Sangita Roy vs Kuldip Lahkar

1


GAHC010211042023
2026:GAU-AS:7514

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

Mat. App./55/2023

Sangita Roy,
D/o Sri Harakanta Roy,
Village-Sripurdeor,
P.O.-Adalbari,
P.S.-Mushalpur,
District-Baksa,
Assam-781372.

…..Appellant
-Versus-
Kuldip Lahkar,
S/o Sri Chakrapani Lahkar,
Village-Sripurdeor,
P.O.-Adalbari,
P.S.-Mushalpur,
District-Baksa,
Assam-781372.

……Respondent

For Appellant Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, Senior Advocate
1.
Ms. K. Bhattacharya, Advocate
2.

For Respondent(s) Mr. T. Kalita, Advocate
:



Mat.App./55/2023 Page 1

2

Date of Hearing 24.02.2026
:
29.05.2026
Date of Judgment :
BEFORE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA
JUDGMENT AND ORDER

[1] Heard Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, the learned senior counsel, assisted by
Ms. K. Bhattacharya,the learned counsel for the appellant. Also
heard Mr. T. Kalita, the learned counsel for the respondent.
[2] This appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has
been preferred by the appellant, Smt. Sangita Roy, impugning the
Judgment and Order dated 16.08.2023, passed by the learned
District Judge, Baksa, Mushalpur in T.S.(M) No. 08/2020 whereby,
the prayer of dissolution of marriage between the appellant and the
respondent made by the present respondent under Section 13(1),(i-
a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was allowed.
[3] The facts relevant for consideration of the instant appeal, in brief,
are that the present appellant and the respondent were married to
each other on 21.01.2016 and a girl child was born out of the said
wedlock on 05.01.2018. It is pertinent to mention herein that the
appellant and the respondent studied in the same school and were
known to each other during their school days, and they also had
love affairs prior to their marriage. The marriage of the appellant to
the respondent was initially not agreed to by the parents of the
respondent, and there was an opposition to same.


Mat.App./55/2023 Page 2

3

[4] Even after marriage, there were continuous matrimonial discord
between the parties, and ultimately on 09.08.2020, the appellant
had to leave her matrimonial home. The appellant had also lodged
FIR against the parents of the respondent and also filed several
other cases against the respondent. Ultimately, the respondent
approached the court of learned District Judge, Baksa, Mushalpur by
filing an application under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955, seeking dissolution of his marriage with the appellant on
the grounds of cruelty.
[5] In the divorce petition filed by the present respondent, he had
alleged that the present appellant is a very arrogant, aggressive and
ill-mannered lady and was one year older than the respondent. It is
also alleged in the petition that when the marriage of the appellant
and respondent was scheduled to be held in the month of January,
2016 and due to some family problems, it was postponed, the
appellant created ruckus and showed tantrums by attempting to
commit suicide by hanging herself.
[6] It is also alleged by the respondent in his divorce petition that the
appellant, after her marriage with the respondent, used to stay
most of the time in her maternal home and was unable to have a
cordial relationship with the parents of the respondent and used to
treat them in a rude and aggressive manner. It is also alleged that
the appellant used to accuse the respondent of having illicit
relationships even with his own elder sister and mother. It is also
alleged that the appellant, on 08.08.2020, slammed her head on the
floor and started to scream at the top of her voice.


Mat.App./55/2023 Page 3

4

[7] It is also alleged that the appellant used to threaten her in-laws of
sending them to jail and, thereafter, she lodged a false FIR against
the respondent and his parents, on the basis of which Mushalpur
P.S. Case No. 86/2020 was registered under Sections 498A/506 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860. It is also stated that in the aforesaid
case, the respondent and his parents had to appear before the
Mushalpur Police, which caused severe mental harassment to them.
[8] It is also alleged that the present appellant had stated to the
respondent that she is ready to withdraw the case if any of the two
options given by her is agreed to by the respondent, namely to
arrange a residential accommodation for the appellant at Guwahati
or to pay Rs 20,000/- as monthly maintenance to her. It was further
alleged in the divorce petition by the present respondent that due to
the continuous aggressive and malicious attitude of the present
appellant, the respondent had to spend his days under constant fear
of life, reputation and in mental harassment and, as such, the
marriage between him and the appellant has broken down
irretrievably without any scope of reunion between them. On those
grounds, a decree of divorce was prayed for.
[9] The present appellant contested the divorce case by filing a written
statement wherein she has denied the allegations made by the
respondent against her in his divorce petition. She has stated in her
written statement that she was subjected to torture and physical
and mental cruelty by the respondent and his parents.


Mat.App./55/2023 Page 4

5

[10] She also alleged that she was demanded dowry of Rs 5,00,000/-
(Rupees Five Lakhs only) by the respondent and his parents. She
has further stated that on 08.08.2020, the respondent along with
his parents had assaulted her badly. As such, she had to leave her
matrimonial home on 09.08.2020. She has further alleged that the
parents of the respondent even asked the respondent to burn the
appellant by pouring kerosene oil over her. As a result of which, she
was compelled to lodge FIR before the Mushalpur Police Station and
on the basis of this said FIR, Mushalpur P.S. Case No. 86/2020 was
registered. She has also contended in the written statement that as
the appellant was unable to maintain herself and her minor
daughter, she was compelled to file an application before the court
under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking
maintenance against the present respondent.
[11] On the basis of the pleadings of respective parties, the trial court
framed the following issues: -
1. Whether there is cause of action for the divorce suit?
2. Whether the respondent used to rudely behave the
petitioner and his parents without any lawful grounds since after
their marriage?
3. Whether the respondent subjected the petitioner to mental
harassment?
4. Whether the respondent, without any lawful and justified
grounds, withdrew herself from the society of the petitioner?


Mat.App./55/2023 Page 5

6

5. Whether the petitioner is entitled to decree of divorce?
6. To what other relief/reliefs the parties are entitled to?
[12] During trial, the present respondent adduced evidence of three
witnesses in support of his contention. Whereas, the present
appellant also adduced witness of three defence witnesses.
However, the evidence-on-affidavit filed by DW-2 was expunged as
he did not appear before the trial court to face cross-examination.
[13] Ultimately, by the judgment which has been impugned in this
appeal, the trial court had decided all the issues against the present
appellant and granted the decree of divorce, as prayed for by the
respondent in the T.S.(M) Case No. 08/2020.
[14] Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, the learned senior counsel for the appellant has
submitted that the trial court had erred in granting the decree of
divorce without discussing in the impugned judgment as to how the
present appellant had subjected the respondent to cruelty. He
submits that in Paragraph No. 20 of the impugned judgment, the
trial court has reasoned that merely because the appellant had filed
several cases against the respondent and merely because that in
the police case lodged by her, she had alleged that her in-laws
subjected her to cruelty as she gave birth to a female child, whereas
in the written statement before the trial court, she took the plea
that the parents had subjected her to cruelty by demanding dowry,
the trial court without any basis came to the finding that the
appellant has mentally harassed the respondent only because of the
filing of several cases.


Mat.App./55/2023 Page 6

7

[15] The learned senior counsel for the appellant submits that the
circumstances, which the appellant had to face due to ill-treatment
by her in-laws as well as by the respondent, she was compelled to
file several cases. However, he submits that merely the fact of filing
cases cannot be regarded as “cruelty” within the meaning as given
to the said phrase under Section13(1)(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955. He further submits that the respondent in the meanwhile
had married the same girl after getting the decree of divorce with
whom the present appellant had suspected him of having illicit
relationship. He also submits that by marrying during the pendency
of the instant appeal, the respondent has violated the provision of
Section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and such a marriage by
the respondent during the pendency of this appeal is not lawful and
shall have to be treated as illegal.
[16] In support of his submission, the learned senior counsel for the
“Anurag
appellant has cited a ruling of Apex Court in the case of
Mittal Vs. Shaily Mishra Mittal” reported in “(2018)9 SCC 691.”
[17] The learned senior counsel for the appellant has submitted that
though the case instituted on the basis of FIR lodged by the present
appellant against the respondent and his parents under Section
498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 has resulted in acquittal,
however, the fact that the appellant had to leave her matrimonial
home due to ill-treatment by the respondent and his parents is not
deniable. He further submits that the evidence of DW-1 which was
not considered by the trial court, clearly indicates that the father of
the appellant had petitioned before the Sripur Devargaon Unnayan


Mat.App./55/2023 Page 7

8

Samiti for settling the matrimonial dispute between the appellant
and her husband, which clearly implies that the appellant is
intending to continue with the matrimonial relationship. He further
submits that since the circumstances had compelled the appellant to
file cases, the said act of filing of cases against the respondent and
his parents, in itself, cannot be regarded as an instance of cruelty.
[18] He submits that the term “cruelty” has to be interpreted considering
the facts and circumstances of a particular case. He also submits
that merely because in the matrimonial disputes between the
parties, allegations and counter-allegations were made against each
other, it would not necessarily should lead to a decree of divorce. He
also submits that mere lapse of time can also not be a ground for
granting decree of divorce.He also submits that the irretrievable
breakdown is not a ground which is statutorily recognized under the
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for the grant of divorce between the
parties who are Hindus.
[19] The learned senior counsel for the appellant has also submitted that
the trial court also failed to take into consideration the fact that
there is a daughter, who has born out of the wedlock between the
parties and dissolution of marriage of her parent would have a
negative impact on her future also. He submits that the trial court,
without considering the fact that the respondent has failed to show
that the alleged cruelty by the present appellant towards him or his
parents was of such a degree that it may not be possible for him to
tolerate the same and continue the marital life with her. He,


Mat.App./55/2023 Page 8

9

therefore, submits that the impugned judgment is liable to be set
aside.
[20] In support of his submission, the learned senior counsel for the
appellant has also cited following rulings:-
1. “ Samar Ghosh Vs. Jaya Ghosh” reported in “(2007)4 SCC
511.”
2. “ V.Bhagat Vs. D Bhagat” reported in “(1994)1 SCC 337.”
[21] On the other hand, Mr. T. Kalita, the learned counsel for the
respondent, has fairly submitted that after getting decree of divorce,
the appellant has married another woman. He submits that the trial
court has rightly granted the decree of divorce in the Title Suit
(Divorce) which was filed by the present respondent, after
considering the evidence on record and, hence, same is not
required to be interpreted by this court in exercise of its appellate
jurisdiction.
[22] He submits that the false cases filed by the present appellant
against the respondent and his parents, namely, PRC Case No.
47/2021, and under Sections 498A / 34 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 and C.R. Case No. 114 / 2021 under Section 494 of Indian
Penal Code, 1860, have been ended in acquittal of the respondent
and his parents. He submits that the fact of filing false cases by the
appellant against the respondent which have ended into acquittal is
in itself sufficient to hold that the respondent was subjected to
mental cruelty by the present appellant by filing false cases against
him and his parents. He, therefore, submits that it is not possible for


Mat.App./55/2023 Page 9

10

the respondent to continue the marital life with the appellant any
further and the trial court has rightly recognized this fact and has,
accordingly, granted the decree of divorce.
[23] The learned counsel for the respondent also submits that the fact of
filing several cases back-to-back against the respondent by the
appellant only for the purpose of harassing him is also an instance
of inflicting mental cruelty on the respondent. He submits that the
trial court has, therefore, rightly held that the respondent was
subjected to mental cruelty which has irreparably broken down the
marriage between the respondent and the appellant and has
rightfully granted the decree of divorce. He also submits that in the
meanwhile, the appellant has already started another conjugal life
and allowing the appeal would have impact on the life of the newly
married wife of the respondent also.He, therefore, prays for
dismissing the instantappeal. In support of his submission, the
learned counsel for the respondent has cited following rulings:-
1. “K. Srinivas Rao Vs. D.A. Deepa” reported in “(2013) 5
SCC 226;”
2. ” Rani Narashimha ShastryVs. Rani Suneela Rani”
reported in “(2020) 18 SCC 247.”
[24] I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for
both sides. I have also gone through the materials available on
record. I have also gone through therulings cited by learned counsel
for both sides in support of their respective submissions.


Mat.App./55/2023 Page 10

11

[25] Section 13 (1)(i-a) the Hindu Marriage Act provides that a marriage
solemnized before or after the commencement of Hindu Marriage
Act may, on a petition presented by either the husband or the wife,
be dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground that the other
party has, after the solemnization of marriage, treated the petitioner
with cruelty. Where divorce is sought for on the aforesaid ground, it
is incumbent on the trial court to inquire into the fact as to whether
the conduct charged as cruelty is of such a character as to cause in
the mind of the petitioner a reasonable apprehension that it will be
harmful or injurious for him to live with the respondent.
[26] In the case of “ Samar Ghosh Vs. Jaya Ghosh” (supra) the Supreme
Court of India has observed as follows:-
“99. Human mind is extremely complex and human
behaviour is equally complicated. Similarly human ingenuity
has no bound, therefore, to assimilate the entire human
behaviour in one definition is almost impossible. What is
cruelty in one case may not amount to cruelty in other case.
The concept of cruelty differs from person to person
depending upon his upbringing, level of sensitivity,
educational, family and cultural background, financial
position, social status, customs, traditions, religious beliefs,
human values and their value system.
100. Apart from this, the concept of mental cruelty
cannot remain static; it is bound to change with the passage
of time, impact of modern culture through print and
electronic media and value system, etc. etc. What may be
mental cruelty now may not remain a mental cruelty after a
passage of time or vice versa. There can never be any


Mat.App./55/2023 Page 11

12

straitjacket formula or fixed parameters for determining
mental cruelty in matrimonial matters. The prudent and
appropriate way to adjudicate the case would be to evaluate
it on its peculiar facts and circumstances while taking
aforementioned factors in consideration.”
[27] Thus, to ascertain as to whether a particular conduct or a set of
facts alleged to have been committed by the defendant in a divorce
suit amounts to cruelty or not has to be ascertained on the basis of
peculiar facts and circumstances of the said case and no straitjacket
formula is there to ascertain the conduct which may amount to
cruelty in a particular case.
[28] In the instant case, it is an admitted fact that though the appellant
and the respondent were having love affairs before their marriage
and were known to each other since their school going days,
however, there was an opposition to their marriageby the parents of
the respondent. As such, it may be presumed that after the
marriage, initially, the appellant might have faced a hostile
environment in her matrimonial home.
[29] Further, the allegation against the appellant made in the divorce
petition that on postponement of her marriage due to some family
problems faced by the respondent she misbehaved with the
respondent and also attempted to commit suicide, the details of
which has been stated by the respondent in ParagraphNo.2 of his
evidence-on-affidavit submitted before the trial court in the T.S.(M)
No. 08/2020 pertains to the incidents which occurred prior to
marriage. Whereas, under Section 13 (1) (i-a) of the Hindu Marriage


Mat.App./55/2023 Page 12

13

Act, 1955 the cruelty has to be perpetrated on the petitioner “after
the marriage” to be regarded as a ground for divorce under the
aforesaid provision. Hence, the facts stated in Paragraph No.2 of the
evidence-on-affidavit filed by the respondent before the trial court
are not relevant for the purpose of considering as to whether same
may be regarded as acts of cruelty or not.
[30] As regards the allegation against the appellant made by the
respondent in his divorce petition as well as in Paragraph No. 5 of
his evidence-on- affidavit that the appellant accused the respondent
of having relationship with his own elder sister and mother are very
general in nature without specifying as to what was said by the
present appellant in that regard and when such allegations were
levelled. Without mentioning any specific instances of levelling such
accusations against the respondent, it may not be possible for the
trial court or for this court to ascertain as to what was alleged to
have been stated by the appellant amounts to cruelty or not.
[31] Further, it also appears from record that the impugned judgment
was delivered by the trial court on 16.08.2023, whereas the
judgment in cases filed by the present appellant under Sections
498A/34 i.e., P.R.Case No. 47/2021 was delivered on 10.09.2024
i.e., much after the delivery of the impugned judgment as well as
judgment in C.R.Case No. 114/2021 under Section 494 of Indian
Penal Code was also delivered on 08.09.2023, i.e., also after the
delivery of the impugned judgment.


Mat.App./55/2023 Page 13

14

[32] Hence, at the time when the judgment in the divorce case was
delivered by the trial court, the judgments in cases filed by the
appellant were not delivered and the trial court in Paragraph No. 20
of the impugned judgment had come to a finding that by merely
filing of different cases, the present appellant harassed the
petitioner and her parents. However, the circumstances under which
the appellant had to file various cases against the respondent were
not discussed by the trial court.
[33] This court is of considered opinion that mere filing of criminal cases
in itself may not amount to subjecting the respondent to cruelty. If
the circumstances under which the aforesaid cases were filed were
such that the cases were filed only for the purpose of harassing the
respondent, then certainly there may be some element of relevancy
of such facts. Then the matter would have been different.However,
in the instant case, the testimony of DW-1 wherein the present
appellant has highlighted the instances of ill-treatment by the in-
laws as well as by the present respondent, shows the circumstances
under which she had to file different cases against the present
respondent. Even if the judgment in the cases filed by the appellant
would have been declared prior to the passing of the impugned
judgment in the instant case, the mere fact that the respondent is
acquitted of the charges levelled against him by the appellant in
itself may not amount to cruelty unless there are materials on
record from which court may unerringly come to a conclusion that
the allegations levelled against the respondent by the appellant


Mat.App./55/2023 Page 14

15

were absolutely false. However, that is not the case in the
instantcase.
[34] Hence, this court is of considered opinion that the trial court had
erred by holding that by merely filing different cases against the
respondent, the appellant intended to harass him and have
subjected him to cruelty, justifying warranting dissolution of their
marriage.
[35] Further, the respondent, by marrying for the second time during the
pendency of the instant appeal, has violated the provision of Section
15 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
[36] In this regard, the Apex Court has observed in the case of “Anurag
Mittal Vs. Shaily Mishra Mittal ”(supra) as follows,
“27. Section 15 of the Act provides that it shall be lawful for either
party to marry again after dissolution of a marriage if there
is no right of appeal against the decree. A second marriage
by either party shall be lawful only after dismissal of an
appeal against the decree of divorce, if filed. If there is no
right of appeal, the decree of divorce remains final and that
either party to the marriage is free to marry again. In case
an appeal is presented, any marriage before dismissal of
the appeal shall not be lawful. The object of the provision is
to provide protection to the person who has filed an appeal
against the decree of dissolution of marriage and to ensure
that the said appeal is not frustrated. The purpose of
Section 15 of the Act is to avert complications that would
arise due to a second marriage during the pendency of the
appeal, in case the decree of dissolution of marriage is


Mat.App./55/2023 Page 15

16

reversed. The protection that is afforded by Section 15 is
primarily to a person who is contesting the decree of
divorce.”
[37] Under aforesaid circumstances, the respondent cannot take
advantage of his own wrong by taking plea that if the decree of
divorce is set aside, it may affect the future of his newly married
wife. As the second marriage by the respondent is apparently illegal,
as same was done during the pendency of the instant appeal.
[38] In view of the discussions made and reasons cited in the foregoing
paragraphs, this court is of considered opinion that the trial court
erred in holding that the respondent has been able to show that he
was subjected to cruelty by the present appellant so as to justify a
grant of decree of divorceunder Section 13 (1) (i-a) of the Hindu
Marriage Act 1955.
[39] The impugned judgment is, therefore, liable to be set aside. The
impugned judgment is, accordingly, set aside. The decree of divorce
granted by the impugned judgment is, accordingly, set aside.
[40] This appeal is, accordingly, allowed.
[41] Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, no cost is
imposed and parties are left to bear their own cost.
[42] Send back the records of the trial court, along with a copy of this
order.




Mat.App./55/2023 Page 16

17

JUDGE
Comparing Assistant

Munm
un
Boruah
Digitally signed
by Munmun
Boruah
Date:
2026.05.30
11:34:26 +05'30'


Mat.App./55/2023 Page 17