SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Jhk) 37

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Sujit Narayan Prasad, Arun Kumar Rai, JJ.
Santosh Pathak - Appellant
Versus
Sarika Kumari - Respondent
First Appeal No. 66 of 2021
Decided On : 15-01-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate, Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate, Mr. M.K. Sinha, Advocate,
For the Respondent:Mr. Prabhat Kr. Sinha, Advocate, Mr. Bankim Prasad, Advocate

Fraudulent misrepresentation regarding educational qualifications did not warrant divorce as evidence was insufficient to prove claims of cruelty or desertion.

Headnote:(A) Family Courts Act, 1984 - Section 19(1) - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Sections 12(1)(c) and 13(1-a) and (1-b) - Divorce proceedings - Appellant's petition for divorce dismissed by the Family Court based on lack of evidence of fraud regarding the respondent's educational qualifications and employment. The court ruled that the petitioner failed to establish the grounds for divorce citing cruelty or desertion. (Paras 1, 35, 90, 96)

(B) The court reiterated that for fraud under Section 12(1)(c), concrete evidence is necessary, not mere allegations or non-fulfillment of expectations post-marriage. (Paras 88, 89)

(C) The court emphasized that desertion must be shown to be intentional and without reasonable cause, a burden upon the petitioner which was not met in this case. (Paras 74, 94)

Facts of the case:
The marriage between the appellant and respondent occurred on 12.02.2013; the appellant claimed to have been misled regarding the respondent's qualifications and employment status prior to marriage, thereby filing for divorce on grounds of cruelty and desertion after several years of living separately.

Findings of Court:
The Family Court concluded the claims of the appellant lacked sufficient evidentiary support and dismissed the request for a divorce decree.

Issues: The main issues included the legal validity of the claims of cruelty and desertion, the truthfulness of information about educational qualifications, and the maintenance of the marriage.

Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the appellant did not meet the burden of proving fraud or cruelty as defined under the relevant legal provisions, thereby ruling that the claims were not substantiated enough to warrant divorce.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. factual background of the marriage and allegations (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
2. filing of the divorce petition and issues framed (Para 11 , 12 , 13)
3. arguments on behalf of the appellant regarding evidence (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)
4. further arguments and evidence presented by appellant (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25)
5. arguments on behalf of the respondent wife (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31)
6. court's observations on the case (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37)
7. principles defining marriage validity and fraud (Para 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54)
8. court's understanding of cruelty in marital contexts (Para 56 , 57 , 58 , 59)
9. cruelty definitions established by supreme court (Para 60 , 61 , 62 , 63)
10. nature and forms of cruelty explained by apex court (Para 64 , 65 , 66)
11. analysis of desertion as a legal concept (Para 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73)
12. elements constituting desertion in marriage (Para 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80)
13. court's conclusion regarding evidence of fraud and arguments (Para 81 , 82 , 83 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 88 , 89)
14. final decision and dismissal of appeal (Para 96 , 97 , 98)

JUDGMENT :

Sujit Narayan Prasad, J

Prayer:

1. The instant appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 is directed against the judgment dated 08.10.2021 and decree dated 20.10.2021 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Hazaribag in Original Suit No. 70 of 2014, whereby and whereunder, the suit filed by the plaintiff (appellant herein) seeking a decree of divorce against his wife (respondent herein), has been dismissed.

Factual Aspect

2. The brief facts of the case, leading to filing of the divorce petition by the appellant-petitioner, as taken note in the impugned order as emanated from the plaint, needs to be referred herein, which reads as under:

3. The marriage between the appellant and respondent was solemnized on 12.02.2013 at Katras according to Hindu Rites and Customs. After the marriage, both the petitioner and the respondent came to Hazaribag and live together as husband and wife. The marriage was registered on 18.02.2013 at District Sub-Registrar, Hazaribag. The couple has no children.

4. It is further stated that was an arrange marriage. The father of the respondent approached the parents of the petitioner through the maternal Uncle Swarup Trigunait @Tulla and gave the Photographs, Bio-data and Kundli of the respondent for marriage with the petitioner. They also impressed upon the petitioner parents that the respondent is qualified upto MBA from FMS Banaras Hindu University and was employed as Manager in Citi Bank at Mumbai.

5. It is further stated that on 22.06.2012 parents of both the parties met at Dhanbad where the respondent was interviewed by the petitioner and his parents in presence of her parents and they all repeated that she did MBA from BHU and she is serving as Manager in Citi Bank at Mumbai. Further the respondent and her parents submitted that after the marriage she will get herself transferred to CITI Bank, Singapore where the petitioner is working. In August, 2012 on the day of Raksha Bandhan, the father of the respondent Nawal Kishore Trigunait came to Hazaribag alongwith Sri Arup Trigunait @ Dablu and Swarup Trigunait @ Tulla for final settlement of marriage of respondent with the petitioner which after discussion settled for 12.02.2013 and the engagement of which was performed on 06.02.2013 and Tilak Ceremony on 07.02.2013 and accordingly the marriage was performed on 12.02.2013 at Rajasthani Dharamshala, Katras, District Dhanbad.

6. It is further stated that at the time of registration of marriage at District Sub-Registrar, Hazaribag the respondent said that her Passport is lost somewhere. The petitioner was scheduled to go to his work in Singapore on 24.02.2013 and accordingly on 22.02.2013 the petitioner left for Mumbai and from there on 24.02.2013 he left for Singapore. It was arranged that the petitioner would send money in the account

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top