1. The instant appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 is
learned Addl. Principal Judge, Additional Family Court-II, Ranchi, in
Original Suit No. 97 of 2019, whereby and whereunder, the petition filed
appellant/petitioner seeking a decree of divorce, has been dismissed.
2. The brief facts of the case leading to filing of the divorce petition by the
3. It is evident from the factual aspect that the appellant/petitioner had a
Act, 1955 for decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty.
4. The learned Family Judge, on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, has
(ii) Whether the petitioner has valid cause of action for the suit?
2025:JHHC:31729-DB
(iii) Whether the respondent has treated the petitioner with cruelty?
(iv) Whether the petitioner is entitled to a decree of divorce?
(v) To what relief or reliefs, the petitioner is entitled?
5. The evidences have been made on behalf of both the parties. Thereafter,
the judgment has been passed dismissing the suit by holding that none of
the grounds of cruelty has been established by the appellant/petitioner,
which is the subject matter of the present appeal.
Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner:
6. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant/petitioner that the factual
aspect which was available before the Family Judge supported by the
evidences adduced on behalf of the appellant/petitioner has not properly
been considered and as such, the judgment impugned is perverse, hence,
not sustainable in the eyes of law.
7. It has been submitted that the issue of cruelty has not well been taken into
consideration in right perspective.
8. It has been contended that only after lapse of 3-4 days of marriage, the
respondent started pressurizing the appellant to go to Switzerland for
honeymoon whereupon the appellant shown his inability to do so because
he cannot afford such expense.
9. It has further been contended that about 6 months after marriage, she left
the matrimonial house and went to Bangaluru and joined her service. On
several occasions, the appellant tried to bring the respondent-wife back
2025:JHHC:31729-DB
and time and again also requested the father and mother of the respondent
but the respondent-wife flatly refused to come back.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner, based upon the aforesaid
grounds, has submitted that the judgment impugned suffers from
perversity, as such, not sustainable in the eyes of law.
Submission of the learned counsel for the respondent:
11. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-wife, while
defending the impugned judgment, has submitted that there is no error in
the impugned judgement. The learned Family Judge has considered the
issue of cruelty and having come to the conclusion that no evidence has
been adduced to establish the cruelty, has dismissed the petition.
12. It has been contended that the appellant and her mother left her along just
after the marriage and went to USA, Singapore and other places. The
respondent has no option and went to join her job at Bangalore.
13. It has also been submitted that the respondent-wife never demanded to
visit Switzerland for honey-moon and when the respondent came to
matrimonial house during Chhath Pooja and stayed with the appellant, the
appellant and his mother started demanding more dowry.
14. It has been submitted that the demand to visit Switzerland was not
corroborated by any documentary evidence like passport and Visa.
15. It has further been contended that just to save her matrimonial life, she left
the job and went to Koderma and remain stayed with the appellant.
2025:JHHC:31729-DB
16. Learned counsel for the respondent-wife, based upon the aforesaid
grounds, has submitted that if on that pretext, the factum of cruelty has not
been found to be established, based upon which, the decree of divorce has
been refused to be granted, the impugned judgment cannot be said to
suffer from an error.
Analysis:
17. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the
finding recorded by the learned Family Judge in the impugned judgment.
18. The case has been heard at length. The admitted fact herein is that the suit
for divorce has been filed on the ground of cruelty, i.e., by filing an
application under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and
accordingly, issues have been framed wherein primarily issue nos.3
pertains to cruelty.
19. The evidence has been led on behalf of both the parties, i.e., the petitioner,
(appellant herein) and respondent-wife. For ready reference, the evidences
led on behalf of the appellant/petitioner, i.e., P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3, are
being referred as under:
(i) P.W.-1 - Abhay Anand, who is the petitioner (appellant) himself,
has stated in his evidence that his marriage solemnized with
respondent on 24.05.2015 at Ranchi. There was no demand of
dowry at the time of marriage. He has deposed that out of wedlock
one male child born on 20.11.2016 namely Anay Anand. He has
also deposed that the respondent-wife was working as Software
Engineer at Bangalore at the time of marriage and it was agreed
2025:JHHC:31729-DB
between them and their parents that after marriage, the respondent
will leave her job and would reside with her husband and his widow
mother at their residence situated at Koderma and in the flat
situated at Singhmore, Ranchi. He has further deposed that after 3
to 4 months of marriage, the respondent started pressurizing to go to
Switzerland for honeymoon and on refusal the respondent called
her moth and on 06.06.2015, she left the matrimonial house and
went to Bangalore and joined her service there. The respondent-
wife again came back to his house on account of Chhath Pooja but
this time, she started pressurizing him to get separated from widow
mother and reside with her at her parental house at Hinoo. Several
efforts have been made to restart conjugal life with respondent-wife
but the respondent not ready to join matrimonial house. He has also
deposed that he has filed petition under Section 9 of the Hindu
Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal right and it was resolved
amicably in the Lok Adalat held on 22.04.2018 and the aforesaid
suit bearing no.529 of 2016 was allowed and respondent started
residing with him. After some time, the respondent again started
insulting him by using abusive language and since 22.04.2018, the
respondent has refused to have cohabit with him. The respondent
thereafter filed complaint case bearing no.966 of 2019 at Ranchi
against him and her mother under Section 498A/34 IPC. He has
deposed that he has taken several efforts to restore the conjugal life
but all efforts went in vain.
2025:JHHC:31729-DB
In his cross-examination at para-24, he has deposed that after
disposal of M.T.S. No.529/2016 under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage
Act, the respondent started residing with him.
At para-35, he has deposed that his son Anay Anand born at Ranchi
in Laxmi Nursing Home. At para-45, he has deposed that all the
expenses incurred in the treatment of his children paid by him but
he was not filed the receipt.
At para-65 of his cross-examination, he has deposed that the
respondent-wife left her job in the year 2016 and came from
Bangalore and started residing with him. At para-76, he has deposed
that lastly, he resided with respondent till December, 2018. At para-
78, he has deposed that in the year 2018, he was celebrated birthday
of his son in which the family members of the respondent also
invited.
(ii) P.W.2, namely, Shobha Kumari (mother of the appellant) has
deposed that the respondent after marriage committed cruelty
against his son and also against her. She has also deposed that the
behaviour of respondent-wife was very cruel and she used abusive
language. On 06.06.2015, the respondent-wife left her matrimonial
house and went to Bangalore. She has further deposed that the
respondent left the house and his son filed restitution of conjugal
right under Section 9 against the respondent which was resolved at
Lok Adalat and thereafter the respondent started staying with them.
She has further deposed that on 29.12.2018, the parents of the
2025:JHHC:31729-DB
respondent-wife came to her flat and threatened to face the dire
consequences. On 01.01.2019, the respondent finally left the
matrimonial house.
In her cross-examination at para-34, she has deposed that after birth
of grand-children he was seriously ill and admitted at Rani Children
Nursing Home and she could not visit to see the grand-child. At
para-61, she has deposed that after marriage of the appellant, she
went to Singapore and thereafter went to New Jersey USA along
with petitioner.
(iii) PW-3 namely, Sachidanand Sinha, has deposed that the appellant
and respondent-wife are known to him. Their marriage solemnized
and after marriage the respondent-wife was behaving badly with the
appellant and her mother. He has also deposed that the respondent-
wife always making quarrel with the appellant in front of him He
has further deposed that the respondent-wife filed a criminal
complaint case bearing no.966/2019 under Section 498A of the IPC
against the appellant and his mother.
20. The evidences led on behalf of the respondent-wife, i.e., O.P.W. No.1 and
O.P.W. No.2, for ready reference, the same are being referred as under:
(i) O.P.W. No.-1 namely Priyanka Kumari, has deposed
that at the time of marriage valuable gift items including jewelery
and Rs. 15,00,000/- cash were given to the petitioner, appellant
herein. She has also deposed that initially the marriage was fixed on
24.05.2015 but the petitioner and her mother told his father unless
2025:JHHC:31729-DB
Rs. 15,00,000/- were not given the marriage will not be solemnized
and after arrangement of money the marriage solemnized on
25.05.2015. She deposed that after marriage; she went to her
matrimonial house at Koderma and stayed with the appellant and
thereafter she went to Bangalore to continue her job. She deposed
that her mother-in-law always demanded to give her salary because
her parents not given sufficient dowry at the time of marriage. She
left the job and came to matrimonial house on 30.01.2016. She
deposed that the appellant was running the NGO in which her
mother-in-law also working. She deposed that in the year 2016, she
got pregnant, the appellant and her mother informed her parents and
requested to take the respondent at her Maika and in consequence
her brother came and she went to her Maika. On 20.11.2016 a male
child was born. She deposed that after 6 days, her newly born child
was seriously ill and treated at Vatsaly Hospital and said
information given to the appellant but he never visited to see the
child. She deposed that her child was admitted in the Rani Children
hospital for 23 days but neither appellant nor his mother came to
see the child. All the expenses incurred in the treatment of child
was bear by her father. All the documents pertaining to treatment
and bill marked as exhibit in this case (X to X/32). She deposed that
she has taken several efforts to contact the appellant but he has
flatly refused to visit her Maika. The appellant-husband and his
mother always demanded money. Both of them committed mental
and physical cruelty at matrimonial house. She deposed that the
appellant never came to bring her and her child to matrimonial
2025:JHHC:31729-DB
house but he filed restitution of conjugal right U/s-9 vide MTS Case
No. 529/2016 on February 2017. She went to her matrimonial house
and stayed for 2 months but her father on 19.11.2017 purchased a
Royal Enfield motorcycle in her name and given to appellant on
18.11.2017. She filed the photocopy of the purchased Item marked
Ext. X/33 to X/45.
She deposed that M.T.S. Case No. 529/2018 was disposed of
because she has already been staying with the appellant. She
deposed that the appellant and his mother continuously demanded
dowry for running a DPS School and due to non-fulfillment of
demand there was hot altercation took place on 12.12.2018 at the
Singh More house where the appellant assaulted and beaten her and
the mother-in-law also beaten her. She deposed that on 29.12.2018,
the appellant took her to Koderma and on 30.12.2018, the appellant
booked a room in hotel Blish Residency at Ranchi and on
31.01.2018, the appellant and his mother left her in the said hotel
and went away. Later on, she called her father and make a payment
to hotel room. She deposed that she left her job and returned to
matrimonial house to save her marriage.
In her cross-examination at para 49, she deposed that her father
given Rs. 15,00,000/- and jewellery at the time of marriage. At para
59, she has also deposed that after marriage she went to
matrimonial house at Koderma.
2025:JHHC:31729-DB
At para 64, she deposed that during stay at her matrimonial
house the petitioner, appellant herein and mother-in-law always
taunting her. At para-68, she has deposed that the appellant and her
mother-in-law always demanded her salary and the said information
given to her mother Kanchan Sinha.
(ii) O.P.W. No.2, namely, Ram Prasad Singh, has deposed
that the petitioner, appellant herein and the respondent (wife) are
his son-in-law and daughter respectively. Their marriage was
solemnized and at the time of marriage, valuable gift item including
jewelry were given to opposite party including cash of
Rs.15,00,000/-. He has deposed that the marriage was fixed on
24.05.2015 but the appellant and his mother demanded complete
transaction of money and due to delay arrangement of money and
marriage, was deferred and solemnized on 25.05.2015 after
payment. He has also deposed that after marriage the respondent
went to her matrimonial house and thereafter, went to Bangalore
where she was working as Software Engineer. He has further
deposed that the respondent was fed-up due to such demand and
ultimately, she resigned from her job and left Bangalore and went to
her matrimonial house on 30.01.2016. He has also deposed that his
grand-son got seriously ill and admitted at different hospital at
Ranchi and the information given to the appellant about seriousness
of his son but the appellant and his mother never visited to see the
condition of child. All the expenses incurred during treatment were
paid by him.
2025:JHHC:31729-DB
In his cross-examination at para-44, he has deposed that there
was no documentary evidence available on the record of demand of
Rs.15,00,000/- at the time of marriage.
21. The learned Family Judge has gone into the interpretation of the word
"cruelty" and assessing the same from the evidences led on behalf of the
parties as also the submission made in the pleadings, i.e., plaint and
written statement, has found that the element of cruelty could not have
been established.
22. The learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner has argued that the
evidence of cruelty has not properly been considered and as such, the
judgment suffers from perversity, hence, not sustainable in the eyes of
law.
23. While on the other hand, argument has been advanced on behalf of the
respondent-wife that the judgment is well considered and merely by
committing fraud, the suit for divorce has been filed.
24. This Court, while appreciating the argument advanced on behalf of the
parties on the issue of perversity needs to refer herein the interpretation of
the word "perverse" as has been interpreted by the Hon'ble Apex Court
which means that there is no evidence or erroneous consideration of the
evidence. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Arulvelu and Anr. vs. State
[Represented by the Public Prosecutor] and Anr., (2009) 10 SCC 206
while elaborately discussing the word perverse has held that it is, no
doubt, true that if a finding of fact is arrived at by ignoring or excluding
relevant material or by taking into consideration irrelevant material or if
2025:JHHC:31729-DB
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. In Triveni Rubber &
Plastics v. CCE [1994 Supp (3) SCC 665 : AIR 1994 SC 1341] the
Court observed that this is not a case where it can be said that the
findings of the authorities are based on no evidence or that they are so
perverse that no reasonable person would have arrived at those
findings.
26. In M.S. Narayanagouda v. Girijamma [AIR 1977 Kant 58] the
Court observed that any order made in conscious violation of pleading
and law is a perverse order. In Moffett v. Gough [(1878) 1 LR 1r 331]
the Court observed that a "perverse verdict" may probably be defined
as one that is not only against the weight of evidence but is altogether
against the evidence. In Godfrey v. Godfrey [106 NW 814] the Court
defined "perverse" as turned the wrong way, not right; distorted from
the right; turned away or deviating from what is right, proper, correct,
etc.
27. The expression "perverse" has been defined by various
dictionaries in the following manner:
1. Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary of Current English, 6th
Edn.
"Perverse.--Showing deliberate determination to behave in a way
that most people think is wrong, unacceptable or unreasonable."
2. Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, International
Edn.
2025:JHHC:31729-DB
Perverse.--Deliberately departing from what is normal and
reasonable.
3. The New Oxford Dictionary of English, 1998 Edn.
Perverse.--Law (of a verdict) against the weight of evidence or the
direction of the judge on a point of law.
4. The New Lexicon Webster's Dictionary of the English
Language (Deluxe Encyclopedic Edn.)
Perverse.--Purposely deviating from accepted or expected
behavior or opinion; wicked or wayward; stubborn; cross or petulant.
5. Stroud's Judicial Dictionary of Words & Phrases, 4th Edn.
"Perverse.--A perverse verdict may probably be defined as one that is
not only against the weight of evidence but is altogether against the
evidence.""
25. Further, it needs to refer herein that in the instant case, the ground for
divorce has been taken of cruelty. 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.
26. This Court, deems it fit and proper to take into consideration the meaning
of 'cruelty', as has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Shobha Rani
v. Madhukar Reddi, (1988)1 SCC 105 wherein the wife alleged that the
husband and his parents demanded dowry. The Hon'ble Apex Court
emphasized that "cruelty" can have no fixed definition.
27. According to the Hon'ble Apex Court, "cruelty" is the "conduct in
relation to or in respect of matrimonial conduct in respect of matrimonial
2025:JHHC:31729-DB
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."
28. 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."
29. 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.
30. 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".
31. In Vijaykumar Ramchandra Bhate vs. Neela Vijay Kumar Bhate,
(2003)6 SCC 334, the Hon‟ble Apex Court has observed by taking into
2025:JHHC:31729-DB
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.
32. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Joydeep Majumdar v. Bharti Jaiswal
Majumdar, (2021) 3 SCC 742, has been pleased to observe that while
judging whether the conduct is cruel or not, what has to be seen is whether
that conduct, which is sustained over a period of time, renders the life of
the spouse so miserable as to make it unreasonable to make one live with
the other. The conduct may take the form of abusive or humiliating
treatment, causing mental pain and anguish, torturing the spouse, etc. The
conduct complained of must be "grave" and "weighty" and trivial
irritations and normal wear and tear of marriage would not constitute
mental cruelty as a ground for divorce.
33. This Court, on the premise of the interpretation of the word "cruelty" has
considered the evidences of the witnesses as has been incorporated by the
learned Court in the impugned judgment. For ready reference, the relevant
paragraphs of the impugned judgment are being quoted as under:
"It transpires from the evidence that the petitioner filed this
divorce case on the ground of cruelty committed by the
respondent. The plaintiff/petitioner deposed about the demand
of visit Switzerland was not corroborated by any documentary
evidence like passport and Visa. Rather the plaintiff/petitioner in
their evidence admitted that after marriage they went to
Singapore, Australia, New Jerscy along with his mother. Every
newly married couple have desire to visit at different places just
after marriage but in this case the petitioner after marriage left
2025:JHHC:31729-DB
the respondent and went to abroad along with mother. It further
transpires that the respondent was demanded separation from
her mother-in-law but from the evidence it shows that the
mother-in-law was working in Giridih and running a NGO
which itself proves that she was not residing with the
respondent. The respondent was a working lady and doing job
at Bangalore at the time of marriage. The contentions of the
respondent is very much appreciable that just to save her
matrimonial life, she left the job and went to Koderma to remain
stay with the petitioner. It further transpires that after birth of
male child she was under treatment but the expenses incurred
was not completely paid by the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner
himself neglects the respondent and her child. The respondent
filed dowry case which is resulted into acquittal of petitioner
and Ld. counsel for the petitioner submitted that by filing false
criminal case by the respondent against petitioner and her
mother committed cruelty. I am of the opinion after going
through the evidence of parties that merely because there was
an sequittal by a criminal court, did not wash away the cruelty
committed by the petitioner and her mother of being involved
with a young educated working girl during the subsistence of his
marriage and merely acquittal in a criminal case could not be a
ground to grant divorce.
-------- -------- --------- ---------- ---------
In this instant case the petitioner not able to brought any
cogent evidence which could prove that he has reasonable
apprehension that to live with the respondent is harmful or
injurious to them. There was no instance except one or two
which brought in the evidence by the petitioner which happen in
every matrimonial or conjugal life of the spouses. The mental
cruelty refers to the infliction of the emotional or psychological
distress on one spouse by the other spouse and it can be various
forms such as humiliation verbal abused harassment, threat etc.
The evidence of the petitioner refers only few instances of threat
and verbal exchange or humiliation which could not be
considered as mental cruelty.---------
The evidence available on the record which proves that
respondent very much performed her loyalty and in consequence
2025:JHHC:31729-DB
she got pregnant and blessed with one male child. It is settled
position of law that every small dispute / quarrel cannot be
viewed as cruelty for the purpose of divorce otherwise many
marriages would be on risk as being dissolved even if no cruelty
is actually caused by on spouse to the other. The Plaintiff
husband alleged that respondent committed continuously cruelty
against him and his mother, but no cogent evidence available on
the record to relied upon the aforesaid facts. It is well
established law that court cannot grant a decree of divorce on
the ground of cruelty without a pleading on this point by the
party and the same being proved by the cogent evidence. The
witnesses examined on behalf of plaintiff not consistent, which
could prove that the respondent has committed cruelty and
withdrawn from the society of the plaintiff. Plaintiff taken
advantage of its own wrong to get decree of divorce as the
evidence of respondent itself prove the facts. accordingly, issue
No. III is decided in favour of the respondent and against the
petitioner/plaintiff."
34. It is evident from the order impugned and as per the evidence available on
record that the respondent-wife has very much performed her loyalty and
in consequence thereof, she got pregnant and blessed with one male child.
35. The appellant-husband alleged that the respondent-wife committed
continuous cruelty against him and his mother, but no cogent evidence
available on record to relief upon the aforesaid facts. It is well established
law that Court cannot grant a decree of divorce on the ground cruelty
without the concrete evidence led by the parties on this point.
36. It is further evident from the order impugned that the witnesses examined
on behalf of plaintiff/appellant herein is not consistent that the respondent-
wife has committed cruelty and withdrawn from the society of the
plaintiff/appellant. The appellant has taken advantage of its own wrong to
2025:JHHC:31729-DB
get a decree of divorce as the evidence of respondent-wife itself prove the
facts.
37. It is further evident therefrom that the fact about visit of Switzerland was
not corroborated by any documentary evidence like passport and visa,
rather, the plaintiff/appellant in their evidence admitted that after marriage
they went to Singapore, Australia, New Jersey along with his mother.
38. The learned Family Judge, on consideration of the aforesaid issues, has
not found the ground for dissolution of marriage on cruelty and therefore,
dismissed the suit.
39. This Court, based upon the aforesaid discussions, is of the view that the
appellant/petitioner has failed to establish the element of perversity in the
impugned judgment as per the discussions made hereinabove, as such, the
instant appeal deserves to be dismissed.
40. Accordingly, the instant appeal fails and is, dismissed.
41. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
I Agree
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
14/10/2025
Rohit /-A.F.R.
Uploaded on 15.10.2025
