Jharkhand High Court: In an appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, challenging a decree of divorce granted under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (‘HMA’), the Division Bench comprising Sujit Narayan Prasad* and Arun Kumar Rai, JJ., held that concealment of material facts, namely the wife’s actual age and her prior conviction for life imprisonment in a murder case, amounted to mental cruelty. The Court observed that such concealment destroyed the trust which forms the foundation of marital life and accordingly upheld the Family Court’s judgment dissolving the marriage.
Background:
The marriage was solemnised in April 2019 in accordance with Hindu rites and customs. It was alleged that the marriage was contracted after suppressing material facts, including the actual age of the wife, who was about 40 years but represented herself as 27, and her prior conviction for life imprisonment in a murder case. It was further contended that threats were extended against the husband and his family, that there was no conjugal relation between the parties, and that multiple criminal proceedings were instituted, including a maintenance case and a complaint under Section 498A Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’).
The wife denied the allegations, asserting that all facts regarding the criminal case had been disclosed prior to marriage and that she had been falsely implicated. She contended that the compromise in the maintenance case was entered into with the intention of saving the marriage, but she was tortured and thrown out of the matrimonial home. The wife further argued that the Family Court failed to frame issues under Section 13 of HMA and did not consider her evidence, relying solely upon the husband’s version, thereby rendering the judgment perverse.
Analysis and Decision:
The Court emphasised that the law is well settled wherein in a first appeal, the High Court can examine every question of law and fact arising in the case, with powers to affirm, reverse, or modify the judgment under challenge. It was observed that in such an appeal, the Court has the authority to reappraise, reappreciate, and review the entire evidence, both oral and documentary.
The Court discussed the factum of cruelty, referring to the Supreme Court’s observation in Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi, (1988) 1 SCC 105 that “cruelty” is the “conduct in relation to or in respect of matrimonial conduct in respect of matrimonial obligations.” It was noted that cruelty is conduct which adversely affects the spouse and may be either “mental” or “physical,” intentional or unintentional. The Court further observed in Shobha Rani (supra), while dealing with complaints of cruelty, it is important not to search for a uniform standard in life, since what constitutes cruelty in one case may not amount to cruelty in another.
The Court cited Joydeep Majumdar v. Bharti Jaiswal Majumdar, (2021) 3 SCC 742, where it was held that the conduct complained of must be “serious” and “substantial,” and that trivial annoyances or the normal wear and tear of marriage would not establish mental cruelty as a ground for divorce.
The Court emphasised that it was evident from the testimonies adduced on behalf of the husband before the Family Court that the wife had concealed several factual aspects prior to contracting marriage. It further appeared, from the wife’s own admission, that she had remained in jail custody for two years on being convicted for life imprisonment for the commission of murder.
The Court noted that the relationship of husband and wife rests upon the thread of trust. In the case at hand, the wife’s conduct in concealing material facts about her age and her conviction for life imprisonment in a murder case, prior to marriage, had caused such mental agony to the husband that it became almost impossible for them to live together, as the thread of trust had already been broken.
The Court held that the Family Court had duly examined all relevant aspects of the matter, particularly the concealment by the wife of her actual age and her conviction in the criminal case. On that basis, the decree of dissolution of marriage was rightly granted. The impugned order does not suffer from any perversity and, therefore, warrants no interference.
Accordingly, the Court affirmed the judgment dated 20-09-2022 and the decree dated 30-09-2022 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court. Consequently, the appeal failed and was dismissed.
[Ranthi Kumari Devi v. Suresh Kumar Sahu, 2026 SCC OnLine Jhar 63, decided on 08-01-2026]
*Judgment authored by: Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellant: Chandana Kumari, Advocate
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
