Back
2025 Supreme(Jhk) 1987
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, RAJESH KUMAR, JJ.
Binod Kumar Mishra, Son of Sri Surya Nath Mishra – Appellant
Versus
Preeti Pandey @ Preeti Mishra, W/o Binod Kumar Mishra - Respondent
First Appeal (DB) No.85 of 2023
Decided On : 15-07-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate:Mr. Vikash Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mrs. Vani Kumari, Advocate:Mr. Aniket Ranjan, Advocate:Mr. Prince Pandey, Advocate
The court upheld that allegations of cruelty must be substantiated to justify divorce, reaffirming that forced separation constitutes cruelty towards the spouse.
Headnote:(A) Family Courts Act, 1984 - Section 19(1) - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Sections 13(1)(i-a)(i-b) - Dissolution of marriage - Appeal by husband against dismissal of divorce suit for cruelty and desertion; the court found no substantial evidence of cruelty or desertion by the wife, rather, established that husband forcefully caused separation. (Paras 1, 14, 59)
(B) Cruelty and desertion - Legal definition and interpretation - Distinction between normal marital discord versus substantiated acts of cruelty or forced separation must be considered; allegations must be substantiated for divorce claims to succeed. (Paras 22, 59)
Facts of the case:
The husband filed for divorce citing cruelty and desertion after a prolonged separation of nearly 13 years, claiming his wife’s actions caused severe mental stress. The wife contested, asserting continuous efforts for reconciliation. (Paras 1, 6, 9)
Findings of Court:
The court identified that desertion was not established as being voluntary by the wife but resulted from the husband’s actions, deeming him the perpetrator of cruelty by abandoning the marriage. (Paras 12, 59)
Issues: The main issues included whether the learned Family Judge erred in not substantiating claims of cruelty by the husband and the implications of desertion. (Paras 7, 59)
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that mere allegations of cruelty without proof do not satisfy the requirements for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act; furthermore, forced separation amounts to cruelty against the wife. (Paras 14, 59)
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
1. This appeal filed under Section 19(1) of the FAMILY COURTS ACT is directed against the judgment dated 01.03.2023 and decree dated 16.03.2023 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhanbad in Original Suit No.908 of 2022 whereby and whereunder the suit preferred by the appellant for dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1) (i-a), (i-b) of the HINDU MARRIAGE ACT , 1955 has been dismissed.
Submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant:
2. The following grounds have been taken on behalf of the appellant-husband while assailing the impugned judgment which reads as under:-
(i) The element of cruelty, although, is fully established but that has not been taken into consideration in right perspective.
(ii) The element of cruelty is also further established on the ground that a criminal case was instituted implicating all the family members for alleged commission of offence under Section 4 98(A) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 /4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
(iii) Although, the Competent Court having jurisdiction has convicted the appellant-husband, the said judgment of conviction was subsequently reversed in the judgment of acquittal passed by the Appellate Court and that is the sufficient ground to establish the element of cruelty by the appellant- husband, since, the allegations of torture, both mental and physical, and the demand of dowry could not have been established. Hence, the same itself amounts to cruelty meted out to the husband.
(iv) To buttress his argument, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of K. Srinivas vrs. K. Sunitain Civil Appeal No.1213 of 2006 reported in 2014 (16) SCC 34.
Submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent:
3. Per contra, Mrs. Vani Kumari, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-wife has argued while defending the impugned judgment by taking the following grounds:-
(i) The learned Family Judge has committed no error, since, every aspect of the matter as has been led by evidence on behalf of the respondent-wife, has been taken into consideration in right perspective.
(ii) The suit for dissolution of marriage was filed both under Section 13(1) (i-a), (i-b) of the HINDU MARRIAGE ACT , 1955 but the element of desertion has not been found to be substantiated and for that purpose specific finding was recorded by the learned Family Judge.
(iii) The said finding in the present appeal is not under challenge, rather only the element of cruelty which has not found to be substantiated as per the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, is under challenge in the present appeal.
(iv) The contention, therefore, has been raised that the moment the element of desertion could not have been established on the basis of lack of evidence having not been produced by the appellant-husband, rather, findings have been arrived at by the learned Family Judge that it is the husband who has forced the respondent-wife to leave the matrimonial home, the same itself amounts to cruelty meted outto the wife by the husband.
(v) It has also been submitted by showing the conduct of the appellant- husband that initially a suit was filed for dissolution of marriage being Matrimonial Case No.438 of 2007, the Court having its jurisdiction at Patna. The respondent-wife after having known about the same had to rush to the Hon’ble Apex Court by filing Transfer Petition for transferring the matrimonial case to the jurisdiction available to the judgeship in the district of Dhanbad (State of Jharkhand), since, the wife resides there. The case, accordingly, was transferred to Dhanbad but with ulterior motive, the appellant-husband did not appear in the said suit leading to its dismissal for non-prosecution.
(vi) No effort was taken for its restoration, rather, the appellant-husband has again filed afresh matrimonial suit in Patna and the
