Jharkhand High Court
Smt. Savita Kumari vs Ramu Sahu on 14 August, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Rajesh Kumar
2025:JHHC:23881-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
F.A. No. 183 of 2023
Smt. Savita Kumari, aged about 47 years, Wife of Ramu Sahu,
Daughter of Late Surya Narayan Sah, Permanent resident of House
No. 11, Near Indu Bhawan, Behind Yamuna Apartment, Gandhi
Nagar, Boring Road, P.S.- Patna, Shri Krishnapuri, District- Patna-
800013 (Bihar), presently residing at House No. 9, Type-III/B,
Survey of India Colony, Near Magistrate Colony, Doranda, P.O. +
P.S.- Doranda, District- Ranchi.
... ... Appellant/Respondent
Versus
Ramu Sahu, Son of Bharat Sahu, Resident of Village-Kumharia, P.O.-
Akashi, P.S. Bhandra, District-Lohardaga, PIN- 835325, at present
Officer Surveyor, posted at office of the Director, 7th Floor (Block-
'A', 'F' & 'G') Karpuri Thakur Sadan, CGO Complex, Ashiana Digha
Road, P.O. +P.S. Ashiana Nagar, Dist.- Patna- 800025 (Bihar)
through its Director. ... ... Respondent/Petitioner
With
F.A. No. 240 of 2023
Ramu Sahu, aged about 44 years, son of Bharat Sahu, resident of
Kumharia, P.O. Akashi, P.S. Bhandra, District Lohardaga, Jharkhand.
... ... Appellant/Petitioner
Versus
Smt. Savita Kumari, wife of Ramu Sahu, daughter of Late Surya
Narayan Sah, permanent resident of House No.11, Near Indu
1
2025:JHHC:23881-DB
Bhawan, Behind Yamuna Apartment, Gandhi Nagar, Boring Road,
P.O. & P.S. Patna Shri Krishnapuri, District Patna, Bihar.
Presently residing at House No.9, Type-III/B, Survey of India
Colony, Near Magistrate Colony, P.O. Doranda, P.S. Doranda, District
Ranchi, Jharkhand.
... ... Respondent/Respondent
-------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
-------
For the Appellant : Mr. Jay Prakash Jha, Sr. Advocate
: Mr. Aishwarya Prakash, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Akhouri Awinash Kumar, Advocate
: Ms. Ashwini Priya, Advocate
----------------------------
CAV on 1st July, 2025 Pronounced on _14th August, 2025
Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
1. Both the appeals have been directed to be listed together and as such,
are being taken up together.
2. The appeal being F.A. No.183 of 2023 has been preferred by the
appellant-wife against the judgment dated 04.07.2023 passed in
Original Suit No. 648 of 2017 whereby and whereunder the suit filed
by the respondent/husband for dissolution of marriage has been
allowed.
3. The appeal being F.A. No.240 of 2023 has been filed by the husband
challenging the part of the impugned judgment dated 04.07.2023
passed in Original Suit No. 648 of 2017, whereby and whereunder, the
husband has been directed to pay permanent alimony of Rs.
15,00,000/- to the wife.
2025:JHHC:23881-DB
4. This Court, taking into consideration the aforesaid, is of the view that
appeal being F.A. No.183 of 2023 is to be considered first since the
outcome of the said judgment will have bearing upon the appeal being
F.A. No.240 of 2023, therefore, the appeal being F.A. No.183 of 2023 is
being taken up first.
FA No. 183 of 2023:
5. The instant appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984
is directed against the order/judgment dated 04.07.2023 passed by
the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi in Original Suit No.
648 of 2017, whereby and whereunder, the learned court has allowed
the suit filed by respondent husband for decree of dissolution of
marriage.
6. The brief facts of the case as per the original matrimonial suit needs
to be referred herein as under:
The marriage between the appellant-wife and respondent-
husband was solemnized on 17.06.2010. After the said marriage, the
wife was taken away by the husband to his native village at Kumharia,
but she was completely indifferent & reserved herself and did not
have any conversation with the family and relatives.
Due to persistent pressure to go to Ranchi, the husband brought
the wife to his government quarter at Ranchi but here also she
reserved herself and did not talk properly with him.
2025:JHHC:23881-DB
Thereafter, the wife insisted that she does not want to live at
Ranchi, thus, her brother came from Patna and took her with him on
24.06.2010 and ultimately returned back to Ranchi on 12.08.2010.
The appellant-wife was never interested in leading conjugal life at
all having no concern with regard to the husband. During stay, the
respondent husband expected that the wife would take charge of the
house and would perform her matrimonial obligations, but she did
not do so.
Again on 01.10.2010 the wife along with her brother went to
Patna without the consent of the husband. The husband tried to
contact the wife, but there was no response from her side.
Thereafter, in the last week of October, 2010 the husband went to
Patna where he came to know that the wife has gone to her uncle's
Place at Bhabhuwa, Bihar. The husband tried to take address of
Bhabhuwa, Bihar, but the family members of the wife did not provide.
After few days the appellant-wife came back, but she refused to
come back with the respondent-husband to Ranchi. The wife
frequently used to visit her parental home at Patna without the
consent of the husband and used to lead her life independently and
when he objected and protested for the same, then she became
furious and used filthy and abusive language against the husband.
The wife also humiliated the husband in presence of his friend.
The wife also used to cause trouble by various means like removing
the keys of bike, ATM Card, Pass Book and Medicines etc. and when
2025:JHHC:23881-DB
the behaviour of the wife became unbearable, the husband left the
quarter out of frustration and shifted to his native village in the
month of December, 2016.
The wife, to jeopardize the services and to harass the husband,
lodged a complaint case with Mahila Ayog in the month of January,
2017 where the husband agreed to open Bank Account in Union Bank
of India, Doranda and deposited Rs. 31,000/-and on 15.03.2017, wife
gave an undertaking that she will behave properly with the husband,
but the behaviour of the wife did not change.
In the month of April, 2017, husband filed a case of restitution of
conjugal right bearing MTS Case No. 222/2017, but in spite of notice,
wife did not appear in the case.
At the instance of the wife, the State Women Commission asked
the husband to appear before it. Husband appeared before the
Commission where the wife disclosed that she was previously
married which has been dissolved by decree of divorce from the Court
of Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna on 31.05.2007 through
Matrimonial Case No.304/2003 and after knowing the said fact the
husband withdrew his restitution case on 15.09.2017 for filing a
divorce suit.
7. It is evident from the factual aspect that the petitioner-husband had a
motion by filing a petition under Section 12(1)(c) and 13(1)(i-a) of
the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for decree of divorce.
2025:JHHC:23881-DB
8. The learned Family Judge has called upon the appellant-wife. The wife
has filed written statement and altogether six issues have been
framed by the learned Family Court which are as follows:
(i) Whether the present suit is maintainable in its present form?
(ii) Whether the marriage between the petitioner and the
respondent is voidable because of fraud/concealment of
material fact u/s 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955?
(iii) Whether after solemnization of marriage the respondent has
committed cruelty with petitioner?
(iv) Whether the petitioner is taking advantage of his own wrong?
(v) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get decree of nullity or
alternatively decree of divorce on ground of cruelty?
(vi) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get other equitable relief
or reliefs under the provision of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955?
9. The evidences have been led on behalf of both the parties. Thereafter,
the judgment has been passed allowing the suit which is the subject
matter of the present appeal.
Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant-wife:
10. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that
concealment of the fact that the appellant was a divorcee at the time
of marriage is not true, as the bio-data was given to the father of the
respondent/husband mentioning therein that the appellant/wife was
a divorcee.
2025:JHHC:23881-DB
11. Further, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that as
far as the cruelty is concerned, witnesses have stated that behavior of
the appellant was very good towards her husband and his family
members. She never committed any cruelty against the
respondent/husband.
12. It has been submitted that the issue of cruelty has not been taken into
consideration in right perspective.
13. It has been contended that the bio-data, photograph and documents
of the appellant's was given to the father of respondent husband as
such there was no concealment of any fact about the previous
marriage and the aforesaid fact has already been substantiated by the
testimony of respondent's father who has been examined by the
appellant wife as witness.
14. It has further been submitted that the learned family Court has
although negated the claim of the concealment of fact as alleged by
respondent husband but decree of divorce has been granted on
ground of cruelty alone and the learned Family Court while doing so
has not taken into consideration the evidences led by the
appellant/wife in right prospective.
15. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that the factual
aspect which was available before the learned court supported by the
evidences adduced on behalf of the appellant has not properly been
considered and as such, the judgment impugned is perverse, hence,
not sustainable in the eyes of law.
2025:JHHC:23881-DB
16. Learned counsel for the appellant, based upon the aforesaid grounds,
has submitted that the judgment impugned suffers from perversity, as
such, not sustainable in the eyes of law.
Submission of the learned counsel for the respondent:
17. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that
there is no error in the impugned judgement. The learned Family Judge
has considered the entire issue and on the basis of evidence as led by the
parties has passed the order impugned as such same may not be interfered
with.
18. It has been contended that the respondent/husband had sought divorce on
the ground that the behaviour of the respondent-wife is cruel, and the
learned Family Court, after taking into consideration the oral and
documentary evidence, has found that the entire instance of cruelty as
alleged against the appellant/wife is true and accordingly allowed the suit
in favour of the respondent/husband as such the said finding cannot be
said to suffer with an error.
19. It has also been submitted that the learned Family Court after taking into
consideration the material available on record has found that the conduct
of the appellant-wife has never been towards salvaging the institution of
marriage, therefore on the pretext of the aforesaid categorical finding of
the Family Court, the impugned order requires no interference.
20. Further, the appellant herself admitted that she has alone been living
in the government accommodation which has been allotted to the
2025:JHHC:23881-DB
respondent/husband. Further, the petitioner has been transferred to
Patna, but on several requests made by him, the appellant was not
vacating the said quarter and as such, he is paying an exorbitant penal
rent.
21. Learned counsel, based upon the aforesaid grounds, has submitted that
since the factum of cruelty has been found to be established, hence, the
impugned judgment cannot be said to suffer from an error.
Analysis:
22. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and has gone
through the finding recorded by the learned Family Judge in the
impugned judgment.
23. The case has been heard at length. The admitted fact herein is that the
suit for divorce has been preferred by the respondent/husband on the
ground of concealment of previous marriage by the appellant and
cruelty, and accordingly application under Section 12(1)(c)
and13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 had been filed and
consequently, issues have been framed wherein primarily issue
nos.(ii) and (iii) pertains to dissolution of marriage on ground of
Section 12(1)(c) and13(1)(i-a) i.e concealment of fact and cruelty.
24. The evidence has been led on behalf of both the parties before the
Family Court. For better appreciation, the evidences led on behalf of
the parties is being referred as under:
2025:JHHC:23881-DB
25. The husband (P.W.1) has stated that after death of mother, his
father got his second marriage and never took care of him who lived
at her maternal grand father's house. The husband (P.W.-1) has
admitted his marriage on 17.06.2010 with the respondent and has
deposed that by way of concealing the fact that the wife (appellant
herein) was a divorcee, her family members got them married. After
marriage, the wife never allowed the husband any physical relation
with her on the pretext that she has some physical infirmity. The wife
started saying that she is not willing to live at Ranchi thus her brother
took her to Patna and on repeated visits of the husband to her place at
Patna, she was not ready to come back to Ranchi, however, she
returned back lastly but after return to Ranchi she never did her
domestic work and never allowed him to cohabit. He has also deposed
that he himself cooked food and did any domestic works of the house
which caused a pathetic life to him. She also used to run away from
the house without informing him. It has been also deposed by him
that when he became fed up by abusive language and threatening of
implicating him in dowry cases and that the wife used to conceal his
bike keys, ATM Card and medicines deliberately, he informed the
matter to the State Mahila Ayog on 16.08.2016 and 03.10.2016 for
cruel behaviour of the wife. Even thereafter, the behaviour of the wife
became more cruel, thus, he was compelled to leave his Govt.
accommodation in the year 2016. This matter was also informed to
the State Mahila Ayog on 06.04.2017 and started functioning in his
office from his village. The matter was pacified by intervention of the
2025:JHHC:23881-DB
State Mahila Ayog then he opened an Account in the name of the wife
in Union Bank of India, Doranda, Ranchi and deposited a sum of
Rs.31,000/- even then, the matter was not settled. The wife never
discharged her obligation as wife so he filed a case of restitution of
conjugal right in the Family Court, Ranchi bearing MTS Case No.
222/2017 on 12.04.2017, but the wife did not appear in that case
even after receiving the notice.
Due to no change in the cruel behaviour of the wife, the husband
again moved to the State Mahila Commission, from there both the
parties were directed to be appear before the Commission on
04.05.2017 by issuing notice to the respective parties. The wife
admitted before the State Mahila Commission that she is divorcee and
vide MTS Case No.304/2003 at Patna, her marriage was dissolved.
After knowing this the husband became shocked and saddened,
because the appellant-wife and her family members concealed the
facts and fraudulently got her married with him. The husband
obtained a copy of prescription for treatment of the wife from IGIMS
Patna showing sexual infirmity which is cruelty against him.
The wife never took part in family function of the husband and she
never allowed him for physical contact. The wife is forcibly living in
the quarter allotted to the husband and he was never allowed to enter
therein by committing domestic violence and for that, he sent letter to
Dy.SP, S.P., SSP and the State Mahila Commission. Motorcycle of the
petitioner has also been damaged by the wife which was parked in his
2025:JHHC:23881-DB
office garage Survey Department of India Ranchi, and for that he sent
written information to the Director of the department.
26. During cross-examination, P.W.-1 has admitted in para-56 that the
appellant-wife is suffering from Oleomargarine. P.W.1 admitted the
treatment of the wife by herself and at the cost of the department
from December 2016 to September 2018. P.W.- 1 has also admitted
that the complaint has also been filed by both the parties against each
other before the Jharkhand State Women Commission. P.W.- 1 has
further admitted that his complaint was not accepted by the State
Women's Commission. In para-222, P.W.- 1 has deposed that at the
time of marriage of the parties, the educational qualification of the
wife was shown that she is M.A. pass and pursuing P.Hd.
27. P.W. 2-Mukhlal Saw has stated that he was working in Indian Survey
Department at Patna. He knows Dileep Prasad, cousin brother of the
wife, whom he suggested for marriage of the respondent husband
with his cousin (wife) and took part in negotiation of marriage once
or twice but the family member of the wife never disclosed that the
wife was already a divorcee. P.W.- 2 has admitted that the husband
(respondent herein) himself was cooking food and doing domestic
works. He has also deposed that he was present in negotiation of
marriage twice but never participated in the marriage from any side.
He has denied to know that how many litigations are going on
between the parties.
2025:JHHC:23881-DB
28. P.W.-3 is Ram Dayal Sahu, who happens to be the maternal cousin
brother of the respondent husband, has deposed that he was
throughout involved in negotiation of marriage of the parties which
took place on 17.06.2010. After marriage, both the parties stayed at
the house of respondent/husband for 2-3 days and thereafter started
living at the departmental quarter, Ranchi. After some days, the
appellant-wife went away to her parental place according to her own
wish and returned back to Ranchi in the month of August, 2010. The
marriage of the parties never consummated. She used to go to Patna
frequently and whenever he visited the quarter of the husband, found
that the husband was treated with cruelty by the wife, as she never
cooked food and was not doing domestic work. She never participated
in family function of the husband. At the time marriage, it was
concealed by the family members of the wife that she was divorcee
and fraudulently got her marriage with the respondent husband.
29. In cross-examination, he has deposed that at the time of negotiation
of marriage, a Bio-data was given by one Luxman Shah, brother of the
appellant/wife in which there was no disclosure about the first
marriage of the appellant/wife and this fact came to their knowledge
after 1-2 years of the marriage. He has further deposed that for about
6 months both the parties lived together. He used to visit the quarter
of Ramu Sahu. Both the parties were in physical relation with each
other or not, he could not say but it was disclosed by Ramu Sahu that
there was no physical relation with his wife. He never saw the wife
2025:JHHC:23881-DB
going to Patna and coming back to Ranchi but it was informed to him
by the petitioner Ramu Sahu.
30. P.W.-4 is Ramkeshwar Sahu who has admitted marriage of the
parties in the year 2010 and thereafter they went to the Village of the
husband, but after one or two day they came back to Ranchi on
instigation of the husband and started living in Govt. accommodation.
Whenever he visited the quarter of the husband, could not found the
wife and came to know that she has gone to Patna. The husband-
Ramu Sahu used to cook breakfast himself for the visitors or it was
brought from the market. The wife was always quarreling with the
husband and conjugal life of the parties was not good. Out of the cruel
behaviour of the wife, the petitioner-husband was attending his office
from his village everyday right from December, 2016 and whenever
he used to visit his quarter, wife did not open the door. P.W.- 4 has
further deposed that after concealing the first marriage of the
appellant wife and her divorce, the family member of the appellant-
wife got her marriage with respondent-husband.
31. During cross-examination, P.W.- 4 has stated that he is co-villager of
the respondent-husband, Ramu Sahu. He has again admitted that the
husband is living in his village. He has deposed that he came to know
about the disputes between the parties from the husband-Ramu Sahu
and perceived it from their life style. He has admitted that he never
participated in matrimonial negotiation of the parties. Apart from this
no relevant answer has come from the mouth of this witness.
2025:JHHC:23881-DB
32. P.W.-5 is Amit Kumar, who has formally proved the plaint of
matrimonial suit no. 304 of 2003 of Patna Family Court and has also
proved a joint petition of the parties and certified copy of Complaint
Case No. 600/2002 of the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur.
In cross-examination, he has admitted that he is an Advocate
Clerk and has got no personal knowledge about the aforesaid
documents.
Witnesses from respondent/wife (appellant herein)
33. R.W.-1 is Binu Sahu, who happens to be the maternal brother-in-law
of the husband, has stated that parties to this case got married in the
year 2010 at Ranchi in which he took part thereafter both the parties
went to the village of the husband for some rituals and thereafter
shifted to the official accommodation at Survey Colony, Doranda as
husband and wife. He used to visit that quarter where both the parties
welcomed him together always. He could see the wife was always
busy in domestic work and the situation of the quarter was normal.
Ramu remained busy in office work whereas the wife remained busy
in the domestic work. Whenever Ramu is at his quarter, he used to
watch T.V. whereas the respondent was always busy in household
work and there were no differences between the parties though both
the parties were disturbed as they have no child.
34. During cross-examination, R.W. 1 has deposed that he was present in
the marriage of the parties. After three- four months of the marriage,
when he visited that quarter where the wife was alone. Again, he went
2025:JHHC:23881-DB
to meet the said Ramu, but he was not present there rather the wife
was there. He has admitted that he has come to Court with the
appellant wife and father of the respondent husband. R.W. 1 has
denied the suggestion given by the respondent husband that the
respondent husband has not been living in his quarter since 2016, but
has admitted that there is no good relation between the parties.
Further, the litigation between the parties before the Mahila Ayog. He
has deposed that he has no knowledge about the cruelty by the
appellant wife against the husband.
35. R.W.-2 is Bharat Sahu, who happens to be the father of the
respondent-husband, has admitted marriage of the parties at Ranchi
on 17.06.2010. He has deposed that at the time of negotiation of
marriage of the parties, it was disclosed by brother of the
respondent/wife(appellant herein) that she is divorcee, but the
plaintiff/husband(respondent herein) raised no objection for the
marriage. On 20.11.2009, the brother of the wife handed over
photograph, Bio-data and divorce case document of the
respondent/wife to him and at the same time, the husband took
photograph and divorce case paper from him, but the Bio-data
remained with him from 20.11.2009. A sum of Rs. 5.51-Lacs was
transferred by brother of the wife in the account of the husband and
some gifts worth Rs.7-Lac was also given to him.
36. This witness has admitted his second marriage after death of his first
wife who happened to be the mother of the his son i.e.
2025:JHHC:23881-DB
plaintiff/husband. After marriage, both the parties shifted from his
village to Survey Colony, Doranda and started their happy conjugal
life. Marriage of the twin brother of the petitioner/husband, namely
Laxman Sahu also took place in the year 2011, and thereafter, the
plaintiff/husband developed emotional attachment with wife of his
twin brother, who lives at Khunti, and thus, he was staying at village
leaving the wife at Ranchi. It has further been deposed by him that
one day deliberately plaintiff/husband met with motorcycle accident
in which the wife sustained spine and head injury. In place of
transforming the plaintiff/husband himself, started levelling
allegation against the wife and has committed cruelty. The wife has
discharged her marital obligation. The husband himself used to drop
the wife to her paternal place, and thereafter, started living at his
Village Bhandra. The husband himself neglected the wife and started
litigation before the Mahila Ayog in which he also filed his affidavits in
favour of the wife. R.W. 2 has denied any relation with the wife as
alleged by the husband. The wife fully discharged her marital
obligations including domestic work but the husband subjected her
with cruelty.
37. During cross-examination, this witness has deposed that he is living
with his second wife. This witness has deposed that it is wrong to say
that the husband-Ramu and his twin brother were looked after by
their maternal grand-father and grandmother rather he incurred
expenses towards their education and liabilities. This witness has
denied any relation with the wife of his brother and never visited
2025:JHHC:23881-DB
Banaras or any other visiting place with her. This witness has also
denied that he was talking with the respondent/wife over phone
secretly from the field. This witness has admitted that he never
received any Notice from the State Mahila Ayog, but he went there at
the wish of the respondent-wife (appellant herein).
38. R.W.-3 is Luxman Prasad, who is the brother of the respondent-
husband, has also admitted marriage of the appellant-wife with the
respondent-husband on 17.06.2010. At the time negotiation of
marriage, it was disclosed to the plaintiff -husband that his sister is a
divorcee and documents related to that was handed over and at that
time the husband did not raise any objection for the marriage.
Photographs, Bio-data and divorce case documents were also given to
the father of the husband from whom the husband took photo and
case related documents. At the time of marriage, a sum of Rs. 5.51-
Lacs was transferred by him in the account of the husband and some
gifts worth Rs.7-Lac was also given to him. Marriage of twin brother
of the petitioner, namely Laxman Sahu also took place in the year
2011, and thereafter, the petitioner developed emotional attachment
with wife of his twin brother, who lives at Khunti, and thus, he was
staying at village leaving the respondent at Ranchi. One day
deliberately he met with a motorcycle accident in which the wife
sustained spine and head injury. In place of transforming himself, he
started levelling allegation against the wife and committed cruelty.
The wife has discharged her marital obligation. The husband himself
used to drop the wife to her paternal place, and thereafter, started to
2025:JHHC:23881-DB
living at his Village Bhandra. The wife always discharged her marital
obligations and domestic work but she always was subjected to
cruelty by the husband due to his relation with the wife of his brother.
He and his family member never concealed with regard to divorce of
his sister from the first husband.
39. During cross-examination, R.W.-3 has deposed that the husband
deliberately caused an accident on 11.07.2011 in which the wife
sustained severe injury. In the month of October,2012 the husband
tried to commit murder of the wife which was reported to the State
Women's Commission in the year 2017. He has denied the fact that
character of the husband is good.
40. RW-4, the wife herself, namely, Sabita Kumari, has admitted her
marriage with the petitioner on 17.06.2010 at Ranchi. At the time of
negotiation of marriage, it was disclosed to the husband by her
brother Luxman Prasad that she was a divorcee, then only marriage
was settled by giving her photographs, Bio-Data and Divorce related
paper to the father of the husband from whom the husband took away
her photo and Court papers related to divorce, but the Bio-Data
remained with the father of the husband who filed it in the Court. At
the time of marriage, a sum of Rs. 5.51-Lacs was transferred by her
brother in the account of the husband and some gifts worth Rs.7-Lac
was also given to the husband and then she came to her in-laws' place.
After marriage of brother of the respondent-husband, his behaviour
changed towards the appellant-wife she thereafter used to go to his
2025:JHHC:23881-DB
native place leaving her at Ranchi and on being asked she was
subjected to torture and abuse. She met with an accident which was
done deliberately by the husband on 11.07.2011. Further, she was
subjected to murderous attempt by the husband and others and thus
there was an apprehension of her life at his Village Kumarhia. The
husband had illicit relation with the wife of his brother who was living
in the village which was protested by her thus she was subjected to
cruelty by him. She has further stated that she never visited her
parental place frequently rather it was the husband, who dropped
her, when he had to go to his field work. The husband tried to oust her
from his Govt. Quarter but she sent letter to the State Women's
Commission and Department where the husband was working, so he
could not succeed to oust her. This witness has also deposed that she
always did the domestic work and took all efforts for happiness of the
husband but he was having intention of his second marriage which
was recorded in Phone by her. She has further stated that her
behaviour was always good with the husband which is evident by the
SMS Chat between the parties. This witness has proved various
documents sent to State Women's Commission, D.C., Sr. S.P. Ranchi,
Department where the husband was working with regard to litigation
between the parties. R.W.-4 has denied that she never allowed the
respondent-husband for physical contact rather her marriage was
consummated the very next day of the marriage.
41. During cross-examination, this witness has deposed that nothing like
her divorce from her earlier husband was concealed at the time of
2025:JHHC:23881-DB
negotiation of marriage. There are two houses of the husband at the
native place and in one of the houses, the respondent-husband lives
with wife of his brother. Thereafter, during entire cross-examination,
there is denial of suggestion given by the husband. R.W. 4 admitted
that after some time of the marriage, the relation between the parties
started deteriorating and in order to murder her, the husband
deliberately caused an accident. She has further stated that at the
native village of the husband, she stayed in a separate room whereas
the husband used to sleep with one Ranimati. Lastly, she has denied
that she ever committed cruelty to the husband, rather she cordially
behaved with the husband and his family members. This witness has
specifically admitted that she alone has been living in the Govt.
Accommodation of the husband.
42. The learned Family Judge has appreciated the entire facts and
evidence and while negated the claim of the plaintiff/husband
(respondent herein) as alleged under Section 12(1) (c) of the Act
1955 has categorically held that no reliable evidence is brought by the
petitioner (respondent/husband herein) to prove nullity of his
marriage with the respondent (appellant/wife herein) u/s 12(1)(C) of
the Hindu Marriage Act.
43. However, the learned Family Court on the availability of the element
of cruelty as also has taken into consideration the principle of
irretrievable break down of the marriage and has decreed the suit of
dissolution of marriage in the favour of the petitioner husband
2025:JHHC:23881-DB
(respondent herein). The learned family Court has observed that the
petitioner(respondent herein) is able to prove cruelty against him by
the respondent (appellant herein) under Section 13(1) (ia) of the Act
1955 and accordingly the learned Family Court after recording
aforesaid finding has decreed the suit in favour of the
respondent/husband subject to payment of sum of Rs.15,00,000/-
(fifteen lacs) as permanent alimony to the appellant wife by the
respondent/husband.
44. This Court in backdrop of the aforesaid factual aspect is now
adverting to the contentions as raised by the learned counsel for the
parties.
45. This Court while appreciating the argument advanced on behalf of the
appellant on the issue of perversity needs to refer herein the
interpretation of the word "perverse" as has been interpreted by the
Hon'ble Apex Court which means that there is no evidence or
erroneous consideration of the evidence.
46. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Arulvelu and Anr. vs. State [Represented
by the Public Prosecutor] and Anr., (2009) 10 SCC 206 while
elaborately discussing the word perverse has held that it is, no doubt,
true that if a finding of fact is arrived at by ignoring or excluding
relevant material or by taking into consideration irrelevant material
or if the finding so outrageously defies logic as to suffer from the vice
of irrationality incurring the blame of being perverse, then, the
2025:JHHC:23881-DB
finding is rendered infirm in law. Relevant paragraphs, i.e., paras-24,
25, 26 and 27 of the said judgment reads as under:
"24. The expression "perverse" has been dealt with in a number of
cases. In Gaya Din v. Hanuman Prasad [(2001) 1 SCC 501] this Court
observed that the expression "perverse" means that the findings of the
subordinate authority are not supported by the evidence brought on
record or they are against the law or suffer from the vice of
procedural irregularity.
25. In Parry's (Calcutta) Employees' Union v. Parry & Co. Ltd. [AIR
1966 Cal 31] the Court observed that "perverse finding" means a
finding which is not only against the weight of evidence but is
altogether against the evidence itself. In Triveni Rubber &
Plastics v. CCE [1994 Supp (3) SCC 665 : AIR 1994 SC 1341] the Court
observed that this is not a case where it can be said that the findings
of the authorities are based on no evidence or that they are so
perverse that no reasonable person would have arrived at those
findings.
26. In M.S. Narayanagouda v. Girijamma [AIR 1977 Kant 58] the
Court observed that any order made in conscious violation of pleading
and law is a perverse order. In Moffett v. Gough [(1878) 1 LR 1r 331]
the Court observed that a "perverse verdict" may probably be defined
as one that is not only against the weight of evidence but is altogether
against the evidence.
In Godfrey v. Godfrey [106 NW 814] the Court defined "perverse" as
turned the wrong way, not right; distorted from the right; turned
away or deviating from what is right, proper, correct, etc.
27. The expression "perverse" has been defined by various
dictionaries in the following manner:
1. Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary of Current English, 6th
Edn.
"Perverse.--Showing deliberate determination to behave in a way
that most people think is wrong, unacceptable or unreasonable."
2. Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, International
Edn.
Perverse.--Deliberately departing from what is normal and
reasonable.
2025:JHHC:23881-DB
3. The New Oxford Dictionary of English, 1998 Edn.
Perverse.--Law (of a verdict) against the weight of evidence or
the direction of the judge on a point of law.
4. The New Lexicon Webster's Dictionary of the English
Language (Deluxe Encyclopedic Edn.)
Perverse.--Purposely deviating from accepted or expected
behavior or opinion; wicked or wayward; stubborn; cross or petulant.
5. Stroud's Judicial Dictionary of Words & Phrases, 4th Edn.
"Perverse.--A perverse verdict may probably be defined as one that is
not only against the weight of evidence but is altogether against the
evidence."
47. In the instant case, since the ground for divorce has been taken on the
pretext of cruelty, therefore it would be apt to discuss herein the he
word "cruelty" under the ambit of the Act 1955.
48. The word "cruelty" has been interpreted by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of Dr. N.G. Dastane vs. Mrs. S. Dastana, (1975) 2 SCC 326
wherein it has been laid down that the Court has to enquire, as to
whether, the conduct charge 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.
49. This Court deems it fit and proper to take into consideration the
meaning of 'cruelty' as has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi, (1988)1 SCC 105 wherein the wife
alleged that the husband and his parents demanded dowry. The
Hon'ble Apex Court emphasized that "cruelty" can have no fixed
definition.
2025:JHHC:23881-DB
50. According to the Hon'ble Apex Court, "cruelty" is the "conduct in
relation to or in respect of matrimonial conduct in respect of
matrimonial obligations". It is the conduct which adversely affects the
spouse. Such cruelty can be either "mental" or "physical", "intentional"
or "unintentional". For example, unintentionally waking your spouse
up in the middle of the night may be mental cruelty; intention is not
an essential element of cruelty but it may be present. Physical cruelty
is less ambiguous and more "a question of fact and degree."
51. The Hon'ble Apex Court has further observed therein that while
dealing with such complaints of cruelty it is important for the court to
not search for a standard in life, since cruelty in one case may not be
cruelty in another case. What must be considered include the kind of
life the parties are used to, "their economic and social conditions", and
the "culture and human values to which they attach importance."
52. The nature of allegations need not only be illegal conduct such as
asking for dowry. Making allegations against the spouse in the written
statement filed before the court in judicial proceedings may also be
held to constitute cruelty.
53. In V. Bhagat vs. D. Bhagat (Mrs.), (1994)1 SCC 337, the wife alleged
in her written statement that her husband was suffering from "mental
problems and paranoid disorder". The wife's lawyer also levelled
allegations of "lunacy" and "insanity" against the husband and his
family while he was conducting a cross-examination. The Hon‟ble
2025:JHHC:23881-DB
Apex Court held these allegations against the husband to constitute
"cruelty".
54. In Vijaykumar Ramchandra Bhate v. Neela Vijay Kumar Bhate,
(2003)6 SCC 334 the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed by taking into
consideration the allegations levelled by the husband in his written
statement that his wife was "unchaste" and had indecent familiarity
with a person outside wedlock and that his wife was having an
extramarital affair. These allegations, given the context of an educated
Indian woman, were held to constitute "cruelty" itself.
55. The Hon‟ble Apex Court in Joydeep Majumdar v. Bharti Jaiswal
Majumdar, (2021) 3 SCC 742, has been pleased to observe that while
judging whether the conduct is cruel or not, what has to be seen is
whether that conduct, which is sustained over a period of time,
renders the life of the spouse so miserable as to make it unreasonable
to make one live with the other. The conduct may take the form of
abusive or humiliating treatment, causing mental pain and anguish,
torturing the spouse, etc. The conduct complained of must be "grave"
and "weighty" and trivial irritations and normal wear and tear of
marriage would not constitute mental cruelty as a ground for divorce.
56. It needs to refer herein the learned Family Court while allowing the
suit for dissolution of marriage has also taken into consideration the
principle of "Irretrievable Break Down of the marriage", as such it
would be proper to discuss herein the aforesaid principle. It is
pertinent to note herein that the learned family Court while allowing
2025:JHHC:23881-DB
the suit has taken into consideration principle of "Irretrievable Break
Down of the marriage" but the aforesaid principle has not been
framed as an issue by the learned Family Court.
57. Concept of the "irretrievable breakdown of marriage" requires its
emphasis from its meaning and the place and time wherefrom it has
emerged. The word 'irretrievable' is antonym to the word
'retrievable' means can get better or make better.
58. It has not been recognized as a ground for divorce in the statute Book.
The Law Commission of India after experiencing the pendency of
matrimonial cases, complicity, non-adjustment, vulgarity in relation
between the spouse thought it appropriate to recommend the same as
a ground for divorce. The Law Commission of India in Chapter III of
its 71st Report made such recommendation first time. The Law
Commission said that once the parties have been separated, which
continued for a sufficient length of time and one of them presented
the petition for divorce, it can very well be presumed that the
marriage has broken down. The Court, no doubt, should endeavour to
reconcile, the parties; yet if it is found that the breakdown is
irretrievable then divorce should not be withheld. Meaning thereby
the consequences of preservation in law of the unworkable marriage
which has long ceased to be effective are bound to be a source of
greater misery for the parties.
59. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa,
reported in (2013) 5 SCC 226 : (AIR 2013 SC 2176) has observed
2025:JHHC:23881-DB
that irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not a ground for divorce
under Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. However, where marriage is beyond
repair on account of bitterness created by acts of either of the
husband or the wife or of both, courts have always
taken irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a very weighty
circumstance amongst others necessitating severance of marital tie.
60. It may be understood from the word 'retrieve', which means find and
bring back; put right or improve, find or extract. As per verbal
meaning it denotes the thing which was not in order or lost, has come
back in its revival would retrieve. The word irretrievable is an
adjective and indicative to the fact 'not able to be retrieved, means the
things were lost in past, now cannot be revived, a couple separated on
the ground of irretrievable breakdown (of their marriage). However,
the phrase 'irretrievable breakdown' has been used on cessation
of marriage and when its revival is not possible. Thus, it can safely be
clarified that a marriage resumes religious character but under a legal
perspective a contract giving special status to spread in society
establishing family virtues. Once its continuation is not possible, it
would fall within irretrievable breakdown.
61. The irretrievable breakdown of marriage means the couple can no
longer live together as husband and wife. Both partner and one
partner must prove to the Court that there is no reasonable chance of
getting back together.
2025:JHHC:23881-DB
62. This Court, on the premise of the interpretation of the word "cruelty"
and settled position of law as referred hereinabove has considered
the evidences of the witnesses as has been incorporated by the
learned Court in the impugned judgment.
63. Herein since appellate jurisdiction has been invoked therefore, before
entering into merit of the case, at this juncture it would be purposeful
to discuss the appellate jurisdiction of the High Court.
64. It needs to refer herein that under section 7 of the Family Courts Act,
the Family Court shall have and exercise all the jurisdiction
exercisable by any District Court or any Sub-ordinate Civil Court
under any law for the time being in force in respect of suits and
proceedings of the nature which are described in the explanation to
section 7(1).
65. Sub-section (1) to section 19 of the Family Courts Act provides that an
appeal shall lie from every judgment or order not being an
interlocutory order of a Family Court to the High Court "both on facts
and on law". Therefore, section 19 of the Family Courts Act is parallel
to section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the scope of which has
been dealt with by the Hon'ble Apex Court in series of judgments.
66. The law is well settled that the High Court in a First Appeal can
examine every question of law and fact which arises in the facts of the
case and has powers to affirm, reverse or modify the judgment under
question. In "Jagdish Singh v. Madhuri Devi" (2008) 10 SCC 497 the
Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that it is lawful for the High Court
2025:JHHC:23881-DB
acting as the First Appellate Court to enter into not only questions of
law but questions of fact as well and the appellate Court therefore can
reappraise, reappreciate and review the entire evidence and can come
to its own conclusion. For ready reference the relevant paragraph of
the said judgment is being quoted as under:
It is no doubt true that the High Court was exercising power
as the first appellate court and hence it was open to the
Court to enter into not only questions of law but questions of
fact as well. It is settled law that an appeal is a continuation
of suit. An appeal thus is a rehearing of the main matter and
the appellate court can reappraise, reappreciate and review
the entire evidence--oral as well as documentary--and can
come to its own conclusion.
67. Further, it requires to refer herein that under section 3 of the Indian
Evidence Act a fact is said to be proved when the Court either believes
it to exist or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man
under the circumstances would proceed on the supposition that such
fact really exists. Therefore, the normal rule of preponderance of
probability is the rule which governs the civil proceedings like this.
68. The expression "preponderance of probability" is not capable of exact
definition nor can there be any strait-jacket formula or a weighing
machine to find out which side the balance is tilted. The
preponderance of probability would imply a positive element about
possibility of existence of a fact. This means a higher degree of
probability of happening of something and existence of a fact.
69. In "A. Jayachandra v. Aneel Kaur" (2005) 2 SCC 22 the Hon'ble Apex
Court has observed that the concept, a proof beyond the shadow of
2025:JHHC:23881-DB
doubt, is to be applied to criminal trials and not to civil matters and
certainly not to matters of such delicate personal relationship as
those of husband and wife. Therefore, the Court has to see what are
the probabilities in the 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 caused by the acts or omissions of the other.
70. Since this Court is exercising the power of appeal as referred
hereinabove and as per the settled position of law which require the
consideration of the appellate Court is that the order/judgment
passed by the appropriate Forum, if suffers from perversity, the same
is to be taken as a ground for its reversal.
71. This Court has considered the judgment passed by the learned Family
Judge on the issue of perversity, since, perversity has been
interpreted by the Hon'ble Apex Court as discussed in the preceding
paragraph that if any material fact even though produced before the
concerned adjudicator if not being considered or erroneously been
considered then the same will come under the fold of perversity.
72. Herein, as per the pleadings, the ground of cruelty has been taken for
dissolution of the marriage. The respondent/husband who had been
examined as P.W.1 had stated that appellant/wife has treated him
with cruelty. He had further stated that after marriage, his wife
(appellant herein) never allowed the husband for physical relation
with her on the pretext that she has some physical infirmity. He has
also deposed that he himself cooked food and did domestic works of
2025:JHHC:23881-DB
the house which caused a pathetic life to him. She also used to run
away from the house without informing him. It has been also deposed
by him that when he became fed up by abusive language and
threatening of implicating him in dowry cases and that the wife used
to conceal his bike keys, ATM Card and medicines deliberately, he
informed the matter to the State Mahila Ayog on 16.08.2016 and
03.10.2016 for cruel behaviour of the wife.
73. He had further deposed that the matter was pacified by intervention
of the State Mahila Ayog then he opened an Account in the name of
the wife in Union Bank of India, Doranda, Ranchi and deposited a sum
of Rs.31,000/- even then, the matter was not settled. The wife never
discharged her obligation as wife so he filed a case of restitution of
conjugal right in the Family Court, Ranchi bearing MTS Case No.
222/2017 on 12.04.2017.
74. It has further been stated that the wife admitted before the State
Mahila Commission that she is a divorcee and vide MTS Case
No.304/2003 at Patna, her marriage was dissolved and after knowing
this respondent became shocked and because the appellant-wife and
her family members concealed the facts and fraudulently got her
married with him, he has preferred the application for dissolution of
marriage on the ground of concealment of aforesaid fact as well as on
the ground of cruelty.
75. However the learned Family Court in the absence of any cogent
evidence led by the respondent husband has negated the ground of
2025:JHHC:23881-DB
12(1) (C) of the Act 1955 on the basis of testimony of the witnesses
produced on behalf of the appellant/wife particularly the father of
respondent husband who had stated in his testimony that Biodata
has been given by the Family Member of the Appellant/wife wherein
it has been mentioned about the earlier marriage of the
appellant/wife.
76. Further it is evident from the testimony of the respondent/husband
that the appellant and respondent had lived together for six years
since 2010 to 2016 without any friction and first time in 2017
appellant had lodged complaint before women commission. It is
further evident from the testimony of the respondent that
appellant/wife has been living in the quarter allotted in the name of
respondent/husband, thus from the aforesaid fact it is evident that
the appellant has no desire to desert the respondent/husband rather
she has tried to save her matrimonial life.
77. Further the respondent in his testimony has alleged the instances of
cruelty and had stated that appellant was never interested in doing
domestic work and even she never prepare food for him but the
alleged instances amount to normal wear and tear of the married life.
From the testimony it further appears that respondent had alleged
about the physical infirmity of the appellant wife but any concrete and
cogent evidence has not been brought on record by the
respondent/husband.
2025:JHHC:23881-DB
78. Thus, it is evident from the aforesaid that the respondent/husband
has not filed any cogent evidence rather it appears that the same has
been alleged without any basis only because the
Respondent/Husband wants divorce from the appellant/wife.
79. Further from impugned order it is evident that the learned Family
Court has also come to the conclusion that marriage between the
parties has irretrievably been broken down but on what basis the
learned Family Court has reached the aforesaid conclusion has not
been discussed elaborately in the impugned order. As discussed in the
preceding paragraph that
the irretrievable breakdown of marriage means the couple can no
longer live together as husband and wife. Both partner or any one
partner must prove to the Court that there is no reasonable chance of
getting back together, but herein as per the testimony of the husband,
the appellant wife is living in the quarter which has been allotted on
the name of the respondent husband, this fact itself indicates that
appellant/wife does not want to sever the matrimonial ties with the
respondent.
80. Now coming to the testimony of the appellant wife who had been
examined as R.W.4 wherein she had deposed that she met with an
accident which was deliberately caused by the respondent/ husband
on 11.07.2011. Further, she was subjected to murderous attempt by
the husband and others. In the testimony it has been stated that the
husband had illicit relation with wife of his brother who was living in
2025:JHHC:23881-DB
the village which was protested by her thus she was subjected to
cruelty by him. She has further stated that she never visited her
parental place frequently rather it was the husband, who dropped
her, when he had to go to his field work. This witness has also
deposed that she always did the domestic work and took all efforts for
happiness of the husband but he was having intention of his second
marriage which was recorded in Phone by her. R.W.-4 has denied that
she never allowed the respondent-husband for physical contact
rather her marriage was consummated the very next day of the
marriage.
81. The aforesaid testimony of the appellant/wife has fully been
substantiated by the R.W. 2 Bharat Sahu who is father of the
respondent/husband. He has deposed that his daughter-in-law
wanted to lead a happy conjugal life with plaintiff but plaintiff has
always been suspicious to the character of defendant.
82. Thus, from the aforesaid testimony of the RW.2 who is father of the
respondent/petitioner and even though he had supported the
testimony of his daughter-in-law (appellant) but from impugned
order it appears that the learned family judge has not taken note of
the aforesaid evidence in proper manner.
83. It further appears from the order impugned that the learned family
Judge has not appreciated the aforesaid evidences particularly the fact
that except the petitioner-respondent, no other witness has
supported the narration of the respondent/husband and as such, the
2025:JHHC:23881-DB
judgment has been passed only taking into consideration the
testimony of the respondent/husband.
84. Hence, this Court is of the view that the aforesaid consideration as has
been given by the learned Family Judge cannot be said to be proper.
85. This Court, after going through the judgment in entirety, has found
that consideration has been given in order to come to the conclusion
of the ground of cruelty is not available to respondent/husband.
86. This Court, therefore, is of the view that it is a case where
consideration is to be required to be there on the ground of perversity
and, according to our considered view, the judgment impugned
cannot be said to be well based upon the consideration of the element
of cruelty as per the interpretation made by the Hon'ble Apex Court
with respect to the element of cruelty in the judgment referred
hereinabove.
87. This Court, therefore, is of the view that the impugned judgment
cannot be said to be passed on proper consideration of the ground of
divorce, i.e., the element of cruelty. As such, the impugned judgment
needs interference and, accordingly, the judgment dated 04.07.2023
and passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court,
Jamshedpur in Original (Matrimonial) Suit No.648 of 2017 is hereby
quashed and set aside.
88. In the result, the instant appeal stands allowed. Decree accordingly.
89. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
2025:JHHC:23881-DB
F.A. No. 240 of 2023:
90. As referred hereinabove, the instant First Appeal being F.A.240 of
2023 has been preferred by the appellant-husband challenging the
part of the impugned judgment dated 04.07.2023 passed in Original
Suit No. 648 of 2017, whereby and whereunder, the husband has been
directed to pay permanent alimony of Rs. 15,00,000/- to the wife.
91. Since this Court has already quashed the order dated 04.07.2023
passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi in
Original Suit No. 648 of 2017, whereby and whereunder, the learned
court has allowed the suit in the light of Section 13(1)(i)(i-a) of the
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, therefore in consequence of that the
present appeal has no leg to stand his own.
92. Accordingly, the appeal being First Appeal No. 240 of 2023 also
stands dismissed.
93. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
I agree (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Rajesh Kumar, J.) (Rajesh Kumar, J.)
/A.F.R.
Samarth
