Kumari Saumya vs Sumit Kumar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3 of 2025
======================================================
Kumari Saumya, Wife Sumit Kumar, Daughter of Jitendra Nath Gupta
Resident of Ward No-07, Pharia, Patti, Motipur Bazar, P.O-Motipur, P.S-
Motipur, District-Muzaffarpur
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
Sumit Kumar, Son of Madan Lal Sahu Permanent resident of Madan Ji Ki
Nursery, Aamgola, P.O-Aamgola, P.S-Mithanpura, District-Muzaffarpur,
Presently Residing at Flat no. 313, 3rd Floor, Jinke Thimanahally Apartment,
Blue Lotus Park, Varanasi Road, Tic Palaya, Rammurti Nagar, Bangalore, Pin
Code-560036
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Miscellaneous Appeal No. 133 of 2025
======================================================
Kumari Saumya, wife of Sumit Kumar, daughter of Jitendra Nath Gupta
Resident of Ward No.-07, Pharia Patti, Motipur Bazar, P.O.- Motipur, P.S.
Motipur District- Muzaffarpur
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
Sumit Kumar, Son of Madan Lal Sahu Permanent resident of Madan Ji ki
Nursery, Aamgola, P.O.-Aamgola, P.S- Mithanpura, District- Muzaffarpur,
presently residing at Flat no. 313, 3rd floor, Jinke Thimnahally Apartment,
Blue Lotus Park, Varanasi Road, Tic Palaya, Rammurti Nagar, Bangalore, Pin
code-560036
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3 of 2025)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Md. Azimuddin, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sunit Kumar, Advocate
(In Miscellaneous Appeal No. 133 of 2025)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Md. Azimuddin, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sunit Kumar, Ad,
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RANA VIKRAM SINGH
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI)
Date: 01-09-2026
1. The present appeal has been preferred by the

Patna High Court MA No.3 of 2025 dt.01-09-2026
2/17
appellant-wife against the judgment and order, dated
20.09.2024, passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family
Court, Muzaffarpur, in Matrimonial Divorce Case No. 333 of
2019, whereby and whereunder the matrimonial case filed by
the appellant, seeking dissolution of marriage, was dismissed.
2. The marriage between the parties was solemnized
on 05.05.2009 at Muzaffarpur according to Hindu rites and
customs. Out of the wedlock, two children were born, namely,
Srijana Kumari, on 03.06.2010, and Srijan Kumar, on
30.10.2015.
3. The case of the appellant, in substance, is that
after marriage she was subjected to physical and mental
cruelty and was not treated with dignity in the matrimonial
home. Various allegations regarding assault, demand and
treatment meted out to her were made. It was also pleaded that
the matrimonial relationship had practically come to an end
and that the parties had been living separately.
4. The respondent denied the allegations and
contended that the appellant had herself left the matrimonial
home in or about April, 2019 and had voluntarily withdrawn
from his company and that of the children. He further alleged
that the appellant had levelled false allegations against him

Patna High Court MA No.3 of 2025 dt.01-09-2026
3/17
and had been involved with one Armaan Hussain. The
allegation of adultery has been denied by the appellant.
5. We have considered the pleadings, the evidence
brought on record and the submissions advanced on behalf of
the parties. It is settled that cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of
the Hindu Marriage Act is not confined to physical violence.
Its nature and effect upon the complaining spouse have to be
considered in the background of the matrimonial relationship.
In Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi , reported in (1988) 1 SCC
105 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court explained that cruelty may be
mental or physical and that the effect of the conduct on the
mind of the spouse is an important consideration.
“4. Section 13(1)(i-a) uses the
words “treated the petitioner with
cruelty”. The word “cruelty” has not
been defined. Indeed it could not have
been defined. It has been used in relation
to human conduct or human behaviour. It
is the conduct in relation to or in respect
of matrimonial duties and obligations. It
is a course of 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 to determine it. It is
a question of fact and degree. If it is

Patna High Court MA No.3 of 2025 dt.01-09-2026
4/17
mental the problem presents difficulty.
First, the enquiry must begin as to the
nature of the cruel treatment. Second, the
impact of such treatment on 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. There may, however,
be cases where the conduct complained of
itself is bad enough and per se unlawful
or illegal. Then the impact or the
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.”
“18. The cumulative effect of
all the circumstances and the evidence of
parties leads to the conclusion that the
demand of dowry went on with the
support of the husband. The High Court
while dealing with this part of the case
has observed that there is no evidence to
show that the demands were such as to
cause harassment to the wife. The High
Court appears to have misconstrued the
scope of cruelty in matrimonial affairs.

Patna High Court MA No.3 of 2025 dt.01-09-2026
5/17
The evidence as to harassment to the wife
to meet any unlawful demand for money
is necessary to constitute cruelty in
criminal law. It is the requirement of the
offence of ‘cruelty’ defined under Section
498-A of the Penal Code, 1860. Section
13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act
provides that the party has after
solemnization of the marriage treated the
petitioner with cruelty. What do these
words mean? What should be the nature
of cruelty? Should it be only intentional,
wilful or deliberate? Is it necessary to
prove the intention in matrimonial offence
? We think not. We have earlier said that
cruelty may be of any kind and any
variety. It may be different in different
cases. It is in relation to the conduct of
parties to a marriage. That conduct
which is complained of as cruelty by one
spouse may not be so for the other
spouse. There may be instances of cruelty
by the unintentional but inexcusable
conduct of any party. The cruel treatment
may also result by the cultural conflict of
the spouse. In such cases, even if the act
of cruelty is established, the intention to
commit suicide cannot be established.
The aggrieved party may not get relief.
We do not think that that was the

Patna High Court MA No.3 of 2025 dt.01-09-2026
6/17
intention with which the Parliament
enacted Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu
Marriage Act. The context and the set up
in which the word ‘cruelty’ has been used
in the section, seems to us, that intention
is not a necessary element in cruelty. That
word has to be understood in the ordinary
sense of the term in matrimonial affairs.
If the intention to harm, harass or hurt
could be inferred by the nature of the
conduct or brutal act complained of,
cruelty could be easily established. But
the absence of intention should not make
any difference in the case, if by ordinary
sense in human affairs, the act
complained of could otherwise be
regarded as cruelty. The relief to the party
cannot be denied on the ground that there
has been no deliberate or wilful ill-
treatment. The same is also the line of
reasoning adopted by the House of Lords
in Gollins v. Gollins [(1963) 2 All ER
966, 972] (at p. 976) where Lord
Evershed said:
“I am unable to accept the
premise that ‘cruelty’ in matrimonial
proceedings requires or involves of
necessity the element of malignity —
though I do not of course doubt that if
malignity be in fact established it would

Patna High Court MA No.3 of 2025 dt.01-09-2026
7/17
be highly relevant to a charge of cruelty.
In my opinion, however, the question
whether one party to a marriage has been
guilty of cruelty to the other or has
treated the other with cruelty does not,
according to the ordinary sense of the
language used by Parliament, involve the
presence of malignity (or its equivalent)
and if this view be right it follows, as I
venture to think, that the presence of
intention to injure on the part of the
spouse charged or (which is, as I think,
the same thing) proof that the conduct of
the party charged was ‘aimed at’ the
other spouse is not an essential requisite
for cruelty. The question in all such cases
is, to my mind, whether the acts or
conduct of the party charged were ‘cruel’
according to the ordinary sense of that
word, rather than whether the party
charged was himself or herself a cruel
man or woman.”
6. The same principle was reiterated in Samar
Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh , reported in (2007) 4 SCC 511 .
“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

Patna High Court MA No.3 of 2025 dt.01-09-2026
8/17
“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 it makes 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

Patna High Court MA No.3 of 2025 dt.01-09-2026
9/17
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 be adequate for grant of
divorce on the ground of mental cruelty.
(x) The married life should be
reviewed as a whole and a few isolated

Patna High Court MA No.3 of 2025 dt.01-09-2026
10/17
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

Patna High Court MA No.3 of 2025 dt.01-09-2026
11/17
matrimonial bond is beyond repair. The
marriage becomes a fiction though
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.”
7. It is equally true that every matrimonial
disagreement cannot amount to cruelty. In the present case,
the allegations which have not been established by reliable
evidence, particularly those relating to impotence and
artificial insemination, cannot be made the sole basis for
granting divorce. However, the matrimonial conduct of the
parties has to be considered in its entirety and the cumulative
effect of the circumstances established on record has to be
seen.
8. The parties have been living separately since
April, 2019. The marriage was solemnized in the year 2009
and had subsisted for about fifteen years by the time the
learned Family Court decided the matter. The record also
shows prolonged matrimonial discord between the parties and
that the matrimonial relationship could not be restored despite
the passage of considerable time. Long separation by itself is

Patna High Court MA No.3 of 2025 dt.01-09-2026
12/17
not being treated as an independent statutory ground of
divorce; it is being noticed only as one of the circumstances in
assessing the cumulative effect of the matrimonial conduct.
9. So far as the allegation of an extramarital
relationship with Armaan Hussain is concerned, we are not
satisfied that the same has been proved by cogent evidence so
as to form the basis of a finding of adultery. We, therefore, do
not place reliance upon that allegation for granting the relief
of divorce.
10. On a cumulative consideration of the
circumstances established on record, the conduct of the
parties, the prolonged separation and the overall state of the
matrimonial relationship, we are of the view that the appellant
has established matrimonial cruelty within the meaning of
Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The parties have
remained separate for a considerable period and the
matrimonial relationship has not been restored despite the
passage of time. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the
appellant cannot reasonably be expected to continue the
matrimonial relationship. The learned Family Court, therefore,
was not justified in dismissing the matrimonial case.
11. The appeal accordingly deserves to be allowed

Patna High Court MA No.3 of 2025 dt.01-09-2026
13/17
and the marriage between the parties solemnized on
05.05.2009 is liable to be dissolved by a decree of divorce
under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
12. The next question is the amount to be provided
to the appellant towards permanent alimony. While
determining the same, this Court has considered the duration
of the marriage, the financial position and earning capacity of
the respondent, the absence of independent income of the
appellant, her reasonable requirements and the responsibilities
being discharged by the respondent towards the children. The
principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Rajnesh v.
Neha , reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324 , require the Court to
make a reasonable and realistic assessment having regard to
the income, needs, liabilities and other circumstances of the
parties. There is no rigid mathematical formula for
determination of permanent alimony.
13. The respondent has disclosed his monthly
income as Rs. 3,70,000/-. His annual income, therefore,
comes to:
Rs. 3,70,000 × 12 = Rs. 44,40,000/- per annum.
For eleven years, the amount comes to:
Rs. 44,40,000 × 11 = Rs. 4,88,40,000/-.

Patna High Court MA No.3 of 2025 dt.01-09-2026
14/17
One-third of the aforesaid amount comes to:
Rs. 4,88,40,000 ÷ 3 = Rs. 1,62,80,000/-.
14. The financial responsibilities of the Respondent
toward the family and the children are also required to be kept
in view. The expenditure placed before the Court is as
follows:
Srijana Kumari
Food and clothing – Rs. 13,000/- per month
Education – Rs. 9,000/- per month Tuition and music – Rs.
9,000/- per month
Total-Rs. 31,000/- per month
Srijan Kumar
Monthly expenses – Rs. 9,500/- per month
Education and other expenses – Rs. 8,000/- per month
Total – Rs. 17,500/- per month
Thus, the expenditure of both children comes to:
Rs. 31,000 + Rs. 17,500 = Rs. 48,500/- per month.
The household expenditure, including the
expenditure of the parents, appellant and children, has been
assessed at Rs. 76,000/- per month.
Therefore:
Rs. 76,000 + Rs. 48,500 = Rs. 1,24,500/- per month.

Patna High Court MA No.3 of 2025 dt.01-09-2026
15/17
After giving adjustment of ₹ 16,000/-, the net
monthly requirement comes to:
Rs. 1,24,500 − Rs. 16,000 = Rs. 1,08,500/- per
month.
The yearly requirement would accordingly be:
Rs. 1,08,500 × 12 = Rs. 13,02,000/- per annum.
For seven years, the same comes to:
Rs. 13,02,000 × 7 = Rs. 91,14,000/-.
15. Thus, taking the aforesaid financial capacity and
the reasonable requirements into consideration, the calculation
works out as follows:
Rs. 1,62,80,000 − Rs. 91,14,000 = Rs. 71,66,000/-.
16. Having regard to the financial circumstances of
the parties, the length of the marriage, the appellant's financial
position and the liabilities being borne by the respondent, this
Court considers Rs. 71,66,000/- (Rupees Seventy-One Lakhs
Sixty-Six Thousand only) to be a just and reasonable
consolidated amount towards permanent alimony under
Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The above
calculation is only a reasonable basis for determining the
consolidated provision and is not intended to be applied as a
rigid formula.

Patna High Court MA No.3 of 2025 dt.01-09-2026
16/17
17. Accordingly, the judgment and order, dated
20.09.2024, passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family
Court, Muzaffarpur, in Matrimonial Divorce Case No. 333 of
2019 is set aside. The marriage solemnized between the
appellant and the respondent on 05.05.2009 is hereby
dissolved by a decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The respondent-husband shall pay
a sum of 71,66,000/- (Rupees Seventy-One Lakhs Sixty-Six ₹
Thousand only) to the appellant-wife towards permanent
alimony in two equal installments. The first installment of
₹ 35,83,000/- shall be paid within three months from the date
of this judgment and the second installment of 35,83,000/- ₹
shall be paid within six months from the date of this
judgment. Any amount already paid towards maintenance to
the appellant under the orders passed in the matrimonial
proceedings shall be duly adjusted against the aforesaid
amount, so as to avoid duplication of the same relief. The
rights and independent requirements of the minor children
shall remain unaffected by this order. The parties are directed
to withdraw all the cases pending against them, after payment
of amount of permanent alimony, as decided by this Court.
18. With the aforesaid observation/direction, the

Patna High Court MA No.3 of 2025 dt.01-09-2026
17/17
instant appeal stands allowed.
19. In view of the settlement of permanent alimony
and disposal of M.A. No. 3 of 2025, the analogous case, i.e.,
M.A. No. 133 of 2025 stands disposed of, accordingly.
(Bibek Chaudhuri, J)
(Rana Vikram Singh, J)
skm/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 03.09.2026
Transmission Date N/A