Jharkhand High Court

Sanjay Kumar vs Annu Devi on 2 July, 2025

Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad

Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Rajesh Kumar

                                                      2025:JHHC:17651-DB




      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                    First Appeal No.136 of 2023
                                  -----
Sanjay Kumar, son of Kusheshwar Prasad Mandal, aged about 45 years,
present and permanent resident of K-13/5, Doubal Road, Telco, PO and
PS-Telco, Town-Jamshedpur, District-East Singhbhum, Jharkhand

                            ..........               Appellant/petitioner

                                  Versus

Annu Devi, wife of Sanjay Kumar, D/o Randhir Singh, aged about 43
years, present and permanent resident of Sobha Apartment, Krishna
Nagar, Flat No.3/1 Kharangajhar, Telco, PO and PS-Telco, Town-
Jamshedpur, District-East Singhbhum
                                           ... ...        Respondent
                                -------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
                              -------
For the Appellant  : Mr. Devesh Ajmani, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Akhouri Awinash Kumar, Advocate
                               ------

C.A.V on 23.06.2025                    Pronounced on 02/07/2025

Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

The instant appeal under section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act,

1984 is directed against the judgment dated 28.03.2023 and the decree

dated 05.04.2023 passed in Original Suit No.275 of 2017 by the learned

Addl. Principal Judge, Addl. Family Court-2, East Singhbhum at

Jamshedpur (in short, Family Judge) whereby and whereunder the petition

filed under section 13(1) ( (i-a) and 13(1)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act,

1955 by the appellant-husband against the respondent-wife has been

dismissed.

2. The brief facts of the case as pleaded in the plaint having been

recorded by the learned Family Judge, needs to be referred herein as:

(i) The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 18.04.2008

according to Hindu Rites and Custom. After the marriage the 2025:JHHC:17651-DB

appellant-husband came to know that the respondent is mental

patient of Schizophrenia for which her treatment was going on in

Tata Motor Hospital and Ranchi Mental Hospital and the respondent

is suffering from Schizophrenia.

(ii) It is a disease of mental disorder characterized by abnormal social

behaviour and failure to understand what is real. Common

symptoms of this disease are confused thinking, hearing voices that

other do not hear.

(iii) It is alleged that the parents of respondent knew about mental

disorder of the respondent but they did not say anything to petitioner

at the time of marriage and, thus, the parents of respondent have

cheated the petitioner and gave false information about their

daughter at the time of marriage.

(iv) It is alleged that the respondent tried to hang twice but did not

succeed. The petitioner is permanent employee of M/s Tata Motors.

He is always in fear that if his wife did anything wrong against

herself, he will come in problem.

(v) It is further alleged that a male child was born on 17.09.2009 out of

their wedlock, but the respondent did not care for her son and she

do not make food for petitioner and family members due to her

mental disorder.

(vi) It is alleged that the respondent was admitted in mental hospital and

still her treatment is going on. The respondent does not want to live

with parents of the petitioner and does not care for them and due to

her mental disorder, the respondent is not able to do household

work.

2025:JHHC:17651-DB

(vii) It is alleged that the respondent throw utensils on the petitioner and

his family members, and some time family members got injured and

respondent also breaks utensils.

3. On the aforesaid ground of cruelty and mental disorder, the

appellant-husband has prayed for a decree of dissolution of the marriage

between him and the respondent-wife.

4. It needs to mention herein that in Original Suit No.275 of 2017,

upon issuance of the notices, the respondent-wife has appeared and filed

a written statement denying all the allegations levelled against her by the

appellant-husband. She has stated in her written statement that before

solemnization of marriage the petitioner, his parents and in-laws made

inquiry and met with her several times and after being fully satisfied about

her, the petitioner gave his consent to the marriage with the respondent.

5. It is alleged in the written statement that for the shake of demand

for dowry the petitioner and her in-laws started torturing the respondent

physically and mentally but she any how tolerated and managed the things

to lead a happy conjugal life. It is stated that out of the wedlock with the

petitioner one male child was born on 17.09.2009.

6. It is alleged that it is the petitioner who is so cruel that he never

took care of the respondent and his newly born baby and continued to

torture her due to non-fulfilment of demand of dowry. It is stated in the

written statement that the respondent is a normal lady and she is

performing her matrimonial obligation. It is alleged that the petitioner-

husband in order to get the decree of divorce lodged a complaint before

D.L.S.A, Jamshedpur vide Pre-Litigation Case No.53/2015 but he never

made any allegation of mental disorder in that complaint. At present, she

2025:JHHC:17651-DB

is living in the house of the petitioner and doing all the household works

as a normal lady and, as such, a prayer has been made that the original suit

is liable to be dismissed with cost.

7. Learned Family Judge, after institution of the said case, taking

into consideration of the pleadings of the parties has formulated the issues

and has decided the lis by refusing to grant divorce to the

petitioner/appellant.

8. The aforesaid judgment by which divorce has not been granted

is under challenge by filing the instant appeal.

Submission of behalf of the appellant-husband:

9. Mr. Devesh Ajmani, the learned counsel appearing for the

appellant-husband has taken the following grounds:

(i) There is an error in the impugned judgment, since, each and

every aspect of the matter has not been taken into consideration

based upon the documentary evidences as well as ocular

evidences.

(ii) The element of cruelty and mental disorder has been found to

be there if the evidences adduced on behalf of the appellant-

husband will be taken into consideration but without appreciating

the same properly the learned Family Judge has come to the

finding by holding that no element either of cruelty or mental

disorder is there and, as such, the impugned judgment and decree

suffers from an error.

(iii) It has been contended that the appellant has been meted out

with cruelty at the hands of the respondent due to her abnormal

behaviour as would be evident from the evidence adduced on

2025:JHHC:17651-DB

behalf of the appellant-husband, but the same has not been taken

into consideration.

(iv) It has been contended that though the learned Family Judge

has proceeded the matter and dismissed the original suit, but he

has failed to appreciate the evidences adduced on behalf of the

appellant as in the trial, the evidence has come that it was the

respondent-wife who has committed cruelty upon him by her

cruel behaviour and act.

10. The learned counsel, based upon the aforesaid ground, has

submitted that the impugned judgment and decree is suffering from

perversity, therefore, needs interference.

Submission of behalf of the respondent-wife:

11. Mr. Akhouri Awinash Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for

the respondent-wife has taken the following grounds:

(i) There is no error in the impugned judgement. The learned

Family Judge has considered the entire issue and on the

basis of evidence as led by the parties has passed the order

impugned as such same may not be interfered with.

(ii) 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 absolutely illegal,

uncalled for and has rightly dismissed the suit.

2025:JHHC:17651-DB

(iii) It has also been submitted that the learned Family Court

after taking in to consideration the material available on

record has found that the conduct of the appellant/ husband

has never been towards salvaging the institution of

marriage as it is he who has come for dissolution of the

marriage, therefore on the pretext of the aforesaid

categorical finding of the Family Court, the impugned

order requires no interference.

12. Learned counsel, based upon the aforesaid grounds, has

submitted that if on that pretext, the factum of cruelty and desertion has

not been found to be established, hence, the impugned judgment cannot be

said to suffer from an error.

Analysis:

13. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties,

gone through the impugned judgment as well as the Trial Court Records,

as also the testimonies of the witnesses and the documents exhibited

therein.

14. The learned Family Judge has formulated altogether five issues,

for ready reference the same are being quoted hereinbelow:

i) Is the suit as framed maintainable?

ii) Whether the applicant has valid cause of action?

iii) Whether the respondent has been incurably of unsound mind or has been suffering continuously or intermittently from mental disorder of such a kind and to such an extent that petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with the respondent?

iv) Whether the applicant is entitled to a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and insanity?

v) To what other relief or reliefs the applicant is entitled for?

2025:JHHC:17651-DB

15. First of all, the learned Family Judge has taken into consideration

the issue no.(iii) and (iv) i.e., the ground of mental disorder and cruelty.

The learned Family Judge has considered the evidence adduced on behalf

of the parties for deciding the issues involved in Original Suit No.275 of

2017.

16. This Court in order to appreciate the aforesaid rival submission

before entering into the legality and propriety of the impugned judgment

needs to discuss herein the relevant part of the evidences adduced on

behalf of the parties before the learned Family Court, wherein the element

of cruelty and mental disorder has been shown by the petitioner-husband.

17. During the trial, four witnesses have been examined on behalf of

the appellant-husband who himself has been examined PW1 and exhibited

some documents. PW2-Amiya Krishna Sahu is a staff of CIP- Kanke and

PW3-Navin Kumar is the friend of the appellant.

18. In support of her contention, the respondent-wife has also

examined three witnesses including herself as RW1 and exhibited some

documents. RW2 -Anju Singh and RW3-Ranju Singh are the elder sisters

of the respondent who have supported the pleadings of the respondent.

19. The respondent-wife has produced some documents which are,

photocopy of the certified copy of the statement on oath/cross in Misc.

Case No. 180/17 of the appellant-husband which has been marked as

Exhibit-A, photocopy of the letter issued by the Principal of Gulmohar

School dtd. 17.06.2019 indicating pending fees which has been marked as

Exhibit-B, photocopy of certified copy of the Complaint Case No. 534 of

2018 which has been marked as Exhibit-C , photocopy of the certified copy

of the statement on oath/cross of the appellant-husband in Mat. Suit

2025:JHHC:17651-DB

No.275/17 which has been marked as Exhibit-D, photocopy of the letter

dtd. 04.06.2015 to D.L.S.A., by the appellant-husband which has been

marked as Exhibit-E, biodata of the respondent-Anju Devi which has been

marked as Exhibit-F, photocopy of the 10th Std. Mark Sheet and Passing

Certificate of Annu Devi which has been marked as Exhibit-G, photocopy

of the 12th Std. Provisional Certificate of Annu Devi which has been

marked as Exhibit-H, photocopy of 12th Std. Mark Sheet of the respondent

which has been marked as Exhibit-I, photocopy of the Graduation Mark

Sheet (Ranchi University) of the respondent has been marked as Exhibit-

J, photocopy of the character certificate of the respondent issued by

Graduate College, Jamshedpur has been marked as Exhibit-K, photocopy

of the Mark Sheet/Certificate of the respondent for Diploma in Child

Education and applied psychology has been marked as Exhibit-L and

photocopy of the "Work Experience Letter" issued to the respondent by

Kids Career Center dtd. 10.07.2008 has been marked as Exhibit-M.

20. The appellant-husband in his evidence on oath has stated that he

got married to the respondent as per Hindu rites and customs on

18.04.2008. After the marriage he brought her to his house with a hope

that he will lead a happy marital life with his wife. But only after some

months of the marriage his wife started creating disputes on small issues

without any reason although he wanted to lead marital life with her giving

her status of a wife but she always left his house and went to her parental

house. He has deposed that on 17.09.2009 he was blessed with a son from

his wife but thereafter she became violent and she did not prepare food

and whenever he came from work, he found his wife sleeping and he had

to prepare food. When he tried to find out as to why she keeps sleeping,

2025:JHHC:17651-DB

then he found that she takes medicine and prior to her marriage she has

been suffering from schizophrenia and she regularly took medicines and

used to go to the doctor for treatment. Prior to her marriage, she was taking

treatment in Telco Hospital and later on she started taking treatment in

Ranchi Mental Hospital. He also took the O.P (the respondent herein) to

Kanke Mental Hospital, Ranchi for her treatment and the doctor gave

medicine and said that the disease is an old one. But the fact that the

respondent is a mental patient was concealed at the time of his marriage

and that she was suffering from schizophrenia. The respondent-O.P

without any reason went to her parental house on 27.10.2016 and now she

is not making physical relation with him. It is stated that after getting

tortured from the O.P (respondent herein) now it is not in his interest to

stay with her because any incident may take place if he stays with her, so

he is entitled for dissolution of his marriage.

In the cross-examination, he has stated that he was not having

any complaint against his wife till 04.6.2015. He has further stated that

his wife could not do household work and she was also not able to take

care of her child and used to fight with his parents but he did not make

any complaint regarding this anywhere and presently, his wife is staying

with him. He further stated that he gave an application in DLSA on

04.06.2015 and in Para-9 of the plaint of this case he has pleaded that his

wife is a mental patient but the said fact is not there in his petition dtd.

04.06.2015 given in DLSA. He has admitted by saying that it is true that

he did not level the allegation in the petition given in DLSA, the

allegations which he has levelled in his plaint of the case. He has further

deposed that in the Pre-litigation Case bearing No. 53/15 he had levelled

2025:JHHC:17651-DB

allegation that his in-laws interfered in his marital life but after a

compromise took place in the said case, he withdrew that case. He has

denied the suggestion that on 11.04.2015 he assaulted his wife but it is

true that his wife made the complaint in the police station. He has further

stated that it is also wrong to say that on 01.05.2018 he assaulted his wife

but it is true that he slapped his child regarding his studies and it is also

correct that a case was lodged in Telco P.S on 02.05.2018 levelling

allegation that he had assaulted his wife and child. He has denied that it is

correct that on 26.06.2018 he had given in writing in the police station

that he is taking his wife and child and he will not assault them. He has

further stated that he has filed this case on June 2017 and he and his wife

are staying together since July 2017. He has admitted that now his wife

prepares foods for her child but he is not given food always. He has

admitted that his wife is staying in his house with him. He has denied the

suggestion that as per his wish he makes physical relation with his wife.

He further stated that he made physical relation with his wife for the last

time on 06.12.2016.

21. PW2-Amiya Krishna Sahu, who in his examination in chief on

oath has deposed that he has been authorized by Director CIP, Kanke,

Ranchi to give evidence. He has stated that he has filed a letter in the Court

in that regard and the same has been marked as Exhibit-1. He has stated

that the patient of the case in which he has come to depose, is having

C.R.F No. 203785/A and the name of the patient is Annu. He has stated

that he is filing the xerox copy of the certified copy of the original

documents pertaining to treatment of the patient, which is in 136 pages

and the said documents have been certified by Senior Medical Officer, Dr.

2025:JHHC:17651-DB

Arvind Kumar which have been marked as Exhibit-2. He has stated that

the said patient was treated in their hospital for mental illness but her

disease is not genetic.

In the cross-examination, he has deposed that he treated the said

patient from 03.10.2016 to 22.10.2016. The patient had come with a

referral letter to his hospital along with her husband. He has stated that as

per the said letter the patient was referred by Dr. M.L. Ali, Head Medical

Services, Tata Motors Hospital, Jamshedpur and when patient was

discharged, there was improvement in her mental condition, but thereafter

she had to take medicine.

22. PW3-Navin Kumar who in his examination in chief given by way

of affidavit dtd. 14.02.2019 has deposed that the petitioner is his friend

and both of them are working in Telco Company. He has deposed that the

petitioner got married to the respondent on 18.04.2008 and he had seen

the respondent prior to her marriage in Telco Colony and he had also seen

her several times in Telco Hospital. He has deposed that some months

after the marriage the petitioner (husband) told him that his wife is

suffering from mental illness and he is getting her treated and petitioner

also told him that prior to her marriage she was getting treatment in Telco

Hospital, Jamshedpur. He has further deposed that the petitioner (the

appellant-husband) was also getting his wife treated in Kanke Mental

Hospital, Ranchi and the petitioner also told him that by concealing the

said fact of mental illness of the O.P she was married to the petitioner. He

has deposed that after getting fed-up of the behaviour of the respondent,

2025:JHHC:17651-DB

the petitioner left his Telco quarter and now he does not want to live with

the O.P because due to mental illness of the O.P she can kill him anytime.

In the cross-examination he has deposed that he was present in

the marriage party and his house is 2 K.M away from the house of the

O.P. He has denied the suggestion that he is not having the knowledge

that petitioner always tortures his wife and wants to take divorce from her

and remarry, so he has filed this case leveling false allegations.

23. RW1-Annu Devi has deposed on oath that her marriage with

the petitioner was solemnized on 18.04.2008 at her residence as per Hindu

customs. After one year of the marriage, the petitioner and his parents

started taunting her for bringing less dowry and the petitioner and her in-

laws started torturing her physically and mentally for the sake of dowry.

She has deposed that she ignored all those acts with the bonafide belief

that one day good sense will prevail in the mind of the petitioner and she

will be able to lead her happy conjugal life. Meanwhile, one male child

was born on 17.09.2009 but still the behaviour of the petitioner/husband

and her in-laws did not change and they continued with their cruel

behaviour towards her. She has further deposed that she is neither

suffering from any mental disease nor she was treated for any mental

problem and she is a normal lady. She has deposed that before the

marriage the petitioner inquired about everything about her and her family

and after being satisfied, he gave his consent to the marriage.

She has stated that nothing was suppressed by her and her family

at the time of her marriage as alleged by the petitioner. She has deposed

that since the day of living in the house of the petitioner she paid every

2025:JHHC:17651-DB

regard to the petitioner and his family but it is the petitioner who is so

cruel that he never took care of her and her newly born baby and continued

torturing her for the sake of dowry and finally filed this case with all sorts

of false and manufactured allegations. She has further deposed that all the

allegation in the plaint are creation of the petitioner, which shows his

malafide intention. She has stated that she is a normal lady and performing

every matrimonial obligation and she is doing every household duty and

she never lives separately from the petitioner. She has stated that she is

still living with the petitioner in his house as his wife and performing

every matrimonial obligation. She has deposed that all the allegations in

the plaint are false and the present case has been filed with fictitious cause

of action. She had deposed that the petitioner used to humiliate, abuse and

beat her regularly and for which he made complaint to the local police

many times and every time he brought her in his house by giving

assurance of good behaviour. She has alleged that her husband wants to

marry another girl and only for that reason he has filed this case.

In the cross-examination she has deposed that she has filed a case

of torture for dowry against her husband, father-in-law and mother-in-

law. She has stated that his sister took her to Kanke for treatment thrice.

She has denied the suggestion of the petitioner that as she was a mental

patient so her behaviour towards her in-laws was bad and due to which

she went to the quarter to live with her husband. She has also denied the

suggestion of the petitioner that still she is suffering from mental illness

and due to which she damages the household articles.

2025:JHHC:17651-DB

24. RW2-Anju Singh, who in her examination in chief on oath

dtd. 12.12.2019 has deposed that respondent-Annu Devi is her younger

sister. She has stated that Annu Devi (the respondent herein) got married

to Sanjay Kumar (the appellant herein) on 18.04.2008 as per Hindu

customs and till one month of the marriage everything was OK but after

that Sanjay Kumar and his family started torturing her sister Annu

mentally and physically for bringing less dowry. She has deposed that

prior to marriage of her sister, father, brother and other relatives as well

as sister of Sanjay had come to see her. She has stated that in the marriage

as per demand of Sanjay and his family, cash of Rs. 4,00,000/- and articles

worth Rs. 1,00,000/- was given. She has alleged that for non-fulfillment

of demand of money, several times Annu was badly assaulted and injured.

She has deposed that her parents and sister always complained in the

Police station but every time Sanjay used to enter into a compromise. She

has deposed that her sister (the respondent) was even not allowed to talk

to her parents nor she was allowed to come to her parental home. She has

further deposed that Sanjay and his family members used to abuse Annu

and she was always tortured mentally and physically. She has deposed

that seven years after their marriage on 24.06.2015 Sanjay gave an

application in the local Court but he has not mentioned about mental

illness of Annu in the said application. But in June 2017, when Sanjay

filed this case for dissolution of marriage, he claimed that Annu is

mentally ill since her birth. She has deposed that her sister (the

respondent) was assaulted and given medicine forcibly for mental illness

by her husband. She has deposed that Annu is an educated lady and she

taught for two years prior to her marriage in Kids Career School. She has

2025:JHHC:17651-DB

deposed that for the last one and half years, Annu is staying along with

her son in the Company's quarter and Sanjay (the appellant herein)

never gives any money to her for her expenses and he has also not

deposited school fees for one year of his son. She has stated that in spite

of order of the Hon'ble High Court in the dowry case to deposit Rs.

4,00,000/- by the petitioner, he has not deposited the amount till date. She

has deposed that his sister is completely healthy and she is not having any

mental illness but Sanjay Kumar (the appellant herein) for taking money

and performing marriage with the Nanad of his sister has filed this case

on false facts. She has deposed that the allegations leveled by Sanjay

Kumar is false and concocted.

In the cross-examination, she has stated that Annu (the

respondent herein) was not having any disease prior to her marriage and

after the marriage due to torture, she has gone into depression. She has

denied the suggestion that as Annu is mentally ill and her behaviour is not

normal, so her husband, son and other members do not want to live with

her. She has also denied the suggestion of the petitioner that as Annu

tortured her husband Sanjay Kumar, so he is staying separately from his

wife Annu and so Sanjay has filed this case.

25. RW3-Ranju Devi in her examination in chief on oath dtd.

15.06.2022 has stated that the respondent-Annu Devi is her younger sister,

who got married to Sanjay Kumar (appellant herein) on 18.04.2008 at her

parents' house as per Hindu customs. She has deposed that till one year

of the marriage of his sister, everything was smooth but after one year

Sanjay Kumar and his family members started torturing his sister both

2025:JHHC:17651-DB

mentally and physically for bringing less dowry. She has deposed that

prior to the marriage of her sister, father, brother and other relatives of

Sanjay as well as his sister had come to see her sister. She has stated that

in the marriage as per demand of Sanjay and his family, cash of Rs.

4,00,000/-and articles worth was given. She has deposed that for demand

of money several times Annu was badly assaulted and injured. She has

stated that her parents and sister always complained in the local police

station but every time Sanjay used to enter into a compromise. She has

further deposed that his sister was even not allowed to talk to her parents

nor she was allowed to come to her parental home. She has stated that

Sanjay and his family members used to abuse Annu and she was always

tortured mentally and physically. She has deposed that seven years after

their marriage, on 24.06.2015 Sanjay gave an application in the local

Court but he has not mentioned about mental illness of Annu in the said

application. In June, 2017 when Sanjay filed this case for dissolution of

marriage, he claimed that Annu is mentally ill since her birth. She has

deposed that her sister was assaulted and given medicine forcibly for

mental illness by her husband. She has stated that Annu is an educated

lady and she taught for two years prior to her marriage in Kids Career

School. She has stated that for the last one and half year Annu is staying

along with her son in the Company's quarter and Sanjay never gives any

money to her for her expenses and he has also not deposited school fees

for one year of his son. She has deposed that inspite of order of the Hon'ble

High Court in the dowry case to deposit Rs. 4,00,000/- by the petitioner,

he has not deposited the amount till date. She has deposed that her sister

is completely healthy and she is not having any mental illness, but Sanjay

2025:JHHC:17651-DB

Kumar (the appellant herein) for taking money and performing marriage

with the Nanad of his sister has filed this case on false facts. She has

deposed that the allegations leveled by Sanjay Kumar is false and

concocted.

In the cross-examination, she has denied the suggestion of the

petitioner that Annu's mental condition was not proper and has also denied

that as her mental condition is not proper, so anytime she can attack Sanjay

Kumar and can cause injury to him.

26. The learned Family Judge has appreciated the entire facts and

evidence and has come to the conclusion that the appellant-husband has

failed to make the ground either cruelty or mental disorder and, as such,

has dismissed the suit which is under challenge in the instant appeal.

27. The fact about filing of suit on the ground of cruelty and mental

disorder is admitted one as per the evidences adduced on behalf of the

appellant.

28. The appellant-husband has tried to establish the element of

cruelty and mental disorder upon him at the hands of the respondent-wife.

29. The appellant-husband all along has alleged the issue of cruelty

and mental disorder which he was getting subjected by his wife and in

order to establish the same the evidences has been laid as has been referred

hereinabove.

30. From the testimony so recorded of the appellant-husband and

respondent/wife the learned Principal Judge, Family Court has come to

the conclusion that in the instant case, except the vague and omnibus

allegations made by husband against his respondent-wife, no cogent

2025:JHHC:17651-DB

convincing, clinching evidence, no concrete documentary evidence has

been led to substantiate the charges of cruelty, and mental illness. The onus

to prove the grounds taken for divorce squarely rests on the husband which

are required to be discharged by leading a cogent, tangible and reliable

evidence.

31. 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.

32. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Arulvelu and Anr. vs. State

[Represented by the Public Prosecutor] and Anr., (2009) 10 SCC 206

while elaborately discussing the word perverse has held that it is, no doubt,

true that if a finding of fact is arrived at by ignoring or excluding relevant

material or by taking into consideration irrelevant material or if the finding

so outrageously defies logic as to suffer from the vice of irrationality

incurring the blame of being perverse, then, the 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.

2025:JHHC:17651-DB

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.

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.

2025:JHHC:17651-DB

"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."

33. In the context of the aforesaid factual aspect only seminal issue

has to be decide herein that "Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get divorce

dissolving the marriage of the petitioner/appellant with OP/wife U/s 13(1)

(i-a) & iii of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955?

34. The "cruelty" has been interpreted by the Hon'ble Apex Court in

the case of Dr. N.G. Dastane vs. Mrs. S. Dastana, (1975) 2 SCC 326

wherein it has been laid down that the Court has to enquire, as to whether,

the conduct charge as cruelty, is of such a character, as to cause in the mind

of the petitioner, a reasonable apprehension that, it will be harmful or

injurious for him to live with the respondent.

35. This Court deems it fit and proper to take into consideration the

meaning of 'cruelty' as has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in

Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi, (1988)1 SCC 105 wherein the wife

alleged that the appellant-husband and his parents demanded dowry. The

Hon'ble Apex Court emphasized that "cruelty" can have no fixed

definition.

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

in relation to or in respect of matrimonial conduct in respect of matrimonial

obligations". It is the conduct which adversely affects the spouse. Such

cruelty can be either "mental" or "physical", intentional or unintentional.

For example, unintentionally waking your spouse up in the middle of the

night may be mental cruelty; intention is not an essential element of cruelty

but it may be present. Physical cruelty is less ambiguous and more "a

question of fact and degree."

2025:JHHC:17651-DB

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

dealing with such complaints of cruelty it is important for the Court to not

search for a standard in life, since cruelty in one case may not be cruelty

in another case. What must be considered include the kind of life the

parties are used to, "their economic and social conditions", and the "culture

and human values to which they attach importance."

38. 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.

39. In V. Bhagat vs. D. Bhagat (Mrs.), (1994)1 SCC 337, the wife

alleged in her written statement that her husband was suffering from

"mental problems and paranoid disorder". The wife's lawyer also levelled

allegations of "lunacy" and "insanity" against the husband and his family

while he was conducting a cross-examination. The Hon'ble Apex Court

held these allegations against the husband to constitute "cruelty".

40. In Vijaykumar Ramchandra Bhate v. Neela Vijay Kumar

Bhate, (2003)6 SCC 334 the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed by taking

into consideration the allegations levelled by the husband in his written

statement that his wife was "unchaste" and had indecent familiarity with a

person outside wedlock and that his wife was having an extramarital affair.

These allegations, given the context of an educated Indian woman, were

held to constitute "cruelty" itself.

41. 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

2025:JHHC:17651-DB

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.

42. 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.

43. Before entering in to the issue of cruelty, it needs to refer herein

that it is settled position that a proceeding under Hindu Marriage act is not

criminal proceeding where proof beyond reasonable doubt is required

rather preponderance of probability" is enough.

44. It needs to refer herein that the appellant husband in his evidence

had stated that after some months of the marriage his wife started creating

disputes on small issues without any reason and she always left his house

and went to her parental house. on 17.09.2009 he was blessed with a son

from his wife but thereafter she became violent and she did not prepare

food and whenever he came from work, he found his wife sleeping and he

had to prepare food. The respondent-O.P without any reason went to her

parental house on 27.10.2016 and now she is not making physical relation

2025:JHHC:17651-DB

with him. It had been stated that after getting tortured from the O.P

(respondent herein) now it is not in his interest to stay with her because

any incident may take place if he stays with her.,

45. But from the perusal of the cross-examination of the

appellant/husband, it is evident that the appellant husband had not lodged

any complaint against his respondent wife till 04.6.2015 as he had stated

in his testimony that his wife could not do household work and she was

also not able to take care of her child and used to fight with his parents but

he did not make any complaint regarding this anywhere and presently, his

wife is staying with him.

46. Further he has denied the suggestion that on 11.04.2015 he

assaulted his respondent/wife but it has come on record that his

respondent/wife made the complaint in the police station and further a case

was lodged in Telco P.S on 02.05.2018 levelling allegation that he had

assaulted his wife and child. Further from cross-examination it is evident

that he and his wife are staying together since July 2017 and appellant has

admitted that now his wife prepares foods for her child.

47. 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.

48. 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.

49. So far as the issue of mental illness is concerned it is evident

2025:JHHC:17651-DB

from the impugned order that the learned Family Court has categorically

held that no cogent evidence 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.

50. 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........."

51. The aforesaid provision shows that there are two separate

grounds in the provision viz. (a) incurable unsound mind; and, (b)

2025:JHHC:17651-DB

respondent spouse has been suffering 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.

52. 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.

53. 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.

54. 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 be

reasonably expected to live with the husband.

55. 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

2025:JHHC:17651-DB

prove incurable unsound mind lies on the party who seeks to use the

ground.

56. 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 is weak.

57. 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

2025:JHHC:17651-DB

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 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

2025:JHHC:17651-DB

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 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 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....'

2025:JHHC:17651-DB

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 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

2025:JHHC:17651-DB

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.

58. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment has

categorically held that 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 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.

59. Thus, the Hon'ble Apex 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.

60. Now adverting fact of the instant case, it is evident from perusal

of the cross-examination of the husband/appellant that the

appellant/husband had given an application in DLSA on 04.06.2015 and

in Para-9 of the plaint of this case he has pleaded that his wife is a mental

2025:JHHC:17651-DB

patient but the said fact is not there in his petition dtd. 04.06.2015 given

in DLSA. He has admitted by saying that it is true that he did not level

the allegation in the petition given in DLSA, the allegations which he has

levelled in his plaint of the case.

61. Further the appellant/husband has examined PW2-Amiya

Krishna Sahu, who in his examination in chief has stated that he is filing

the xerox copy of the certified copy of the original documents pertaining

to treatment of the patient, which is in 136 pages and the said documents

have been certified by Senior Medical Officer, Dr. Arvind Kumar which

have been marked as Exhibit-2. He has stated that the said patient was

treated in their hospital for mental illness but her disease is not genetic.

62. But at the same time P.W.2 in his cross-examination had stated

that when patient was discharged, there was improvement in her mental

condition.

63. Further it has come in the testimony of the respondent/wife that

She has deposed that before the marriage the petitioner inquired about

everything about her and her family and after being satisfied, he gave his

consent to the marriage. She has stated that nothing was suppressed by

her and her family at the time of her marriage as alleged by the petitioner.

She had further deposed that the petitioner/husband who is so cruel that

he never took care of her and her newly born baby and continued

torturing her for the sake of dowry and finally filed this case with all sorts

of false and manufactured allegations. In cross-examination she had

denied the suggestion of the petitioner that still she is suffering from

mental illness and due to which she damages the household articles.

2025:JHHC:17651-DB

64. Further RW.2 sister of the respondent/wife had stated that

seven years after their marriage on 24.06.2015 Sanjay gave an

application in the local Court but he has not mentioned about mental

illness of Annu in the said application. She has further deposed that his

sister is completely healthy and she is not having any mental illness but

Sanjay Kumar (the appellant herein) for taking money and performing

marriage with the Nanad of his sister has filed this case on false facts.

She has deposed that the allegations leveled by Sanjay Kumar is false and

concocted.

65. The learned Family Court while appreciating the issue of mental

illness has referred the ratio of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble

Apex Court in the case of Ram Narain Gupta v. Rameshwari

Gupta [(1988) 4 SCC 247 has held that respondent wife was although

given treatment in CIP Kanke, Ranchi for some mental illness but the

evidence brought by the petitioner side does not in any way attract section

13(1)(iii) of the Act 1955, as after the marriage the respondent led a

normal marital life with the petitioner and even gave birth to healthy child

and admittedly at the time of recording of his evidence on 18.07.18 the

respondent was staying with the petitioner. So all these shows that the

behaviour of the respondent was normal. Further Ext-G to Ext-M which

are marksheets and different certificates of the respondent shows that she

is well educated and she has teaching experience also shows that she is

normal and capable of performing her duties and obligations and minor

mental stress or illness will not attract the provision of section 13(1)(iii)

Act 1955.

66. Thus, on basis of discussion made hereinabove, it appears that

2025:JHHC:17651-DB

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.

67. Thus, from the aforesaid it is evident that the learned Family

Judge has considered the fact that the appellant-husband has miserably

failed to establish the allegation of cruelty and mental disorder against the

respondent.

68. This Court after discussing the aforesaid factual aspect along

with the legal position and adverting to the consideration made by the

learned Family Judge in the impugned judgment has found therefrom that

the issue of element of cruelty and mental disorder has well been

considered by the learned Family Judge.

69. On consideration of the evidence, the learned Family Judge has

come to conclusion that the appellant-husband has miserably failed to

establish the ground of cruelty and mental disorder against the respondent-

wife. The aforesaid reason has led the learned Family Judge to dismiss the

suit.

70. This Court, on consideration of the finding arrived at by the

learned Family Judge and based upon the aforesaid discussion, is of the

view that the judgment and decree passed by the learned Family Judge is

not coming under the fold of the perversity, since, the conscious

consideration has been made of the evidences, both ocular and

documentary, as would be evident from the impugned judgment.

2025:JHHC:17651-DB

71. This Court, therefore, is of the view that the judgment dated

28.03.2023 and the decree dated 05.04.2023 passed in Original Suit

No.275 of 2017 by the learned Family Judge need no interference and,

accordingly, the instant appeal stands dismissed.