Back
2025 Supreme(Jhk) 1991
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, RAJESH KUMAR, JJ.
Raghunandan Kumar son of Sukhdeo Rai - Appellant
Versus
Anjani Kumari, W/o Raghunandan Kumar, Daughter of Suresh Rai - Respondent
First Appeal (DB) No. 123 of 2023
Decided on : 19-06-2025
For the Appellant:Mr. Anurag Kashyap, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Sudhir Kumar Roy, Advocate
The court ruled that suffering from a physical ailment does not constitute cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act, emphasizing cruelty requires substantial and harmful conduct.
Headnote:(A) Family Courts Act, 1984 - Section 19(1) - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 13(1)(i-a) - Appeal against dismissal of suit for dissolution of marriage on grounds of cruelty asserted due to respondent's polio condition - The court found that polio does not equate to cruelty, emphasizing ‘cruelty has no fixed definition’ as per various precedents (Paras 12-18).
(B) Evidence regarding psychological and physical conditions evaluated - Recorded testimonies indicated no substantive cruelty established (Paras 9-20).
Facts of the case:
The appellant-husband filed for divorce alleging cruelty based on his wife's polio affliction, contending it prevented her from fulfilling household responsibilities. The Family Court identified that the respondent had some limitations but deemed she was capable of performing daily tasks (Paras 1-22).
Findings of Court:
The Family Court concluded that accusations of cruelty were unfounded, finding no grounds for dissolution based on the wife's disability or behavior (Paras 19-23).
Issues: Whether polio can be a ground for alleging cruelty in a marriage and whether the prior disclosure of the disability was sufficient basis for divorce (Para 7).
Ratio Decidendi: Conduct alleged as cruelty must cause great and weighty harm; mere presence of disability is not sufficient for divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) (Paras 14-18).
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. dissolution of marriage on grounds of cruelty. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments on concealment of polio. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. consideration of testimonies regarding cruelty. (Para 6 , 7 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. interpretation of cruelty under legal standards. (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 5. legal standards applied to various cases of cruelty. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 6. suffering from disease is not a ground for cruelty. (Para 18 , 20 , 21) |
| 7. court dismisses appeal. (Para 22 , 23) |
JUDGMENT :
1. This appeal filed under Section 19(1) of the Family Court Act is directed against the judgment dated 12.04.2023 and decree dated 20.04.2023 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court, Giridih in Original Suit No. 303 of 2017 whereby and whereunder the suit preferred by the appellant for dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has been dismissed.
2. The brief facts as per the pleading are need to be referred herein which reads as under:
The appellant-husband after solemnization of marriage with the respondent-wife on 13.07.2016 as per the Hindu rites and customs has found himself impossible to live with his wife and as such an application was made under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty.
Cruelty has been tried to be demonstrated on the ground that the respondent-wife is suffering from Polio and in consequence thereof, she is not in a position to perform her household duties and even to cook.
3. Evidence has been laid on behalf of both the parties. The learned Family Court on consideration of the evidences of the rival parties and considering the definition of “Cruelty” has come to the conclusion that the element of cruelty is not established on the ground that the respondent-wife is suffering from Polio. As a result, the suit has been dismissed against which the present appeal has been preferred.
Submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant:
4. Ground has been taken by the appellant that the marriage has been solemnized by the parents of the respondent-wife by concealing the fact that the respondent-wife is suffering from Polio, which according to learned counsel for the appellant is sufficient ground to prove the element of cruelty. But the same has not been taken in right perspective by the learned Family Court and hence the present appeal. Submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent:
5. While on the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent- wife has submitted that it is unacceptable that the wife, a human, is suffering from Polio can hide that disease rather Polio is such a disease, which is apparent. It has been contended that it is incorrect on the part of the appellant to take the ground of cruelty merely because the wife was suffering from Polio. Hence the said ground has been taken as a ground for divorce. It has come in the evidence that she has been subjected to torture on the ground that she is suffering from Polio. It has been contended that the learned Family Judge after taking into consideration the aforesaid fact is correct in declining to dissolve the marriage on the ground of physical ailment.
Analysis:
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the finding recorded by the learned Family Judge in the impugned judgment as also the evidences available in the trial Court record.
7. This Court after appreciating the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties has to consider as to whether the disease of Polio can be construed to be a ground so as to dissolve the marriage under the provision of Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955.
8. But before consideration of the aforesaid issue, the evidences recorded of the witnesses needs to be referred herein, which reads as under:--
On behalf of the Plaintiff/Appellant husband
P.W.1 Sadanand Rai is the neighbor of the plaintiff (appellant herein) has stated
