Neutral Citation

2026:JHHC:1972-DB

FIRST APPEAL NO. 48 OF 2025 1

First Appeal (DB) No. 48 of 2025

(Against the judgment dated 27.09.2024 passed by Sri Rajesh

Kumar No. 1, learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Jamtara

in Original Suit No. 146/2023.)

Rajkumar Paul, S/o Sri Ashok Paul, R/o Vill- Birajpur,

P.O. & P.S.- Masalia, Dist.- Dumka. ... Appellant

Versus

Mamta Kumari, W/o Rajkumar Paul, D/o Sri Umesh Paul,

R/o Piprasole, P.O. & P.S.- Karmatar, Dist.- Jamtara.

… Respondent

----

PRESENT

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

----

For the Appellant : Mr. Shashank Shekhar, Adv.

For the Respondent : Mr. Sameer Saurabh, Adv.

----

Dated : 27/01/2026

JUDGMENT

Per Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. :

1. Heard Mr. Shashank Shekhar, learned counsel for the

appellant and Mr. Sameer Saurabh, learned counsel appearing

for the respondent.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 27-09-

2024 passed in Original Suit No. 146/2023 by Sri Rajesh Kumar

No. 1, learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Jamtara whereby

and whereunder, the suit preferred by the appellant under

Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, has been

dismissed.

3. For the sake of convenience, both the parties are referred to

in this judgment as per their status before the learned trial court.

4. The petitioner/husband (appellant herein) had preferred a

suit under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

for dissolution of his marriage with the respondent (respondent

Neutral Citation

2026:JHHC:1972-DB

FIRST APPEAL NO. 48 OF 2025 2

herein also) in which it has been stated that the marriage of the

petitioner was solemnized with the respondent on 13-12-2016 at

village Piprasole, District- Jamtara as per Hindu rites and

customs. After the marriage, the petitioner and the respondent

started residing together at Village- Birajpur, District-Dumka

and Village-Palojori, District- Deoghar and out of the said

wedlock, a son was born who was named Abhinav. Prior to the

marriage, the respondent was posted at Middle school

Tikopahari, District- Deoghar as a Government Teacher and the

respondent had assured that she will get her transferred to

Palojori where the petitioner was working as Urja Mitra. It has

been stated that after December 2016, the respondent started

compelling the petitioner to establish a separate establishment

at village Piprasole, District- Jamtara and in order to create

pressure, the respondent started quarreling with the parents of

the petitioner on petty matters. The petitioner was however, not

in a position to stay at Piprasole as the father of the petitioner

was suffering from various ailments. The respondent on the other

hand, started issuing threats that she will commit suicide if such

desire is not fulfilled which constrained the petitioner to report

the said matter to the parents of the respondent. The parents of

the respondent, at this information, came to Birajpur and

attempted to force the petitioner to live separate from his father

which the petitioner declined. It has been stated that on 15-03-

2018, the father of the respondent took her away from village

Birajpur with cash of Rs. 1 lakh, ornaments etc and the

respondent started residing at her father's house where she is

still continuing to reside. The petitioner had gone to his in-laws’

house to bring the respondent back, but he was abused and

warned that the respondent shall not be sent back till the

petitioner separates from his parents. The petitioner had once

Neutral Citation

2026:JHHC:1972-DB

FIRST APPEAL NO. 48 OF 2025 3

again made an effort to bring back the respondent on 06-09-

2020, but the said effort proved futile. Being constrained, the

petitioner had preferred a suit for restitution of conjugal rights

in Original Suit No. 101 of 2021 and since the respondent had

agreed to lead her marital life with the petitioner, a settlement

was arrived at consequent to which the suit was disposed of.

However, the respondent did not resume her conjugal life with

the petitioner and several roadblocks were put up by her

preventing normalcy in the marital life. There has been no

conjugal relationship between the petitioner and the respondent

since 15-03-2018.

5. On being noticed, the respondent had appeared and filed

her written statement in which the allegations made in the plaint

has been denied. It has been stated that at the time of marriage,

the father of the respondent was compelled to shell out Rs. 2

lakhs to the petitioner and his family. The respondent had

secured a job of a Government Teacher prior to her marriage and

is at present posted at Utkramit Madhya Vidyalaya, Tikopahari,

Margomunda Block, District Deoghar. After marriage, the

respondent tried for his transfer within Hat Palojori Block and

had also filed representation before the Deputy Commissioner,

Deoghar on 11-11-2017, but no action had been taken on the

said representation. It has been stated that the respondent is

posted at village Tikopahari which is at a distance of 75

kilometres from village Hat Palojori and since the petitioner was

working as an Electric Meter Reader on contract basis at Hat

Palojori, he had expressed his inability to take the respondent to

village Tikopahari for attending to her duty rather the petitioner

advised the respondent to continue her duty from her father's

house and as such the respondent started doing her duty from

her father's house, but she used to live in her matrimonial house

Neutral Citation

2026:JHHC:1972-DB

FIRST APPEAL NO. 48 OF 2025 4

whenever she got leave from the school or on vacations. The

respondent always used to transfer her salary to the account of

the petitioner regularly for maintaining the household expenses

of her matrimonial house. It has been stated that since the

respondent was finding difficulty in attending to her duty during

her advanced stage of pregnancy, she had taken maternity leave

from 04-07-2017 and started living at her matrimonial house but

this resulted in quarrel with the mother of the petitioner and she

could not remit any amount in the account of the petitioner

because of her not getting monthly salary during the relevant

period. On 10-09-2017, the respondent gave birth to a male child

and the entire expenses were borne by the father of the

respondent. The petitioner had got the respondent discharged

from the hospital within 5 hours of delivery and taken her to his

house at Hat Palojori which was at a distance of 50 kilometers

and this resulted in the respondent developing various

complications but the respondent was not given any medicine

and medical aid rather, she was forced to do physical work

beyond her capacity by her mother -in-law at which the

respondent became ill. On getting such information, the father of

the respondent went to see the respondent and her child in

October, 2017 and found the respondent in a perilous condition

after which he had taken the respondent and the child to his

house and got them treated by a doctor. The acts of the petitioner

compelled the respondent to send a legal notice to the petitioner

who, after getting the notice, immediately filed a case under

Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act which was registered as

Original Suit No. 112/2020. The respondent on receiving notice

in the suit appeared and the matter was finally settled in the Lok

Adalat. The respondent thereafter went to reside in the house of

the petitioner, but neither the petitioner nor his family members

Neutral Citation

2026:JHHC:1972-DB

FIRST APPEAL NO. 48 OF 2025 5

co-operated with the respondent in continuing her job, rather she

was forced to do domestic work in their house. It has been stated

that since the health of the respondent started deteriorating, she

had to shift to her father's house to continue her duty.

6. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the following issues

were framed for adjudication:

(i) Whether the suit maintainable in its present form?

(ii) Whether there any valid cause of action for the present suit?

(iii) Whether the respondent is legally married wife of the

petitioner?

(iv) Whether the respondent has treated the petitioner with

cruelty?

(v) Whether the respondent has deserted the petitioner for a

continuous period of more than two years immediately

preceding the presentation of the petition, without any

reasonable excuse?

(vi) Whether the petitioner is entitled to the relief claimed or any

other relief?

7. The petitioner in support of his case has examined four

witnesses:

P.W.1 Rajkumar Paul is the petitioner who has stated

about solemnization of his marriage with the respondent on 13-

12-2016 at Piprasole as per Hindu rites and customs. Out of the

wedlock, a son was born to the couple. He has stated that before

marriage, the respondent was working as a Government Teacher

at Middle school, Tikopahari and during marriage, the

respondent had assured him that she will get her transfer to

Palojori, where he was working as an Urja Mitra. After marriage,

the respondent started creating pressure upon him to get

separated from his parents and start living at Piprasole and

during this period, the respondent on trivial issues used to

Neutral Citation

2026:JHHC:1972-DB

FIRST APPEAL NO. 48 OF 2025 6

quarrel with his parents. The respondent used to give threats of

committing suicide if her intentions were not fulfilled and this

conduct of the respondent was informed by him to her parents.

On receiving such information, the family members of the

respondent came to his house and started putting pressure upon

him to stay at Piprasole, but he expressed his inability to accede

to such demands. When the respondent became pregnant, she

had taken a leave from 04-07-2017 to 22-12-2017 and stayed

with him at Palojori and the entire expenses towards delivery of

the child were borne by him. After the period of leave expired, the

respondent joined her duty and once again started pressurizing

her to stay separate. He has stated that on 15-03-2018, the

respondent had come to his house at Birajpur and had forcibly

taken away cash of Rs. 1 lakh and jewelry and thereafter started

residing at her parents' house in Piprasole. In May 2018, he had

gone to the house of the respondent to bring her back, but her

parents refused and he was abused and humiliated. On 06-09-

2020, he along with his friends and relatives had gone to the

house of the respondent to take her bidai, but once again her

parents had refused and the respondent had to return empty

handed. He has stated that from 15-03-2018 onwards, there is

no relationship between him and the respondent. He had filed a

suit for restitution of conjugal rights but the same ended on the

assurance of the respondent of restoring conjugal rights. The

respondent, however, was not inclined to restore her marital life

and continued staying at Piprasole at her father's house.

In cross-examination, he has deposed that he runs a shop

selling plastic products and earns an amount of Rs. 4 ,000-

5,000/- per month.

P.W.2 Ashok Kumar Pandit is the father of the petitioner.

He has reiterated what has been stated by P.W.1.

Neutral Citation

2026:JHHC:1972-DB

FIRST APPEAL NO. 48 OF 2025 7

In cross-examination, he has deposed that if the respondent

leaves her job and stays at her matrimonial house with the child,

she will be properly maintained. He cannot send the petitioner to

stay at Tikopahari as there is no one else to look after him and

his wife.

P.W.3 Jagabandhu Paul has stated similar to P.W.1 and

P.W.2.

In cross-examination, he has deposed that he is the

neighbour of the petitioner. He had not witnessed any quarrel

between the petitioner and the respondent.

P.W.4 Purnima Devi is the mother of the petitioner who

has also stated similar to the evidence of the other witnesses.

In cross-examination, she has deposed that she never had any

quarrel with the respondent. Whenever the respondent stayed at

her matrimonial house, the respondent used to treat her as her

mother.

8. The respondent has also examined four witnesses on her

behalf:

R.W.1 Mamta Kumari is the respondent who has stated

that an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- was transferred in the account

of the petitioner prior to the marriage and apart from cash,

various other articles were also given in marriage. She was

already in employment prior to her marriage as a Government

Teacher in Middle School, Tikopahari. After her marriage, she

started residing at her matrimonial house at Hat Palojori along

with her in-laws. Her in-laws were agreeable to let her continue

to work after which the marriage was solemnized. Since the

distance from her matrimonial house to her school was 75 km,

she started residing at her father's house though in the holidays,

she used to go to her matrimonial house. She has stated that she

regularly transfers amounts of Rs. 20,000 -25,000/- to the

Neutral Citation

2026:JHHC:1972-DB

FIRST APPEAL NO. 48 OF 2025 8

account of the petitioner and she has submitted the account

details in support thereof. When she had become pregnant, she

had taken maternity leave from 04-07-2017 to 22-12-2017

during which period she resided at her matrimonial house but

her in-laws had refused to incur her medical expenses and it was

her father who used to get her medical check-up done by Dr.

Madhubala Sinha. Despite being advised complete bed rest by

the doctor after the birth of a child on 10-09-2017, the petitioner

and her mother-in-law forcibly got her discharged from the

nursing home and which resulted in her health condition

deteriorating. She has stated that her father had ultimately taken

her to his house along with the child and her treatment

continued for several months at Jamtara. During her maternity

leave, she did not get any salary and since she could not transfer

any amount to the account of the petitioner, the petitioner and

his mother became furious at her. Since the petitioner or his

family members did not keep any relation with her, she had sent

a legal notice on 27-10-2020 and on receiving the notice, the

petitioner had filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights by

making false allegations. The said suit ultimately resulted in a

compromise and after settlement, she had gone to Basukinath

and thereafter to Puri along with the petitioner and her parents-

in-law but after returning to her parents' house, they had left for

their house without giving any information. As she was not being

taken back to her matrimonial house, a panchayati was held at

the behest of her father and the dispute was settled once again

in September 2022 but she was not taken back to her

matrimonial house on the assigned date. She has expressed her

desire to stay peacefully with the petitioner and her in-laws.

In cross-examination, she has deposed that she had tried

for a transfer and had also represented the D.S.E., Deoghar and

Neutral Citation

2026:JHHC:1972-DB

FIRST APPEAL NO. 48 OF 2025 9

D.C. Deoghar. She wants that the petitioner to stay with her.

R.W.2 Umesh Prasad Pandit is the father of the respondent

who has reiterated what has been stated by R.W.1.

In cross-examination, he has deposed that he does not

know as to the exact dispute between the petitioner and the

respondent.

R.W.3 Devendra Paul was the mediator in the marriage

ceremony between the petitioner and the respondent. He has

stated similar to what has been stated by R.W.1 and R.W.2.

In cross-examination, he has deposed that there is no

conjugal relationship between the petitioner and the respondent

since the year 2020.

R.W.4 Ramswarup Pandit has also stated similar to the

other witnesses. He has also stated that in the panchayat, it was

decided that the respondent will pay Rs 10,000/- per month to

the petitioner and in return, the respondent will be facilitated to

her attending to her duties. However, the petitioner resiled from

such agreement later on.

In cross-examination, he has deposed that he is the cousin

brother of the respondent. The respondent is attending to her

duty for the last five months from her father's place.

9. It has been submitted by Mr. Shashank Shekhar, learned

counsel for the petitioner/appellant that the petitioner has

depicted various instances which would indicate that he has been

meted out cruelty by the respondent. Despite the best efforts

made by the petitioner, the respondent had refused to stay at her

matrimonial house. The respondent has willfully abandoned the

petitioner without the permission of the petitioner and the entire

circumstances prove cruelty as well as desertion and, therefore,

the learned trial court having not properly appreciated the issues

framed, the present appeal is liable to be allowed.

Neutral Citation

2026:JHHC:1972-DB

FIRST APPEAL NO. 48 OF 2025 10

10. Mr. Sameer Saurabh, learned counsel for the respondent

has submitted that the respondent has been able to highlight the

practical difficulties she found while commuting from her

workplace to her matrimonial house. It has been submitted that

the respondent used to send money to the petitioner on a regular

basis and in those circumstances, it cannot be deduced that the

petitioner was treated with cruelty or that the respondent had

deserted the petitioner.

11. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties

and have perused the trial court records.

12. The petitioner had filed the suit for dissolution of marriage

with the respondent on the grounds of cruelty and desertion.

“Cruelty” is not defined in the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, but its

meaning and purpo rt in the context of the Act has been

considered by the Hon ’ble Supreme Court in numerous

judgments. In the case of Samar Ghosh vs Jaya Ghosh reported

in (2007) 4 SCC 511, it has been held as follows:

“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 “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.

Neutral Citation

2026:JHHC:1972-DB

FIRST APPEAL NO. 48 OF 2025 11

(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 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

Neutral Citation

2026:JHHC:1972-DB

FIRST APPEAL NO. 48 OF 2025 12

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 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

Neutral Citation

2026:JHHC:1972-DB

FIRST APPEAL NO. 48 OF 2025 13

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 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.

102. When we take into consideration

aforementioned factors along with an

important circumstance that the parties are

admittedly living separately for more than

sixteen-and-a-half years (since 27-8-1990)

the irresistible conclusion would be that

matrimonial bond has been ruptured

beyond repair because of the mental

cruelty caused by the respondent.”

Neutral Citation

2026:JHHC:1972-DB

FIRST APPEAL NO. 48 OF 2025 14

13. In the case of A. Jayachandra v. Aneel Kaur reported in

(2005) 2 SCC 22, it has been held as under:

“10. The expression “cruelty” has not been

defined in the Act. Cruelty can be physical

or mental. Cruelty which is a ground for

dissolution of marriage may be defined as

wilful and unjustifiable conduct of such

character as to cause danger to life, limb or

health, bodily or mental, or as to give rise

to a reasonable apprehension of such a

danger. The question of mental cruelty has

to be considered in the light of the norms of

marital ties of the particular society to

which the parties belong, their social

values, status, environment in which they

live. Cruelty, as noted above, includes

mental cruelty, which falls within the

purview of a matrimonial wrong. Cruelty

need not be physical. If from the conduct of

the spouse same is established and/or an

inference can be legitimately drawn that

the treatment of the spouse is such that it

causes an apprehension in the mind of the

other spouse, about his or her mental

welfare then this conduct amounts to

cruelty. In a delicate human relationship

like matrimony, one has to see the

probabilities of the case. The concept, proof

beyond the shadow of doubt, is to be

applied to criminal trials and not to civil

matters and certainly not to matters of such

Neutral Citation

2026:JHHC:1972-DB

FIRST APPEAL NO. 48 OF 2025 15

delicate personal relationship as those of

husband and wife. Therefore, one has to

see what are the probabilities in a case and

legal cruelty has to be found out, not merely

as a matter of fact, but as the effect on the

mind of the complainant spouse because of

the acts or omissions of the other. Cruelty

may be physical or corporeal or may be

mental. In physical cruelty, there can be

tangible and direct evidence, but in the

case of mental cruelty there may not at the

same time be direct evidence. In cases

where there is no direct evidence, courts

are required to probe into the mental

process and mental effect of incidents that

are brought out in evidence. It is in this

view that one has to consider the evidence

in matrimonial disputes.

11. The expression “cruelty” 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. Cruelty is a course

or 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 in determining it. It is a

question of fact and degree. If it is mental,

the problem presents difficulties. First, the

enquiry must begin as to the nature of cruel

Neutral Citation

2026:JHHC:1972-DB

FIRST APPEAL NO. 48 OF 2025 16

treatment, second the impact of such

treatment in 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. However, there may be a case

where the conduct complained of itself is

bad enough and per se unlawful or illegal.

Then the impact or 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. (See Shobha Rani v.

Madhukar Reddi.)

12. To constitute cruelty, the conduct

complained of should be “grave and

weighty” so as to come to the conclusion

that the petitioner spouse cannot be

reasonably expected to live with the other

spouse. It must be something more serious

than “ordinary wear and tear of married

life”. The conduct, taking into consideration

the circumstances and background has to

be examined to reach the conclusion

whether the conduct complained of

amounts to cruelty in the matrimonial law.

Conduct has to be considered, as noted

above, in the background of several factors

Neutral Citation

2026:JHHC:1972-DB

FIRST APPEAL NO. 48 OF 2025 17

such as social status of parties, their

education, physical and mental conditions,

customs and traditions. It is difficult to lay

down a precise definition or to give

exhaustive description of the

circumstances, which would constitute

cruelty. It must be of the type as to satisfy

the conscience of the court that the

relationship between the parties had

deteriorated to such an extent due to the

conduct of the other spouse that it would be

impossible for them to live together without

mental agony, torture or distress, to entitle

the complaining spouse to secure divorce.

Physical violence is not absolutely

essential to constitute cruelty and a

consistent course of conduct inflicting

immeasurable mental agony and torture

may well constitute cruelty within the

meaning of Section 10 of the Act. Mental

cruelty may consist of verbal abuses and

insults by using filthy and abusive

language leading to constant disturbance

of mental peace of the other party.”

14. The respondent's act of cruelty as depicted by the petitioner

seems to be the reluctance on the part of the respondent to stay

at her matrimonial house. What has been construed by the

petitioner as “reluctance” would in the facts and circumstances

of the case can be termed to be a “compulsion” on the part of the

respondent. The reason for staying at the parent's house of the

respondent was of being near to her school where she is working

Neutral Citation

2026:JHHC:1972-DB

FIRST APPEAL NO. 48 OF 2025 18

as a Government Teacher. The distance between the matrimonial

house of the respondent and the school is 75 km and

understandably for a female it is not possible to commute and

cover such distance on a daily basis more so, when the means of

commuting are limited. The respondent, who has been examined

as R.W.1, has stated about the efforts made by her to stay at her

matrimonial house at the time of festivals or whenever she got an

extended holiday. The respondent, it seems, has been regularly

sending money on the account of the petitioner which enhances

her willingness to lead a peaceful marital life. Her sending of the

amounts seems to have shored up the financial resources of the

petitioner and his family members since as per their own

admission, they run a shop selling plastic wares and the income

depicted by them appears to be meagre. The petitioner has failed

to prove a single instance which would add muscle to his

allegation of being treated with cruelty and the learned trial court

has rightly answered issue no. (iv) in favor of the respondent and

against the petitioner.

15. The issue of “desertion” appears to intermingle with

“cruelty” since it is the case of the petitioner that the respondent

had willfully abandoned her without his consent. None of the

ingredients constituting “desertion” has been proved by the

petitioner. The respondent started residing at her parental home

for the sole reason of attending to her duties in school as

commuting to school from her matrimonial house on a daily basis

would have been an arduous task. Such stay cannot be said to be

a “willful abandonment” rather an act of compulsion as we have

stated earlier. Moreover, the petitioner prior to the marriage was

knowing about the respondent being employed as a Government

Teacher and he had willingly accepted the said fact. R.W.1 has

stated about representation submitted by her for her transfer to

Neutral Citation

2026:JHHC:1972-DB

FIRST APPEAL NO. 48 OF 2025 19

a school nearby to her matrimonial house, but such efforts did

not bear any fruition and for which the respondent cannot be

blamed. The respondent has also stated about her willingness to

stay with the petitioner and in-laws. These circumstances wipe

out the assertion made by the petitioner of being deserted by the

respondent and consequently issue no. (v) is also decided against

the petitioner.

16. In view of the above discussions, we do not find any merit

to entertain this appeal which accordingly stands dismissed.

17. Pending I.A.s, if any, stands closed.

(RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.)

(PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA , J.)

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi

Dated the 27

th Day of January, 2026

Preet/N.A.F.R.

Uploaded on: 27 /01 /2026.