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) 55

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, ARUN KUMAR RAI, JJ.
Ranthi Kumari Devi - Appellant
Versus
Suresh Kumar Sahu - Respondent
F.A. No.137 of 2022
Decided On : 08-01-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Ms. Chandana Kumari, Advocate

Concealment of material facts, such as age and criminal background, constitutes mental cruelty, justifying the dissolution of marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act.

Headnote:(A) Family Courts Act, 1984 - Section 19(1) - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 13 - Appeal against the dissolution of marriage - The marriage was challenged on grounds of concealment of age and prior criminal conviction of the appellant, which allegedly led to mental cruelty. The Family Court found sufficient grounds for divorce, establishing that the appellant's behaviors had violated the trust essential for a marriage. (Paras 36, 48, 49)

(B) Judicial procedure - The High Court's role in appellate jurisdiction can involve reviewing findings of fact and law as observed in prior judgments. The court emphasized that cases of mental cruelty are evaluated considering the testimony and context surrounding the marriage. (Paras 30-32, 38-44)

Facts of the case:
The marriage occurred on 15.04.2019. The appellant concealed her actual age of 40 and a prior life sentence for murder from the respondent before marriage. There were subsequent threats made by the appellant to the respondent, and ongoing conflicts affected their relationship.

Findings of Court:
The learned Family Court adjudicated that the appellant's concealment of facts constituted mental cruelty, leading to the dissolution of the marriage.

Issues: The main issue was whether the grounds of divorce were substantiated by prior actions and behavior of the appellant that reflected on their marriage.

Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the revelation of hidden backgrounds in personal conduct and decisive actions leading to trust issues merit a consideration for divorce under specified grounds of cruelty.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. marital concealment of facts constitutes grounds for divorce. (Para 3 , 4 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 24 , 46)
2. court's analysis of evidence supports divorce decree. (Para 6 , 9 , 15 , 17 , 26 , 28)
3. claims of fairness and evidence evaluation in family court rulings. (Para 7 , 8 , 29)
4. family court’s jurisdiction and appeal rights outlined. (Para 30 , 31 , 32)
5. no interference in family court's findings justified. (Para 34 , 49)
6. appeal dismissal finalizes family court's ruling. (Para 50 , 51 , 52)

ORDER :

Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

Prayer:

1. The instant appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 is directed against order/judgment dated 20.09.2022 and decree signed on 30.09.2022 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Gumla in Original Suit No. 23 of 2022, whereby and whereunder the learned Principal Judge has allowed the suit filed for dissolution of marriage under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

Brief facts of the case

2. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleading made in the original suit, needs to be referred herein reads, which reads as under:

3. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 15.04.2019 in village Pantha, P.S. Basia, District- Gumla. It is contended that the marriage was solemnized after suppressing the facts with respect to the age of the appellant, which is about 40 years, which was stated to be 27 years and further the fact that she was in jail custody for two years has also been suppressed. It has also been stated that the appellant has committed the murder of her lover for which she along with her brother Mahavir Ohdar has been convicted for life vide judgment dated 14.8.2006 in S.T. Case No. 221/2004 and they are on bail granted in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 573 of 2006 by the Division Bench of this Court. It has also been stated that when the Kundali of the parties was not being matched then the name of the petitioner, the respondent herein, was changed from Suresh Kumar to Ram Sah and when the petitioner denied for marriage then it was solemnized by putting pressure. It has further been stated that after the marriage the appellant always used to give threat for killing him as well as his family and when the same was objected by the petitioner-respondent, then she used to threat to send him to jail. There was no conjugal relation between the parties. There was a Maintenance Case being 19/2021, which was compromised on 07.10.2021, but the said compromise was made only remain on paper and the quarrel started thereafter also. Subsequently, the appellant has filed G.R. No. 307/2021 for the offence under Section 498A IPC, which is stated to be pending. Since the behaviour of the appellant/Opposite party was not good and even on the smaller issue, the cases are being instituted and the petitioner-husband is being harassed and all possibility of continuation of conjugal life is dim as such the suit for divorce has been filed.

4. The respondent-wife, the appellant herein, appeared and filed her written statement denying the statements made by the petitioner-husband. It has been specifically stated that the appellant-wife has disclosed all the facts with respect to the criminal case instituted against the appellant and it has also been disclosed that she had falsely been implicated in the said case. All these information was given prior to the marriage to the husband petitioner. It has also been stated that the maintenance case no. 19 of 2021 was compromised on different conditions, wherein the appellant used to reside peacefully but the petitioner started torturing her and thrown out from the house and only with a view to maintain her, the compromise was entered into. The appellant intended to save the marriage but the husband opposite party is adamant for divorce.

5. The parties adduced the evidence and the learned family court, after appreciating the material available before the court, allowed the suit filed by the appellant-husband by granting decree of div

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