Jharkhand High Court
(Against The Judgment And Decree Dated … vs Smt. Suv Laxmi Varati @ Doly Kumari on 17 February, 2026
Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay, Deepak Roshan
Neutral Citation
2026:JHHC:4499-DB
First Appeal (DB) No. 421 of 2018
(Against the judgment and decree dated 29.08.2018 (decree
signed on 31.08.2018) passed by Sri Yogeshwar Mani, learned
Principal Judge, Family Court, Bokaro in Original Suit No.
323/2015.)
Ajay Kumar Barnwal, S/o Sri Kedar Prasad Barnwal, R/o
Bihar Colony, Chas, P.O.- Chas, P.S.- Chas, Dist.- Bokaro.
... Appellant
Versus
Smt. Suv Laxmi Varati @ Doly Kumari, W/o Ajay Kumar
Barnwal, D/o Sri Satya Narayan Barnwal, R/o Durbiniya
Goryari Chandan, P.O.- Lohari, P.S.- Chandan, Dist.- Banka,
Bihar. ... Respondent
----
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
----
For the Appellant : Mr. Sanjeev Thakur, Adv.
For the Respondent : Mr. Anshuman Mishra, Adv.
----
Dated : 17/02/2026
JUDGMENT
Per Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. :
1. Heard Mr. Sanjeev Thakur, learned counsel for the
appellant and Mr. Anshuman Mishra, learned counsel appearing
for the respondent.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree
dated 29-08-2018 (decree signed on 31-08-2018) passed by Sri
Yogeshwar Mani, learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bokaro
in Original Suit No. 323/2015, whereby and whereunder, the
suit preferred by the appellant for dissolution of his marriage
with the respondent under Section 13(1)(i)(ia) of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955 has been dismissed.
3. For the sake of convenience, both parties are referred to in
this judgment as per their status before the learned trial court.
FIRST APPEAL NO. 421 OF 2018 1
Neutral Citation
2026:JHHC:4499-DB
4. The petitioner/husband (appellant herein) had filed a suit
for dissolution of his marriage with the respondent/wife
(respondent herein also) in which it has been stated that the
marriage of the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized as
per Hindu rites and customs at Swayamwar Vatika, Deoghar on
02-06-2013. After the marriage was solemnized, the respondent
came to her matrimonial house at Chas, Bokaro where she
stayed for 6 days. The respondent is a temperamental and
whimsical lady and had emanated rude behavior with the
petitioner and his parents. The marriage of the petitioner and the
respondent was never consummated as the respondent had
shown her disinclination to have a child. It has been stated that
after 6 days of marriage, the respondent had left her matrimonial
house and after much persuasion, the respondent had returned
to her matrimonial house on 03-09-2013. There was, however,
no change in the behavior of the respondent and the father of the
petitioner was abused when he interrupted the respondent
talking to someone over phone for long hours asking her to
concentrate on domestic chores. The respondent had once again
left her matrimonial house only to be persuaded by the petitioner
again to return and the petitioner had agreed to the condition of
the respondent to have a separate kitchen for herself. It has been
stated that once when the petitioner was searching for his clothes
in the almirah, he came across a letter hidden in the clothes
written by the respondent which indicated that the respondent
had physical relationship with another person. On being
confronted, the respondent became enraged and told the
petitioner that she enjoys the company of her friend more than
the petitioner. The respondent had left her matrimonial house on
05-10-2013 along with her clothes and jewelry with the
threatening that the petitioner and his parents will be implicated
by her in false and fabricated cases. Despite attempts made by
FIRST APPEAL NO. 421 OF 2018 2
Neutral Citation
2026:JHHC:4499-DB
the petitioner, the respondent refused to return to her
matrimonial house. The petitioner had filed a suit for restitution
of conjugal rights being Title (Matrimonial) Suit No. 158/2014
and when the respondent, during the conciliation proceedings,
had refused to reside with the petitioner, the petitioner was
compelled to file an application for withdrawal of the suit. The
respondent had filed a complaint case being Complaint Case No.
382/2014 against the petitioner and his parents and she had
also submitted two written complaints in the office of the
petitioner. The marriage between the petitioner and the
respondent has broken down irretrievably due to the
circumstances created by the respondent.
5. On being noticed, the respondent had appeared and filed a
written statement in which the allegations made against the
respondent has been denied. The respondent had stayed at her
matrimonial house for six months and during this period she was
subjected to torture and a demand of Rs. 5 lakhs was also made.
It was the petitioner who had manufactured the letter in order to
create a ground for divorce. The respondent was compelled to
leave her matrimonial house due to the torture committed upon
her and she has been forced to stay at her parental house from
03-03-2014 onwards. The respondent was constrained to file a
criminal case against the petitioner and his parents and the copy
of the complaint was also forwarded to the superiors of the
petitioner. The suit for restitution of conjugal rights was filed in
order to secure bail in the criminal case and once the petitioner
got bail, he had filed an application for withdrawal of the suit.
6. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the following issues
have been framed for adjudication.
i. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form?
ii. Whether there is any valid cause of action for filing this
suit?
FIRST APPEAL NO. 421 OF 2018 3
Neutral Citation
2026:JHHC:4499-DB
iii. Whether the respondent has not allowed the petitioner
to consummate the marriage after solonization of
marriage?
iv. Whether the petitioner has been subjected to cruelty by
the respondent after solonization of marriage?
v. Whether the petitioner is entitled to get relief as prayed
for by him?
7. The petitioner has examined four witnesses including
himself, while the respondent has examined three witnesses.
Some documents were also exhibited. Since the petitioner had
failed to prove cruelty, the suit was dismissed vide judgment
dated 29-08-2018 which is impugned to the present appeal.
8. The petitioner has filed an application under Order 41
Rule 27 CPC for adducing additional evidence bearing I.A.
No. 14344/2024 based on the grounds stated therein.
9. Mr. Sanjeev Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner has
submitted that despite the petitioner having given instances with
respect to the manner of cruelty meted out to him by the
respondent, the learned trial court had come to an erroneous
conclusion without any proper appreciation of the materials on
record and without any sound reasonings. Dwelling on the
interlocutory application for additional evidence, submission has
been advanced that the respondent has solemnized another
marriage despite the subsistence of the marriage between the
petitioner and the respondent and this would amount to cruelty
committed upon the petitioner.
10. Mr. Anshuman Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent though has supported the impugned judgment, but
has not disputed the subsequent development regarding the
marriage of the respondent to another person.
11. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective sides
and have also perused the trial court records.
FIRST APPEAL NO. 421 OF 2018 4
Neutral Citation
2026:JHHC:4499-DB
12. “Cruelty” is an ever-expanding concept based on divergent
circumstances and though “cruelty” has not been defined in the
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, but the various judgments of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court gives a diverse platform to the said term
and in this context, we may refer to the case of Samar Ghosh v.
Jaya Ghosh reported in (2007) 4 SCC 511 wherein, it has been
held as follows:
“101. No uniform standard can ever be laid
down for guidance, yet we deem it
appropriate to enumerate some instances of
human behaviour which may be relevant in
dealing with the cases of “mental cruelty”.
The instances indicated in the succeeding
paragraphs are only illustrative and not
exhaustive:
(i) On consideration of complete matrimonial
life of the parties, acute mental pain, agony
and suffering as would not make possible for
the parties to live with each other could come
within the broad parameters of mental
cruelty.
(ii) On comprehensive appraisal of the entire
matrimonial life of the parties, it becomes
abundantly clear that situation is such that
the wronged party cannot reasonably be
asked to put up with such conduct and
continue to live with other party.
(iii) Mere coldness or lack of affection cannot
amount to cruelty, frequent rudeness of
language, petulance of manner, indifference
and neglect may reach such a degree that itFIRST APPEAL NO. 421 OF 2018 5
Neutral Citation
2026:JHHC:4499-DBmakes the married life for the other spouse
absolutely intolerable.
(iv) Mental cruelty is a state of mind. The
feeling of deep anguish, disappointment,
frustration in one spouse caused by the
conduct of other for a long time may lead to
mental cruelty.
(v) A sustained course of abusive and
humiliating treatment calculated to torture,
discommode or render miserable life of the
spouse.
(vi) Sustained unjustifiable conduct and
behaviour of one spouse actually affecting
physical and mental health of the other
spouse. The treatment complained of and the
resultant danger or apprehension must be
very grave, substantial and weighty.
(vii) Sustained reprehensible conduct, studied
neglect, indifference or total departure from
the normal standard of conjugal kindness
causing injury to mental health or deriving
sadistic pleasure can also amount to mental
cruelty.
(viii) The conduct must be much more than
jealousy, selfishness, possessiveness, which
causes unhappiness and dissatisfaction and
emotional upset may not be a ground for grant
of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty.
(ix) Mere trivial irritations, quarrels, normal
wear and tear of the married life which
happens in day-to-day life would not beFIRST APPEAL NO. 421 OF 2018 6
Neutral Citation
2026:JHHC:4499-DBadequate for grant of divorce on the ground of
mental cruelty.
(x) The married life should be reviewed as a
whole and a few isolated instances over a
period of years will not amount to cruelty. The
ill conduct must be persistent for a fairly
lengthy period, where the relationship has
deteriorated to an extent that because of the
acts and behaviour of a spouse, the wronged
party finds it extremely difficult to live with
the other party any longer, may amount to
mental cruelty.
(xi) If a husband submits himself for an
operation of sterilisation without medical
reasons and without the consent or
knowledge of his wife and similarly, if the
wife undergoes vasectomy or abortion without
medical reason or without the consent or
knowledge of her husband, such an act of the
spouse may lead to mental cruelty.
(xii) Unilateral decision of refusal to have
intercourse for considerable period without
there being any physical incapacity or valid
reason may amount to mental cruelty.
(xiii) Unilateral decision of either husband or
wife after marriage not to have child from the
marriage may amount to cruelty.
(xiv) Where there has been a long period of
continuous separation, it may fairly be
concluded that the matrimonial bond is
beyond repair. The marriage becomes a fictionFIRST APPEAL NO. 421 OF 2018 7
Neutral Citation
2026:JHHC:4499-DBthough supported by a legal tie. By refusing to
sever that tie, the law in such cases, does not
serve the sanctity of marriage; on the
contrary, it shows scant regard for the
feelings and emotions of the parties. In such
like situations, it may lead to mental cruelty.
102. When we take into consideration
aforementioned factors along with an
important circumstance that the parties are
admittedly living separately for more than
sixteen-and-a-half years (since 27-8-1990)
the irresistible conclusion would be that
matrimonial bond has been ruptured beyond
repair because of the mental cruelty caused
by the respondent.”
13. In the case of A. Jayachandra v. Aneel Kaur reported in
(2005) 2 SCC 22, it has been held as under:
“10. The expression “cruelty” has not been
defined in the Act. Cruelty can be physical or
mental. Cruelty which is a ground for
dissolution of marriage may be defined as
wilful and unjustifiable conduct of such
character as to cause danger to life, limb or
health, bodily or mental, or as to give rise to a
reasonable apprehension of such a danger.
The question of mental cruelty has to be
considered in the light of the norms of marital
ties of the particular society to which the
parties belong, their social values, status,
environment in which they live. Cruelty, as
noted above, includes mental cruelty, which
falls within the purview of a matrimonial
FIRST APPEAL NO. 421 OF 2018 8
Neutral Citation
2026:JHHC:4499-DBwrong. Cruelty need not be physical. If from
the conduct of the spouse same is established
and/or an inference can be legitimately
drawn that the treatment of the spouse is
such that it causes an apprehension in the
mind of the other spouse, about his or her
mental welfare then this conduct amounts to
cruelty. In a delicate human relationship like
matrimony, one has to see the probabilities of
the case. The concept, proof beyond the
shadow of doubt, is to be applied to criminal
trials and not to civil matters and certainly not
to matters of such delicate personal
relationship as those of husband and wife.
Therefore, one has to see what are the
probabilities in a case and legal cruelty has to
be found out, not merely as a matter of fact,
but as the effect on the mind of the
complainant spouse because of the acts or
omissions of the other. Cruelty may be
physical or corporeal or may be mental. In
physical cruelty, there can be tangible and
direct evidence, but in the case of mental
cruelty there may not at the same time be
direct evidence. In cases where there is no
direct evidence, courts are required to probe
into the mental process and mental effect of
incidents that are brought out in evidence. It
is in this view that one has to consider the
evidence in matrimonial disputes.
11. The expression “cruelty” has been used in
relation to human conduct or human
FIRST APPEAL NO. 421 OF 2018 9
Neutral Citation
2026:JHHC:4499-DBbehaviour. It is the conduct in relation to or in
respect of matrimonial duties and obligations.
Cruelty is a course or conduct of one, which is
adversely affecting the other. The cruelty may
be mental or physical, intentional or
unintentional. If it is physical, the court will
have no problem in determining it. It is a
question of fact and degree. If it is mental, the
problem presents difficulties. First, the
enquiry must begin as to the nature of cruel
treatment, second the impact of such
treatment in the mind of the spouse, whether
it caused reasonable apprehension that it
would be harmful or injurious to live with the
other. Ultimately, it is a matter of inference to
be drawn by taking into account the nature of
the conduct and its effect on the complaining
spouse. However, there may be a case where
the conduct complained of itself is bad enough
and per se unlawful or illegal. Then the impact
or injurious effect on the other spouse need
not be enquired into or considered. In such
cases, the cruelty will be established if the
conduct itself is proved or admitted. (See
Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi.)
12. To constitute cruelty, the conduct
complained of should be “grave and weighty”
so as to come to the conclusion that the
petitioner spouse cannot be reasonably
expected to live with the other spouse. It must
be something more serious than “ordinary
wear and tear of married life”. The conduct,
FIRST APPEAL NO. 421 OF 2018 10
Neutral Citation
2026:JHHC:4499-DB
taking into consideration the circumstances
and background has to be examined to reach
the conclusion whether the conduct
complained of amounts to cruelty in the
matrimonial law. Conduct has to be
considered, as noted above, in the
background of several factors such as social
status of parties, their education, physical
and mental conditions, customs and
traditions. It is difficult to lay down a precise
definition or to give exhaustive description of
the circumstances, which would constitute
cruelty. It must be of the type as to satisfy the
conscience of the court that the relationship
between the parties had deteriorated to such
an extent due to the conduct of the other
spouse that it would be impossible for them to
live together without mental agony, torture or
distress, to entitle the complaining spouse to
secure divorce. Physical violence is not
absolutely essential to constitute cruelty and
a consistent course of conduct inflicting
immeasurable mental agony and torture may
well constitute cruelty within the meaning of
Section 10 of the Act. Mental cruelty may
consist of verbal abuses and insults by using
filthy and abusive language leading to
constant disturbance of mental peace of the
other party.”
14. The subsequent development which is enunciated in
I.A. No. 14344/2024 gives a new dimension to the case of the
petitioner. As per the averments in the said application, the
FIRST APPEAL NO. 421 OF 2018 11
Neutral Citation
2026:JHHC:4499-DB
respondent has solemnized marriage with one Shailendra Kumar
on 22.11.2024 in support of which, the Marriage Card and some
photocopies of the photographs of marriage have been brought on
record. The said assertion has not been disputed by the learned
counsel for the respondent as is reflected in the order dated
08.10.2025. Solemnizing marriage with another person during
the subsistence of the earlier marriage would act as a scar to the
psychology of the husband and such act would come within the
domain of the term “cruelty” accentuating the prayer for divorce
made by the petitioner. Therefore, in the circumstances noted
above, the prayer for adducing additional evidence is allowed and
consequently, issue no. iv is decided against the respondent and
in favor of the petitioner. Based on such conclusion, the
impugned judgment and decree dated 29-08-2018 (decree signed
on 31-08-2018) passed by Sri Yogeshwar Mani, learned Principal
Judge, Family Court, Bokaro in Original Suit No. 323/2015 is
hereby set aside and the marriage between the petitioner and the
respondent is dissolved.
15. This appeal is allowed.
16. Pending I.A.(s), if any, stands closed.
(RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.)
(DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Dated the 17th Day of February, 2026.
Preet/N.A.F.R.
Uploaded on: 17 /02 /2026.
FIRST APPEAL NO. 421 OF 2018 12
