[Cites 25, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Abhishek Kumar Singh vs Annu Kumari on 2 December, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
2025:JHHC:35991-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
F.A. No.40 of 2023
----- -
Abhishek Kumar Singh, aged about 30 years, Son of
Mahatma Prasad Singh, resident of Mohalla Nandan Pahar,
Ward No. 14, P.O. & P.S.-Subdivision, District - Deoghar,
Jharkhand, permanent resident of village Gulni Kusha,
P.O.& P.S. Sambhuganj, District- Banka, State-Bihar.
...... Appellant/Petitioner
Versus
Annu Kumari, aged about 26 years, wife of Abhishek Kumar
Singh, daughter of Satyendra Kumar Singh, resident of
village Koriyandha, P.O. & P.S. Subdivision, District - Banka
State-Bihar. ...... Respondent/Opposite Party
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI
.....
For the Appellant : Mr. P.S. Dayal, Advocate
: Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate
: Mr. Parambir Singh Bajaj, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Satyanshu Shubham, Advocate
.....
C.A.V. on 19.11.2025 Pronounced on 02/12/2025
Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
Prayer:
1. The instant appeal has been filed challenging the
legality and propriety of impugned judgment passed on
28.01.2023 and decree signed on 10.02.2023 by learned
Principal Judge, Family Court, Deoghar whereby and
whereunder the Original Suit No.389 of 2019 filed by the
appellant-husband under Section 13(1)(i-a) (i-b) of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955 for a decree of divorce has been
dismissed.
Factual Matrix
2. The brief facts of the case of the appellant-husband
2025:JHHC:35991-DB
as narrated in the plaint, is that the marriage of appellant
was solemnized with the respondent on 30.04.2017 as per
Hindu Rituals and Rites. But the said marriage was
solemnized by the parents of respondent by concealing the
material facts of about the behavior and ailment of
respondent/wife. After Gauna, the respondent came to her
sasural and remained in her matrimonial home with her
husband for about three months only whereupon the
behavior and ailment of respondent could be known.
3. The respondent used to quarrel with her husband
and in-laws frequently and go out of the house without
telling about it to her husband. Whenever, the appellant
tried to stop the respondent, she used to be aggressive.
4. In course of time, the appellant learnt that the
respondent is suffering from mental illness due to which her
parents were frequently coming to his house and providing
medicine to the respondent in her matrimonial home. The
mental condition of respondent was further deteriorated
whereupon her parents came to her matrimonial home and
took her back with them on 28.02.2018
5. Subsequently, after 2-3 months petitioner went
Orissa for earning his livelihood and the respondent was
brought back to her matrimonial home on 29.07.2018. But
just on the next date of her arrival in her matrimonial home,
her mental sickness was again aggravated and she went to
2025:JHHC:35991-DB
her home on 02.08.2018.
6. Further, it has been stated that during her entire
period of stay in her matrimonial home, the respondent/O.P
used to abuse the appellant and his family members and
subjecting them with cruelty and threatening them to
commit suicide.
7. Sometimes she used to dash her in-laws also. The
mental condition of respondent was not good in her
matrimonial home and she regularly threatening to commit
suicide due to which the parents of appellant were living in
fear.
8. The respondent used to write suicidal note and she
was frequently threatening to jump from roof and thereby
commit suicide and implicate the appellant and his family
members in false case.
9. The appellant's parents were always trying to keep
the respondent/O.P with love and affection and they
persuaded her too much but they did not pay any heed to
anyone. The parents of respondent/O.P were well aware
about her mental sickness and they were getting her
treatment also but they knowingly concealed about the
mental condition of respondent and its treatment.
10. On 13.06.2019 the mother and father of
respondent/O.P came to Deoghar and requested the parents
2025:JHHC:35991-DB
of the appellant to allow the respondent to live in her
matrimonial home and accordingly a compromise was
executed between the parties on 13.06.2019 on a stamp
paper wherein it was mentioned that the respondent will not
repeat such type of act in future.
11. Thereafter, on 17.06.2019 the appellant, along with
his maternal grandfather and cousin brought back the
respondent/0.P to his house but even thereafter, there was
no change in her behavior.
12. On 23.08.2019, the physical and mental condition
of respondent became serious due to which she was taken to
Doctor Birendra Prasad Singh who diagnosed the disease of
respondent as steep Mental Disturbance and abnormal
behavior and advised to consult with Psychiatrist.
Thereafter, on 24.08.2019, the respondent was taken to
Bhagalpur and shown to Dr. A.K. Bhagat who identified the
disease of respondent as Genetic disease schizophrenia.
13. It has been further said that the respondent's
mental condition had deteriorated and became uncontrolled
hence the respondent was again admitted in clinic of doctor
from 26.8.2019 to the 02.09.2019 and her parents were also
attending said clinic during the said period.
14. Subsequently, after returning from there, the
parents of respondent/O.P took her back with them and
they are frequently threatening the appellant to implicate
2025:JHHC:35991-DB
him in a false case.
15. On 02.09.2019, the respondent had come from
Bhagalpur to her matrimonial home at Nandan Pahar,
Deoghar and thereafter in the morning of 03.09.2019 at
about 08 O'clock morning the respondent went to her
father's house along with her father by taking her all articles
and hence the cause of action for this suit arose on
03.09.2019.
16. The mental condition of respondent/O.P is being
deteriorated day by day and she has no love and affection for
her family members and her marriage was solemnized by
her parents by concealing her mental ailment.
17. The appellant tried to make physical relation with
the respondent for several times but the respondent did not
allow the appellant for doing so.
18. The respondent/O.P is a lady of furious nature and
she used to keep knife always with her and threaten her in-
laws to kill them due to which the atmosphere of appellant's
family remains painful and fearful.
19. On the aforesaid grounds, the appellant-husband
had filed a suit for dissolution of his marriage before the
learned Family Judge and prayed to pass a decree of
divorce.
20. After service of summon, the respondent-wife has
2025:JHHC:35991-DB
appeared and filed her written statement on 19.06.2021
stating therein that all the allegations made by the
appellant-husband in his petition regarding the mental
condition of respondent-wife are false, bogus, concocted and
misconceived.
21. It has further been stated that the respondent is a
well-educated lady and she has passed her secondary
examination in the year of 2009 with second division and
Intermediate examination also in the year of 2012 with
second division. The respondent is bachelor of Arts and she
has obtained 58% marks in her examination. Further, she
has obtained a certificate from the Government of India,
Ministry of Skill Development and Entrepreneurship on
28.09.2016 and she was physically and mentally healthy
and strong before her marriage. But after marriage, the
petitioner, his parents and other relatives were regularly
subjecting the respondent/O.P to cruelty both mentally and
physically for fulfillment of their illegal demand of dowry to
the tune of Rs. 11,00,000/- in cash and a four wheeler car
due to which the respondent became seriously ill for 2-3
times and her physical condition became very feeble.
22. After 'Bidagri' of respondent/O.P., the petitioner and
his family members were hatching a conspiracy to prove the
respondent as mental patient and they were torturing her in
various ways. The petitioner had never attended the
2025:JHHC:35991-DB
respondent with harmony rather he was always adopting an
escaping attitude towards his wife in discharging his
conjugal obligation.
23. After marriage the parents of respondent had
managed a honeymoon trip for their daughter and son-in-
law but the petitioner escaped from going there by canceling
the trip and he sent his wife at 'Tirthyatra' with his parents.
The petitioner never visited his native village or the house
situated at Deoghar town whenever the respondent was
residing there nor he had taken the respondent to the place
of his work even for a single day.
24. The respondent's parents never expressed or asked
the petitioner to take away their daughter with them nor
they ever denied to keep their daughter in her matrimonial
home.
25. The respondent/O.P is an educated lady and she
never thought about committing suicide nor she ever wrote
any note and if there is any such suicidal note, the same
has been created by the petitioner for the purpose of this
case.
26. It has been further said that the parents of
petitioner got 'Bidagri' of respondent/O.P in the first week of
August 2019. after hatching a plan and in order to
safeguard their son(appellant) but subsequently they
stopped to supply proper food and other things of daily use
2025:JHHC:35991-DB
to the respondent/O.P and they tortured her which resulted
in her serious illness and the petitioner's parents got
treatment of respondent in different clinics. But after
receiving the message of her illness, the parents of
respondent/O.P came there and they got her treatment by
physician and her life could be saved.
27. It has been stated that the petitioner has no love
and affection with his wife and he has some illicit relation
with a paramour and the instant suit has been filed by the
petitioner only to fulfill his oblique and illegal purpose and
desire of divorce.
28. Further, it has been stated that the petitioner has
no valid cause of action for filing this suit and he is not
entitled to get any relief as claimed by him. The instant suit
is not maintainable and is devoid of any merit and the same
is liable to be dismissed.
29. On the aforesaid grounds, the respondent has
prayed to dismiss this suit with costs.
30. The case proceeded for evidence during which the
petitioner/appellant has produced and examined three
witnesses including himself.
31. The respondent-wife has produced and examined
altogether three witnesses including herself.
32. The learned Principal Judge, after hearing learned
2025:JHHC:35991-DB
counsel for the parties, framed six issues for adjudication of
the lis, which are as follows :-
(i) Whether the suit as framed, is maintainable for
the reliefs claimed?
(ii) Whether petitioner has a valid cause of action for
this suit?
(iii) Whether the respondent/O.P is suffering from
steep mental disturbance and schizophrenia to such
an extent that the petitioner cannot be reasonably
expected to live with the respondent/O.P?
(iv) Whether the respondent has subjected the
petitioner to cruelty?
(v) Whether the respondent has deserted the
petitioner for a continuous period of not less than
two years immediately preceding the presentation of
the petition?
(vi) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get the
reliefs claimed or any other relief?
33. All the aforesaid issues were decided against the
appellant-husband and in favour of respondent-wife and
decreed the suit on contest in the following terms :
"Therefore, on the basis of aforesaid discussion
this Court finds that the petitioner has been
completely failed in establishing any mental
disorder of the respondent/OP and further the
petitioner has been failed to bring any such
2025:JHHC:35991-DB
conduct of respondent/O.P on record which
endangers the living of petitioner with
respondent. The alleged incidents are nothing
more than daily wear and tear of a marital life
and the same can't be made basis for divorce.
Further the respondent has not deserted the
petitioner rather it is the petitioner himself who
is not ready to live with the respondent inspite of
expressing desire by the respondent to live with
the petitioner. The instant suit filed by the
petitioner for a decree of divorce on the ground
of mental unsoundness of respondent and
further on the allegation of cruelty and desertion
on the part of respondent/O.P is not
maintainable and the petitioner has no valid
cause of action for bringing this suit and
accordingly the petitioner is not entitled to get
the relief claimed or any other reliefs and the
instant suit is liable to be dismissed. Therefore,
it is hereby ORDERED that the instant suit is
being dismissed on contest and with cost."
34. The appellant-husband, being aggrieved with the
judgment passed on 28.01.2023, has approached this Court
by filing the present appeal.
Submission made on behalf of the appellant-husband
35. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-husband
has submitted that the Learned Family Court below has
failed to appreciate that the petitioner /appellant has
produced credible evidence which are sufficient to establish
that the respondent-wife has subjected him to cruelty and
on account of cruelty and desertion, the petitioner /
appellant is entitled for grant of decree of divorce.
2025:JHHC:35991-DB
36. Further, it has been submitted that the findings
recorded by the learned Family Court while answering issue
no. (iv) (cruelty) are perverse and based on mere
presumption, therefore, the same will not stand in the eye of
law.
37. It has been argued on behalf of appellant that
altogether three witnesses have been examined in this case
including appellant and all have consistently supported that
behaviour of respondent was very rude towards appellant
and his family members and she used to quarrel and abuse
them.
38. It has been submitted that the learned Trial Court has
failed to appreciate the oral and documentary evidence
produced on behalf of plaintiff / appellant regarding the
mental disturbance and abnormal behaviour which was
diagnosed as schizophrenia and, thus, came to wrong
conclusion.
39. It has also been submitted that the learned court below
has failed to appreciate that the respondent-wife used to
threatened the appellant to implicate him and his entire
family in a false criminal case which caused the appellant to
suffer extreme mental cruelty, loss of mental and family
peace and harmony, loss of family prestige and reputation in
society.
40. Learned counsel has further submitted that the
learned court has failed to take into consideration that
2025:JHHC:35991-DB
respondent wife has mental sickness and the mental
condition of the respondent wife was not good before the
marriage well. This factum suppressed was at as the time of
marriage and fraud has been committed since the inception
of relationship by the respondent.
41. It has been submitted that the learned court has failed
to take into consideration that respondent/wife has never
performed family affairs/duties and refused to resume
conjugal life with the appellant/husband at Deoghar.
42. The learned court below has also failed to take into
consideration that admittedly the parties are living
separately since long and the conduct of the respondent
shows that the respondent does not want to join the
appellant and hence there is no chance of restoration of
their matrimonial life.
43. It has been further argued that the conjugal relation
between appellant and respondent has not established as
respondent never supported the sexual right and respondent
also left her matrimonial house.
44. It has further been argued that from the evidence it is
evident there is no possibility of reunion as wife and
husband between appellant and respondent and it is not
possible to continue their matrimonial relationship without
mental agony, torture and distress hence, the impugned
judgment passed by the learned Family Court needs
interference.
2025:JHHC:35991-DB
45. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant, on the
basis of aforesaid grounds, has submitted that the judgment
passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court,
Deoghar requires interference.
Submission made on behalf of respondent-wife
46. Learned counsel for the appellant has further
submitted that learned trial court has rightly held that the
appellant is not entitled for the decree of divorce on the
ground of cruelty and desertion because the appellant has
failed to prove the allegation of cruelty and desertion against
her.
47. Learned counsel for the respondent-wife, defending the
impugned order, has submitted that the appellant has
sought divorce on the ground that the respondent-wife is of
unsound mind or has been suffering continuously or
intermittently for mental disorder and the appellant cannot
reasonably be expected to live with the respondent but the
learned Family Court, after taking into consideration the
oral and documentary evidence, has held that the entire
allegations levelled in are not correct and has rightly
dismissed the suit.
48. It has been argued on behalf of respondent that she
never treated the appellant with cruelty rather evidences on
record depict that it is the respondent who is sufferer and
being tortured mentally and physically by the appellant and
his family members for demand of dowry.
2025:JHHC:35991-DB
49. It has further been submitted that the respondent is a
well-educated lady and she has passed bachelor of Arts.
Further, she has obtained a certificate from the Government
of India, Ministry of Skill Development and
Entrepreneurship and she was physically and mentally
healthy and strong before her marriage. But after marriage,
the appellant-husband, his parents and other relatives were
regularly subjecting the respondent-wife to cruelty both
mentally and physically for fulfillment of their illegal
demand of dowry to the tune of Rs. 11,00,000/- in cash and
a four-wheeler car due to which the respondent became
seriously ill for 2-3 times and her physical condition became
very feeble.
50. It has also been submitted that the appellant-
husband and his family members, to get rid of her, hatched
a conspiracy to prove the respondent as mental patient and
they were torturing her in various ways.
51. It has been submitted that the appellant-husband
never tried to create a bonding with his wife as he never
visited his native village or the house situated at Deoghar
town whenever the respondent was residing there nor he
had taken the respondent to the place of his work even for a
single day.
52. The respondent-wife is an educated lady and she
never thought about committing suicide nor she ever wrote
2025:JHHC:35991-DB
any note and if there is any such suicidal note, the same
has been created by the appellant-husband for the purpose
of this case.
53. The appellant-husband has no love and affection
with his wife and he has some illicit relation with a
paramour and the instant suit has been filed by the
appellant-husband only to fulfill his oblique and illegal
purpose and desire of divorce.
54. The appellant-husband has no valid cause of action
and he is not entitled to get any relief as claimed by him.
55. Learned counsel for the respondent has further
submitted that learned Family court has rightly held that
the appellant is not entitled for the decree of divorce on the
ground of cruelty and desertion because the appellant has
failed to prove the allegation of cruelty and desertion against
her.
56. Submission has been made that the learned Principal
Judge, Family Court on the backdrop of the evidence led by
the parties has come to the conclusion that the appellant-
husband has not been able to bring any such act of
respondent-wife on record which can be termed as cruelty
on the part of respondent and whatever allegations have
been made by the appellant against the respondent, seems
nothing more than the ordinary wear and tear of a family life
which cannot be made basis for divorce.
2025:JHHC:35991-DB
57. Learned counsel for the respondent-wife on the
aforesaid grounds has submitted that the impugned
judgment requires no interference by this Court.
Analysis
58. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant-
husband as also learned counsel for the respondent-wife and
perused the material available on record and the finding
recorded in the impugned order.
59. This Court, before looking into the legality and propriety
of the impugned order, requires to consider the testimonies of
the witnesses, as available on record.
60. The appellant, in support of his case, has adduced three
witnesses including himself. The relevant portion of the
testimonies of the witnesses are mentioned as under :-
PW-1 Mahatma Prasad Singh, the father of the
appellant-husband, has stated that his son Abhishek Kumar
Singh was married with the opposite party on 30.04.2017.
After marriage, his daughter-in-law did not come with his son
to her sasural at that time. After, much persuasion and
holding panchayat, the opposite party came to his house
after six months of marriage and started to live with his son
as wife. After her 'Bidai', his daughter-in-law Annu Kumari
lived in his house along with her husband hardly for about
three months and during the said period she used to quarrel
and abuse his wife frequently. She used to frequently go on
2025:JHHC:35991-DB
Nandan Pahar and she was remaining always in anger. She
used to act in such a way that she would kill us. She used to
cry suddenly and write suicidal note. He had further stated
that his son had shown the respondent to doctor who
diagnosed the O.P./wife suffering with incurable mental
disease.
Further, in his cross-examination this witness has
stated that he has two sons. Abhishek(appellant) is his elder
son whereas Animesh is his younger son. His elder son is
Mechanical Engineer in Shyam steel. He does not get any
pension. He had got the respondent examined by a doctor
but the name of the doctor is not remembered to him. He
does not remember the name of medicine but the medicine
was being given to the opposite party by him. He had further
stated that he did not try to get treatment of his daughter-in-
law in Orissa because she was not in condition of going
there.
P.W. 2 Abhishek Kumar Singh, the appellant herein,
has stated that he was married, with the opposite party Annu
Kumari on 30.04.2017. After 06 months of marriage, his wife
came to his house situated at Nandan Pahar Road, Deoghar
and she lived with him for about three months only. She
used to frequently quarrel and abuse his mother, father and
him also, during the said period. She used to leave the house
silently and return in evening and on being asked she used
to be ready for quarrel. He had further stated that the O.P.
2025:JHHC:35991-DB
wife Annu Kumari used to remain always in anger and she
was behaving in such a way as she will kill them. She used to
threaten her in-laws by taking knife in her hand and saying
to kill them. She used to throw utensils of kitchen and cry
without any reason. The parents of respondent used to visit
his house and provide her some medicines silently.
Subsequently, it was learnt that the girl is mischievous. He
had tried to get treatment of his wife by doctor but his wife
and her parents did not co-operate and doctor told that the
disease of his wife is incurable and she will remain always
aggressive.
Further, in his cross-examination this witness has said
that his Gauna was performed after six months of marriage.
He had not taken his wife to any doctor for getting her
treatment and she was taken to doctor by his mother and
father. His father had taken his wife on tour of Haridwar and
they had lived out of station for about one week. He had
realised from the date of marriage itself that the mental
condition of his wife is not well. He had lived with his wife for
about 4-5 months. His wife has not lodged any case against
him till date. His wife does not want to divorce him and she
intends to live with him in Orissa but she is not in condition
of living there. His marriage was solemnized in 2017 but this
case was filed in the year of 2019. He does not know that
from which place the treatment of his wife was done properly.
2025:JHHC:35991-DB
The P.W. 3 Manoj Yadav has stated in his examination-
in-chief that the wife of Abhishek Kumar Singh did not come
to her matrimonial home at the time of her marriage and she
had come to her matrimonial home after about 6-7 months.
The respondent/opposite party did not live in her
matrimonial home peacefully even for a single day and she
was always quarreling and abusing her husband and in-laws.
She used to raise hulla frequently and damage the house
hold articles also. She used to leave the house of petitioner
frequently without disclosing about it to anyone. She is an
aggressive woman and she used to raise hulla every day and
gather the people of location.
Further, in his cross-examination this witness has said
that he does not identify any person of the parental house of
Annu Kumari. He had further stated that he cannot say the
educational qualification of Abhishek and he does not know
the name of the father-in-law and brother-in-law of Abhishek
Kumar(appellant).
61. The respondent-wife has also adduced three witnesses,
including herself, in support of her case which are being
dealt hereunder as :-
The D.W. 1 Satyendra Kumar Singh, the father of the
respondent, has stated in his examination-in-chief that the
family of Abhishek Kumar Singh was familiar with his family
since prior to the marriage because the house of his maternal
grandmother is situated at a distance of about 1 Km from his
2025:JHHC:35991-DB
village. The father of appellant, namely Mahatma Prasad
Singh as well as the maternal grandfather and maternal
grandmother of appellant had come to his house and talked
with his daughter on several occasions even before the
marriage also. His daughter Annu Kumari is an educated girl
and she had obtained degree of graduation prior to her
marriage and she has been given a certificate under the
scheme of Prime Minister Skill Development Project also. His
daughter is a well-behaved house wife and talented student.
He had further stated that the appellant and his father had
given wrong medicine to his daughter in connivance with the
doctor and thereafter they had left her in his house in the
month of September 2019 due to which her condition became
serious and she had fallen seriously ill but presently she is
well. His daughter is a modest and intelligent girl and she is
not suffering from any ailment and she is quite well. The
appellant has filed forged documents.
Further, in his cross-examination this witness has
deposed that his daughter does not consume any medicine of
mental disease nor she had got her treatment from any
Psychiatrist before or after her marriage. His daughter is a
graduate. His samdhi had not shown any video regarding the
mental illness of my daughter and he was never told about
her any mental sickness. He had seen the medicine which
was given to his daughter by his samdhi and he had given
wrong medicine to his daughter. The mental condition of his
2025:JHHC:35991-DB
daughter was well all along and she was made to write a
suicidal note by pressurizing her. He had not gone ever for
persuading his daughter in her matrimonial home and it is
wrong to say that his daughter is violent and mad.
DW-2 Rajat Kumar Anand is the brother of respondent.
He has stated in his examination-in-chief that he and his
sister had studied together and his sister had passed her
B.A. examination in the year of 2016. He has further stated
that his sister is a talented girl and she has obtained training
under the project of skill India and she has obtained its
certificate also. His sister had come to his house on Shrawan
Purnima of the year 2019 on the occasion of Rakhi and she
had told him by weeping that her husband and in-laws have
made a plan to kill her. His sister possesses a good physical
health and she is not suffering from any ailment. He has
further stated that his brother-in-law (Bahnoi) Abhishek
Kumar Singh was demanding money repeatedly from his
father which was paid to him.
Further, in his cross-examination this witness has
stated that his sister is residing in his house since after the
year of 2019. His sister does not get any treatment of any
mental disease nor she takes any medicine of mental disease.
He has further stated that she is not aggressive and she does
not quarrel with her in-laws in her matrimonial home. It is
wrong to say that his sister was behaving like a mad and he
had sent her video to my Bahnoi. Further, he has denied the
2025:JHHC:35991-DB
suggestion that his sister behaves like a mad and it is
impossible for her to live in her matrimonial home
D.W. 3 Annu Kumari, respondent herein, has said in
her examination-in-chief that this case has been filed by her
husband Abhishek Kumar Singh on the basis of false
allegation for divorce. She has further stated that the
members of her matrimonial home were pressurizing her to
bring Rs.11,00,000/- in cash and a four-wheeler vehicle from
her father and they were not providing her food, cloths etc.
and other articles of daily use due to which she was
remaining ill. They were compelling her to work in cowshed
and her husband had no affection for her. She was always
taking care of her husband and his entire family members
and paying respect to them but in-spite of that they were
always torturing her mentally and physically. She was always
trying to lead her life pleasantly and with sound mind but her
husband and in-laws were always torturing her. She has also
stated that she is always ready to live with her husband and
she is mentally fit and fine. She has further stated that she
has obtained certificate under the programme of Skill India
and she does not want divorce from her husband.
Further, in her cross-examination this witness has said
that she had lived with her husband in her matrimonial
home for about two and half months. She has no mental
disease. She had passed her Graduate Examination in the
year of 2016. She has stated in her cross-examination that
2025:JHHC:35991-DB
she does not write diary and she was made to write it.
Further, she has denied from the suggestion that she had
tried to commit suicide in her matrimonial home on several
occasions. She denied of knowing Preetam. She has deposed
that she is a house wife and has obtained training under skill
India. Further, she has denied from the suggestion that she
gets treatment of mental disease regularly and she used to
become aggressive in her matrimonial home.
62. From the testimony, as referred hereinabove, it is
evident that the appellant-husband has been examined as
P.W.2 before the Family Court, who in his deposition has
mainly taken the ground of mental illness and bad
behaviour of his wife toward him and his family members.
He has deposed that his wife used to threaten her in-laws by
taking knife in her hand and saying to kill them.
63. From the aforesaid testimony of the appellant-husband
it is evident that though cruelty has been pleaded by him
in his petition, but no cogent evidence has been
produced by him to prove the allegations.
64. The respondent-wife has been examined as DW-3 who
has stated that the members of her matrimonial home were
pressurizing her to bring Rs.11,00,000/- in cash and a four-
wheeler vehicle from her father and they were not providing
her food, cloths etc. and other articles of daily use due to
which she was remaining ill. They were compelling her to
work in cowshed and her husband had no affection for her.
2025:JHHC:35991-DB
She has stated that the case has been filed by her
husband against her is not true and her husband made false
and concocted allegations against her.
She has further stated that she was always taking care
of her husband and his entire family members and paying
respect to them but in-spite of that they were always
torturing her mentally and physically.
She has stated that the members of her matrimonial
home were pressurizing her to bring Rs.11,00,000/- in cash
and a four-wheeler vehicle from her father and they were not
providing her food, cloths etc. and other articles of daily use
due to which she was remaining ill.
She has stated that the allegation levelled against her in
the petition is false, concocted and are baseless.
65. The learned Principal Judge, from the statements of
the witnesses so produced on behalf of the parties, has come
to the conclusion that appellant has failed to prove the
grounds of alleged cruelty and mental illness pleaded by
him in his petition.
66. From the testimony so recorded of the appellant-
husband, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court has
come to the conclusion that in the instant case, the
petitioner/appellant has completely failed in proving the
alleged mental disorder of respondent.
67. In the context of the aforesaid factual aspect only
seminal issue has to be decide herein that "Whether the
2025:JHHC:35991-DB
plaintiff is entitled to get divorce dissolving the marriage of
the petitioner/appellant with OP/wife on ground of mental
illness or on the ground of mental cruelty and desertion U/s
13(1) (i-a) (1-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955?
68. Since the learned counsel for the appellant has raised
the issue of perversity by contending that the findings
recorded by the learned Family Court while answering issue
no. (iv) (cruelty) are perverse, therefore, before addressing
the aforesaid seminal issue it would be apt to discuss herein
the appropriate meaning of word "perverse".
69. 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.
70. 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 2025:JHHC:31726-DB so outrageously defies logic
as to suffer from the vice of irrationality incurring the blame
of being perverse, then, the finding is rendered infirm in law.
Relevant paragraphs, i.e., paras-24, 25, 26 and 27 of the
2025:JHHC:35991-DB
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.
3. The New Oxford Dictionary of English, 1998 Edn.
2025:JHHC:35991-DB
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."
71. Thus, from the aforesaid it is evident that if any order
made in conscious violation of pleading and law then it will
come under the purview of perverse order. Further "perverse
verdict" may probably be defined as one that is not only
against the weight of evidence but is altogether against the
evidence.
Issue of Cruelty
72. Now this Court is adverting to the issue of cruelty. It
requires to refer herein the definition of 'cruelty' as has been
defined by Hon'ble Apex Court 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.
73. The cruelty has also been defined in the case of
Shobha Rani Vs. Madhukar Reddi [(1988) 1 SCC 105],
2025:JHHC:35991-DB
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.
74. 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."
75. 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."
76. 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.
2025:JHHC:35991-DB
77. 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 cross-examination. The Hon'ble
Apex Court held these allegations against the husband to
constitute "cruelty".
78. 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.
79. 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
2025:JHHC:35991-DB
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.
80. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vidhya
Viswanathan v. Kartik Balakrishnan, (2014) 15 SCC 21
has specifically held that cruelty is to be determined on
whole facts of the case and the matrimonial relations
between the spouses and the word 'cruelty' has not been
defined and it has been used in relation to human conduct
or human behaviour. It is the conduct in relation to or in
respect of matrimonial duties and obligations. It is a course
of conduct and one which is adversely affecting the other.
81. Now reverting to the fact of the case it has been stated
by the appellant/husband that the respondent/wife used to
quarrel and even she did not allow him to have sexual right
over. It has been further alleged that during entire period of
stay in her matrimonial home, the respondent/O.P used to
abuse the appellant and his family members and subjecting
them with cruelty and threatening them to commit suicide.
Sometimes she used to dash her in-laws also.
82. Per contra the respondent/wife had stated in her
testimony before the learned Family Court that the members
of her matrimonial home were pressurizing her to bring
Rs.11,00,000/- in cash and a four-wheeler vehicle from her
father and they were not providing her food, cloths etc. and
other articles of daily use due to which she was remaining
2025:JHHC:35991-DB
ill. They were compelling her to work in cowshed and her
husband had no affection for her. She was always taking
care of her husband and his entire family members and
paying respect to them but in-spite of that they were always
torturing her mentally and physically.
83. Admittedly, the plea of cruelty has been raised by the
appellant husband thus onus is upon him to prove the fact
of cruelty caused upon him by the respondent/wife. It is
evident from the oral evidence of petitioner that the
petitioner has himself said in his evidence as P.W. 2 that
after marriage, he has not taken the respondent/wife with
him anywhere and the respondent was taken to Haridwar by
his parents where she lived with the parents of petitioner for
about one week. He has self-confessed in para 34 of his
cross-examination that his wife does not want divorce from
him and she wants to live with him in Orissa.
84. The aforesaid statement of appellant/petitioner clearly
indicates that whatever the allegation has been made by the
appellant/petitioner regarding the alleged cruelty on behalf
of respondent/wife are nothing more than daily abrasion of
a marital life.
85. Further the respondent/wife has said that her
husband/appellant was never loving towards her and the
said statement of respondent is being fully corroborated
from this fact also that after marriage the appellant/
petitioner had neither taken the respondent/wife on any trip
2025:JHHC:35991-DB
nor he was ready to take her with him at the place of his
work.
86. Further it is evident from the impugned judgment that
the appellant/petitioner has himself filed a certified copy of
an informatory petition given by his father Mahatma prasad
Singh before the Court of learned CJ.M Deoghar vide Mis. Or
application no. 2910/19 which has been marked as Ext-2 in
this case. But the petitioner's/appellant father has not even
whispered about the tendency of committing suicide or
writing suicidal note by the respondent/wife in this petition.
87. Thus, from the aforesaid it is evident that the appellant
husband has not produced any cogent evidence in regard to
the cruelty which has been subjected to him by the
respondent/wife and he had categorically stated that he had
not lodged any complainant regarding the alleged
occurrence.
88. Further, the learned Family Court after due
appreciation of the evidences has categorically observed that
"thus, if all these things are taken together, it clearly goes to
show that the story of attempt for committing suicide by the
respondent has not been proved by the petitioner by
adducing cogent evidence and merely on the basis of Ext-3 it
cannot be said that the respondent was trying to commit
suicide."
89. The learned Family Court has finally observed that
"therefore, on the basis of aforesaid discussion this Court
2025:JHHC:35991-DB
finds that the petitioner has not been able to establish any
such cruelty on the part of respondent which can be said as
a sufficient ground for divorce. Accordingly, this issue is
being decided negatively against the petitioner."
90. This Court, based upon the aforesaid discussions on
the issue of cruelty, is of considered view that the issue of
cruelty as has been alleged by the appellant-husband
against his wife could not be proved because no cogent
evidence to that effect has been produced by the appellant
and further since, the learned Principal Family Judge after
appreciating the entire evidence had recorded its finding,
therefore, it is considered view of this Court that the
appellant/petitioner has failed to establish the element of
perversity in the aforesaid finding of the learned Family
Court.
91. This Court, based upon the aforesaid discussions on
the issue of cruelty, is of considered view that the issue of
cruelty as has been alleged by the appellant-husband
against his wife could not be proved because no concrete
evidence to that effect has been produced by the appellant.
92. Thus, as per the discussions made hereinabove and
law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court which has also been
referred herein above this Court has no reason to take
different view that has been taken by the learned Family
Court proving the ground of cruelty.
2025:JHHC:35991-DB
Issue of desertion
93. Now coming to the issue of desertion, which is also
taken as a ground for decree of divorce. It is evident from the
from the plaint of the petitioner before Family Court which
has also taken note in the impugned judgment, that the
husband and wife are living separately.
94. Learned Principal Judge, taking into consideration the
fact that since even otherwise there is no desertion on
the part of respondent-wife as she in her evidence
also has deposed that she is very keen and desirous
to live and stay with her husband all through her
life and perform her wifely duties. Thus, although the
husband appellant had filed petition under sub-section
(i-b) of Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 but no
cogent evidence was led in this respect, as such the same
was discarded by the learned family court.
95. It needs to refer herein that 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 willful
neglect of the petitioner by the other party to the marriage,
and its grammatical variations and cognate expressions
shall be construed accordingly."
96. It is pertinent to note that the word 'desertion', as has
2025:JHHC:35991-DB
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 wishes of such party, and
includes the willful neglect of the petitioner by the other
party to the marriage, and its grammatical variations and
cognate expressions shall be construed accordingly.
97. 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."
98. 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."
99. 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
2025:JHHC:35991-DB
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
been consummated. The person who actually withdraws
from cohabitation is not necessarily the deserting party.
100. 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.
101. 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.
102. 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.
2025:JHHC:35991-DB
103. 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 leaving the matrimonial home to from the necessary
intention aforesaid.
104. 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.
105. The law consistently has been laid down by the Court
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.
106. Herein from the statement of the appellant it is evident
that according to petitioner, the respondent was taken by
2025:JHHC:35991-DB
her father to his house on 03.09.2019 and since then the
respondent/wife has deserted the petitioner without any
reason. The petitioner has shown cause of action for this
suit on 03.09.2019 and from the record it is evident that the
suit of his dissolution of his marriage has been filed by him
on 18.12.2019. Thus, as per own pleading of petitioner,
made in para 6 of this petition, it is apparent that the said
suit has been filed within two years form the alleged incident
of going of respondent with her parent from matrimonial
home on 03.09.2019.
107. Further from impugned order it is evident that
desertion has not been proved before the Family
Court through concrete and tangible evidence and
further it has come on the record that even
otherwise there is no desertion on the part of
respondent-wife as she in her evidence also has
deposed that she is very keen and desirous to live
and stay with her husband all through her life.
108. This Court, on the basis of discussions
made hereinabove, is of the view that the appellant
husband has not been able to prove the ground of
desertion for one of the grounds for divorce before
the learned Family Court. As such, we have no
reason to take a different view that has been taken
by the learned Family Court.
2025:JHHC:35991-DB
Issue of Mental illness
109. So far as the issue of mental illness is concerned it is
evident from the impugned order that since the learned
Family Court has not found any cogent documentary
evidence as has been adduced by the
plaintiff/husband in order to prove the mental illness
of OP- wife and therefore the Family Court has also
decided this issue against the appellant/husband.
110. In the aforesaid context, it needs to refer herein Section
13(1) (iii) of the Act 1955 which reads as under:
13. Divorce. -- (1) Any marriage solemnized, whether before or after
the commencement of the Act, may, on a petition presented by either
the husband or the wife, be dissolved by a decree of divorce on the
ground that the other party--
-------------
(iii) has been incurably of unsound mind, or has suffering
continuously or intermittently from mental disorder of such a kind and
to such an extent that the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to
live with the respondent.
Explanation- In this clause--
(a) the expression "mental disorder" means mental illness, arrested
or incomplete development of mind, psychopathic disorder or any
other disorder or disability of mind and include schizophrenia;
(b) the expression "psychopathic disorder" means a persistent
disorder or disability of mind (whether or not including subnormality
of intelligence) which results in abnormally aggressive or seriously
irresponsible conduct on the part of the other party and whether or
not it requires or is susceptible to medical treatment; or........."
111. The aforesaid provision shows that there are two
separate grounds in the provision viz. (a) incurable unsound
mind; and, (b) respondent spouse has been suffering
2025:JHHC:35991-DB
continuously or intermittently from mental disorder and the
disorder is of such kind and of such extent that the
petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with the
respondent.
112. From the wording of the aforesaid provision, it can be
said that the mental condition like incurable unsound mind
mentioned in the first part or the mental disorder mentioned
in the second part needs to be proved by expert evidence
and that evidence needs to satisfy the Court that such
mental condition exists. From the wording of the provision,
it can be said that the second part of the provision has wide
scope. For this part, it is not necessary that mental disorder
is incurable. However, the mental disorder must be of such
kind and extent that the Court needs to be satisfied that it is
not advisable to ask the petitioner to live with the
respondent. The scope shows that there is no limit to the
kind of mental disorder as no specific kind is mentioned.
However, the term "has been suffering" shows that the
period of illness must not be too short or the petition should
not be based on one or two instances showing such mental
disorder. The term "intermittently" cannot be misread in this
provision to infer that the mental illness returns after the
treatment within few days. The term "extent" is also
important and on that also the Court needs to be satisfied to
come to the conclusion that the petitioner cannot reasonably
be expected to live with the husband.
2025:JHHC:35991-DB
113. Thus, it is evident that the relief is discretionary and
while using discretion, the Court is expected to keep in mind
the aforesaid things as mentioned above. Further, the burden
to prove mental disorder mentioned as second part of the
aforesaid provision or the burden to prove incurable
unsound mind lies on the party who seeks to use the
ground. In the instant from perusal of record as well as
impugned order it is evident that no concrete evidence like
psychiatrist opinion or prescription of continuous treatment
has been led by the appellant husband in this regard.
114. It needs to refer herein that Psychiatrist is an expert
but in view of provision of section 45 of the Evidence Act, it
is up to the Court to either rely on the opinion or to refuse to
do so. Further, he being a witness, his credibility can be
impeached like the credibility of any other witnesses and his
veracity can be tested as provided in section 146 and other
provisions of Evidence Act. As psychiatrist is expected to
give evidence on the basis of the examination of the patient
done by him, the symptoms noted by him, the treatment
and the follow up treatment given by him and the record
created by him needs to be considered both for
corroboration and contradiction purpose. In such a case the
evidence of other witnesses or the circumstances which
relates to the behaviour of the respondent can be considered
by the Court as that can help strengthening the opinion or
create probability that the opinion has no justification and it
2025:JHHC:35991-DB
is weak.
115. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kollam
Chandra Sekhar v. Kollam Padma Latha, (2014) 1 SCC
225 has categorically observed that the ideas of
unsoundness of 'mind' and 'mental disorder' occur in the
section as grounds for dissolution of a marriage, require the
assessment of the degree of the 'mental disorder'. Its degree
must be such that the spouse seeking relief cannot
reasonably be expected to live with the other. All mental
abnormalities are not recognised as grounds for grant of
decree. If the mere existence of any degree of mental
abnormality could justify dissolution of a marriage few
marriages would, indeed, survive in law. For ready reference
the relevant paragraph of the aforesaid judgment is being
quoted as under:
22. The relevant portions with regard to "unsoundness
of mind" and "mental disorder" from the case referred to
supra are extracted hereunder: (Ram Narain Gupta
case [(1988) 4 SCC 247] , SCC pp. 254-56, paras 20-24)
"20. The context in which the ideas of unsoundness of
'mind' and 'mental disorder' occur in the section as
grounds for dissolution of a marriage, require the
assessment of the degree of the 'mental disorder'. Its
degree must be such that the spouse seeking relief
cannot reasonably be expected to live with the other.
All mental abnormalities are not recognised as grounds
for grant of decree. If the mere existence of any degree
of mental abnormality could justify dissolution of a
marriage few marriages would, indeed, survive in law.
21. The answer to the apparently simple--and perhaps
misleading--question as to 'who is normal?' runs
2025:JHHC:35991-DB
inevitably into philosophical thickets of the concept of
mental normalcy and as involved therein, of the 'mind'
itself. These concepts of 'mind', 'mental phenomena',
etc. are more known than understood and the theories
of 'mind' and 'mentation' do not indicate any internal
consistency, let alone validity, of their basic ideas.
Theories of 'mind' with cognate ideas of 'perception'
and 'consciousness' encompass a wide range of
thoughts, more ontological than epistemological.
Theories of mental phenomena are diverse and include
the dualist concept--shared by Descartes and
Sigmund Freud--of the separateness of the existence
of the physical or the material world as distinguished
from the non-material mental world with its existence
only spatially and not temporally. There is, again, the
theory which stresses the neurological basis of the
'mental phenomenon' by asserting the functional
correlation of the neuronal arrangements of the brain
with mental phenomena. The 'behaviourist' tradition,
on the other hand, interprets all reference to mind as
'constructs' out of behaviour. 'Functionalism', however,
seems to assert that mind is the logical or functional
state of physical systems. But all theories seem to
recognise, in varying degrees, that the psychometric
control over the mind operates at a level not yet fully
taught to science. When a person is oppressed by
intense and seemingly insoluble moral dilemmas, or
when grief of loss of dear ones etch away all the bright
colours of life, or where a broken marriage brings with
it the loss of emotional security, what standards of
normalcy of behaviour could be formulated and
applied? The arcane infallibility of science has not fully
pervaded the study of the non-material dimensions of
'being'.
22. Speaking of the indisposition of science towards
this study, a learned author says:
'... we have inherited cultural resistance to treating the
conscious mind as a biological phenomenon like any
other. This goes back to Descartes in the seventeenth
2025:JHHC:35991-DB
century. Descartes divided the world into two kinds of
substances: mental substances and physical
substances. Physical substances were the proper
domain of science and mental substances were the
property of religion. Something of an acceptance of this
division exists even to the present day. So, for example,
consciousness and subjectivity are often regarded as
unsuitable topics for science. And this reluctance to
deal with consciousness and subjectivity is part of a
persistent objectifying tendency. People think science
must be about objectively observable phenomena. On
occasions when I have lectured to audiences of
biologists and neurophysiologists, I have found many
of them very reluctant to treat the mind in general and
consciousness in particular as a proper domain of
scientific investigation.
... the use of the noun 'mind' is dangerously inhabited
by the ghosts of old philosophical theories. It is very
difficult to resist the idea that the mind is a kind of a
thing, or at least an arena, or at least some kind of
black box in which all of these mental processes
occur.' [ John R. Searle, Minds, Brains and Science-
Reith Lectures (Harvard University Press, 1984), pp. 10
and 11.]
23. Lord Wilberforce, referring to the psychological
basis of physical illness said that the area of ignorance
of the body-mind relation seems to expand with that of
knowledge. In McLoughlin v. O'Brian [(1983) 1 AC 410 :
(1982) 2 WLR 982 : (1982) 2 All ER 298 (HL)] , the
learned Lord said, though in a different context: (AC p.
418 B : All ER p. 301)
'... Whatever is unknown about the mind-body
relationship (and the area of ignorance seems to
expand with that of knowledge), it is now accepted by
medical science that recognisable and severe physical
damage to the human body and system may be caused
by the impact, through the senses, of external events
on the mind. There may thus be produced what is as
identifiable an illness as any that may be caused by
2025:JHHC:35991-DB
direct physical impact. It is safe to say that this, in
general terms, is understood by the ordinary man or
woman who is hypothesised by the courts....'
24. But the illnesses that are called 'mental' are kept
distinguished from those that ail the 'body' in a
fundamental way. In Philosophy and Medicine, Vol. 5 at
p. X the learned editor refers to what distinguishes the
two qualitatively:
'Undoubtedly, mental illness is so disvalued because it
strikes at the very roots of our personhood. It visits us
with uncontrollable fears, obsessions, compulsions and
anxieties....
... This is captured in part by the language we use in
describing the mentally ill. One is an hysteric, is a
neurotic, is an obsessive, is a schizophrenic, is a
manic-depressive. On the other hand, one has heart
disease, has cancer, has the
flu, has malaria, has smallpox....'"
(emphasis in original)
The principle laid down by this Court in the aforesaid
case with all fours is applicable to the fact situation on
hand wherein this Court has rightly referred to Section
13(1)(iii) of the Act and Explanation to the said clause
and made certain pertinent observations regarding
"unsound mind" or "mental disorder" and the
application of the same as grounds for dissolution of
marriage. This Court cautioned that Section 13(1)(iii) of
the Act does not make a mere existence of a mental
disorder of any degree sufficient in law to justify the
dissolution of marriage.
35. In the English case of Whysall v. Whysall [1960 P 52
: (1959) 3 WLR 592 : (1959) 3 All ER 389] , it was held
that a spouse is "incurably of unsound mind" if he or she
is of such mental incapacity as to make normal married
life impossible and there is no prospect of any
improvement in mental health, which would make this
possible in future. The High Court of Judicature of
Calcutta, in Pramatha Kumar Maity v. Ashima Maity [AIR
2025:JHHC:35991-DB
1991 Cal 123] has held that mental disorder of the wife,
even if proved, cannot, by itself, warrant a decree of
divorce and it must be further proved that it is of such a
nature as the husband could not be expected to live with
the wife.
38. We are of the view that the High Court in exercise of
its appellate jurisdiction has rightly come to a different
conclusion that the respondent is not suffering from the
ailment of schizophrenia or incurable unsoundness of
mind. Further, the High Court has rightly rejected the
finding of the trial court which is based on Ext. B-10 and
other documentary and oral evidence by applying the
ratio laid down by this Court in Ram Narain
Gupta v. Rameshwari Gupta [(1988) 4 SCC 247] referred
to supra. A pertinent point to be taken into consideration
is that the respondent had not only completed MBBS but
also did a postgraduate diploma in Medicine and was
continuously working as a Government Medical Officer
and had she been suffering from any serious kind of
mental disorder, particularly, acute type of
schizophrenia, it would have been impossible for her to
work in the said post. The appellant husband cannot
simply abandon his wife because she is suffering from
sickness. Therefore, the High Court allowed both the
CMAs and dismissed OP No. 203 of 2000 filed by the
appellant for divorce and allowed OP No. 1 of 1999 filed
by the respondent for restitution of conjugal rights
wherein the High Court granted decree of restitution of
conjugal rights in favour of the respondent.
42. Marriage is highly revered in India and we are a
nation that prides itself on the strong foundation of
our marriages, come hell or high water, rain or
sunshine. Life is made up of good times and bad, and
the bad times can bring with it terrible illnesses and
extreme hardships. The partners in a marriage must
weather these storms and embrace the sunshine with
equanimity. Any person may have bad health, this is
not their fault and most times, it is not within their
control, as in the present case, the respondent was
2025:JHHC:35991-DB
unwell and was taking treatment for the same. The
illness had its fair share of problems. Can this be a
reason for the appellant to abandon her and seek
dissolution of marriage---- ."
116. Thus, the Hon'ble Apex Court cautioned that Act
1955 does not make a mere existence of a mental disorder of
any degree sufficient in law to justify the dissolution of
marriage.
117. The testimonies of the witnesses including the
appellant as referred hereinabove in the preceding
paragraph and on analyzing the aforesaid oral testimony of
the witnesses in entirety it appears that the appellant has
said that on 23.08.2019 and 24.08.2019, the respondent
was shown to a doctor who diagnosed her disease as
schizophrenia and described it as an incurable genetic
disorder but from the impugned judgment it is evident that
no doctor has been examined to substantiate the said claim
on behalf of the appellant rather the appellant had filed
some photo copies of medial prescription allegedly issued by
one Dr. Birendra Prasad Singh and Dr. Smit. Sobhna
Bhagat but neither the original medical prescriptions have
been produced nor the said doctor have been examined
before the learned Family Court in order to prove their
descriptions.
118. Further the P.W. 1 Mahatma Singh father of the
appellant has stated in para 12 of his examination-in-chief
2025:JHHC:35991-DB
that the respondent was shown to doctor by his son (the
appellant) whereupon the doctors diagnosed her ailment as
incurable, unsoundness of mind and they further told that
the treatment of respondent is impossible and she will
remain always aggressive and she can do anything. But
when P.W. 1 has been cross-examined on this point, he has
been unable to even disclose the name of doctor to whom
the respondent was allegedly shown.
119. On the other hand, the appellant who had been
examined as P.W. 2 has said in para 12 of his cross-
examination that he had tried to get treatment of respondent
by showing her to doctor whereupon the doctor diagnosed
the disease of respondent as incurable mental disorder and
they further told that the respondent will remain always
aggressive but when this witness has been cross-examined
he has admitted in para 23 of his cross-examination that he
did not take his wife to any doctor to show her and his
parents themselves used to go to the doctor for
consultations.
120. This statement of the appellant is just contrary to the
statement made by his father Mahatma Prasad Singh (P.W.
1)in para 12 of his examination-in-chief wherein he has said
that his son had shown his wife to doctor and tried to get
her treatment. This contradiction in the statement of P.W. 1
Mahatma Prasad Singh and the appellant (P.W. 2) makes
2025:JHHC:35991-DB
their entire claim suspicious.
121. Thus, on basis of discussion made hereinabove, it
appears that the aforesaid ground of mental illness has been
raised by the appellant husband on the flimsy ground and
taking in to consideration the aforesaid factual aspect the
learned Family Court has rightly decided the said issue
against the plaintiff husband as such requires no
interference by this Court.
122. Accordingly, seminal issue as framed by this Court is
decided against the appellant-husband, therefore it is
considered view of this Court that the learned Family Court
had rightly not granted the decree of divorce in favour of the
appellant husband on the ground of cruelty under Section
13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act or on the ground of
desertion under Section 13(1)(ib) or even on the ground of
mental illness, as such same is requires no interference by
this Court.
123. This Court, on the basis of discussions made
hereinabove, is of the view that the judgment dated
28.01.2023 and decree signed on 10.02.2023 by the learned
Principal Judge, Family Court, Deoghar whereby and
whereunder the Original Suit No.389 of 2019 filed by the
petitioner-appellant-husband under Section 13(1), (i-a), (i-b)
of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for a decree of divorce has
been dismissed, requires no interference by this Court.
2025:JHHC:35991-DB
124. Accordingly, the instant appeal fails and is dismissed.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
I agree.
(Arun Kumar Rai, J.) (Arun Kuma Rai, J.)
Date : 02/12/2025
Birendra / A.F.R.
Uploaded on 02.12.2025
