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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Jhk) 63

HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
Sujit Narayan Prasad, Arun Kumar Rai, JJ
Ranthi Kumari Devi – Appellant
Versus
Suresh Kumar Sahu – Respondent
F.A. No.137 of 2022



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Chandana Kumari
For the Respondents: None

Concealment of material facts, such as criminal history or correct age prior to marriage, combined with conduct that renders cohabitation miserable and breaks the foundation of mutual trust, constitutes mental cruelty sufficient to warrant a decree of divorce.

Headnote:(A) Family Courts Act, 1984 - Section 19(1) - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 13 - Dissolution of marriage - Grant of divorce - Appellate jurisdiction - High Court in a First Appeal can examine every question of law and fact which arises in the facts of the case and has powers to affirm, reverse or modify the judgment - Concept of 'perversity' discussed - A finding is perverse if it ignores relevant material, takes into account irrelevant material or defies logic. (Paras 31, 32, 34, 35)

(B) Cruelty - Definition under Matrimonial Law - Cruelty may be mental or physical, intentional or unintentional - Conduct must be 'grave' and 'weighty' to render life of the spouse miserable - Trivial irritations are not grounds for divorce - Material concealment regarding criminal conviction and age in a marriage context constitutes cruelty as it breaks the foundation of mutual trust upon which marriage is built. (Paras 38, 40, 44, 48)

Facts of the case:
An appeal was filed by the wife against a judgment granting divorce to the husband. The husband alleged that the wife suppressed her true age and the fact that she was convicted for a criminal offence involving murder, for which she served time in custody. It was further alleged that the wife consistently threatened the husband and his family with dire consequences and legal harassment, causing mental agony and preventing a normal conjugal life.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the relationship of husband and wife is built on mutual trust. The concealment of material facts such as the wife's criminal conviction record and age, combined with the hostile behaviour and persistent threats, amounted to severe mental cruelty, making it impossible for the parties to reside together.

Issues: Whether the trial court was justified in granting a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and whether the impugned judgment suffered from perversity.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that concealment of vital facts prior to marriage, which strikes at the core of the matrimonial bond of trust, coupled with abusive conduct causing mental anguish, constitutes cruelty under the law. The appellate court found no perversity in the trial court's appreciation of evidence and upheld the decree of dissolution of marriage.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. divorce proceedings initiated under section 13 of the hindu marriage act, 1955. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. appellate review of judicial orders based on claims of perversity. (Para 7 , 8 , 34 , 35)
3. high court's appellate jurisdiction under section 19 of the family courts act. (Para 9 , 30 , 31 , 32)
4. evidence and witness testimony regarding nondisclosure of material facts. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 28)
5. mental cruelty arising from non-disclosure of criminal history. (Para 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49)
6. dismissal of appeal confirming trial court's divorce decree. (Para 50 , 51 , 52)

Order No.14/Dated:08.01.2026

Per 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

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