SURENDRA KUMAR THAKUR vs BABITA DEVI ALIAS BABY DEVI

Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:JHHC:32222-DB )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
First Appeal No. 23 of 2024
Surendra Kumar Thakur, Aged about 41 years, son of Dasrath Thakur,
Resident of Village Old Cinema Hall, Palihari, Gurudih, P.O. & P.S.
Gomia, District Bokaro. …. ... Appellant
Versus
1. Babita Devi @ Baby Devi, Aged about 31 years, wife of Surendra
Kumar Thakur, Daughter of Gaur Thakur, Resident of Village Old
Cinema Hall, Palihari, Gurudih, P.O. & P.S. Gomia, District-Bokaro,
At present resident of Village Dumra (Jamua Tand, P.O. Dumra, P.S.
Baghmara, District Dhanbad.
2. General Manager, Indian Explosive. Pvt. Ltd., At + P.O. IEL Gomia,
P.S. IEL, District Bokaro, PIN 829112, Jharkhand.
…. ... Respondents
---------
CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ PRASAD
---------
For the Appellant : Mr Atanu Banerjee, Advocate
For the Respondent No.1 : Mr Ranjan Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent No.2 : Mr Ashwini Bhushan, AC to Sr.SC-II
---------
Reserved on: 07/10/2026 Pronounced on:03/11/2026
Per : Manoj Prasad, J.
1. Heard Mr Atanu Banerjee, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the appellant-husband; Mr Ranjan Kumar, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the respondent No.1-wife; and Mr Ashwini Bhushan,
learned AC to Sr.SC-II, appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2-
State.
2. The present First Appeal has been filed by the appellant-husband
under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, impleading the
wife as respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 (IEL), who has been
made a party to this proceeding under the orders of the court. This
Page 1 of 15 F.A. No. 23 of 2024

appeal challenges the judgment dated 30.11.2023 and the decree
dated 07.12.2023 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge,
Additional Family Court, Bermo at Tenughat, Bokaro, in Original
Suit No.132 of 2021, whereby the petition for dissolution of
marriage by a decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act,
1955”) was dismissed.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the marriage between the parties
was solemnised on 30.04.2005 in accordance with Hindu rituals.
After marriage, they lived together as husband and wife in village
Gomia, District Bokaro, and had two children out of wedlock,
namely one son and one daughter. It is stated that after marriage, the
respondent-wife came to her matrimonial home but never sought to
establish a marital relationship with the petitioner and always kept
her distance from her husband, stating that she did not like him.
However, through the efforts of the present appellant, the marital
relationship somehow continued between the parties. It is alleged
that the respondent-wife tried to create disturbances in the
matrimonial life and also disregarded her in-laws. Thus, the
appellant was tortured both physically and mentally on account of
the ill-behaviour and short temper of the respondent-wife, who used
to talk continuously on her husband’s mobile phone with some other
male person, resulting in disputes and quarrels between the parties.
It is alleged that the respondent was a lady of suspicious character. It
Page 2 of 15 F.A. No. 23 of 2024

is further alleged that on 15.04.2015, the respondent left the house of
the appellant without informing her in-laws and went to her parental
home at Jamua Tand, P.S. Baghmara, District Dhanbad, and since
then she has been residing with her parents. The appellant went
several times to her in-laws’ house to get the matter settled and for
restitution of conjugal rights, but to no effect. Hence, a prayer has
been made for dissolution of marriage by decree of divorce.
4. After appearance, the respondent filed a show cause-cum-written
statement before the learned Trial Court, stating that the parties were
legally married husband and wife, and that the marriage was
solemnised on 30.04.2005. The marriage was also consummated,
and a son and a daughter were born out of wedlock. The respondent
further stated that she fully co-operated in maintaining the conjugal
relationship. However, the respondent was tortured by the appellant,
and demands for dowry were made. Her dignity and honour were
compromised. Allegations of an extra-marital relationship were
made against her, whereas the real fact was that the appellant had
established an extra-marital relationship with a lady working with
him. The respondent returned to her parents’ house on account of the
physical and mental torture and the illegal demand for dowry made
by her husband and in-laws. Despite returning to her parents’ house,
the appellant never tried to restore conjugal life and never made any
effort to bring her back to her matrimonial home. All efforts were
unilaterally made by the present respondent, who also filed a
Page 3 of 15 F.A. No. 23 of 2024

complaint under the provisions of the Dowry Act and Section 498-A
of the Indian Penal Code, which was compromised with the intent to
restore conjugal life. The respondent still expressed her desire to
restore conjugal life, subject to the condition that she is given due
respect and honour at her matrimonial home. She has not even been
allowed to meet her children during this period.
5. Based on the pleadings, the learned Trial Court formulated the
following issues for adjudication: -
(I). Whether the Suit is maintainable in its present form?
(II). Whether the petitioner has valid cause of action for the suit?

(III). Whether after marriage the respondent (wife) subjected the
petitioner (husband) to cruelty?
(IV). Whether the petitioner is entitled to get a Decree of dissolution
of marriage on the basis of Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955 and petitioner is entitled to get the relief as prayed for?
Whether the respondent (wife) deserted her husband (petitioner)
since last two years prior to filing of the suit?
6. After framing of issues, four witnesses were examined on behalf of
the appellant-petitioner, namely, Binod Rawani as P.W.-1, who is a
neighbor of the appellant and working with ‘ORIKA Company’ at
Indian Explosive Limited (IEL), Bhim Prasad as P.W.-2, who is
another friend of the appellant working in ‘ORIKA Company’ IEL,
Smita Kumari, as P.W.-3, daughter of the parties, who on the date of
deposition before the learned Trial Court was aged about 11 years
and a student of Class-VI and the last witness is the present
appellant himself Surendra Kumar Thakur as P.W.-4.
7. On behalf of the respondent, three witnesses, namely Ravi Thakur as
D.W.-1 (the respondent's brother), Jitendra Mahto as D.W.-2, and
Page 4 of 15 F.A. No. 23 of 2024

the respondent herself as D.W.-3, have been examined. Certain
documents have been marked as the X series. A photocopy of the
joint compromise petition dated 15.04.2015 is marked as Exhibit-X;
photocopies of handwritten letters are marked as Exhibit-X/1 to X/6;
a photocopy of the notice relating to O.S. Case No. 245 of 2022 is
marked as X/7; a photocopy of the order dated 01.05.2015 passed by
the Hon'ble High Court in Cr.M.P. No. 867 of 2015 is marked as
X/8; a photocopy of the order dated 24.03.2015 passed by the
Hon'ble High Court in A.B.A. No. 2795 of 2014 is marked as X/9; a
photocopy of the petition for permission to compromise the case
relating to Baghmara P.S. Case No. 109/14 is marked as X/10; a
photocopy of the compromise agreement prepared during
'Panchayati' is marked as X/11; a photocopy of the petition dated
11.05.2013 given to Dhanbad Mahila Police by the respondent is
marked as X/12; and a photocopy of the petition dated 16.11.2013
given to Dhanbad Mahila Police is marked as X/13.
Findings of the Trial Court
8. The learned Trial Court, after considering the oral and documentary
evidence of the parties, held that the factum of marriage between the
parties was not in dispute, that the marriage was solemnised in the
year 2005, and, as such, that the suit as instituted was maintainable
and that the appellant had a valid cause of action. However, the
dominant issues for consideration, i.e. Issue Nos. III and IV, were
decided against the appellant and in favour of the respondent. It is
Page 5 of 15 F.A. No. 23 of 2024

stated that, although P.W.-2 had stated that a case for restitution of
conjugal rights was filed in the year 2016, no document to that effect
was produced on record. The learned Trial Court, by referring to a
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Samar Ghose Vs. Jaya
Ghose in Civil Appeal No.151 of 2004, decided on 26.03.2007, at
paragraph 15, has held as under:
“Mere trivial irritations, quarrels, normal wear and tear of the
married life which happens in day-to-day life would not be adequate
for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty. 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 behavior of a
spouse, the wronged party finds it extremely difficult to live with the
other party any longer, may amount to mental cruelty. 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 fiction though supported by a legal tie.”
9. Considering the mandate of the law, the facts of the present case,
and the evidence of P.W.-3, the daughter of the parties, who at the
time was about 11 years old, but in her cross-examination stated that
her evidence was prepared at her father's dictation, and hence much
weight was not given to such evidence, the Court found that the
allegation of cruelty as made by the appellant against the respondent
was not proved. The documents brought on record by the
respondent, though marked as Exhibit X series for identification,
were never disputed, i.e., a compromise between the parties at the
intervention of the High Court and the filing of a complaint
regarding the demand for dowry, etc. Finally, the Court concluded
that the decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion
Page 6 of 15 F.A. No. 23 of 2024

could not be passed, and accordingly, the suit of the appellant-
husband was dismissed.
ARGUMENTS
10. Mr. Atanu Banerjee, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant, submits that although the suit was instituted in 2021, there
has been no restitution of conjugal life since 2015, as the respondent
left her matrimonial home. It is also stated that it is not in dispute
that two children are living with the present appellant. All efforts at
settlement have failed. It is further submitted that the witnesses
examined on behalf of the appellant have categorically supported the
appellant's case. It is also stated that an application under Section 24
of the Act, 1955 was filed, and an order was passed on the said
petition in the present Original Suit No.132 of 2021, which was
challenged by the present appellant before this Court by filing
C.M.P. No.960 of 2022, which was dismissed by a Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court vide order dated 04.08.2023. It is further argued
that the daughter of the parties came to the Court to support the
appellant's case that her mother frequently quarrelled with her father
and her grandmother, which categorically establishes the appellant's
case and was not considered by the learned Trial Court. The facts of
the present case clearly establish cruelty, both physical and mental,
and the parties have lived separately for more than six years prior to
the institution of the suit without any valid cause and without any
efforts for reconciliation, amounting to mental cruelty on the
Page 7 of 15 F.A. No. 23 of 2024

husband. These aspects of the case were not considered. It was also
not considered that the marriage in the present case had become only
a formality, with the actual relationship between the parties non-
existent, and the marital relationship recognised only as per law,
which did not require any further continuance.
11. Learned counsel for the appellant has also submitted that, although
the application for dissolution of marriage was filed under Section
13(1)(i-a) of the Act, 1955, it was also a case under Section 13(1)(i-
b) of the Act, 1955, i.e., desertion by the wife-respondent of the
present appellant without any valid cause. There was a specific
pleading to that effect, and even the issue was framed, but the
learned Trial Court did not consider this issue while deciding the
case. Without passing any speaking order on the point of desertion,
the issue was decided against the present appellant. The filing of
criminal cases against the present appellant, with the conclusion of
no guilt in such cases, also amounts to cruelty, which was not
considered by the learned Trial Court. On all these facts, a prayer
has been made to allow the present appeal, set aside the judgment
and decree, and pass an order for dissolution of marriage between
the parties under Section 13 of the Act, 1955, on both the grounds of
cruelty and desertion.
12. Per contra , Mr. Ranjan Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the respondent-wife, has submitted that the impugned judgment
and decree do not warrant any interference. The fact that the
Page 8 of 15 F.A. No. 23 of 2024

respondent has been living separately since 2015 is not in dispute,
but the reason for her ouster has been categorically stated to be that
her dignity was compromised, an allegation of an extramarital
relationship was made against her, and she was tortured for illegal
demands for dowry. The respondent, in her written statement, had
categorically stated that she was ready to restore conjugal life and,
even during mediation before this Court, had made efforts for the
restitution of conjugal life, but to no effect.
13. Learned counsel for the respondent-wife draws this Court’s attention
to the order dated 05.05.2026 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court, wherein it has been recorded that the respondent-wife,
refuting the allegations made by the appellant-husband, stated that
she was willing to live together so that she might also experience the
role of mother to both children, but even then the appellant-husband
remained adamant in his refusal to cohabit. Resultantly, the Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court, in terms of the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha &
Another, reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324, directed the parties to file
affidavits of their movable and immovable property for
consideration of the case of interim maintenance/alimony, and this
Court also impleaded the Indian Explosive Pvt. Ltd., Gomia,
through its General Manager, as a party to the proceedings to obtain
details of the present appellant’s salary. Several efforts at mediation
were made, which failed. On the merits, learned counsel submits
Page 9 of 15 F.A. No. 23 of 2024

that cruelty by the wife on the husband was not proved, and no case
of desertion is made, as the wife still intends to restore conjugal life
with her husband. Therefore, the animus deserendi was completely
absent. The husband, not being ready to cohabit, cannot take the plea
of desertion, as he cannot be rewarded for his own wrongs. On these
aspects of the case, the prayer is to dismiss the appeal.
FINDINGS
14. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material
available on record, including the Trial Court records. The points for
determination, which arise for consideration before us, considering
the rival contentions raised by the parties, are hereunder: -
i) Whether the appellant was successful in establishing a
case that the respondent had committed acts of cruelty on
him is sufficient for grant of a decree of divorce in terms
of Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Act, 1955.
ii) The second point for determination is whether a decree
for divorce could have been granted in terms of Section
13(1)(i-b) of the Act, 1955 i.e. on the ground of desertion
by the wife-respondent on the husband-appellant .
15. The two points above for determination will put the lis at rest .
Before coming to the factual aspects of the case, we would like to
observe that, though cruelty has not been defined under the
provisions of the Act, 1955, for the purpose of divorce it should be
Page 10 of 15 F.A. No. 23 of 2024

such that matrimonial life becomes incompatible and conjugal life
cannot be restored on account of such behaviour by either spouse.
16. Cruelty can be either physical or mental, or both. In the present case,
although there are allegations of physical cruelty, namely that the
respondent frequently quarrelled with her husband, i.e. the appellant,
and the mother-in-law, the appellant has brought three witnesses,
apart from himself, and examined them in Court to support this
contention. Two of them appear to be his colleagues and friends,
who are not family members. Their evidence, therefore, cannot be
accepted without an element of suspicion. Evidence from a family
member, particularly the mother, who is also alleged by the
respondent to be a victim of such quarrels, would have corroborated
the present appellant’s case, but such evidence has not been brought
on record. The daughter, who has been examined in this case as a
witness, was about 11 years old. It can always be considered that
when a minor child is residing with only one of her parents, the
possibility of poisoning of mind against the other spouse/parent
cannot be ruled out. Even in her cross-examination, P.W.-3 has
admitted that her entire evidence was prepared under the dictation of
her father. Under such circumstances, and in the absence of
sufficient evidence showing her (P.W.-3, the daughter of the parties)
competence and neutrality in deposing before the Court, and also in
view of her own statements made in course of cross-examination,
the evidence of the minor child cannot be read into in order to
Page 11 of 15 F.A. No. 23 of 2024

conclude the allegations of cruelty made by the respondent against
the appellant.
17. So far as the evidence of the appellant is concerned, although he has
stated that he was subjected to both physical and mental cruelty, that
statement is not corroborated by any credible evidence. No
complaint was made before any competent authority, nor was any
effort made towards reconciliation at any time. These facts lead to
the conclusion that the allegations of cruelty were not proved by the
present appellant.
18. Coming to the second dimension of cruelty, i.e. mental cruelty,
which centres on an allegation that the wife is alleged to have had an
extramarital relationship. Such allegations, if proved, may amount to
mental cruelty in appropriate cases, but in the present case there are
allegations and counter-allegations. The husband’s allegations begin
with an assertion that his wife had an extramarital relationship,
including statements that she used to talk to an unknown male over
the husband’s own mobile phone. To our considered view, such
allegations are typical gender-based stereotypes, where, if a woman
talks to a man, even if he is a friend, charges of adultery or of an
extramarital relationship are levelled. We are, therefore, of the
considered view that such allegations amount to cruelty towards the
wife. Counter-allegations by the wife of an extramarital relationship
against her husband, without appropriate proof, may also amount to
cruelty. However, in this case, the allegations were made by the
Page 12 of 15 F.A. No. 23 of 2024

husband against his wife. Thus, we are of the considered view that
no case of mental cruelty is made out.
19. So far as the allegation of desertion is concerned, although no case
under Section 13(1)(i-b) of the Act, 1955 was instituted, the
pleadings do refer to desertion, and an issue on the point of desertion
has also been framed. The law is settled that merely not referring to
any specific provision of law will not be fatal to a party's case if the
pleadings are to that effect and the provision of law also allows such
pleading. In the present case, not only are there pleadings, but the
issue has also been framed .
20. As already referred to, an order passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of
this Court records that the wife expressed her desire to restore
conjugal life, which was refused by the present appellant. Such a
statement sufficiently establishes the absence of animus deserendi ,
thereby establishing the element of desertion for the purpose of
divorce. Certain documents, marked as the Exhibit-X series, which
have not been disputed by the parties during the course of the
hearing, also show that even in the year 2015 there was a
compromise. However, it appears that the compromise was entered
into only for the purpose of settling the criminal case, as despite the
terms of the compromise requiring the parties to live together, the
same appears not to have been complied with.
21. A maintenance case was filed by the wife, and even in an order
passed under Section 24 of the Act, 1955, where interim
Page 13 of 15 F.A. No. 23 of 2024

maintenance of just Rs.3000/- was ordered, the husband challenged
the same by filing a C.M.P. before this Court, which, though
dismissed, speaks volumes about the conduct of the present
appellant. The order dated 01.05.2015 passed in Cr.M.P. No.867 of
2015 shows that, in terms of a compromise between the parties, they
were living together. An application was filed by the present
respondent for permission to compound the said case in the year
2015 itself, as the parties had restored conjugal life, as is apparent
from the documents, which is permission to compromise the case
relating to Baghmara P.S. Case No.109 of 2014, which is marked as
Exhibit-X/10. These entire documents, the oral evidence produced
by the parties, and the other preceding discussions clearly establish
that the case of desertion was also not established.
22. Having considered the matter, we are of the considered view that the
points for determination formulated by us must be decided against
the appellant and in favour of the respondent, holding that the
appellant failed to make out a case of cruelty or desertion under
Section 13(1)(i-a) or (i-b) of the Act, 1955, for dissolution of
marriage by a decree of divorce.
23. Since an order under Section 24 of the Act, 1955, was passed,
which was challenged before this Court and the same was affirmed.
We, therefore, do not want to pass any separate order on the said
aspect of interim maintenance. However, the respondent is always at
liberty to move the appropriate application for modification of the
Page 14 of 15 F.A. No. 23 of 2024

order in view of any changed circumstance, if she so desires, which
may be decided by the court of competent jurisdiction following the
principles of law after giving an opportunity of hearing to both the
parties.
24. With the above observations, the present First Appeal is
accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs.

25. Pending Interlocutory Application(s), if any, do not survive and
stand disposed of.
(M. S. Sonak, C.J.)


(Manoj Prasad, J.)


rd
November 3 , 2026
N.A.F.R.
Madhav/-
Uploaded on: 03/11/2026

Page 15 of 15 F.A. No. 23 of 2024