PINKI KUMARI vs RAVI KUMAR

Neutral Citation No. (2026:JHHC:32564-DB)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
First Appeal No. 68 of 2021
Pinki Kumari, aged about 33 years, W/o Ravi Kumar, D/o Sri Kishore
Kumar Jha @ Kishori Jha @ Netaji, resident of Ghogardiha, P.O. and
P.S. Ghogardiha, District Madhubani, Bihar. ... Appellant
Versus
Ravi Kumar, son of Braj Mohan Jha, resident of Tarun Enclave, Flat
th
No.36, 5 Floor, Post Office Road, P.O. and P.S. Mango, Jamshedpur,
District East Singhbhum. ... Respondent
---------
CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ PRASAD
---------
For the Appellant : Ms Amrita Sinha, Amicus Curiae
For the Respondent: Mr Anurag Kashyap, Advocate
---------
Reserved on: 13/10/2026 Pronounced on: 05/11 /2026
Per Manoj Prasad, J.
1. Heard Ms. Amrita Sinha, learned Amicus Curiae appearing on
behalf of the appellant-wife and Mr. Anurag Kashyap, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the respondent-husband.
2. The instant First Appeal has been filed by the appellant-wife
under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 impleading the
respondent-husband against the judgment dated 24.11.2021 (Decree
signed on 30.11.2021) passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family
Court, Jamshedpur in Matrimonial Suit No.105 of 2015, whereby an
application filed by the respondent-husband for dissolution of marriage
by a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion as
contemplated under Section 13(1)(i-a) and 13(1)(i-b) of the Hindu
Page 1 of 11 F.A. No. 68 of 2021

Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act, 1955”) was
allowed.
3. Brief facts of the case as per the plaint filed by the respondent-
plaintiff are that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on
23.11.2008 at Madhubani, Bihar as per the Hindu rituals. After
marriage, both parties started residing together at Jamshedpur since
28.11.2008 and out of the wedlock, a daughter was born out. However,
while residing together, the respondent discovered some improper
behavior by the appellant. The appellant used to quarrel with every
family member for petty cause. Her behavior was unruly. At occasions,
she threw the hot pan on the family members while they were dining
together. Considering such erratic behavior, the matter was reported to
the family of the present appellant, who did not bother to respond to any
such complaint. The daughter born out of the wedlock, was within a
short period of time detected to be suffering from cancer and for her
treatment she was taken to Mumbai. However, the appellant did not
bother to accompany the daughter during her treatment to Mumbai.
Such behaviour of the Appellant compelled the respondent to obtain
medical advice for the appellant. The doctors reported some psychiatric
issue, for which treatment was done. Finally, it is alleged that the
present appellant left her matrimonial home and is residing with her
parents at her parental home and since then there has been no restitution
of conjugal rights and no cohabitation has been there. The appellant has
even not bothered to see her minor child during these entire period.
Apart from that, the respondent also alleges in his petition that the
Page 2 of 11 F.A. No. 68 of 2021

appellant in a very unusual manner used to physically assault the minor
child, put her in cold water tub even during the winter season and even
on one occasion she tried to throw her away from the balcony. With
these allegations, a case for dissolution of marriage on the ground of
cruelty and desertion by a decree of divorce was made and prayer was
made to allow the petition for dissolving the marriage between the
parties.
4. The appellant-defendant appeared before the learned Trial Court
on getting notices and has contested the claim of the respondent
disputing the allegations made therein and has made prayer for
dismissal of the suit. In the entire written statement, plea has been taken
that the marriage was solemnized as per the Hindu rituals. Kanyadan
was performed and the marriage was in accordance with Section 7 of
the Act, 1955. Vague and general denial of the allegations made in the
plaint was there and prayer was made to dismiss the suit.
5. Based on the pleadings, the learned Trial Court formulated the
following issues, which are hereunder: -
“I. Whether the suit as framed is maintainable?
II. Whether this court has jurisdiction to try this suit”
III. Whether the marriage of the plaintiff and defendant is fit to be
dissolved on the ground of cruelty?
IV. Whether the defendant has deserted the plaintiff prior to two
years from the date of filing of this suit”
V. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for any relief or reliefs claimed in
the suit?
VI. What other relief or reliefs and plaintiff is entitled?

6. On behalf of the respondent-plaintiff, three witnesses, namely,
Ravi Kumar, the plaintiff himself as P.W.-1, Brajmohan Jha, who is the
father of the plaintiff as P.W.-2 and Manoj Kumar Jha, who is the uncle
Page 3 of 11 F.A. No. 68 of 2021

of the plaintiff as P.W.-3 were examined. On behalf of the appellant-
defendant, the appellant herself was examined as D.W.-1.
Findings of the Trial Court
7. The learned Trial Court after considering the oral evidence on
behalf of the parties, held that though allegations were there that the
appellant was suffering from some psychiatric problem but there was
absence of any documents, particularly any medical paper to
substantiate any such allegation and hence such allegations remained
unsubstantiated. However, there was sufficient evidence on the point of
cruelty and the learned Trial Court held that the allegations of physical
assault on the infant, verbal and physical abuse to the husband and the
other in-laws and even filing of a case under Section 498-A of the
Indian Penal Code after institution of the petition for dissolution of
marriage without any averment or allegation with regard to demand of
dowry or cruelty having been meted out on her, establishes the case of
cruelty by the appellant against the respondent.
8. The learned Trial Court has considered the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Naveen Kohli Vs. Neelu Kohli
reported in (2006) 4 SCC 558 , while examining the ambit and scope of
the word ‘cruelty’ and has also referred another judgment in the case of
V. Bhagat Vs. D. Bhagat reported in (1994) 1 SCC 337, on the
exposition of the term “mental cruelty”. Thus, the issue was decided in
favour of the respondent and against the appellant.
9. On the issue of desertion, the learned Court held that the
appellant in her cross-examination has admitted the fact of having
Page 4 of 11 F.A. No. 68 of 2021

deserted her husband since the time when their minor daughter was
aged about 7 months leaving the minor daughter alone with the present
respondent and since then there has been no restitution of conjugal life
between the parties.
10. Accordingly, the suit was also decreed on the ground of
desertion. Other issues were also decided in favour of the respondent
and against the appellant. The learned Trial Court also considered the
aspect of permanent alimony and ordered for payment of Rs.10,000/-
per month as interim alimony/maintenance, giving liberty to the parties
to file a separate application for permanent alimony before a court of
competent jurisdiction and the suit was accordingly decreed.
11. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree, the present
appeal has been filed. However, it appears that after filing of the appeal
as steps were not taken on behalf of the appellant, Ms Amrita Sinha was
appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court on behalf of the
appellant-wife. Ms Sinha has been vigilant and has diligently assisted
the Court both on facts and law for deciding the case.
12. Ms Sinha, while arguing the case on behalf of the appellant, has
submitted that the allegations regarding the appellant’s psychiatric
problem remain unsubstantiated. If the present respondent’s case is
considered, it would be apparent that the respondent admits to having
brought his wife to her parents’ house and thereafter leaving her there,
which, in fact, demolishes the case of desertion by the wife, as it is the
husband who has deserted the wife. Learned counsel, in all fairness,
concedes that it is not in dispute that the minor daughter is suffering
Page 5 of 11 F.A. No. 68 of 2021

from cancer and that huge expenses have been incurred for her
treatment. The respondent also does not dispute that the said minor
child is in the care and custody of the father, and that the appellant has
not taken any steps to take care of the child, to accompany the child in
the course of her treatment at Mumbai, or to do anything for the
purpose of the care and protection of the child. However, learned
counsel has submitted that the allegations of cruelty and desertion are
false and that the appeal is fit to be allowed.
13. Ms Sinha has also submitted that during the hearing of the
present appeal, a proposal for permanent alimony was made by the
respondent-husband, by way of payment of Rs.25 lakhs, to which the
appellant had agreed. Subsequently, the respondent retracted his
statement, and a subsequent proposal was to pay Rs.15 lakhs as
permanent alimony. Considering these entire facts, a prayer is made to
pass an appropriate order.
14. Per contra, Mr Anurag Kashyap, learned counsel for the
respondent-husband has submitted that the impugned order does not
suffer from any illegality and warrants no interference. Case of the
respondent-plaintiff was well proved, and it was established that the
present appellant was guilty of having meted out cruelty on the
respondent and also of having deserted the respondent and, hence, the
decree for divorce do not warrant any interference. It is further
submitted that it is true that initially the proposal for one time alimony
was made and it was assured that Rs.25 lakhs would be paid but since
about Rs.40 lakhs expenses have been incurred by the respondent
Page 6 of 11 F.A. No. 68 of 2021

towards treatment of his daughter, he was unable to pay such amount
and subsequently, as per his capacity he has made an offer for payment
of Rs.15 lakhs as permanent alimony. On these facts, prayer is made to
dismiss the appeal.
FINDINGS
15. Having heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
parties and the rival contentions raised, the only question for
determination before this Court is whether the respondent has proved a
case of cruelty and desertion by the appellant, thereby entitling the
respondent to a decree for divorce.
16. Before discussing the facts of the present case, this Court would
like to note that the respondent had offered to pay one-time permanent
alimony of Rs.25 lakhs, which was accepted by the appellant. However,
later on, the offer was retracted, and the respondent-husband offered to
pay Rs.15 lakhs as a full and final settlement. On the Court’s
intervention to settle the final alimony amount at Rs.20 lakhs, it appears
the proposal failed, and the parties agreed to argue the case on its
merits. Similar efforts were made earlier by a Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court, and despite all efforts the alimony amount could not be settled,
and hence the case has been heard on its merits.
17. It is reiterated that the respondent-plaintiff filed a petition for
dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce on the grounds of cruelty
and desertion. Aspects of cruelty and desertion were pleaded in the
plaint at paragraphs 5 to 9. Aspects of desertion were pleaded at
paragraphs 11 to 15 of the plaint. Similar statements appear at
Page 7 of 11 F.A. No. 68 of 2021

paragraphs 19, 23 and 24 of the plaint. In the written statement filed by
the appellant-defendant, paragraph 11 is the reply to the statements
made in paragraphs 4 to 19 of the plaint, which read as under:
“That para(s) 4-19 of the suit is a concocted reservoir of
low standard rhetoric and at last of para 19 the dissolution
of marriage wrongly observed, pleaded and proposed in
total derogation of laws in force and the customs and
usage resorted to in Marriage formerly.”

18. At paragraph No. 13, there is a reply to paragraph Nos.20 to 30
of the plaint, which read as under:
“That under paras 20-30 the plaintiff is restlessly riding a
plain of wrong and empty explanations of sentiments in utter
disregards to his true attempt to set a good trend to the
conjugal life.”

19. We are of the considered view that such a reply does not comply
with the requirements of Order VIII Rules 3, 4 and 5 of the Code of
Civil Procedure. Order VIII Rule 3 of the CPC mandates that every fact
must be specifically denied, and Order VIII Rule 4 stipulates that an
evasive denial is no denial. In the facts of the present case, such a reply
in the written statement amounts to an evasive denial, which, as a
matter of law, shall be treated as no denial. Order VIII Rule 5 of the
CPC provides that facts not denied shall be deemed to be admitted.
Thus, from the bare pleading of the appellant, the allegations of cruelty
and desertion appear to have been admitted.
20. Still, this Court would like to examine the evidence on record.
Three witnesses examined on behalf of the respondent, particularly the
respondent, have reiterated the entire assertions made in the plaint,
including the manner of behaviour, the neglect of the child, etc. There is
Page 8 of 11 F.A. No. 68 of 2021

nothing in cross-examination to discredit the testimony of this witness.
The appellant, examined as D.W.-1, in her examination-in-chief, has
also made a similar statement to that in the written statement, which
practically amounts to not disputing the allegations levelled against her.
21. Apart from the above, the fact that the appellant admits of having
left her minor child when the child was aged about 7 months and has
not bothered to take care of the child despite knowing full well that the
child is suffering from cancer is definitely such acts which would come
under the definition of cruelty sufficient to dissolve the marriage in
terms of Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Act, 1955.
22. On the point of desertion, this Court would like to refer to the
evidence of the appellant examined as D.W.-1; particularly in her cross-
examination at last sentence, it has been stated at last line of para-26
that “ जब बेटी सात महीना की थी तभी म œ मायके चली गई और तब से पित से कोई
स ɼ क Ŋ नहीं है। ” . This is an admission of desertion.
23. We are also in conformity with the view taken by the learned
Trial Court Judge, who held that after the institution of the suit for
dissolution of marriage, an FIR under Section 498-A of the IPC was
registered against the husband. This fact has been admitted by the
appellant in her evidence. It is not in dispute that, in the entire written
statement, there is no pleading that cruelty was meted out to her, for or
in relation to any demand for dowry, or otherwise. The learned Trial
Court considered such aspects to be elements of cruelty sufficient to
dissolve the marriage in terms of Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Act, 1955.
Page 9 of 11 F.A. No. 68 of 2021

24. In view of the preceding discussions, we are of the considered
view that the point for determination formulated by us is fit to be
decided in favour of the respondent-husband and against the appellant-
wife. The respondent successfully proved that the appellant subjected
the respondent to cruelty and deserted the respondent for a continuous
period of more than two years prior to filing of petition for dissolution
of marriage by a decree of divorce. Thus, the impugned judgment and
decree do not warrant any interference and the appeal does not have any
merit.
25. However, the aspect of permanent alimony, for which efforts by
this Court as well as by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court were made,
requires consideration. The learned Trial Court has allowed an interim
alimony of Rs.10,000/- per month to be paid by the respondent to the
appellant, which perhaps is being paid.
26. There is some dispute regarding the arrears of
maintenance/alimony. Considering the affidavits filed on behalf of the
appellant and the respondent pursuant to the direction of a Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court, and in accordance with the law laid down by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha & Another ,
reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324 , this Court considers that the monthly
alimony amount be enhanced from Rs.10,000/- per month to
Rs.15,000/- per month. However, the parties are at liberty to apply, by
filing an appropriate application before a court of competent
jurisdiction, for modification of the said amount under any changed
Page 10 of 11 F.A. No. 68 of 2021

circumstances, and the said application shall be decided on its own
merits following the process of law.
27. Accordingly, the First Appeal is dismissed without any order as
to costs. Pending Interlocutory Applications, if any, do not survive and
stand disposed of.
28. Though we may not have agreed with all the contentions urged
by Ms Amrita Sinha, the learned Amicus, that does not detract from the
able assistance she rendered in this matter. She was thoroughly prepared
and did her best for the appellant. We thank her for her assistance.

(M. S. Sonak, C.J.)


(Manoj Prasad, J.)

November 5 , 2026
A.F.R.
Madhav/-

Uploaded on 05.11.2026
Page 11 of 11 F.A. No. 68 of 2021