RENUKA vs DILEEP KUMAR

2026:JHHC:32647-DB

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
F.A. No. 246 of 2019
Renuka, aged about 43 years, wife of Dilip Kumar and daughter of
Alakh Ram, present and permanent resident of K.N. 36, Kailash
Nagar, Chhota Govindpur, P.O. Chhota Govindpur, P.S. Govindpur,
Jamshedpur, District- East Singhbhum
... Petitioner/Appellant
Versus
Dileep Kumar, son of Late Banaras Pandit, present and permanent
resident of 62, P/5, Sainik Colony, Nehru Park, Bhola Ka Pur, P.O.
& P.S.- Dhumanganj, District Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh
… Respondent/Respondent
---------
CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ PRASAD
---------
For the Appellant: Mr Anurag Kashyap, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr Birendra Kumar, Advocate
---------
Reserved on 13.10.2026 Pronounced on 05 /11/2026
Per : Manoj Prasad, J.
1. Heard Mr Anurag Kashyap, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Mr Birendra Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. The present First Appeal challenges the judgment and decree dated
16.03.2019 and 02.04.2019, passed by the learned Principal Judge,
Family Court, Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum, in Original Suit No.
322 of 2015, whereby the suit instituted by the present appellant,
Renuka Devi, for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty
as contemplated under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage
Act, by decree of divorce, was dismissed.
3. The present appellant, Renuka, was the petitioner before the
Family Court, Jamshedpur, while the present respondent, Dileep
Page 1 of 15

2026:JHHC:32647-DB
Kumar, was the opposite party and is the husband of the present
appellant.
4. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the appellant wife filed
an application for dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1)(i-a)
of the Hindu Marriage Act on the ground of cruelty and prayed for
a decree of divorce on that ground. It is admitted that the parties
are legally wedded husband and wife, their marriage was
solemnised in 2004 at Jamshedpur as per Hindu customs and
rituals, and that a daughter was born out of wedlock on
25.09.2007.
5. Thereafter, there are allegations that at the time of marriage, as per
the demand made by the family members of the present
respondent, Rs. 1,00,000/- and Rs. 75,000/- in cash were given to
the respondent for the purchase of a two-wheeler. Further, Rs.
1,50,000/- for the purchase of furniture, utensils, and gold
jewellery was given. However, after marriage, when the appellant
came to her matrimonial home, in good faith she handed over the
entire streedhan to her husband and her mother-in-law. The
appellant found that one of her sisters-in-law was suffering from
mental ailments and used to create disturbances in the matrimonial
life and in the house. Subsequently, both the husband and wife
decided to live separately, and the petitioner was allowed to pursue
her studies by staying in a hostel, and thereafter the petitioner was
shifted to a private house. Subsequently, the petitioner was forced
to come down to Ranchi along with her parents, as the respondent
Page 2 of 15

2026:JHHC:32647-DB
stated that he was unemployed and unable to look after the
appellant as well as the minor child born out of their wedlock.
Resultantly, the appellant was compelled to stay back with her
parents at Ranchi, and from there the petitioner-appellant pursued
her MBA and occasionally visited her matrimonial home at
Allahabad. In course of time, the appellant was ill-treated by her
husband as well as her in-laws and found it difficult to continue
her matrimonial life, as the present respondent kept on persuading
the appellant to fulfil his illegal demands. The respondent, who
was unemployed, had become lazy and dependent on the present
appellant, who, out of her own efforts, was pursuing her career as a
teacher.
6. Subsequently, the appellant, under the instructions and assurances
of the respondent, left her job and accompanied the respondent to
Delhi, as the respondent stated he had opted for a job in Delhi. But
within a couple of days, the respondent resigned from his job, left
Delhi, and shifted to Raigarh. This compelled the present appellant
and her minor daughter to reside in the house of the elder sister of
the petitioner/appellant in Delhi.
7. The appellant, who had resigned from her job and was penniless
with no support from her husband, was compelled to become a
private tutor to earn her livelihood. In course of time, the
respondent started demanding Rs.5,00,000/- from the appellant and
her parents, and on account of non-fulfilment of the said demand,
she was subjected to both physical and mental cruelty. This
Page 3 of 15

2026:JHHC:32647-DB
demand of Rs.5,00,000/- was made so that the respondent could
shift to some Middle East country for securing his future. As the
appellant could not survive in Delhi, she was compelled to shift to
Jamshedpur, where she applied to a school as a teacher and was
appointed as a teacher. The respondent came to Jamshedpur along
with his mother and abused the appellant for his persistent demand
for dowry of Rs.5,00,000/-, and even that amounted to inducing
the present appellant to commit suicide. However, she was
prevented from committing suicide. Subsequently, the respondent
and his mother left Jamshedpur, and the appellant gave a written
complaint to the police in this regard. It is stated that the family
has a chequered history, where the sister-in-law is a divorcee, the
brother-in-law next to the present respondent had multiple
divorces, as he was married three times, and the other brother-in-
law was also not maintaining a happy conjugal life. With these
allegations, on account of the cruelty meted out by the respondent
to the appellant, the suit for dissolution of marriage was instituted
with a prayer for a decree of divorce on the ground contained
under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act.
8. The written statement was filed on behalf of the present
respondent; he admitted that the parties are husband and wife, and
that their marriage was solemnised in accordance with Hindu
rituals. It is stated that the streedhan of the present appellant was
not taken away by the present respondent. The birth of a daughter
out of their wedlock is not disputed. The respondent claims that he
Page 4 of 15

2026:JHHC:32647-DB
has incurred the entire educational expenses of the present
appellant and also incurred expenses for the maintenance of his
daughter. It is further alleged that the appellant has been behaving
in a cruel manner towards him. She has been ignoring the present
respondent. Further allegations of physical or mental cruelty are
denied, and the allegation of having made any complaint before the
police is also denied. It is stated that only after the appellant was
appointed as a Teacher at Jamshedpur Public School did her
behaviour change, and that she does not intend to restore conjugal
life. It is further stated that the respondent has been subjected to
physical and mental cruelty.
9. Based on the pleadings, the following issues were framed:-
i. Whether the Suit is maintainable?
ii. Whether the appellant has valid cause of action?
iii. Whether the respondent has meted out cruelty on the
appellant?
iv. Whether the applicant is entitled to a decree for dissolution
of marriage under Section 13 (1) (i-a) of the Hindu
Marriage Act and what other relief the applicant is
entitled?
10. Three witnesses were examined on behalf of the present appellant.
The 1st witness is the appellant herself; the 2nd witness is the
appellant's father, namely Alakh Ram; and the last witness is
Pankaj Kumar Singh, the appellant's neighbour.
11. No witness was examined on behalf of the present respondent.
Page 5 of 15

2026:JHHC:32647-DB
12. The learned Principal Judge, Family Court, after considering the
oral and documentary evidence, took up issue no. 3 for priority
consideration. It was held that the evidence on record showed that
the appellant was shifted to a hostel to pursue her studies, that she
was allowed to join at Ranchi, and that she was permitted to pursue
higher studies. All this shows the husband's flexible and
accommodating nature, as he fully supported the present appellant
in pursuing her career and higher education. The liberty to reside
in a hostel at Allahabad, despite the matrimonial house also being
situated there, demonstrates the liberty given to the present
appellant by the present respondent. The learned trial court also
observed that the appellant was highly ambitious.
13. Further, the evidence shows that the respondent, along with his
mother, came to Jamshedpur and resided with the appellant for a
couple of days. The respondent and his mother have stated that
they abused the appellant, but P.W. 2, the father of the appellant,
says that her daughter was physically assaulted by the respondent
and his mother. The learned trial Court considered this a
contradiction and, accordingly, disbelieved the testimony of the
witness. Finally, the trial Court held that the appellant, being
highly ambitious about her career, sought a divorce from her
husband by concocting a false story alleging cruelty by the
respondent and his family members. Accordingly, the learned
Family Judge decided the said issue against the appellant and in
favour of the respondent. Consequently, the other issues were also
Page 6 of 15

2026:JHHC:32647-DB
decided against the present appellant, and the suit of the appellant
was dismissed.
ARGUMENTS
14. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant has
submitted that the learned trial court misdirected itself in passing
the impugned order and was guided by traditional rhetoric that
treats a wife’s pursuit of education as a privilege granted by the
husband rather than a right. Individual dignity and honour have not
been considered by the learned trial Judge. It is true that initially
the husband cooperated, but no sooner had she secured a job than,
on the assurance that he had obtained a job in Delhi, he got her to
resign from her job, took her to Delhi, and then he himself moved
to Raigarh, leaving the present appellant at the whims of her sister
and also leaving her jobless and penniless. These are elements of
both physical and mental cruelty, more so when the appellant had
an infant or minor child with her.
15. Learned counsel further submits that the observation made by the
trial court that the present appellant was over-ambitious about her
career, which perhaps was the reason for dismissing the suit, is not
tenable in the eyes of the law. Pursuing her career for livelihood
for herself and for her minor child cannot be considered a case of
being highly ambitious. Further, being highly ambitious is not in
itself adverse or contrary to human behaviour. Two different
standards cannot be applied. A husband pursuing higher education
and being highly ambitious for his career is considered good
Page 7 of 15

2026:JHHC:32647-DB
enough, but if the same is done by the wife, it is considered a
stigma in not maintaining the marital relationship.
16. Learned counsel also submits that there is nothing on record to
show that, to date, the respondent has taken any step to pay even a
single farthing towards maintenance for his wife or, at least, for his
minor daughter. The respondent has also not bothered to look into
the aspects of education or other requirements of his minor child,
all of which are elements of cruelty by the husband towards the
wife. It is true that the application for dissolution of marriage was
filed after a long time from marriage, as the marriage was
solemnised in the year 2004, while the application for dissolution
of marriage was filed in the year 2015. But mere delay cannot be
considered to condone the cruelty meted out by the respondent to
the appellant. There is testimony on behalf of the appellant with
regard to the demand for dowry, and there is nothing in the cross-
examination to demolish the credentials of the witness. These
aspects of the case were not considered by the learned trial judge.
Hence, prayer is made to set aside the impugned judgment and
decree by allowing the present appeal and passing a decree for
dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu
Marriage Act by a decree of divorce on the grounds of cruelty.
17. Per contra, the learned Advocate appearing for the respondent has
contested the appellant's claim. He submitted that though no
witness was examined on behalf of the respondent, a written
statement has been filed in which the case of physical or mental
Page 8 of 15

2026:JHHC:32647-DB
cruelty was denied. A counter affidavit has also been filed in this
appeal, and it must be considered.
18. The learned counsel for the respondent contended that filing an
application for dissolution of marriage after 12 years of
cohabitation demonstrates the falsity of the present appellant’s
claim. He further submitted that this application for dissolution of
marriage was filed only after the appellant was appointed as a
teacher at a reputed school in Jamshedpur. He also submitted that
the respondent has been bearing all the present appellant's
expenses, including those incurred in the course of her education
and other allied expenses. However, the appellant is not interested
in leading family life.
19. The learned counsel for the respondent contended that the daughter
of the parties is now about 18 years old and that her future is also
adversely affected. It was also stated that the present respondent
had filed an application for restitution of conjugal rights before the
Family Court, Allahabad, and that the present appellant had filed a
transfer petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. The
present respondent has not disclosed the fate of the case.
20. The learned counsel for the respondent contended that the
appellant came to Allahabad for an interview scheduled by
UPPCS, Allahabad, and that a domicile certificate was also
submitted, showing a residential house in Allahabad. He further
submitted that the present respondent never came to Chhota
Govindpur, Jamshedpur, and that the present respondent’s mother,
Page 9 of 15

2026:JHHC:32647-DB
an elderly lady about 74 years old, never accompanied the present
respondent to Chhota Govindpur, Jamshedpur.
FINDINGS
21. Based on the rival contentions raised by the parties, and after
perusing the impugned judgment and decree and the record. the
following point arises for our determination:
Whether the appellant was entitled to a decree of divorce under
Section 13 (1) (i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act on account of
acts of cruelty by the respondent.
22. Before coming to the facts of the present case, it is significant to
note that the case has been pending since 2019. On various
occasions, efforts at reconciliation were made. After considerable
difficulty, the respondent’s appearance was secured. For a
considerable time, the matter continued in mediation. However,
mediation failed, and thereafter the case was heard on its merits.
23. In this case, while the appellant wife led evidence in support of her
plea, the respondent husband led no evidence or did not even
seriously cross-examine the appellant or her witness. Still, the
learned trial judge dismissed the suit, relying on the denials in the
written statement. This was even though even such denials were
vague and evasive.
24. The trial Court record shows that the vague and cryptic written
statement was filed not in consonance with the mandate of law
under Order 8 of the CPC, or Order 8 Rules 3 and 4 of the CPC,
which mandate that every statement of fact made in the plaint
Page 10 of 15

2026:JHHC:32647-DB
should be denied specifically. Rule 4 says that vague denial is no
denial at all, and Rule 5 stipulates that facts not denied shall be
deemed to have been admitted. The written statement filed on
behalf of the present respondent failed to rebut the present
appellant's case, an aspect the learned trial Court did not consider.
25. Further, the appellant examined herself as P.W.-1. The learned trial
Court gave the Respondent a full opportunity to cross-examine her.
However, she was not cross-examined; the same is the position
with the other witness. Relying only on the vague denials in the
written statement and ignoring the virtually unchallenged evidence
on behalf of the Appellant, the suit should not have been
dismissed. The law is settled that pleadings are not a substitute for
proof. Facts pleaded are required to be proved, and if no evidence
is adduced in support of the pleadings, the pleadings also become
insignificant.
26. In the present appeal, a detailed counter affidavit has been filed by
the present appellant with various Annexures. Ordinarily, there is
no question of filing any counter affidavit in an appeal. The appeal
must be decided based on the evidence led by the parties before the
trial Court. Filing a photocopy of documents and making it part of
the counter affidavit is not a substitute for either filing an
application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the CPC or making out a
case for adducing evidence at the appellate stage. Such documents
cannot be taken on record and cannot be relied upon. However,
Page 11 of 15

2026:JHHC:32647-DB
even if we were to consider the same, the suit should not have been
dismissed.
27. We therefore are of the considered view that in the present case
there is unrebutted pleading and evidence of the appellant alleging
both physical and mental cruelty. Oral evidence of dowry demand
and instances of physical and mental cruelty is deposed to by the
appellant, and her father, and an independent witness, i.e., the
neighbour, have corroborated such evidence. Such oral evidence
extends to both physical and mental cruelty meted out at different
points in time by the present respondent upon the appellant. By
ignoring such unrebutted pleadings or in any event, unrebutted
evidence, the appellant’s suit should not have been dismissed.
28. The learned trial judge has rejected the evidence of the appellant
and her witnesses by citing some minor contradiction. Upon
perusal and evaluation of the evidence, we find nothing
contradictory in the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2.
29. In her cross-examination, P.W.1 stated, at para 2, that when her
husband and mother-in-law came to live with her in Jamshedpur in
April 2015, they began abusing her with filthy language. P.W.2 is
the father of the appellant, and when answering the Court’s
question, he stated that on 2nd June 2015 the respondent physically
assaulted his daughter. The two acts refer to two different times
and two different incidents. Further, while answering the Court’s
question, the father of the appellant has also stated that his
daughter was subject to both physical and mental cruelty and that
Page 12 of 15

2026:JHHC:32647-DB
there was a demand for dowry. These statements remained
unrebutted.
30. Considering the unrebutted pleadings and the virtually unrebutted
oral testimony in their entirety, we are of the considered view that
the appellant has successfully proved the case under Section
13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, i.e., the respondent meted
out cruelty to the appellant, making conjugal life incompatible and
rendering the possibility of the parties residing together remote.
Such cruelty is sufficient for the purpose of dissolving the
marriage by a decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the
Hindu Marriage Act.
31. The impugned judgment, by which the application for dissolution
of marriage was dismissed by the Principal Judge, Family Court,
Jamshedpur, predominantly rests its conclusion on the wife being
“allowed to pursue her education, including higher education,
after marriage, which shows the liberal attitude of the husband”.
Secondly, the wife was “ allowed to take up a job even at
Jamshedpur, which the husband also permitted, showing the
accommodating and cooperative attitude of the respondent
towards her" .
32. Furthermore, the learned trial Judge also observed that the
allegation that her husband has become lazy and is fully dependent
on the present appellant, taking her entire salary, was categorised
as a case of the appellant being over-ambitious.
Page 13 of 15

2026:JHHC:32647-DB
33. With respect, we cannot subscribe to such observations or
approach. Such gender stereotyping cannot be permitted in such
matters. The husband and wife are equal partners in marriage. The
law is settled that the relationship between a husband and wife is
not one of a superior and an inferior, nor of one person dominating
another. This relationship rests on the premise that the husband and
wife exercise equal rights and move in tandem. Even if moving in
tandem may not always be possible, mutual respect is to be striven
for. Therefore, based on this reasoning, the suit should not have
been dismissed.
34. Pursuing higher education after marriage is not a privilege granted
by the respondent, but a right which the wife is always entitled to
exercise. Similarly, if the wife wishes to take up a government or
even a private job, based on merit and eligibility, allowing her to
do so is not some favour the husband does to his wife. A wife who
is intent on further studies or on taking up a job after marriage
cannot be considered ambitious or over-ambitious. A husband
studying further or taking up a job after marriage is regarded as
normal, perhaps as it should be. But the reverse cannot be
stigmatised as abnormal or suggestive of ambition or over-
ambition. Accordingly, the appellant’s plea should not have been
rejected on the basis of such gender stereotyping.
35. For all the above reasons, we answer the point for determination in
favour of the appellant and against the respondent.
Page 14 of 15

2026:JHHC:32647-DB
36. Consequently, the impugned judgment and decree is set aside,
the appellant’s suit is allowed, the prayer for dissolution of
marriage by decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty under
Section 13(1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act is granted, and
the marriage between the appellant and the respondent stands
dissolved in terms thereof. A decree to that effect is directed to
follow.
37. The appellant has not filed any application for alimony or interim
maintenance. We therefore propose not to pass any order on one-
off permanent alimony or alimony by way of monthly
maintenance. However, this right is reserved for both the appellant
and her daughter to file an appropriate application for
alimony/maintenance against the present respondent before a Court
of competent jurisdiction, which shall decide the same on its
merits, following the procedure established under law, after giving
an opportunity of hearing to all concerned.
38. Pending I.As., if any, do not survive and are accordingly disposed
of.

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



(Manoj Prasad, J.)

th
November 5 , 2026
A.F.R.
Pramanik/
Uploaded on 06.11.2026
Page 15 of 15