Jharkhand High Court
Vijay Kumar vs Smt. Sagarika Devi on 14 October, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Rajesh Kumar
2025:JHHC:31726-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
F.A. No.209 of 2023
----- -
Vijay Kumar, aged about 48 years, son of Baban Prasad,
resident of Qr. No.D.T.-2546, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S.
Dhurwa, District Ranchi.
... ... Petitioner/Appellant
Versus
Smt. Sagarika Devi, wife of Vijay Kumar, daughter of Sri
Ganesh Prasad, resident of New Subhash Colony, Sanjay
Path, Jai Prakash Nagar, Dimna Road, Road No.6, P.O.
Mango, P.S. Mango, Town Jamshedpur.
... ... Respondent/Respondent
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
.....
For the Appellant : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
: Mr. Akhouri Awinash Kumar, Advocate
: Ms. Ashwini Priya, Advocate
.....
C.A.V. on 09.10.2025 Pronounced on 14/10/2025
Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
Prayer:
1. The instant appeal has been filed challenging the
legality and propriety of impugned judgment passed on
09.12.2022 and decree signed on 15.12.2022 by learned
Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court-I, East
Singhbhum at Jamshedpur whereby and whereunder the
Original Suit No. 314 of 2016 filed by the petitioner-
appellant-husband under Section 13(1)(iii) of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955 for a decree of divorce has been
dismissed.
2025:JHHC:31726-DB
2. At the outset it needs to refer herein that despite all the
measures having been taken for the appearance of the
respondent-wife, she has not put her appearance, therefore
this Court has proceeded accordingly.
Factual Matrix
3. The brief facts of the case of the appellant-husband
as narrated, is that, his marriage with the respondent-wife
Sagarika Devi was solemnized as per Hindu rites and
customs on 29.04.2007 and after her marriage the
respondent-wife came to reside at her matrimonial house
and stayed there for a period of 15 days.
4. It has been stated that during the aforesaid period,
it was noticed that the respondent's behaviour was
abnormal and she was unable to understand anything
concerning the home work, behaviour with husband and
other family members as well as with the people visiting the
house of the petitioner. Neither she used to wash her hands
after attending the call of nature nor she took bath. She did
not know how to wear saree properly, nor she had any
knowledge of conjugal functions.
5. It has further been stated that the mother of the
petitioner tried to educate the respondent in all family works
like washing, cooking and wearing apparels but of no
2025:JHHC:31726-DB
consequence. All the aforesaid matters were brought to the
knowledge of the father of the respondent wife but he did
not care for it. After some times the petitioner brought the
respondent to Ranchi and got her treated but with no
remedy. The respondent gave birth to a female child and
even then, there was no change in her habits and actions.
6. It has been stated by the appellant that the
petitioner/appellant got the respondent examined at
Bhagalpur and the doctor after examining the respondent
expressed and opined that the respondent is of immature
brain which is incurable and there is no hope for any
remedy. It has been stated that earlier also the petitioner
had consulted doctors at Kanke, Ranchi who expressed his
opinion that it is not a case of Lunacy rather a case of
mental retardation which is not curable.
7. After failure of such aforesaid efforts, father of
respondent was informed who came to Ranchi and took
away the respondent to his house at Jamshedpur in the
month of September, 2009 along with all the gifts given to
her during the marriage. When the petitioner/appellant
went to see his daughter at Jamshedpur, the respondent
and other family members of the respondent misbehaved
with him which cannot be expressed rather can be felt
within. During the aforesaid visit to Jamshedpur, the
2025:JHHC:31726-DB
petitioner/appellant was shocked to see that her daughter
was neither properly fed or dressed nor cared for at
Jamshedpur by the respondent or her other family
members.
8. It has stated that the petitioner again went to
Jamshedpur on 20.01.2011 and requested his father-in-law
that at least female child may be handed over to him but
father-in-law of the petitioner flatly refused. The petitioner
waited for any change in nature, action, habit of the
respondent till 20.01.2011 but it was found in total
negation.
9. The appellant/husband had stated that when it was
finally established that living of the petitioner and the
respondent as husband and wife is not possible at all and
divorce is the only remedy left, thereafter,
appellant/husband had preferred a suit being M.T. suit
No.52/2011 under Section 13(1)(iii) of Hindu Marriage Act
1955 for dissolution of his marriage mainly on the ground
that the respondent wife is of the unsound mind. In the
aforesaid Matrimonial Suit No. 52 of 2011 notice was issued
and served upon respondent wife but, she remained absent
and ultimately an order of judicial separation was passed by
the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi on 04.04.2013,
reserving liberty with the original applicant to prefer
2025:JHHC:31726-DB
application for divorce in accordance with law, if no co-
habitation takes place between the parties for a period of
one year.
10. It has further been stated that the respondent wife
has preferred an appeal being F.A. No.566 of 2014 before
the High Court against the order dated 04.04.2013 passed
in M.T. Suit No.52 of 2011 wherein vide order dated
07.05.2015 this Court had refused to interfere with the
order dated 04.04.2013 and has observed that "in view of
these facts, we see no reason to entertain this First Appeal
at this stage. Matrimonial Suit No.16 of 2015 and the
interim maintenance application preferred by the appellant
shall be decided on its own merits and without being
prejudiced by the earlier observations made in the order
dated 4th April, 2013 as well as order passed on 27th
September, 2014. This appeal is disposed of with the
aforesaid observation."
11. It has also been stated that the appellant on premise
that no cohabitation took place between the parties and
more than one year has been elapsed since the order dated
04.04.2023 passed in M.T.Suit No. 52 of 2011, had
preferred the suit being M.T. Suit No. 16 of 2015 under
Section 13(1)(iii) of Hindu Marriage Act 1955 with prayer for
dissolution of his marriage before the Principal Family Judge
2025:JHHC:31726-DB
Ranchi on 09.01.2015.
12. It appears from the impugned judgment that
respondent wife preferred another Mat Title Suit No. 38 of
2014 under section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act for restitution
of conjugal rights against appellant husband on 20.1.2014
before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi. The
respondent wife also filed a Transfer petition being Transfer
Petition (C) No.1 of 2016 before the High Court seeking
transfer of both Mat. Suit No. 16 of 2015 and Mat. Title Suit
No. 38 of 2014 from the court of Principal Judge, Family
Court, Ranchi to the court of Principal Judge, Family Court,
Jamshedpur and consequently vide order dated 27.04.2016
passed in said Transfer Petition permission was accorded
and accordingly both the matrimonial suits have been
received on transfer by the Principal Judge, Family Court,
Jamshedpur and Mat. Suit No. 16 of 2015 has been re-
registered as Original Suit No. 314 of 2016 while Mat. Title
Suit No. 38 of 2014 has been re-registered as Original Suit
No. 341 of 2016 respectively. It further appears that both
the matrimonial suits ie. Original Suit No. 314 of 2016
(under section 13(1) (iii) of the H.M.A.) and Original Suit No.
341 of 2016 (under section 9 of H.M.A.) were ordered to be
clubbed together for convenience of the parties and
proceeding of the cases were ordered to continue analogous.
2025:JHHC:31726-DB
13. The case was admitted for hearing and upon notice
the respondent wife appeared and filed her written
statement and strongly denouncing the contentions of the
appellant, as made in the plaint and refuted the allegations
made against her and stated that the petitioner husband
filed Matrimonial Suit No. 52 of 2011 on false and concocted
facts to get rid of the respondent.
14. The respondent wife has further stated that the
marriage of both parties was solemnized on 29.4.2007 at
Jamshedpur, at the time of marriage some valuable articles
gifted by the parents of the respondent. The husband of the
respondent and his family inmates had taunted and had
insulted her for not bringing the fridge, the mother-in-law
asked for all the ornaments from her and all her ornaments
were taken over by the mother and father of the husband
and also a demand of Rs. 5 lakhs for getting a house built
for the petitioner was made but the demand was not fulfilled
by the respondent's father and since then they treated the
respondent with cruelty torturing and taunting her at any
pretext. Her husband demanded from the parents of the
respondent Rs. 36,000/ for motor cycle but her parents
showed their inability. The respondent's mother-in-law was
diagnosed as heart patient and she went to Mumbai to her
second son Sunil Kumar Verma whereas the respondent
2025:JHHC:31726-DB
stayed in her marital home with sister-in-law nanad Kiran
Swarnkar and her two children.
15. It has further been stated that the mother-in-law
underwent major operation in Mumbai and returned from
Mumbai along with other inmates after 45 days. Thereafter,
the mother-in-law remained on bed, she had lost her voice
virtually and the respondent had to do entire household
work alone, taking all the care of mother-in-law who could
hardly move as she had lost all her senses. During March,
2008 the respondent did not feel well and requested her
husband to take her to any lady doctor but he refused and
he never cared to know how she was doing hence the
respondent had to inform her father who came to her
marital home and took her to a doctor and she got medical
treatment and the doctor advised her to take rest, which she
was never allowed by the petitioner. Her husband had
arrived to her marital home and they took up quarrel with
her, they tortured her, Mamta, Vijay Kumar's sister had
assaulted her and her husband had abused her in filthy
language. They wanted to oust her from her sasural and her
husband supported the sister and he also assaulted her by
himself at their instigation without any reasons.
16. The respondent had to request her father to help
her as she was pregnant and nobody took care for her; she
2025:JHHC:31726-DB
was not even allowed two square meals properly. She was
made to work worse than a maid servant in the household
and even her husband did not support her. On 20.4.2008
the father of the respondent came over to her sasural and
requested the petitioner and his father to allow the
respondent to go with him, to Jamshedpur but they insisted
that if he wanted to take his daughter, he would have to sign
on a paper stating therein that he was taking his daughter
with the ornaments as mentioned. They allowed her to go
with three ornaments only out of her total twelve ornaments
and even the weight of the same were also wrongly described
by them in the paper. Her father had no option but to sign
on the same.
17. The respondent came to Jamshedpur with her father
on 20.4.2008. The respondent had to come back to her
parents while she was pregnant and she delivered a female
child on 3.7.2008 at Jamshedpur but none of the sasural
family members came to see the child, not even the husband
came to see his daughter. The child had some abnormality
in her right leg. The mother-in-law of the respondent expired
on 24.10.2008 and hearing this news the respondent, went
to her sasural and participated in her last rites and she lived
there till 15 February 2009 but none behaved properly with
her. The father-in-law, sternly warned her not to enter into
2025:JHHC:31726-DB
the kitchen, she could not take meal by her own hand, she
was not allowed to even warm the milk of her child, and her
husband never took any care of the child. At the time of
marriage of the second sister of the respondent on
17.02.2009, her father went to Ranchi on 10.02.2009 and
invited the petitioner and his father, but they left respondent
to her father's house on 15.02.2009 and did not attend the
ceremony. The petitioner and his family members totally
forgot about the respondent and when her father spoke to
petitioner and his father, they flatly told him that they would
not allow the respondent to come over to Ranchi. Then on
15.05.2009 respondent's father took her alongwith her child
to her sasural at Ranchi but they did not allow her to enter
into their house. The was heavy rainfall at that time. The
local police were informed and it was with their intervention
that the respondent and her child could enter the house and
she stayed there till 25th September 2009 on which date she
was assaulted by the petitioner and his sister Mamta, and
father-in-law and Mamta's husband instigated Them to beat
her so that she should leave the house. Mamta abused her
saying that she was an idiot and she has got such
certificates made by the doctor of Bhagalpur which was
surprising as the respondent had never gone to Bhagalpur
and due to all this the respondent had to suffer, she could
2025:JHHC:31726-DB
not get anything to eat, and on 26 September 2009, the
respondent was forcibly carried on a vehicle brought by the
petitioner and she along with the child was dropped in her
maike at Jamshedpur and since then she along with her
child named Shreya are helplessly staying with the father of
the respondent.
18. It is further stated that the respondent had
attempted to contact the petitioner by her mobile but the
petitioner has never shown his interest and he avoided
talking to her, she asked for some money from the petitioner
for the child but he straightaway refused saying that he is
not at all interested in the child.
19. It has further been stated that there was marriage
of third sister of the respondent on 23.11.2010 and the
father of the respondent went to Ranchi to invite the
petitioner and his family members but they were evasive.
The respondent's father asked for the ornaments and
wearable sarees belonging to the respondent for the said
occasion but they refused to give him anything.
20. It is submitted that the mother of the respondent
was suffering from brain tumor and the respondent was
busy in her treatment and the concerned lawyer who was
engaged for Matrimonial Suit No. 52 of 2011 did not look
2025:JHHC:31726-DB
into the case properly and due to latches of the lawyer her
written statement was not filed in M.T.S. No. 52 of 2011 and
therefore, M.T.S. No. 52 of 2011 was decided ex-parte on
4.4.2013 and a decree of judicial separation was granted
u/s 10 of Hindu Marriage Act.
21. It is submitted that the aforesaid suit was filed
mainly on the ground of mental illness of the respondent
and the petitioner had filed certificates of doctor were
completely false as she never appeared for any test before
any doctor and the petitioner had falsely taken the alleged
medical report/certificate for the purpose of obtaining
divorce. It is completely denied that the respondent is
suffering from mental disorder, mental retardation and
mental backwardness as alleged in M.T.S. No. 52 of 2011
and M.T.S. No. 16 of 2015 (instant Original Suit No. 314 of
2016).
22. It is submitted that the respondent has passed
B.Com. Examination and was doing job on the post of
Security Assistant w.e.f. 31.3.1997 in Intelligence Bureau a
Nagaland appointed by Government of India, Ministry of
Home Affairs however, she resigned from the said post due
to personal reason as she was posted in Kohima, Nagaland.
It is submitted that divorce cannot be sought on ground of
none cohabitation between the parties for the period of one
2025:JHHC:31726-DB
year because the respondent. had already filed M.T.S. No. 38
of 2014 u/s 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, which is pending for
final disposal.
23. It is submitted that the respondent is not mentally
retarded as she passed the Matric examination as the
regular student of Balika High School Jamshedpur and she
passed the Bihar School Examination Board in 1993 with
second division and mathematics was one her subject. She
also passed second year per-university Commerce
Examination 1995 from Nagaland University where her
father was posted as I.B. Officer. She also passed Bachelor
of Commerce examination three years degree course in April
2001 from Ranchi University in second division. She was
also appointed in Intelligence Bureau Department, Central
Government Service on the post of Security Assistant and
she resigned from the said job due to personal reasons. She
was medically fit in all respect and Served in Central
Government Service. Hence it is wrong to say that she is
mentally retarded and mentally backward lady.
24. It has further been submitted that the respondent
herself presented for medical and psychological Examination
before the Jharkhand Government District Mental Health
Center, Jamshedpur and after her examination the Dr. S.
Kumar Psychologist has issued certificate on 2.7.2015 that
2025:JHHC:31726-DB
on the basis of mental status examination and psychological
test finding depressive features found and no thought
disturbed elicited at present so the medical in psychological
examination and the certificate given by the doctor on
2.7.2015 after full examination belies, the allegation of
mental illness and mental retardation of the respondent
made in M.T.S. No. 52 of 2011 and M.T. S. No. 16 of 2015.
25. The statement regarding the mental illness and
retardation of the respondent peacefully denied and is fully
false, oppressive, vexatious, condemnable and fully baseless.
The respondent is passing her days along with her daughter
with great hardship and difficulties since the petitioner did
not take care of the respondent and her child nor provided
any maintenance allowance to her and her child and the
educational expenses and other expenses for the child. The
petitioner has completely deserted the respondent without
any reason. The respondent has also filed M.T.S. No. 38 of
2014 u/s 9 of Hindu Marriage Act (now Original Suit No.
341/2016) for restitution of conjugal rights. The respondent
and her daughter are willing to live with the petitioner.
26. It is submitted that the petitioner is under full
control of his father and other family members who are
adamant for divorce on false grounds because the
respondent's father refused to fulfill their demand for
2025:JHHC:31726-DB
construction of house as he is a retired person. It is
therefore, prayed that the suit filed by the petitioner for
divorce may be dismissed with cost and petitioner be
directed to keep his respondent wife by allowing her suit for
restitution of conjugal rights filed u/s 9 of Hindu Marriage
Act.
27. The learned Family Court, 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.
28. The aforesaid judgment and decree by which divorce
has not been granted is under challenge by filing the instant
appeal.
Submission made on behalf of the appellant-husband
29. 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 been suffering from menta
retardation and therefore the petitioner / appellant is
entitled for grant of decree of divorce.
30. Further, it has been submitted that there is an error in
the impugned judgment, since, each and every aspect of the
2025:JHHC:31726-DB
matter has not been taken into consideration based upon
the documentary evidences as well as ocular evidences.
31. Submission has also been made that the learned Court
below also failed to appreciate that the petitioner / appellant
has successfully substantiated hat the decree of Judicial
separation between the petitioner and the respondent has
been passed on 04.04.2013 in Mat. Suit No. 52 of 2011,
wherein it was ordered that if cohabitation takes place
between the petitioner and the respondent for a period of
one year, the petitioner shall be at liberty to file a case for
divorce, and since the date of the aforesaid order more than
one year has already been elapsed, but no cohabitation has
taken place between the petitioner and respondent and,
therefore, the petitioner /appellant is entitled for grant of
decree of divorce.
32. It has lastly been submitted that the learned Trial
Court has failed to appreciate the oral and documentary
evidence produced on behalf of petitioner / appellant and,
thus, came to wrong conclusion.
33. The learned counsel, based upon the aforesaid ground,
has submitted that the impugned judgment and decree is
suffering from perversity, therefore, needs interference.
Analysis
2025:JHHC:31726-DB
34. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant-
husband and perused the material available on record and
the finding recorded in the impugned order.
35. On the basis of the factual aspects, the learned Family
Judge has formulated altogether six issues, for ready
reference the same are being quoted hereinbelow:
i) Whether the suit is maintainable in present
form?
ii) Whether the petitioner has got valid cause of
action for the suit?
iii) Whether the respondent has been suffering
from incurable mental disease?
iv) Whether the petitioner is entitled for a decree
of divorce on the ground of respondent's incurable
mental disesse?
v) Whether any cohabitation took place in
between the petitioner and the Respondent within
one year from the date of Order dated 4.4.2013
passed in Matrimonial Title Suit No. 52/2011
passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court at
Ranchi?
vi) To what other relief or reliefs the applicant is
entitled for?
2025:JHHC:31726-DB
36. The learned Family Judge has considered the evidence
adduced on behalf of the parties for deciding the issues
involved in Original Suit.
37. 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 mental
disorder/retardation has been shown by the petitioner-
husband.
38. This Court, before looking into the legality and propriety
of the impugned order, requires to refer the testimonies of the
witnesses, as available on record.
39. During the trial, three witnesses have been examined on
behalf of the appellant-husband who himself has been
examined PW1 and other witness i.e. PW2-Bishwanath
Prasad and P.W.3 Bhola Swarankar. Further certain
documents have been exhibited i.e. judgment passed in Mat.
Suit No. 52 of 2011 has been marked as Ext.1 and photocopy
of document regarding return of ornament has been marked
as Ext.2.
40. The relevant portion of the testimonies of the witnesses
from petitioner's side are mentioned as under: -
2025:JHHC:31726-DB
PW.1 appellant husband had stated in his
examination-in-chief that he had filed a Matrimonial (Title)
suit No. 52/2011 before the court of the Ld. Principal Judge,
Family Court, Ranchi, for dissolution of marriage by a decree
of divorce, but the Ld. Principal Judge, vide order dt.
4.4.2013 was pleased to grant a decree of judicial separation
between him and the respondent and was pleased to pass
further order that if no cohabitation takes place between him
and the respondent for a period of one year, he shall be at
liberty to file a case for dissolution of marriage by a decree of
divorce, and one year has already been elapsed since the date
of the aforesaid order dt. 4.4.2013, but no cohabitation took
place between him and the respondent and so he has filed
the instant suit against the respondent.
It is further stated that his marriage was solemnized
with respondent on 29.4.2007 according to Hindu rites and
rituals. Thereafter, respondent came to her matrimonial
home and lived there for only 15 days and during her stay he
noticed that respondent is mentally retarded. Respondent
neither used to wash her hand after coming from toilet nor
she knew how to wear saree. She even did not take bath. His
mother tried to give proper training of home making and
hygiene but all went in vain. The father of respondent was
also informed about abnormal behaviour of respondent, but
2025:JHHC:31726-DB
he did not seriously take it and only said that her behaviour
will improve.
He has further deposed that after sometime he brought
respondent to her matrimonial home at Ranchi and got her
examined and treated by psychiatrists and they have opined
that respondent is suffering from mental retardation and the
ailment is incurable.
He has further deposed that in the meantime
respondent gave birth to a female child but no change came
in her behaviour. Again, he got respondent treated at
Bhagalpur by Dr. S.P. Singh and he also agreed with the
diagnosis of Doctor of Kanke, Ranchi and opined that that
ailment is incurable. Thereafter, the father of respondent
came to Ranchi and took away respondent along with his
child and all the gifts which were presented at the time of
marriage.
He has further deposed that after sometime he went to
respondent's paternal home to see his daughter, but his in
laws misbehaved with him which was intolerable. Again on
20.1.2011 he went to is matrimonial home where he saw his
daughter in a very pitiable condition and when he requested
his in-laws to handover his daughter, they started abusing
him. Thereafter, his wife filed a case u/s 498A/406 IPC and
3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, bearing C/1 Case No. 1874/2011
2025:JHHC:31726-DB
against him but his wife could not prove the allegations
against him and he has been acquitted in the said case vide
Judgment dt. 28.7.2017 and due to the aforesaid reasons,
the marriage between him and the respondent is retrieving
for a period of more than nine years. He has further denied
the averments made in the written statement of the
respondent.
In his cross-examination P.W-1 has stated that his
marriage was solemnized at Jamshedpur on 29.4.2007 and
on the next day of marriage his wife came along with him to
his house. He has a daughter born out of this wedlock in
July 2008 but he does not remember the date of her birth he
does not know where his daughter is and in what class she is
study. He did not make any effort to know the condition of
his daughter. He stated that his daughter was born in
Gurunanak Hospital. He had filed Mat. Suit No. 52 of 2011 in
Ranchi, in which ex-parte decree was not passed. Four
witnesses had given evidence in said case but they were not
cross-examined. He has filed the copy of the order of Mat.
Suit No. of 2011 but he does not remember whether it is
certified copy or photo copy. He is not filed any medical
certificates in this case. He had got examined the doctor in
Mat. Suit No. 52 of 2011. He did not make any application in
the court to keep his wife after the passing of order and
2025:JHHC:31726-DB
decree. He does not know whether his wife has filed any
petition in the court for living with him or not. He does not
remember the date of his wife going away to her mayka from
his house after the marriage. He stated that his mother was
treated in Mumbai she had gone there in August 2008 and
after the operation there she returned to Ranchi. His mother
died on 24.9.2003. His wife came to her sasural at Ranchi to
attend the cremation of his mother. He does not remember
whether his daughter came at that time or not. His wife
stayed there for 3-4 months and they were fulfilling their
marital obligations in that period. He did not know during
that period that his wife is mentally retarded.
He admitted that his father-in-law had given the demand
draft of Rs. 1,60,000/- and cash of Rs. 1,00,000/- in the
marriage. He denied receiving any home theater in the
marriage. He stated that bed, dressing table, Almirah,
Washing Machine was given in the marriage, but he had not
seen the utensils. Tilak ceremony took place seven days prior
to the marriage. All these articles are still with him till date.
The respondent had filed a Misc. Case for setting aside of
decree passed in Mat. Suit No. 52/2011 but he does not
remember whether he appeared in that Misc. case or not. He
also does not remember whether the respondent had filed a
case for maintenance or not. He does not know that
2025:JHHC:31726-DB
respondent stayed with him for a period of one year and two
months after the marriage. He stated that he had shown his
wife to a dentist in Ranchi for the first time When his wife
was pregnant, he showed her to a doctor but he does not
remember the date and name of the doctor. He admitted he
has not filed any medical prescriptions in that case. He
admitted that his father-in-law, his wife and his daughter
had come to Ranchi on 15.5.2009 but he did not lead them
entered his house and he allowed them to enter his house
only when they took the aid of the police. He does not
remember whether his wife stayed in his house between
15.5.2009 tο 25.9.2009 or not. He admitted that he brought
his wife to Jamshedpur to her myka on 26.9.2009 and left
her there. He does not remember whether he had shown his
wife to any doctor or not.
He cannot bring the doctor for evidence in this case, who
had given evidence in Mat. Suit No. 52 of 2011 at Ranchi. He
denied the suggestion that the respondent did not get any
opportunity to cross-examine the doctor at Ranchi. He does
not know that the respondent had given an application that
the medical board may be constituted. He stated that he has
not passed B.Sc. He was cashier in Mahindra and Mahindra
Company before marriage but he does not remember the date
of his appointment. He does not know that his wife is B.Com.
2025:JHHC:31726-DB
Graduate. He admitted that he did not give any notice to call
his wife after one year of passing of the order in Mat. Suit No.
52 of 2011 on 4.4.2013. He does not remember the date of
filing of Mat. Suit No. 16 of 2015 at Ranchi. Amongst the
witnesses who gave evidence in Mat. Suit No. 52 of 2011 one
was Vijay Kumar other was Baban Prasad third was doctor
whose name does not remember and the fourth was Shivajee.
He does not know that there are two mental hospitals in
Ranchi one of which is run by Central Government while the
other is run by Jharkhand Government. He does not know
whether there is mental hospital in Bhagalpur or not Besides
the two mental hospitals in Ranchi there is third mental
hospital whose name he does not know. He had gone to the
third mental hospital which is also in Kanke but he does
remember the name of the doctor he had gone to see or the
date and month of his visit. He had met the doctor for getting
information and he told him his problem. The said doctor did
not make any consultation nor gave any prescription. He
again met the said doctor but he does not remember the
date, month or year of his visit nor he knows the boundaries
of the Hospital of said doctor.
He does not know whether the first appeal No. 566 of
2014 was filed by the respondent in Jharkhand High Court
or he had appeared in that case or any order was passed in
2025:JHHC:31726-DB
the said case, He has no knowledge that his mother-in-law
had brain tumor. He does not know when she died. There are
three sisters to his wife. He has no knowledge when the sister
of his wife got married. He had not attended the marriage
since he was not invited. He does not know when the third
sister of his wife got married since he did not attend the said
marriage as he was not invited. No one from his family
attended the said marriage since they were not invited.
He does not remember in which year he went to
Bhagalpur. He denied the suggestion that his father-in-law
gave twelve gold articles in his marriage. His father can talk
about it however; he cannot attend since he is sick and is
around 75 years old. There is no mental hospital in RIMs
Ranchi. He has no knowledge whether there is any mental
hospital in Bhagalpur Medical College or not. He does not
know where his wife presently lives and got job she is doing.
He had performed Puja for the mental illness of his wife but
he does not remember the date. His father-in-law has retired
from I.B. but he does not know the date of his retirement. He
had gone to his sasural after 2009 but he does not remember
the date he had gone in 2011 and thereafter he never went to
his sasural.
He categorically stated his wife is mentally sick. He
denied his suggestion that he never took his wife for
2025:JHHC:31726-DB
treatment of her mental illness. He has taken his wife to two
doctors for treatment. One of the doctors gave advise while
the other did not give any opinion. He denied the suggestion
that he never took his wife to Bhagalpur. He does not
remember on what date he took her to Bhagalpur. He has
denied the suggestion that he has deposited fake medical
certificate in Mat. Suit No. 52/2011.
He admitted that he has not deposited any medical
certificate in this suit. He has denied the suggestion that he
wants to divorce the respondent for remarriage for the sake of
dowry. He categorically stated that he cannot keep his wife
even she is mentally fit. Lastly, he has denied the suggestion
that he has given false evidence and filed false case.
P.W.-2 Bishwanath Prasad and P.W. 3 Bhola
Prasad Swankar have filed their examination-in-chief on
affidavit which is similar in contents to the affidavited
evidence of the petitioner simply corroborating the facts
averred in the main petition and the evidence of the
petitioner.
PW 2 in his cross examination has stated that he
never intervened in the dispute between petitioner and
respondent. He stated that he is making the statement that
the family members used to call respondent insane as he had
heard and seen but he has no knowledge about medical
2025:JHHC:31726-DB
science. He has seen the medical certificate of the doctor but
he does not remember its date.
He stated that all the articles of the marriage have been
returned to the respondent but he was int witness to that. He
was witness in panchayati but he does not remember the
date. There were four neighbours and two persons on behalf
of petitioner he and Santosh Singh and on behalf of
respondent her father and one other person whose name he
does not remember. The document of panchayat was
prepared which is deposited in court but he has not seen
that document. Respondent lives in Jamshedpur and has a
child. He does not know when petitioner went to bring
respondent. He Isas denied the suggestion that he is giving
false evidence being neighbour of petitioner.
PW-3 has stated in his cross-examination that he
stayed in Ranchi for 20-25 days after the marriage of Vijay.
He stated that Sagrika stayed in her sasural for around one
and half years after the marriage. Sagrika(respondent) gave
birth a child in July 2008 at Tata Nagar (Jamshedpur). He
never visited the sasural of his Saala (brother-in-law) at
Jamshedpur after the marriage. He has no knowledge when
and how many times Vijay visited the mayka of Sagarika but
he knows that when Sagarika's father took her to
Jamshedpur after Bidai, Vijay had gone along with them. He
2025:JHHC:31726-DB
visited his sasural at Ranchi many times during the presence
of Sagarika and he tried to talk to her but he could not do so
due to her behaviour. After the marriage Vijay's mother had
gone to Mumbai for medical treatment but he does not clearly
remember after how many days after the marriage she had
gone there. She died in 2008 at Ranchi. Vijay had gone to his
sasural at Jamshedpur after September, 2009. He has no
knowledge whether Vijay attended the marriage of Sagarika's
sister. He had gone to Bhagalpur in the last months of 2007.
He does not remember the date of his visit to Kanke
Hospital. They had met Dr. U.N. Choudhary, but he cannot
describe the boundaries of the clinic of Dr. Choudhary in
Kanke Hospital. He never talked to Sagarika's father about
her illness. He had gone to Dr. U. N. Choudhary at Kanke
Hospital along with Sagarika. He has denied the suggestion
that he is giving false evidence in favour of petitioner being
his relative.
41. The respondent has examined herself and her father
Ganesh Prasad as R.W. No.1. and R.W. No. 2 respectively and
original certificate of Matriculation of respondent has been
marked as Ext. A, Original Marksheet of Nagaland University
has been marked as Ext. A/1, Original Marksheet of B. Com
of Ranchi University has been marked as Ext. A/2, Joining
letter dt. 22.4.1997 of Nagaland Government (Two sheets)
2025:JHHC:31726-DB
has been marked as Ext. B and B/1, Resignation letter dt.
10.8.1999 has been marked as Ext. B/2, Medical certificate
issued by Dr. Deepak Giri has been marked as Ext. C,
Photocopies of four bank draft has been marked as Ext. D,
D/1, D/2, and D/3, Entries dated 12.4.2007 and 19.4.2007
in the bank pass book has been marked as Ext. E and E/1
respectively.
42. The respondent wife examined herself as RW.1 and
stated by way of affidavit that her marriage was solemnized
on 29.4.2007 with the petitioner according to Hindu rites and
rituals. After marriage she went to matrimonial home. At the
time of marriage her father gave Rs. 1.60.000/- through D.D.
and Rs. 1,40,000/- in cash to the father of her husband as
tilak and also gave "Home theater" of Rs. 1,00,000/- and 12
gold ornaments, furniture, washing machine, Almirah and
utensils, clothes. Her mother-in-law was heart patient and
she went to Mumbai for her heart operation and returned to
Ranchi after 45 days but she became bed ridden and lost her
speech. She served her mother-in-law. She was tortured by
her husband, Nanad regularly mentally and physically.
Her father-in-law demanded Rs. 5,00,000/- for
purchasing a flat at Ranchi in her husband's name. All
ornaments were kept by her father-in-law. She conceived but
no one took her care, then she Phoned her father who came
2025:JHHC:31726-DB
and brought her to Jamshedpur fu Ranchi on 20.4.2008, she
was treated a lady doctor and she delivered a female child on
3.7.2008 at Gurunanak Hospital, Jamshedpur named as
Shreya now aged about 13 years, no one came from her
sasural to see her and entire expenses were borne by her
father. Her husband left her and her daughter at
Jamshedpur forcefully on 26.9.2009, from that day she is
residing with her daughter at her father's residence. No one
came from her sasural on marriage of her two younger sisters
despite several requests. Her mother-in-law died on
24.10.2008 and she participated in her last ceremony and
stayed there. During her stay at Ranchi no one treated her
well. She neither go to Bhagalpur nor any mental Hospital at
Ranchi either for treatment or check-up.
Her husband filed Mat Suit bearing No. 52 of 2011 at
Ranchi, which was disposed off ex-parte because her mother
was suffering brain tumor during that period. If any medical
certificate has been filed in said suit by her husband it is
false. She passed matriculation in 1993, per-university from
Nagaland University in 1995 and passed B. Com from Ranchi
University in 2001. She also worked as Security Assistant in
Nagaland government from 24.04.1997 to 10.8.1999. She is
physically and mentally fit to lead her conjugal life.
2025:JHHC:31726-DB
She had further stated that She never met Doctor M.
Jalil and Dr. Choudhary at Bhagalpur and Ranchi. Her father
is retired and old aged person of 75 years and she is
dependent on him along with her daughter. She was checked
by Doctor S. Hembram at Dist. Mental Health Centre
Jamshedpur who issuer medical certificate dated 2.7.2015 to
her. She has a daughter name Shreya aged around 13 years
old now. She wants to live with her husband at her sasural.
All the allegations leveled against her by her husband are
false and fabricated.
She has proved the Original Matric certificate issued
from Bihar School Examination Committee, Patna which has
been marked as Ext. A. She has also proved her Original
Marksheet of Pre-university issued by Nagaland University
and Original Marksheet of B. Com. issued by Ranchi
University Govt as Ext. A/1 and A/2 respectively. She has
also proved Original Joining letter dated 22.4.1997 issued by
Assistant Director regarding her appointment as Security
Assistant by Home Ministry Govt. of Nagaland which has
been marked as Ext. B and B/1. She had resigned from the
said post on 10.8.1999 and has proved her resignation letter
which has been marked as Ext. B/2. She had got herself
medical checkup at mental Health Centre Jamshedpur and
has produced the certificate of Dr. Deepak Giri of District
2025:JHHC:31726-DB
Mental Health Centre in this regard which has been marked
as Ext C.
In her cross-examination she had stated that this
case was filed in Family Court Ranchi by her husband
which was transferred to Family Court Jamshedpur by the
Hon'ble High Court, Ranchi on her petition. She was ousted
on 26.9.2009 from her sasural after the marriage. Her
marriage was solemnized on 29.4.2007.she stayed in her
sasural for around two years. She has a daughter from her
husband who has born on 3.7.2008 at Guru Nanak
Hospital Jamshedpur and lives with her. After been ousted
from her matrimonial home she filed a case u/s 498A IPC
against her husband in 2011 which has been disposed off.
Her husband used to misbehave with her in sasural and all
the occurrences took place in Ranchi. She got pregnant in
her stay at matrimonial home at Ranchi and did fell ill and
was not shown to any doctor at Ranchi.
She admitted that since 2009 till this date she has had
no physical relation with her husband. She has stated that
she has filed written statement wherein she has mentioned
that her husband filed Mat. Suit 52 of 2011 against her for
a decree of divorce in which ex-parte decree was passed.
She does not have knowledge that after cancellation of
divorce both the parties were asked to live separate. When
2025:JHHC:31726-DB
she was in her matrimonial home her mother-in-law died.
She admitted that when she was pregnant in 2008, she fell
ill and asked her husband to take her to lady doctor but he
refused. Her father-in-law was not sick at that time.
Thereafter, she called her father on 20.4.2008 and went
away to her myka (parental home) along with him. When
her mother-in-law died in 2008, she went to her
matrimonial home but she does not remember the period of
her stay she does not remember for how many days she
stayed in her matrimonial home after the cremation of her
mother-in-law.
She has further stated that she has not seen the
medical documents filed by her husband. On 26.9.2009 her
husband forcibly dropped her to her myka in a vehicle and
thereafter, he never took her back. She is ready to live with
her husband but he is not taking her. She categorically
stated that the certificates of Dr. M. Jallil and Dr. U.N.
Choudhary are incorrect. She had never visited those
doctors.
She has denied the knowledge about the rulings and
legal provisions mentioned in her written statement. She
does not know whether she has filed any case or not for
Irving with her husband. She has passed matric from Girls
High School, Sakchi in 1993 and B.Com. from Womens
2025:JHHC:31726-DB
College, Jamshedpur but she does not remember the year.
After B. Com she has not studied further. She has passed
Intermediate from Kohima, Nagaland. She has done job
from March, 1997 to 1999. She was in the job of Security
Assistant at Kohima under Government of India. She does
not remember her salary.
Her father was working in Intelligence Bureau at
Nagaland under Government of India. But she does not
remember when her father got transferred from Nagaland to
Jamshedpur. With regard to her statement in para 32 of her
written statement she has stated that she had herself
appeared before District Mental Health Centre, Jamshedpur
where the doctor found her fit. She had appeared in 2015
but she does not know while she had appeared before the
doctor or who took her to the doctor. This doctor was from
Mango Jamshedpur. She does not remember the date of
visiting the doctor. She has filed the certificate in this case.
She has not joined anywhere after leaving her job. The
petitioner is only giving Rs. 5500-since 2017. She has
received Rs. 1,70,000/- and Rs. 1,65,000/- as arrear due to
Covid. Her husband works in Mahindra and Mahindra
Company and gets salary of Rs. 25,000/- per months but
she does not have any proof about it. Her father owns a
house in Mango, Jamshedpur.
2025:JHHC:31726-DB
She had admitted that there was order for judicial
separation in the divorce case and against it she had filed
her written statement but she had not filed any case. She
has denied the suggestion that she was mentally ill after the
marriage and was shown to several doctors.
RW2 father of the respondent corroborated the
testimony of his daughter respondent. He has proved the
Photo copy of four bank drafts of State Bank of India for Rs.
40,000/-each dated 9.4.2007, in the name of Baban Prasad
and two in the name of Vijay Kumar which he had given in
the form of dowry which has been marked as Ext. D to D/3
respectively. He has also proved the Original Passbook of
SBI of Jamshedpur to show the entries of four Bank Drafts
and Cash Rs. 1,40,000/- given to Baban Prasad on
12.4.2007 and Rs. 70,000/-on 19.4.2007 against dowry
which has been marked as Ext. E and F/1.
In his cross-examination R.W-2 admitted that the suit
has been filed by her son-in-law for divorce and after this
case his daughter Sagarika Prasad filed a case of Mental
Harassment and assault against her husband who has
been acquitted the said case however, he does not
remember the date of judgment of the said case. His
daughter has not filed any appeal against acquittal. ]
2025:JHHC:31726-DB
His daughter has also filed a maintenance case against
her husband which has been decided in 2017 and since
then his son-in-law is paying maintenance of Rs. 4,000/-
per months to his daughter and Rs. 1500/- per months to
his grand-daughter. His daughter is receiving total Rs.
5500/- per months at present.
He had further deposed that his daughter and grand-
daughter are living in his house since 26.9.2009 and since
then her daughter has no gone to her matrimonial home
and has no contact with his son-in-law. He categorically
stated that his daughter has no illness. However, he had
voluntarily shown his daughter to Dr. B. Giri at Mental
Department MGM Hospital. There was no order for medical
examination of his daughter by the court. the doctor had
given certificate to his daughter which he had deposited in
this case and he admitted that his son-in-law had filed Mat.
Suit No. 52/2011 for divorce at Ranchi Court in which ex-
parte decree had been passed in favour of his son-in-law. At
the time his wife was suffering from brain tumor and was
undergoing treatment at Vellore and lastly she died in 2014
and due to this reason respondent could not appear in said
case and ex-parte decree was passed in favour of her
husband. He had studied the judgment of said case and
took steps for restoration and the case was restored.
2025:JHHC:31726-DB
Thereafter it was transferred to Family Court Jamshedpur
by the High Court of Ranchi on their petition in 2016. He
does not remember whether Dr. U.N. Choudhary and Dr.
Jalil gave evidence in Mat. Suit No. 52 of 2011 or not.
He categorically stated that the above doctors or any
other doctor had never examined his daughter. He admitted
the photo copy of the document showing return of necklace,
Kangan and Tika to him on 20.4.2008 which has been
marked as Ext. 2. However, he stated that he was forced to
sign the document otherwise he would not be allowed to
take his daughter with him. His daughter is graduate. She
was doing job in Intelligence Bureau from 1997 to 1999 but
had to leave the job since he had been transferred from
there and his daughter could not live there alone. He
admitted that the name of Baban Prasad and Vijay Kumar
is not written in Ext. E and E/1. He has denied the
suggestion that his daughter is incurably mentally sick and
cannot recover in future.
43. From the testimonies, as referred hereinabove, it is
evident that the petitioner and his witnesses have not
mentioned any specific instances in order to draw an
inference that respondent wife is suffering from mental
illness or mental disorder. Further in cross-examination he
had specifically stated that his wife came to her sasural at
2025:JHHC:31726-DB
Ranchi to attend the cremation of his mother and his wife
stayed there for 3-4 months and they were fulfilling their
marital obligations in that period.
44. The learned Principal Judge, from the statements
of the witnesses so produced on behalf of the parties, has
come to the conclusion that the petitioner husband has
miserably failed to prove the grounds with cogent evidence
that his wife is suffering from mental illness or disorder.
45. From the testimony so recorded of the appellant-
husband, the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family
Court has come to the conclusion that in the instant case,
no cogent convincing, clinching evidence, no concrete
documentary evidence has been led to substantiate the fact
that respondent has been suffering from mental disorder.
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.
46. In the context of the aforesaid factual aspect only
seminal issue has to be decided herein that "Whether the
appellant is entitled to get divorce dissolving the marriage
of the petitioner/appellant with OP/wife U/s 13(1) (iii) of
the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955?
47. In the aforesaid context, it needs to refer herein
Section 13(1) (iii) of the Act 1955 which reads as under:
2025:JHHC:31726-DB
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........."
48. 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
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.
49. 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
2025:JHHC:31726-DB
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.
50. 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
2025:JHHC:31726-DB
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.
51. 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.
52. 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
2025:JHHC:31726-DB
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
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
2025:JHHC:31726-DB
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
century. Descartes divided the world into two kinds of
substances: mental substances and physical
substances. Physical substances were the proper
2025:JHHC:31726-DB
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:31726-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
2025:JHHC:31726-DB
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 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
2025:JHHC:31726-DB
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---- ."
53. 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.
54. Now coming to the fact of the instant case it is evident
that the learned Family Court after appreciation of all the
evidences which has been led by the parties has given
conclusive finding that no documentary evidence/cogent or
concrete evidence has been adduced by the
petitioner/husband in order to prove the mental
illness/mental disorder of OP- wife.
55. The learned Family Court has taken note of the fact
that in cross-examination appellant husband has admitted
that he has not filed any medical certificate in the instant
case and further he had stated that he had got examined the
doctor in Mat. Suit No. 52 of 2011 but he cannot bring the
said doctor for evidence in this case who had given evidence
in the said Mat. Suit No. 52 of 2011. The learned Family
2025:JHHC:31726-DB
Court had also taken note of the fact that
petitioner/husband had not filed any medical prescription in
the context of mental disorder of the respondent.
56. Further the learned family Court has taken into
consideration that respondent in her statement has
completely denied that she is suffering from any mental
illness or disorder and has also denied visiting any doctor as
alleged by the petitioner and has also produced the medical
certificate from government hospital to the effect that she is
not suffering from any mental illness and only has some
depressive feature, the onus of proving that respondent is of
incurably unsound mind that she is suffering from mental
disorder laid entirely on the petitioner which must be proved
by the cogent and clear evidence.
57. Thus, from the aforesaid it is evident that the
petitioner/appellant has neither produced in this case the
Doctors as witnesses who allegedly examined the respondent
nor he has produced any clinical or psychological analytical
reports of the respondent to show the kind of mental illness
or disorder she is allegedly suffering with, and the degree of
the alleged mental illness and whether it is incurable.
58. Thus, on basis of discussion made hereinabove, it
appears that the aforesaid ground of mental illness/mental
disorder has been raised by the appellant husband on the
2025:JHHC:31726-DB
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.
59. This Court, on the basis of discussions made
hereinabove, is of the view that the appellant husband has
not been able to prove 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.
60. The learned counsel for the appellant husband, raised
the ground that the impugned judgment and decree is
suffering from perversity, therefore, needs interference.
61. 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.
62. 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 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
2025:JHHC:31726-DB
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.
"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."
63. This Court after discussing the aforesaid factual aspect
along with the legal position as discussed and referred
hereinabove and adverting to the consideration made by the
learned Family Judge in the impugned judgment has found
therefrom that the issue of element of mental disorder has
well been considered by the learned Family Judge.
64. From para 33 of the impugned Judgement, it is evident
that the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed much
reliance upon the certified copy of the judgment of Principal
2025:JHHC:31726-DB
Judge, Family Court, Ranchi passed in Matrimonial Title
Sul. No. 52 of 2011 on 04.04.2013 (Ext. 1 and while
referring to para 8 and 9 of the aforesaid judgment wherein
the learned court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi
has referred to the oral evidence of Dr. Jalil and the medical
prescriptions of Dr. U.N. Choudhary and psychological
testing reports conducted by Dr. Jalil that Psychological
testing reports would reveal that respondent was a mentally
backward lady having lower level of border line intellectual
capacity with IQ level of 72.
65. The learned Family Court in the aforesaid context has
observed that in the said case, the court has also observed
that it appeared from the testimony of Dr Jalil and medical
reports that respondent had shown some sort of
improvement after medication and considering this fact the
court found it desirable that instead of passing a decree of
divorce, alternate relief of a decree of judicial separation be
granted. Further the respondent has emphatically denied
about the meeting of the said doctors and she had also
denied that she is undergoing any psychological test as
alleged by the petitioner/husband.
66. The learned Family Court has further taken into
consideration that the ex-parte order dated 04.04.2013 was
passed by the court in the said case i.e. Matrimonial Title
2025:JHHC:31726-DB
Sul. No. 52 of 2011 as the respondent wife has not appeared
and filed written statement in the said case because at the
relevant time her mother was suffering from tumor and as
such respondent did not get an opportunity to cross-
examine the said doctor and medical reports.
67. The Family has further considered the fact that against
the order dated 04.04.2013 respondent wife approached the
High Court by way of filing appeal being F.A. No. 566 of
2014 and the said appeal was disposed of with the
observation that the Mat. Suit No. 16 of 2015 (the instant
suit) shall be decided on its own merit and without being
prejudiced by the earlier observations made in the order dt.
4 April 2013 passed in Matrimonial Title Suit No. 52 of
2011.
68. 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 mental
disorder against the respondent wife. The aforesaid reason
has led the learned Family Judge to dismiss the suit.
69. 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
2025:JHHC:31726-DB
been made of the evidences, both ocular and documentary, as
would be evident from the impugned judgment.
70. Accordingly, issue as framed by this Court is decided
against the appellant-husband and it is held that the learned
Family Court had rightly not granted the decree of divorce in
favour of the appellant husband on the ground of mental
illness/mental disorder under Section 13(1)(iii) of the Act
1955, as such same is requires no interference by this Court.
71. This Court, on the basis of discussions made
hereinabove, is of the view that the judgment passed on
09.12.2022 and decree signed on 15.12.2022 by the learned
Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court-I, East
Singhbum Jamshedpur whereby and whereunder the Original
Suit No. 29 of 2019 filed by the petitioner-appellant-husband
under Section 13(1) (iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for a
decree of divorce has been dismissed, requires no interference
by this Court.
72. Accordingly, the instant appeal fails and is dismissed.
73. Pending I.As. if any stand disposed of.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
I agree.
(Rajesh Kumar, J.) (Rajesh Kumar, J.)
Birendra / A.F.R.
Uploaded on 15.10.2025
