19

¶120

2025:JHHC:23071-DB

¶121

opening showroom of JAWA motorcycle and when they showed their inability to fulfill their said demand, the respondent's behaviour towards her brother and father became worst.

¶122

She had further stated that the family members and relatives of respondent were unnecessarily interfering in the matrimonial matters of petitioner due to which the petitioner sustained mental stress. The respondent was assaulting the petitioner on petty matters and she used to scratch on his face by her Nails. She had assaulted the petitioner on the occasion of the Raksha Bandhan of 2019 due to which his face was swollen and Goggles were broken. The respondent was taking no interest in the domestic works and she used to insult and abuse the petitioner's old father also. The respondent is an extravagant lady and she was pressurizing the petitioner for purchasing expensive articles, ornaments and clothes etc. and on refusal of petitioner, she used to assault him. The respondent used to throw the articles of house on petitioner in anger due to which the petitioner was remaining in mental stress. On 02.01.2020, the respondent called her parents and relatives who abused and insulted my brother and father due to which her father died within 24 hours due to shock. The respondent had given birth of a son on but her brother could not come to the Deoghar due to

¶123

20

¶124

2025:JHHC:23071-DB

¶125

Covid-19, whereupon the respondent and her mother and father forcibly broke the lock of our house with Gas Cuter and entered into their house in unauthorized way. They got vacated their house from the tenants and forcibly occupied it. The respondent has kept unauthorized persons in their house and she does not allow them to live in the said house. Whenever they tried to enter into house, the respondent was threatening them and not allowing to enter into the house. The respondent has filed a false case under the Domestic Violence Act. The respondent had sent several abusive and objectionable messages to her in the month of January 2021, on mobile No. 7761921107, from her mobile No. 9608825234 and she has no respect for elders.

¶126

She had stated that she has filed the printed copy of the said messages in this case (identification Mark-X). The respondent used to taunt the petitioner on the basis of his body structure and she used to tease him by saying as 'Muh Chura' and 'Dharti Ka Bojh' and she was instigating the petitioner to commit suicide. It has become impossible for the petitioner to live with the respondent due to her aforesaid conduct and there is danger of petitioner's life in the hands of respondent. The respondent has lodged a false case against them vide the Mahila P.S. Case No. 24/2021 and she has filed a false certificate about termination of her pregnancy

¶127

21

¶128

2025:JHHC:23071-DB

¶129

and medical report also. After knowing about it, my brother has lodged a case against the respondent and her family.

¶130

28. The respondent-wife has also adduced three witnesses in support of her case which are being dealt hereunder as :-

¶131

The D.W.1 Karunesh Kumar Tiwary is father of the respondent/wife, has said that after marriage, the respondent had come to her matrimonial home and started to live there with her husband Sangeet Kumar Dubey and inlaws pleasantly. His daughter lived well for about 3-4 days and thereafter, the petitioner and his sisters Soni Dubey and Shiwani Dubey started to demand Rs. 10,00,000/- as dowry from his daughter. He has further stated that on 16.07.2019, the petitioner and his sister Soni Dubey brutally assaulted his daughter Kriti Tiwary for fulfillment of their demand of dowry and the petitioner Sangeet Kumar Dubey assaulted on abdomen of his daughter with Leg and fists and dashed her on the ground with an intention to kill her. His daughter was pregnant at that time and bleeding started due to the aforesaid assault, due to which his daughter was crying in pain but even then, the petitioner and his family members did not provide medical treatment to his daughter due to which her pregnancy was miscarried. His daughter informed about it to him whereafter, he and his wife and other

¶132

22

¶133

2025:JHHC:23071-DB

¶134

relatives met with the father-in-law of his daughter and narrated the entire story to him.

¶135

He had further stated that the petitioner's father was deeply shocked due to this misdeed of petitioner and he died on 03.01.2020 due to the said shock. After the death of petitioner's father, the incidents of demand of dowry and assault and abuse upon his daughter by the petitioner and his sisters were increased and they were threatening to solemnize second marriage of petitioner in case of nonfulfilment of their demand.

¶136

He had further stated that his daughter was tolerating all these atrocities of the petitioner and his family members in hope of a better future. The petitioner Sangeet Kumar Dubey sent his daughter to her Maikay on this pretext that he is going to drop the ash of his father into river. Thereafter, the petitioner went away from Deoghar by taking away the entire ornaments and other articles of his daughter from her matrimonial home. His daughter had given birth of a son through caesarean operation but even thereafter, the petitioner did not come to see his son nor he sent its expense.

¶137

He had further stated that his daughter has lodged the Mahila P.S. Case No. 24/2021, against the said act which is still pending in the Court of learned S.DJ.M., Deoghar. His

¶138

23

¶139

2025:JHHC:23071-DB

¶140

daughter has lodged a complaint Case No. 941/2021 and further, she has filed a case for her maintenance also vide the case No. 109/2021. His daughter was always paying due regard to the family members of her matrimonial home and she was doing all the domestic works with full devotion. His daughter had never tortured the petitioner in any way nor she had ever assaulted the petitioner and his family members and just contrary to it the petitioner and his family members were torturing his daughter and assaulting her for fulfillment of their demand of dowry.

¶141

This witness further said that even during the pendency of this case, the petitioner and respondent had gone to the Giridih and stayed together in a hotel from 28.01.2024 to 31.01.2024. Thereafter, again on 03.03.2024 and 04.03.2024, they had gone to the Giridih and 08.03.2024, they had performed the Gatbandhan of Baba Baidyanath and Mata Parwati in the Baba Temple, Deoghar. His daughter wants to live with her husband and she is ready for it but it is the petitioner who wants to solemnize his second marriage and he has brought this suit on quite false, and baseless allegations. His daughter had never abused or assaulted any member of her matrimonial home nor she had ever insulted them and the story of demanding front portion

¶142

24

¶143

2025:JHHC:23071-DB

¶144

of petitioner's house by the respondent and her relatives is also quite baseless and concocted.

¶145

Further, in his cross-examination this witness has said that presently his daughter is residing in her matrimonial home alongwith her son and they used to visit there occasionally. His daughter has filed a suit for partition against her husband and his sisters. The house, in which the respondent is presently residing, has four rooms in it, out of which two rooms are on the ground floor and two rooms are on the first floor in which tenants reside. It is true that the Government has acquired some portion of the house in which his daughter is presently residing and a case of its compensation was running in the Court of Dumka in which his daughter had filed an objection, but he does not know as to whether her objection has been dismissed or not.

¶146

He had further stated that his daughter has filed a case on the ground of her torture for demand of dowry against her husband and she has said in her said case that her husband had assaulted her on her abdomen by his Leg due to which her pregnancy was miscarried. His daughter has lodged altogether 5-6 cases against her husband. All the said cases have been filed by his daughter after filing of this suit by the petitioner. The sisters of petitioner have also their share in the house in which his daughter is presently residing. His

¶147

25

¶148

2025:JHHC:23071-DB

¶149

daughter has filed a case for partition in the year of 2021. Further, he has denied from this suggestion that the respondent has subjected the petitioner with cruelty and ousted him from his house.

¶150

The D.W.2 Rajnikant Mishra has said that after marriage, the respondent had gone to her matrimonial home and she was living with her husband and in-laws pleasantly. But, the husband and in-laws of respondent were demanding Rs. 10,00,000/- from her and they were torturing her for its fulfillment in various ways. On, 16.07.2019, the petitioner and his sisters had assaulted the respondent brutally for fulfillment of their demand of dowry and with an intention to kill the respondent due to which bleeding was started and the pregnancy of respondent was terminated. The respondent informed about it to her mother and father, whereupon they met with the petitioner's father and told him about the said incident. The petitioner's father could not tolerate the said shock and he was died on 03.01.2020. After death of petitioner's father, the torture of petitioner and his sisters towards the respondent was increased and they were threatening her to solemnize second marriage of petitioner. The petitioner had sent the respondent to her Naihar on the pretext of going for Asthi Visarjan of his father's ash in the Haridwar and thereafter he had taken away the entire

¶151

26

¶152

2025:JHHC:23071-DB

¶153

ornaments and articles of respondent with him. The respondent has lodged the Mahila P.S. Case No. 24/2021, for the said incident. The respondent has lodged another case against the incident of assault and torture vide the Case No. 941/2021 and further she has filed a case for her maintenance also vide the Case No.109/2021. The respondent was residing in her matrimonial home with full devotion and she was paying full respect, love and affection to her family members and she had never demanded any costly items nor pressurized the petitioner for extravagant expenditure. The respondent was being tortured in her matrimonial home and the petitioner did not come to see his wife and son even after birth of his son. The respondent had agreed for her marriage after well considering and she had never ill-treated her husband nor damaged any articles of her matrimonial home and she was serving her father-in-law with full devotion. The respondent had never tortured her husband mentally and she was giving full love and affection to her husband and she was never assaulting or + quarreling with him. The respondent was never pressurizing her husband to purchase any expensive items and it was the petitioner and his family members who were torturing the respondent for fulfillment of their illegal demand of dowry. The petitioner was not bearing expense of his wife and his

¶154

27

¶155

2025:JHHC:23071-DB

¶156

newly born baby. The petitioner has brought this suit on false and concocted allegations. This witness has further said that even during the pendency of this suit, the petitioner and respondent had gone to the Giridih from 28.01.2024 to 31.01.2024 and they had stayed there in a Hotel. Thereafter, on 03.03.2024 and 04.03.2024, they had again gone to the Giridih and on 08.03.2024, they had performed Gatbandha of Baba Baidyanath and Mata Parwati in the Baha Temple. The respondent wants to reside with her husband but it is the petitioner who wants to divorce the respondent on false and fabricated grounds and he was torturing the respondent for fulfillment of demand of dowry.

¶157

Further, in his cross-examination this witness has said that the Kriti Kumari is residing in her matrimonial home alongwith her son. He does not visit the matrimonial home of Kriti Kumari but when her father-in-law was alive, he had gone there on one or two occasions. He had lastly gone there on 20 April 2020. The Kriti Kumari and Sangeet Kumar Dubey are residing separately from February, 2024. The Kriti Kumari has filed a partition suit against the petitioner and his sisters. Altogether 5-6 cases are pending between the petitioner and respondent. Further, he has denied from this suggestion that the respondent had filed a forged certificate in the case of termination of her pregnancy. He has further,

¶158

28

¶159

2025:JHHC:23071-DB

¶160

admitted that the house, in which the respondent is living, belongs to the petitioner's sister also. Further, he has denied from this suggestion that the respondent was subjecting the petitioner with cruelty.

¶161

DW.3 respondent wife herself has stated that after marriage, she went to her matrimonial home and started to live there with her husband and in-laws. She lived well for about 3-4 days. Thereafter, her husband and sisters-in-laws Sony Dubey and Shiwani Dubey started to demand Rs. 10,00,000/- as dowry and they were torturing me in various ways for fulfilment of their said demand. On 16.07.2019, her husband and his elder sister Sony Dubey brutally assaulted her for fulfilment of their demand of dowry. Her husband assaulted on her abdomen with leg and fists with an intention to kill her and dashed her on the ground due to which there was bleeding and she was crying in pain. But, even thereafter, her husband did not provide her medical assistance and hence, she informed about it to her parents. Thereafter, her parents met with her father-in-law and told him about the incident. Her father-in-law got upset due to said incident and he could not tolerate the said shock and died on 03.01.2020. After death of her father-in-law, the demand of petitioner and his sisters was increased and they started to assault and abuse her too much and threaten her

¶162

29

¶163

2025:JHHC:23071-DB

¶164

to solemnize second marriage of petitioner in case of nonfulfilment of their demand.

¶165

She was tolerating all the atrocities in hope of a better future. Her husband had sent me to her Maikay on the pretext of flowing ash of his father in the Haridwar. She was pregnant at that time and subsequently, she gave birth of a son through surgery. But even thereafter, her husband did not come to see us nor he incurred its expense. She has filed a case for the said incident vide the Mahila P.S. Case No. 24/2021, which is presently pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Deoghar. She has filed another case against her husband and his family members for the incident of torture and assault vide the Complaint Case No. 941/2021. Further, she has filed a case for her maintenance vide the Case No. 109/2021 also and all these cases are pending. She had given consent for her marriage happily and after well considering and she had never ill-treated her husband. She was doing the entire domestic works of her matrimonial home and serving her husband and in-laws with full devotion. She was extending her love and affection to her husband and never tortured him mentally or in any way. She was / never pressurizing her husband to purchase precious articles rather it was her husband who was assaulting and torturing me for fulfilment of his demand of dowry. She had

¶166

30

¶167

2025:JHHC:23071-DB

¶168

lived in a Hotel at the Giridih from 28.01.2024 to 31.01.2024 and spent their time together during the said period. Thereafter, they had again gone to Giridih on 03.03.2024 and 04.03.2024 and further they had performed the ceremony of Gatbandhan of Baba Baidyanath and Mata Parwati in the Baba Temple on 08.03.2024. She wants to live with her husband and she is ready for it but her husband and his family members wants to solemnize his second marriage by giving divorce to her and hence, he has filed this case on false and concocted allegations. Her husband does not want to keep her and he has filed this suit on false, baseless and concocted allegations. She has discharged her matrimonial obligations and marital relation with her husband but he has levelled all sorts of false allegations against me. Neither herself nor her any relative had demanded the front portion of the house of her husband and the said land was already acquired by the Government for construction of ROB in the year 2017. The petitioner has levelled all sorts of allegations against her without any reality and the instant suit is liable to be dismissed.

¶169

Further, in her cross-examination this witness has said that presently she is living in the house of her father-inlaw along with her son. She is living separately from her husband since the year of 2020. She had kept a tenant in the

¶170

31

¶171

2025:JHHC:23071-DB

¶172

said house also. She has filed altogether five cases against her husband. She has filed a partition suit also against her husband which is still pending. She had filed an objection in the Land Acquisition Case also, which has been rejected by the Court. Her husband has filed a case against her on the allegation of levelling false allegations of termination of her pregnancy and using forged certificate. The termination of her pregnancy had taken place only on one occasion in the month of July, 2019. The house of her father and her matrimonial home is in the same village but its Mohalla is different. Further, this witness has admitted that her phone No. is 9608825234 and she has identified the chat messages from her mobile which has been marked with identification mark -X. She has further said that in the month of July 2019, her father-in-law was present in the house and her sister-in-law had come there but after dispute she returned from there. Further, she has denied from this suggestion that she was subjecting her husband with cruelty.

¶173

29. Besides oral evidence, documentary evidences were also adduced, which were marked as exhibits.

¶174

30. From the testimony, as referred hereinabove, it is evident that the appellant-husband has been examined as P.W.1 before the Family Court, who in his deposition has mainly taken the ground of bad behaviour of his wife,

¶175

32

¶176

2025:JHHC:23071-DB

¶177

threats for getting the family members implicated in the false cases. He has deposed that his wife has misbehaved with him and treated him with cruelty.

¶178

31. In cross-examination, he has deposed that even if his wife desires to live and stay with him with good behaviour and attitude then also he would not keep his wife with him because he has no faith and confidence upon her.

¶179

32. From the aforesaid testimony of the appellant-husband it is evident that though cruelty has been pleaded by him in his petition, but no cogent evidence has been produced by him to prove these allegations.

¶180

33. The respondent-wife has been examined as DW.3 who has stated that her marriage was solemnized as per Hindu rites and customs with the petitioner and after her marriage, she went to her Sasural along with the petitioner and there the conjugal relations between the couple were established and they began to lead a married life and the OP is still very keen and desirous to stay and spend her entire life with the petitioner-husband .

¶181

34. The learned Principal Judge, from the statements of the witnesses so produced on behalf of the parties, has come to the conclusion that plaintiff/petitioner (appellant herein) has miserably failed to prove the grounds of alleged cruelty.

¶182

35. From the testimony so recorded of the appellant-

¶183

33

¶184

2025:JHHC:23071-DB

¶185

husband, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court has come to the conclusion that in the instant case, except the general and omnibus allegations made by husband against his respondent-wife, no cogent convincing, clinching evidence, no concrete documentary evidence has been led to substantiate the charges of cruelty. The onus to prove the grounds taken for divorce squarely rests on the husband which are required to be discharged by leading a cogent, tangible and reliable evidence.

¶186

36. In the context of the aforesaid factual aspect only seminal issue has to be decided herein that “Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get divorce dissolving the marriage of the petitioner/appellant with OP/wife U/s 13(1) (i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955? 37. It needs to refer herein that so far the allegation of cruelty is concerned, the ‘ cruelty’ as 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.

¶187

38. The cruelty has also been defined in the case of

¶188

34

¶189

2025:JHHC:23071-DB

¶190

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.

¶191

39. 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 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.”

¶192

40. 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.”

¶193

41. The nature of allegations need not only be illegal conduct such as asking for dowry. Making allegations

¶194

35

¶195

2025:JHHC:23071-DB

¶196

against the spouse in the written statement filed before the court in judicial proceedings may also be held to constitute cruelty.

¶197

42. 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”.

¶198

43. 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.

¶199

44. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vidhya Viswanathan v. Kartik Balakrishnan , (2014) 15 SCC 21

¶200

has specifically held that cruelty is to be determined on whole facts of the case and the matrimonial relations

¶201

36

¶202

2025:JHHC:23071-DB

¶203

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.

¶204

45. 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.

¶205

46. Now adverting to the fact of the instant case. It is evident from the record that the petitioner/appellant has not brought any such specific instance on record from which it can be said that the respondent had committed cruelty towards him and whatever assertions have been made by the petitioner against the respondent are of quite general and omnibus nature. The parties have lived together in a

¶206

37

¶207

2025:JHHC:23071-DB

¶208

hotel even during the pendency of this suit for a considerable period of three days and two days which clearly goes to show that there is no such danger of life, limb or health of the petitioner/appellant in living with the respondent.

¶209

47. As regards the oral testimony of the P.W.2 Shiwani Dubey is concerned, this witness has herself admitted that she had not participated in the marriage of petitioner and further she had not come on the death of her father. Similarly, the P.W.3 Soni Dubey has stated that she does not reside in her Naihar permanently and she used to visit Naihar occasionally. Thus, this Court finds that the oral testimony of these witnesses cannot be relied upon safely on the point of the alleged incident between the petitioner and respondent.

¶210

48. As regards the filing of partition suit and other proceeding by the respondent is concerned, of course the respondent has admitted this fact that she has filed altogether five cases against her husband but the petitioner/appellant has not been able to bring any such document on record from which it can be said that the said proceedings were launched by the respondent prior to filing of the divorce suit by the petitioner.

¶211

49. It appears that earlier the suit for dissolution has been

¶212

38

¶213

2025:JHHC:23071-DB

¶214

preferred was filed by the petitioner/appellant Sangeet Kumar Dubey before the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Budh Nagar on 27.11.2020 and it was numbered as the Original Suit No. 100/2020, whereas all the cases filed by the respondent against the petitioner are of the year 2021. The respondent Kriti Kumari (D.W.3) has herself disclosed about the said cases in her examination-inchief which goes to show that all these cases are of the year of 2021 and thus, this Court finds that approaching to the Court by a wife against her husband for saving her interest and getting the relief available to her under the law cannot be termed as cruelty.

¶215

50. This Court, based upon the aforesaid discussions on the issue of cruelty, is of considered view that the issue of cruelty as has been alleged by the appellant-husband against his wife could not be proved because no concrete evidence to that effect has been produced by the appellant.

¶216

51. Thus, as per the discussions made hereinabove and law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court which has also been referred herein above this Court has no reason to take different view that has been taken by the learned Family Court proving the ground of cruelty.

¶217

52. This Court, on the basis of discussions made hereinabove, is of the view that the appellant husband has

¶218

39

¶219

2025:JHHC:23071-DB

¶220

not been able to prove the ground of desertion for one of the grounds for divorce before the learned Family Court. As such, we have no reason to take a different view that has been taken by the learned Family Court.

¶221

53. Accordingly, issue as framed by this Court is decided against the appellant-husband and it is held that the learned Family Court had rightly not granted the decree of divorce in favour of the appellant husband on the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act as such same is requires no interference by this Court.

¶222

54. This Court, on the basis of discussions made hereinabove, is of the view that the judgment passed on 22.10.2024 and decree signed on 13.11.2024 by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Deoghar whereby and whereunder the Original Suit No.16 of 2023 filed by the petitioner-appellant-husband under Section 13(1), (i-a), of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for a decree of divorce has been dismissed, requires no interference by this Court.

¶223

55. Accordingly, the instant appeal fails and is dismissed.

¶224

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

¶225

(Arun Kumar Rai, J.)

¶226

Birendra / A.F.R.

¶227

40

Sangeet Kumar Dubey v. Kriti Tiwari Alias Kriti Kumari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sangeet Kumar Dubey v. Kriti Tiwari Alias Kriti Kumari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Saraswati Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Mosamat Shanti Debya Vs Kashi Rana

Pappu Sah @ Pappu Kumar Sah Vs the State of Jharkhand

Central Coalfields Limited, through Its Chairman-Cum-Managing Director Vs the State of Jharkhand

Industries and Commerce Association through Its President Baidya Nath Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Department of Mines and Geology

M/S Narayan Stone Works through His Proprietor Sri Vikash Chandra Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its Secretary Deptt of Industries Mines and Geology