Tulsi Ram Bhalotia S/O Late Matadin ... vs Sunita Bhalotia W/O Tulsi Ram Bhalotia
2025 Latest Caselaw 7397 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Tulsi Ram Bhalotia S/O Late Matadin ... vs Sunita Bhalotia W/O Tulsi Ram Bhalotia on 2 December, 2025

Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad

Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad

                                                 2025:JHHC:35988-DB




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                     First Appeal No. 37 of 2025

        Tulsi Ram Bhalotia S/o Late Matadin Bhalotia, aged about
        58 years, residents of H.No.28, Old C.H. Area, Road No.3,
        Duplex No.3, P.O. & P.S.-Bistupur, District-East
        Singhbhum, Jamshedpur at Present residents of Flat
        No.1242, Mangalam City, Near Sudha Dairy, Gamharia,
        P.O. & P.S. Gamharia, District-Seraikella-Kharsawan.
                                       ... ... Appellant/Petitioner
                                   Versus
         Sunita Bhalotia W/o Tulsi Ram Bhalotia, D/o Late Radhe
         Shyam Tantia, residents of H.No.28, Old C.H. Area, Road
         No.3, Duplex No.3, P.O. & P.S. Bistupur, District-East
         Singhbhum, Jamshedpur.
                                    ... ... Respondent/Defendant
                                  -------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI
                                  -------
     For the Appellant       : Mr. Jitesh Kumar, Advocate
     For the Respondent      : Mr. Jitendra Nath Upadhyay, Adv
                       ----------------------------

CAV on 21.11.2025                    Pronounced on 02/12/2025

Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

1. The instant appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Court

Act, 1984 is directed against the order/judgment dated 9th

May, 2024 and decree signed on 16th May, 2024 passed by

the learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family

Court No. 2, Jamshedpur in Original Suit No. 699 of 2017,

whereby and whereunder, the suit filed by the petitioner-

appellant [husband] for dissolution of marriage by decree of

divorce u/s 13(1)(i-a)(i-b) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

against respondent/wife, has been dismissed.

2025:JHHC:35988-DB

2. The brief facts of the case leading to filing of the divorce

petition by the appellant-petitioner, as taken note in the

impugned order as emanated from the plaints, needs to be

referred herein, which as under:

3. The marriage of the appellant and respondent was

solemnized according to Hindu custom and rights in the

year 1984 at Jamshedpur with the consent of both the

parties. After consummation of marriage, out of their

wedlock one daughter was begotten who has been married to

well to do family and she is leading peacefully conjugal life.

4. It is stated that since they have no male issue as such with

the consent of both the parties, one male child was adopted

in the year 2004, who was imparted education in Shyan

International School, Jamshedpur. It is further stated that

till May 2015 the conjugal life of both spouse continued

peacefully.

5. It is further submitted that with full trust and confidence,

the petitioner-husband [appellant herein] purchased land

and house in the name of respondent-wife. After 2015, due

to paucity of fund and financial crisis on the part of

petitioner, he was forced to cut short his normal day to day

expenses to pace with the emergent situation prevalent at

that time but it is alleged that the respondent did not agree

and was not ready to cope with the petitioner to such

situation and behaved rudely and became very quarrelsome,

2025:JHHC:35988-DB

crafty, cantankerous and nagging house wife and started

quarreling with the petitioner on very frail, frazile and flimsy

manner, hence the life of petitioner was not only deserted

but was very rueful, heart rending, harrowing and relentless.

It is stated that the petitioner was forced to digest the rude

behaviour taking his prestige and his family and averting

any untoward incident which he apprehended from

respondent but gradually the respondent started showing

rough and blunt behaviour towards the petitioner because

she has different attitude, in-disciplined and non-cooperative

in every matter related to household affairs and she used to

go outside the house and remained outside for several hours

and on query the respondent quarrelled and challenged to

do so as per her choice. Not only this she started abusing

and using filthy language number of times.

6. It is alleged that the respondent-wife adopted all sorts of

tactic and method to humiliate, demoralize and pressurize

the petitioner for abrupt demand for lavish living and

regularly attending club and other activities without the

consent of petitioner. She misbehaved with the petitioner

and tortured him mentally by not providing food and paying

proper respect and regards to the petitioner and adopted

arrogant behaviour all the times. It is stated that the

respondent treated the petitioner with cruelty by causing

mental torture, disgrace and harassment.

2025:JHHC:35988-DB

7. It is stated that the situation became unbearable and

intolerable due to cruel behaviour of respondent towards

petitioner when she filed fake and planted criminal case on

02.06.2015 against the petitioner and his brothers to suffer

and put them in irreparable loss and injury. But during

investigation truth crystallized and the petitioner and his

brother were exonerated for the offence U/s 498(A) of I.P.C

and other offences being bailable, they were saved to go

behind the bar although best effort was exerted by

respondent to implicate them in false and fabricated case.

8. Further with revengeful attitude and to satisfy her whim and

caprice she further did herculean task to launch prosecution

under provision of Domestic Violence Act 2003. The

petitioner was forced to quit his residential house at C.H.

Area, Jamshedpur and started living alone in Mangalam City

at Adityapur to avert and avoid any future complication

respecting matrimonial discord. The respondent has also

flashed disparaging remarks in newspaper to lower down the

prestige of petitioner and also tried her utmost to even

disturb the peaceful living on pointing out finger on the

integrity and character of petitioner approaching at

Mangalam City, Adityapaur.

9. Further, the respondent is not even allowing the petitioner to

have ingress and egress in his self-acquired property in

which she is exclusively residing and not permitted the

2025:JHHC:35988-DB

petitioner to enter the house otherwise he is cautioned to

follow worse consequences. Even she tried her best to

disturb the smooth functioning of company by stopping

Bank Account operation in the month of March 2015 for

causing irreparable loss and injury and mental agony to the

petitioner.

10. However, on the intervention and best effort of the brothers

of petitioner any how operation of Bank Account was

resumed. Furthermore, even having locker in joint name she

removed all the valuable articles belonging to petitioner as

the petitioner had handed over the key of locker. It is further

alleged that the respondent also encased all the deposits of

LIC on premature date. The respondent crossing all the

limitation, barriers and reservations sold out the vehicle

XYLO entrusted to her for the personal use without the

consent and knowledge of the petitioner for which the

petitioner was forced to file criminal case U/s

467/468/420/406/120(B) of the I.P.C in which cognizance

has been taken. The case is still pending for adjudication

bearing C1-470/17 before J.M at Jamshedpur. The

petitioner apprehends that she may alienate the property of

petitioner in future if no coercive measure will be adopted to

check her illegal and immoral activities.

11. Therefore, contention has been made that the petitioner has

been illegally deprived from the right to have conjugal

2025:JHHC:35988-DB

happiness by the respondents since June 2015 the

petitioner is residing at Mangalam City at Adityapur

apprehending danger of his life and prestige and false

implication in false cases cannot be ruled out. The

respondent has deserted the petitioner and refused to join

the conjugal life with the petitioner as such the petitioner

has been compelled to lead miserable life without his fault

on his part. Therefore ground has been taken that for the

aforesaid illegal, immoral and cruel act of the respondent,

the petitioner has sustained mental shock and injury. As

such having left with no other adequate and alternative

option, the petitioner approached the learned family court

seeking decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and

desertion since June, 2015 they are living separately.

12. After being noticed, the respondent appeared and filed

written statement denying the allegation leveled against her

and raised the issue of maintainability of the suit.

13. Contention has been made that it is the petitioner-husband

who meted out atrocities against her which compelled her to

file criminal cases against her. Submission has been made

that it is the petitioner-husband who extended all sorts of

atrocities, which was beyond her tolerance and the torture

extended upon her both physically and mentally by the

appellant and his family members went up-to its extreme.

The allegations made in the plaint showing that the

2025:JHHC:35988-DB

petitioner was in any way subjected with cruelty either

physically or mentally at the hands of the respondent are

nothing but an hoax only to draw sympathy of the court to

fulfill the evil desire of the petitioner-appellant. Therefore,

pleading was made that the proceeding is nothing but a

bunch of falsehood. Therefore, prayer was made to dismiss

the suit by denying the relief as sought for by the petitioner-

husband.

14. On the basis of the pleadings of both the parties, the learned

family court framed the issue as to whether the petitioner,

the appellant herein [husband] is entitled for a decree of

divorce and accordingly evidence was adduced on behalf of

parties.

15. The learned Principal Judge, family court, after appreciating

the evidence adduced on behalf of parties, came to the

conclusion that the petitioner-husband, the appellant

herein, could not prove the ingredients of cruelty and

desertion against the respondent-wife, as such it was held

that the petitioner-husband is not entitled to get a decree of

divorce, against which, the instant appeal has been

preferred.

Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant:

16. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that the

factual aspect which was available before the learned family

court supported by the evidences adduced on behalf of the

2025:JHHC:35988-DB

appellant has not properly been considered and as such, the

judgment impugned is perverse, hence, not sustainable in

the eyes of law.

17. It has been submitted that the issue of cruelty has not been

taken into consideration in the right perspective even though

the fact about living separately has well been established.

18. Submission has been made that the judgment passed by

learned court below is perverse in the eye of law as the wife

has committed mental cruelty and physical cruelty towards

the appellant by filing false case against the appellant and

his entire family members though during investigation

charge-sheet has been filed showing lack of evidence under

Section 498A IPC and lack of evidence against the entire

family members of the appellant though there was clear

intention of the respondent-wife that appellant and his

family members be sent for jail custody and this conduct

has caused mental cruelty to the appellant-husband hence

the judgment and decree passed by the learned court below

is erroneous and bad in the eye of law, which is fit to be

quashed and set aside.

19. It has been submitted that the respondent-wife sold the

vehicle of the company of the appellant without knowledge of

the appellant for which case for theft was lodged due to

which he sustained mockery and loss of his prestige in the

society but this aspect of the matter has also not been taken

2025:JHHC:35988-DB

into consideration by learned family court while passing the

impugned order.

20. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that from

bare perusal of documentary and oral evidence it is quite

apparent that the respondent-wife has treated the appellant

with cruelty by causing mental and physical torture,

disgrace, harassment by creating ugly scene and taunting

which resulted in disruption in his normal life and his life

became hell, which resulted into mental depression but this

aspect of the matter has also not been taken into

consideration by learned Single Judge.

21. It has been submitted that due to odd and eccentric

behavior of the respondent-wife, the appellant was forced to

leave his own house in June, 2015 and since then there was

desertion on the part of the wife for a long period of nine

period as such the factum of desertion has well been

established but that has not been taken into consideration

by learned family court.

22. Learned counsel for the appellant, based upon the aforesaid

grounds, has submitted that the judgment impugned suffers

from perversity, as such, is not sustainable in the eyes of

law.

Submission of the learned counsel for the respondent:

23. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-

wife, while defending the impugned judgment, has submitted

2025:JHHC:35988-DB

that there is no error in the impugned judgment. The

learned Additional Principal Judge has considered the issue

of cruelty and desertion and having come to the conclusion

that no evidence has been adduced to establish cruelty and

desertion has dismissed the suit.

24. Submission has been made that due to compelling

circumstances as the atrocities extended to her became

intolerable she initiated criminal proceeding against the

petitioner-appellant and her in-laws and due to which even

the news item was published in the newspaper. Further, it is

the petitioner-appellant, who had filed a false case against

her without any cogent evidence.

25. Learned counsel, based upon the aforesaid ground, has

submitted that if on that pretext, the factum of cruelty

and/or desertion has not been found to be established,

based upon which the decree of divorce has been refused to

be granted, the impugned judgment cannot be said to suffer

from error.

Analysis:

26. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and

gone through the finding recorded by the learned Family

Judge in the impugned judgment.

27. The admitted fact herein is that the suit for divorce has been

filed on the ground of cruelty and desertion i.e., by filing an

application under Section 13 (1) (i-a) (i-b) of the Hindu

2025:JHHC:35988-DB

Marriage Act, 1955 and accordingly, issues have been

framed and decided against the petitioner-appellant.

28. The evidence has been led on behalf of both the parties. On

behalf of petitioner-husband, two witnesses have been

examined, namely, Tulsi Ram Bhalotia [PW 1], the appellant

himself; and Sanjeet Srivastava [PW 2]. Further

examination-in-chief of one petitioner-appellant witness

namely Hem Kant Jha was filed on 26.03.2019 but as the

petitioner was not examined as such examination of Hem

Kant Jha was objected by the respondent and accordingly he

was not examined and thereafter also neither his fresh

examination in chief was filed nor he was produced for

cross-examination, so his examination in chief filed on

26.03.2019 stood expunged.

29. Whereas on behalf of respondent-wife two witnesses have

been examined, namely, Sunita Bhalotia, the respondnet

examined herself as R.W- 1, the respondent and her

daughter Priyanka Jajodia as R.W-2.

30. This Court in order to appreciate the testimony available on

record has gone through the testimonies of the witnesses.

31. P.W. 1-Tulsi Ram Bhalotia, the appellant-husband, in his

examination-in-chief has reiterated what he has stated in

the plaint. Therefore, the same is not being reiterated herein.

32. In the cross-examination he has stated that he got married

in 1984 but he do not remember the date and after the

2025:JHHC:35988-DB

marriage he went to Malaysia, China and Singapore along

with his wife and children and he is having a company in the

name of Bharat Safety Glass Pvt. Ltd. in which his wife was

a Director from 1997-2018, and after the case he removed

her and his wife must be having 42% of share and he

purchased land measuring 7200 Sq.ft. in the name of his

wife in RIT and he has also purchased land in her name in

other places and his wife lodged a case U/s 498(A) I.P.C but

the police did not find case U/s 498(A) I.P.C rather found a

case of Section 323 I.P.C which is pending. He started living

with his wife in Jugsalai and he as well as his wife are

members of United and Beldih Club and his wife never

stopped him from going to Club. He used to give Rs.

50,000/- to his wife as Director but when he stopped giving

he cannot remember. He cannot say the date since when he

stopped giving maintenance allowance to his wife. The C.J.M

Court ordered him to give Rs. 45,000/- to his wife but he

appealed against the order and it was stayed and he also

went for review and he is staying in Mangalam City,

Adityapur since 2015. He has denied that in Mangalam City

allegation was levelled against him for misbehaving with a

girl. But the police found it wrong in inquiry. During

festivals he used to give money to his wife and children for

expenses. He stayed with his wife in Mangalam for 20 days

2025:JHHC:35988-DB

and led conjugal life. He has not filed any case for bringing

back his wife.

33. P.W.2 Sanjeet Srivastava in his examination-in-chief has

stated that he is well acquainted with the petitioner

[appellant] and respondent as he is serving in the concern of

applicant [appellant] since year 2005 and the respondent

was sometimes visiting the premises of the company when

she was one of the Directors. In March 2015 she with

malafide intention stopped Bank Account operation of the

company for causing irreparable loss and injury and mental

agony to the appellant and later on with the best effort and

intervention of the brothers of appellant any how the

operation of Bank Account of Company was resumed. After

this instance the relation between appellant and respondent

became strained and reached at the climax when having no

rhyme or reason the respondent filed false and frivolous case

U/s 498(A) I.P.C against appellant and his other two

brothers.

34. During investigation police when found the allegation not

true the two brothers of appellant were exonerated forthwith

and the appellant-petitioner was also exonerated from the

allegation U/s 498(A) of I.P.C. Further to lower down the

prestige of appellant, the respondent remained with

appellant but hatched conspiracy in Mangalam apartment

and flashed the fake news in newspaper knowing to be false.

2025:JHHC:35988-DB

The matter was investigated and report was submitted to S.P

Seraikella by Adityapur P.S in which the allegation against

the appellant was found baseless having no clue. The

respondent imposed mental cruelty in multifold ways that it

created metal depression in the mind of appellant, god's

shake the appellant has not taken drastic step of committing

suicide but a prudent man ought to have done so. The

respondent has ousted the applicant from his dwelling house

at Circuit House Area and threatened him to implicate in

false cases. To avoid further suffering and disparaging

situation the appellant is residing in Mangalam City at

Adityapur and continuing as such. The respondent sold the

XYLO car of the appellant without his consent for which the

appellant was forced to prosecute against her. She is not the

registered owner of vehicle. And arrogant and rude

behaviour of respondent is very much abnormal and

objectionable and she always tried her best to pass

disparaging remarks and putting mental torture, disgrace

and harassment by creating ugly scene and taunting. Life of

appellant has become hell and he is not in a position to pace

with these alarming situations and live with respondent. The

respondent has deserted him willfully by neglecting him all

the times, this way or that way creating mental agony to

appellant. He has further deposed that he having

opportunity to observe the behaviour of respondent, he felt

2025:JHHC:35988-DB

that the life of appellant is so miserable that it is very much

difficult for him to live with the respondent.

35. In the cross-examination he has stated that he is working in

Bharat Safety Glass, Gamharia and its owner is Tulsi Ram

Bhalotia, who has come to court with him. He has no

knowledge about the property of Tulsi Ram Bhalotia and he

do not know as to when both of them got married and he

also do not know that both of them went to which places on

a tour.

36. R.W.1 Sunita Bhalotia, who is the respondent in this suit,

in her examination-in-chief she has stated that she got

married to the appellant on 20.01.1984 as per Hindu

customs in Jamshedpur and she is having a daughter out of

the wedlock who got married to Aditya Jajodia on

05.12.2006. Both of them adopted a son namely Sahil

Bhalotia who is aged 18 years at that time. After their

marriage they stayed in joint family for sometimes and lived

their conjugal life peacefully. She has further deposed that

her husband made her partner in the company i.e., Bharat

Safety Glass Company as per capital invested by her and she

was made Director. She has never fought with her husband

whereas it is the appellant-husband who assaulted her after

taking liquor. Her husband always kept illicit relation with

other females, due to which people of the society of

Mangalam Home lodged a case against her husband in

2025:JHHC:35988-DB

Seraikella Civil Court. She whenever used to object him in

doing such acts he used to abuse and assault her. Her

husband fought with him with regard to a girl namely

Shyama who was working in the Office of her husband and

he used to say that he will keep that girl and will divorce

her.

37. In the testimony, she has further alleged that her husband

has sold her ornaments worth crores and has kept on

fighting with her and even fought with her regarding paying

fees of boarding school of her son.

38. It has further been deposed that her husband has filed this

case only to grab her property and has filed a Title Suit for

her property. Her husband has filed false case against him

for selling the vehicle although it was sold with their

consent. She has further deposed that there was always love

between her and her husband but due to property and bad

habits of her husband there used to be fight. She is

connected with her husband mentally, physically and

economically and also as per family values. In the case of

Domestic Violence order was made by the court for giving

maintenance allowance but he violated the order of the

court. Further, as per the order of the court her husband

was supposed to give Rs. 28 lakhs which he has not given.

Lastly, she has stated that she does not want divorce from

her husband.

2025:JHHC:35988-DB

39. In her cross-examination she has deposed that she stayed in

the joint house for 10 years and after death of her father-in-

law it was sold and thereafter her husband purchased a

house in Circuit House Area in which she started living and

her husband is the sole owner of the Glass Factory.

Presently she is not a director of the company as she has

been terminated in 2016 although she got information in

2019. It has been stated that as her husband was having

illicit relation and he used to abuse her, so her relation with

her husband got strained. She and her husband both got

their daughter married by performing Kanyadan. Since 2015

his son is with her.

40. It is true that her husband purchased 5 decimal of land in

RIT for sum of Rs. 80 Lakhs which she recently sold it as

she was in need of money and she has half share in the

house at CH Area and it is true that her husband fulfilled

the obligation of a husband and he gave her half share in his

land and house. It is true that her husband is sending the

said amount in her account for the studies of their son. And

she was put a question that whether she is having

relationship of love with her husband or for money, to which

she has nothing to say.

41. Further she has denied that she is staying separately from

her husband since 02.06.2015 and now she has no love or

emotions for her husband. It is true that she sold the vehicle

2025:JHHC:35988-DB

of Bharat Glass Factory for which a case of theft was lodged

against her and the case is still pending. Further she has

denied that she tortured her husband mentally, physically

and economically and due to which his prestige in the

society got maligned. Further she has denied the suggestion

of the petitioner side that her husband always fulfilled his

marital obligations and helped her economically in every

places and his Rs 5 Crores is safe with her and she does not

want to stay with him as a wife, so the petitioner was

compelled to file this case for divorce.

42. R.W.2 Priyanka Jajodia, who is the daughter of the parties

has stated in her examination-in-chief that petitioner-

appellant and respondent are her father and mother

respectively and she got married on 05.12.2006 with Aditya

Jajodia as per consent of her parents. The petitioner-

appellant and the respondent with their consent adopted a

son namely Sahil Bhalotia. Her father has made her mother

shareholder as per capital invested by her and she is also a

Director in the company. Prior to this case, petitioner-

appellant and respondent stayed together and respondent

never fought with the petitioner-appellant and petitioner-

appellant always assaulted the respondent after taking

liquor. The petitioner-appellant had illicit relations with

other females due to which people of society of Mangalam

Home lodged a case against the petitioner-appellant in

2025:JHHC:35988-DB

Seraikella Court. Whenever the respondent used to object

him in doing such acts he used to abuse and assault her.

The appellant fought with the respondent with regard to a

girl namely Shyama who was working in his Office and he

used to say that he will keep that girl and will divorce the

respondent. The petitioner-appellant has sold ornaments

worth crores of her mother which she got from her parents

and used to fight with her mother on asking for her

jewelries. The appellant has filed this case for divorce and a

Title Suit to grab the property of the respondent. There was

always love between the appellant and the respondent but

due to property and bad habits of the appellant there used

to be fight between them. In the case of Domestic Violence

filed by her mother, order was made by the court for giving

maintenance allowance of Rs. 45,000/- per month to the

respondent and her son but he violated the order of the

court and not giving the said amount.

43. In the cross-examination she has stated that since she was

11 years old her father tortured her mother. Her father is

torturing her mother since 1995. In 2005 her father took

her, her mother and brother on a tour to Singapore and

Malaysia. She has denied the suggestion that her father did

not torture her mother till 2005. Prior to 2005 also her

father tortured her mother. It is true that her mother

organized exhibition and her father helped her mother in

2025:JHHC:35988-DB

that. It is true that her father purchased a land in C.H.Area

in his name and name of her mother. Her mother is having

possession of the C.H.Area house but it is wrong to say that

her mother does not allow her father to enter the house and

gives him threatening. It is also false to say that her mother

earns Rs. 50,000/- per month from the said house as rent.

Further she has also denied the suggestion of the petitioner-

appellant side that her mother tortured her father mentally

and physically and filed false cases against him for extorting

money from him.

44. On the basis of the pleading of the parties the learned

Principal Family Judge had framed issues for proper

determination of the lis, and after due appreciation of the

ocular as well as documentary evidence had negated the

claim of the husband/appellant and observed that the

petitioner/husband has totally failed to prove and establish

the allegation of cruelty and desertion on the part of wife for

dissolution of marriage.

45. Herein, the learned counsel for the appellant has argued

that the evidence of desertion and cruelty has not properly

been considered and as such, the judgment suffers from

perversity, hence, not sustainable in the eyes of law.

46. While on the other hand, argument has been advanced on

behalf of the respondent that the judgment is well

considered and the learned family court has rightly come to

2025:JHHC:35988-DB

the conclusion by denying the decree of suit of divorce in

favour of petitioner-husband accordingly, dismissed the suit

which requires no interference by this Court.

47. From the pleadings available on record and the arguments

advanced on behalf of parties, the issue which requires

consideration is as to:

"Whether the judgment and decree passed by the

learned family court denying the decree of divorce on

the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the

Hindu Marriage Act and/or on the ground of

desertion under Section 13(1)(ib) requires

interference?"

48. This Court, while appreciating the argument advanced on

behalf of the parties 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. 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,

2025:JHHC:35988-DB

the 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.

2025:JHHC:35988-DB

Perverse.--Deliberately departing from what is normal and reasonable.

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."

49. Herein, cruelty has been taken by the appellant as the main

ground for dissolution of marriage.

50. So far the allegation of cruelty is concerned, it requires to

refer herein the definition of „cruelty' as has been defined by

Hon‟ble Apex in the judgment rendered in Dr. N.G. Dastane

Vs. Mrs. S. Dastane [(1975) 2 SCC 326], wherein it has

been held that the Court is to enquire as to whether the

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.

51. The cruelty has also been defined in the case of Shobha

Rani Vs. 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:35988-DB

52. According to the Hon'ble Apex Court, "cruelty" is the

"conduct in relation to or in respect of matrimonial conduct

in respect of matrimonial duties and 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."

53. The Hon'ble Apex Court has further observed therein that

while dealing with such complaints of cruelty that 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."

54. 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.

55. 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

2025:JHHC:35988-DB

wife's lawyer also levelled allegations of "lunacy" and

"insanity" against the husband and his family while he was

conducting cross-examination. The Hon‟ble Apex Court held

these allegations against the husband to constitute "cruelty".

56. In Vijay kumar 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.

57. 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.

2025:JHHC:35988-DB

58. This Court, based upon the aforesaid discussions on the

issue of cruelty, has gone through the testimony of witnesses

and found from the testimony of appellant-husband [PW 1]

that he has alleged that he was married with the respondent

in the year 1984 and out of their wedlock one daughter was

begotten who has been married to well to do family and

continuing her marital life happily.

59. Further, one male child was adopted with the consent of

both the parties in the year 2004. It has been stated that up-

to May 2015 the conjugal life of both continued peacefully.

The friction started between the parties, when allegedly there

was financial crisis due to which he was forced to cut short

his normal day to day expenses to pace with the prevalent

emergent situation but the respondent failed to cooperate

rather started behaving rudely and even demanded to led

lavish life style and she started remaining outside the house

and on query she was adamant to quarrel and challenge to

do as per her choice and for provoking started abusing in

filthy languages regularly and humiliated, demoralized and

pressurized him to fulfill her abrupt demand of lavish living

and attending club and other activities without his consent.

60. It has further been deposed that she misbehaved, tortured

and denied to provide food and any proper respect to him.

She treated him with cruelty by causing mental and physical

torture, disgrace, harassment by creating ugly scene and

2025:JHHC:35988-DB

taunting which resulted in disruption in his normal life and

his life became hell and resulted into mental depression. It is

further deposed that the respondent-wife lodged case U/s

498(A) of I.P.C case under the Domestic Violence Act and he

was forced to quit his residential house. Such untoward

incidents, arrogant behaviour, deliberate and malafide

intention to defame the petitioner all the times by which

petitioner has been deprived, illegally from his right to have

conjugal happiness by the respondent due to cruelty meted

out in multi-fold ways.

61. It has also been deposed that the respondent has also

deserted the petitioner-appellant and not eager to join

conjugal life with him, hence the petitioner is forced to lead

miserable life due to immoral and cruel act of respondent. It

has further been deposed that the cause of action arose on

June 2015, when the petitioner-appellant was forced to quit

his native house at C.H. Area Jamshedpur due to cruelty

imposed against him and also deserted him.

62. While on the other hand, the respondent-wife has stated

that she got married to the appellant on 20.01.1984 and out

of her wedlock a daughter was begotten who got married to

Aditya Jajodia on 05.12.2006. Thereafter, both of them

consented to adopt a son namely Sahil Bhalotia. She

admitted that her husband made partner in the company,

2025:JHHC:35988-DB

Bharat Safety Glass Company as per capital invested by her

and she was made Director.

63. She has deposed that never fought with her husband

whereas it is the appellant-husband who assaulted her after

taking liquor. Her husband always kept illicit relation with

other females, due to which people of the society of

Mangalam Home lodged a case against her husband in

Seraikella Civil Court. She whenever used to object him in

doing such acts he used to abuse and assault her. Her

husband fought with him with regard to a girl namely

Shyama who was working in the Office of her husband and

he used to say that he will keep that girl and will divorce

her. She has further deposed that there was always love

between her and her husband but due to property and bad

habits of her husband there used to be fight. It has further

been deposed that her husband has filed this case only to

grab her property and has filed a Title Suit for her property.

Her husband has filed false case against him for selling the

vehicle although it was sold with their consent. She has

stated that she does not want divorce from her husband.

R.W.2 Priyanka Jajodia, who is the daughter of the parties,

has also supported the case of the respondent.

64. From the discussions made hereinabove, it is evident that no

cruelty has been meted out to the appellant-husband by the

respondent-wife rather it is the appellant-husband who

2025:JHHC:35988-DB

tortured the respondent-wife and even there is allegation

against him of having illicit relation with another lady.

65. On the basis of the discussion made hereinabove, this Court

is of the considered view that the appellant/husband has

failed to brought any cogent evidence on record in order to

establish the alleged cruelty by the respondent/wife as such

the behaviour of the respondent wife as alleged, does not

amount to cruelty justifying dissolution of the marriage.

66. Now coming to the issue of desertion, which is also taken as

a ground for decree of divorce.

67. The word „desertion' has been given in Explanation to

Section 13 (1) wherein it has been stated that "the

expression desertion means the desertion of the petitioner by

the other party to the marriage without reasonable cause

and without the consent or against the wish of such party,

and includes the wilfull neglect of the petitioner by the other

party to the marriage, and its grammatical variations and

cognate expressions shall be construed accordingly.

68. It is pertinent to note that the word „desertion‟, as has been

defined in Explanation part of Section 13 of the Act, 1955,

means the desertion of the petitioner by the other party to

the marriage without reasonable cause and without the

consent or against the wish of such party, and includes the

wilful neglect of the petitioner by the other party to the

2025:JHHC:35988-DB

marriage, and its grammatical variations and cognate

expressions shall be construed accordingly.

69. Rayden on Divorce ,which is a standard work on the subject

at p. 128 (6th Edn.), has summarised the case-law on the

subject in these terms:

"Desertion is the separation of one spouse from the other, with an intention on the part of the deserting spouse of bringing cohabitation permanently to an end without reasonable cause and without the consent of the other spouse; but the physical act of departure by one spouse does not necessarily make that spouse the deserting party."

70. The legal position has been admirably summarised in paras-

453 and 454 at pp. 241 to 243 of Halsbury's Laws of

England (3rd Edn.), Vol. 12, in the following words:

"In its essence desertion means the intentional permanent forsaking and abandonment of one spouse by the other without that other's consent, and without reasonable cause. It is a total repudiation of the obligations of marriage. In view of the large variety of circumstances and of modes of life involved, the Court has discouraged attempts at defining desertion, there being no general principle applicable to all cases.

71. Desertion is not the withdrawal from a place but from a state

of things, for what the law seeks to enforce is the recognition

and discharge of the common obligations of the married

state; the state of things may usually be termed, for short,

„the home‟. There can be desertion without previous

cohabitation by the parties, or without the marriage having

2025:JHHC:35988-DB

been consummated. The person who actually withdraws

from cohabitation is not necessarily the deserting party.

72. The offence of desertion is a course of conduct which exists

independently of its duration, but as a ground for divorce it

must exist for a period of at least two years immediately

preceding the presentation of the petition or, where the

offence appears as a cross-charge, of the answer.

73. Desertion as a ground of divorce differs from the statutory

grounds of adultery and cruelty in that the offence founding

the cause of action of desertion is not complete, but is

inchoate, until the suit is constituted, desertion is a

continuing offence.

74. It is, thus, evident from the aforesaid reference of meaning of

desertion that the quality of permanence is one of the

essential elements which differentiate desertion from wilful

separation. If a spouse abandons the other spouse in a state

of temporary passion, for example, anger or disgust, without

intending permanently to cease cohabitation, it will not

amount to desertion. For the offence of desertion, so far as

the deserting spouse is concerned, two essential conditions

must be there, namely, (1) the factum of separation, and (2)

the intention to bring cohabitation permanently to an end.

75. Similarly two elements are essential so far as the deserted

spouse is concerned: (1) the absence of consent, and (2)

absence of conduct giving reasonable cause to the spouse

2025:JHHC:35988-DB

leaving the matrimonial home to from the necessary

intention aforesaid.

76. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Debananda Tamuli vs.

Kakumoni Kataky, (2022) 5 SCC 459 has considered the

definition of „desertion‟ on the basis of the judgment

rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Lachman

Utamchand Kirpalani v. Meena, AIR 1964 SC 40 which

has been consistently followed in several decisions of this

Court.

77. The law consistently has been laid down that desertion

means the intentional abandonment of one spouse by the

other without the consent of the other and without a

reasonable cause. The deserted spouse must prove that

there is a factum of separation and there is an intention on

the part of deserting spouse to bring the cohabitation to a

permanent end. In other words, there should be animus

deserendi on the part of the deserting spouse. There must be

an absence of consent on the part of the deserted spouse

and the conduct of the deserted spouse should not give a

reasonable cause to the deserting spouse to leave the

matrimonial home.

78. This Court, has again delved into the testimony of witnesses

and found that the appellant-husband could not prove that

it is the respondent-wife, who deserted her husband on her

own wish rather the testimony of the parties and materials

2025:JHHC:35988-DB

available on record shows that it is the appellant-husband

who chose not to stay with the respondent-wife.

79. Accordingly, issue as framed by this Court is decided against

the appellant-husband and it is held that the judgment and

decree passed by the learned family court, denying the

decree of divorce passed to the appellant-husband on the

ground of cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu

Marriage Act and on the ground of desertion under Section

13(1)(ib), requires no interference by this Court.

80. This Court, based upon the aforesaid discussion, is of the

view that the appellant/petitioner has also failed to establish

the element of perversity in the impugned judgment as per

the discussion made hereinabove, as such, this Court do not

find any merit in the appeal.

81. Accordingly, the instant appeal fails and is dismissed.

82. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands

disposed of.

           I Agree                          (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)



      (Arun Kumar Rai, J.)                     (Arun Kumar Rai, J.)

2nd December, 2025

A.F.R.
Alankar/
Uploaded on 02.12.2025