[Cites 18, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Deepak Kumar Singh vs Sunita Devi on 3 February, 2026
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
2026:JHHC:2803-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
First Appeal No.150 of 2024
-----
Deepak Kumar Singh, aged about 34 years, son of Umesh Prasad Singh,
resident of Qr. No.245/2/5, Tube Colony, Chotta Govindpur, PO-Chotta
Govindpur, P.S-Chotta Govindpur, District-East Singhbhum, Jharkhand
..........Petitioner/Appellant
Versus
Sunita Devi, aged about 32 years, daughter of Late Haldar Singh, resident
of Joda (Hudisahi), Opp. Shankar Hindi High School, Joda, PO-Joda, PS-
Joda, District-Keonjhar, State-Odisha.
... ... Respondent/ Respondent
-------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI
-------
For the Appellant : Ms. Ashwini Priya, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Kamdeo Pandey, Advocate
------
C.A.V on 27.01.2026 Pronounced on 03/02/2026
Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
The instant appeal under section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act,
1984 is directed against the judgment dated 07.05.2024 and the decree
dated 16.05.2024 passed in Original (Matrimonial) Suit No.295 of 2017
by the learned Addl. Principal Judge, Addl. Family Court-I, East
Singhbhum at Jamshedpur (herein referred as Family Judge) whereby and
whereunder the petition filed under section 13(1) (i-a) of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955 by the appellant-husband against the respondent-wife
has been dismissed.
2. The brief facts of the case as pleaded in the plaint having been
recorded by the learned Family Judge, needs to be referred herein as:
(i) The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 22.02.2016 at
Hotel Alcor Bistupur, Jamshedpur according to Hindu Rites and
Custom.
2026:JHHC:2803-DB
(ii) Thereafter, the respondent remained in her matrimonial home for
two days only and did not allow the petitioner/appellant to
consummate the marriage by cohabitation on the ground that she
was one of the disciples of Satsang and prior permission was
required for the consummation of marriage and unless she was
permitted by her Satsang Philanthropy, Deoghar, she could not
consummate the marriage.
(iii) After two days, she went to her parent's house at Joda, Dist.
Keonjhar, Odissa on 25.02.2016.
(iv) It has been stated that before the marriage, on, parents of both the
parties met at Dhanbad where the respondent was interviewed by
the petitioner and his parents in presence of her parents and they all
repeated that she is qualified as MBA from BHU and she is serving
as Manager in Citi Bank at Mumbai. Further, the respondent and her
parents submitted that after the marriage she will get her transferred
to CITI Bank, Singapore where the petitioner is working.
(v) It is the case of the petitioner that at the time of marriage, the facts
of her being a disciple of the Satsang Philanthropy, Deoghar was
concealed by her brother Lal Mani Singh as well as the middle man,
namely, Bablu Singh and they intentionally settled the marriage by
concealing such facts from the petitioner and his family members.
(vi) When the respondent returned back to her matrimonial house in the
month of July, 2016, respondent took all her ornaments which were
presented at the time of marriage by petitioner and relatives and
started insisting that the petitioner/appellant should also become
member of Satsang by taking Diksha, otherwise she would not allow
2026:JHHC:2803-DB
him to perform sexual intercourse with her. The petitioner refused
to accept the demand of respondent because he had no knowledge
about such religious order in which she was involved for so many
years.
(vii) The respondent again made demand to the petitioner for living
separately from his old aged parents, but he was not in a position to
accept such demand because he was the eldest son of his family and
had responsibility of maintaining and supporting his parent's need.
It has been asserted that on his refusal to accept the demand of the
respondent, she refused to cooperate and perform her matrimonial
obligation and also refused to have sexual relation with the
petitioner.
(viii) The respondent barely stayed for 14-15 days in her matrimonial
home with the petitioner and again went to her parent's house and
from there, she again started repeating her earlier demands of
joining Satsang and living separately from petitioner's parents,
which was denied by the petitioner. On his refusal to fulfil such
demands of respondent, it is alleged that the respondent refused to
come back to her matrimonial home.
(ix) It is stated that respondent was so dedicated and influenced by
religious activity and Satsang that during the short stay, the
petitioner observed abnormalities in her behaviour on many
occasions.
(x) The respondent used to donate a sum of Rs. 500/- per month to
Satsang Samity, which was impossible for the petitioner to arrange
Rs.500/- per month for such donations because of his limited
2026:JHHC:2803-DB
earnings and existing financial commitments. The petitioner
concluded that it was not possible for the petitioner to lead peaceful
conjugal life with the respondent and he apprehended that the
respondent would make attempts to implicate him and his family
members in any false case.
3. On the aforesaid ground of cruelty, the appellant-husband has
prayed for a decree of dissolution of the marriage between him and the
respondent-wife.
4. On getting notice the respondent-wife appeared and filed her
written statement. Thereafter, the Court initiated reconciliation proceeding
to take endeavour to bring about reconciliation between the parties and
also referred their dispute to Mediation Center, Jamshedpur for exploring
the possibility of amicable settlement. However, the reconciliation and the
mediation attempts yielded no positive result and both the parties
expressed their desire to contest the suit on merit.
5. The respondent thereafter filed her written statement admitting
the fact that her marriage was solemnized with the petitioner. It has been
pleaded by the respondent that before the marriage ceremony a meeting
was held between the parties and the petitioner and the respondent were
get to know each other along with parents and after, ascertaining all
required facts, marriage between the parties was fixed and as per the
demand of the petitioner and his family members, all demands were
fulfilled in " Tilokotsav".
6. The petitioner and his family have received more than Rs. Ten
Lakhs as dowry and to pressurize the respondent and her family members
to fulfill their further demand of dowry as envisaged from the letter of the
2026:JHHC:2803-DB
brother of the respondent Lal Muni Singh dated 15.05.2017 and letter for
respondent dated 06.06.2017, the petition for divorce has been filed.
7. The respondent had gone to her parent's house at Joda after two
days of marriage and again came to her matrimonial house with consent
of the petitioner as well as all his family members and that during the first
stay of two days, conjugation was made between the petitioner and
respondent. She has also denied the allegation of her being engaged in any
Satsang or disciple of any Guru and pleaded since she herself was not
involved with any Satsang, there was no question of forcing the petitioner
to be Satsangi. She further pleaded that she always obeyed the petitioner
during their conjugal relationship and as such petitioner has made a false
statement before the Court. The respondent is always ready to live with
the petitioner in her matrimonial house and for this family members of the
respondent and respondent herself contacted the petitioner as well as his
family members time to time but there was very cold response from their
side.
8. It has been averred that respondent is vegetarian, which fact was
well known to the petitioner and his family members and being a
vegetarian is not a bad thing in any manner. The respondent never asked
the petitioner to be vegetarian and she never concealed any facts from the
petitioner at any stage. The respondent has not taken away any ornament
and the same is still in possession of the mother of the petitioner.
9. It has further been stated that the petitioner had himself sent the
respondent to her parent's house on 03.08.2016 assuring her that he would
come to bring her back to her matrimonial home very shortly. Thereafter
again and again respondent and her family members had requested the
2026:JHHC:2803-DB
petitioner and his family members to allow the respondent to come to
Jamshedpur and in this regard, contacts were made physically as well as
through mobile, but she was not allowed to return to her matrimonial
house.
10. It has also been pleaded that the respondent had never objected
to conjugal relation between her and the petitioner. The respondent has
never objected to live with petitioner in his father's house. She has also
never objected the petitioner for conjugal life and for sexual intercourse in
any manner. She is always willing to stay and live with the petitioner in
the petitioner's father house. The petitioner forced her to go to her mother
house at Joda. On the basis of above submission, it has been prayed to
reject the prayer of the petitioner.
11. Learned Family Judge, after institution of the said case, taking
into consideration of the pleading of the appellant and the respondent has
formulated the issues and has decided the lis by refusing to grant divorce
to the petitioner/appellant.
12. The aforesaid judgment by which divorce has not been granted
is under challenge by filing the instant appeal.
Submission of behalf of the appellant-husband:
13. Ms. Ashwini Priya, the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant-husband has taken the following grounds:
(i) There is an error in the impugned judgment, since, each and
every aspect of the matter has not been taken into consideration
based upon the documentary evidences as well as ocular
evidences.
2026:JHHC:2803-DB
(ii) The element of cruelty has been found to be there if the
evidences adduced on behalf of the appellant-husband will be
taken into consideration but without appreciating the same
properly the learned Family Judge has come to the finding by
holding that no element of cruelty is there and, as such, the
impugned judgment and decree suffer from an error.
(iii) It has been contended that the appellant has been meted out
with the cruelty as also the respondent is living separately and, as
such, both the grounds are available as would be evident from the
evidence adduced on behalf of the appellant-husband, but the
same has not been taken into consideration.
(iv) It has been contended that the learned Family Judge has failed
to appreciate the evidences adduced on behalf of the appellant as
in the trial, the evidence has come that it was the respondent-wife
who has treated the appellant with cruelty by her cruel behaviour
and act and even did not allow him to consummate the marriage,
but this fact has not been considered by the learned Family Judge.
14. The learned counsel, based upon the aforesaid ground, has
submitted that the impugned judgment and decree, therefore, needs
interference said to be perverse.
Submission of behalf of the respondent-wife:
15. On the other hand, in support of their contention, the learned
counsel appearing for the respondent-wife has raised the following
grounds:
(i) There is no error in the impugned judgement. The
learned Family Judge has considered the entire issue
2026:JHHC:2803-DB
and on the basis of evidence as led by the parties and
has passed the order impugned, as such, the same may
not be interfered with.
(ii) The appellant has sought divorce on the ground that the
behaviour of the respondent-wife is cruel to the extent
that it is impossible for the husband to lead happy
conjugal life, but the learned Family Court, after taking
into consideration the oral and documentary evidence,
has held that the entire allegations levelled in are
absolutely illegal, uncalled for and has rightly
dismissed the suit.
(iii) It has also been submitted that the learned Family Court
after taking into consideration the material available on
record has found that the conduct of the appellant-
husband has never been towards salvaging the
institution of marriage as it is he who has come for the
dissolution of the marriage, therefore on the pretext of
the aforesaid categorical finding of the Family Court,
the impugned order requires no interference.
16. Learned counsel, based upon the aforesaid grounds, has
submitted that if on that pretext, the factum of cruelty has not been found
to be established, hence, the impugned judgment cannot be said to suffer
from an error.
Analysis:
17. It needs to mention herein that vide orders dated 09.12.2024 and
25.08.2025 notices were issued to the respondent-wife by this Court upon
2026:JHHC:2803-DB
which the respondent-wife appeared in the present proceeding and while
calling for the Trial Court Records the instant appeal was admitted vide
order dated 16.10.2025.
18. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties,
gone through the Trial Court Records, the impugned judgment, as also the
testimonies of the witnesses and the documents exhibited therein.
19. The learned Family Judge has formulated altogether five issues,
for ready reference the same are being quoted hereinbelow:
i) Is the suit as framed maintainable?
ii) Whether the applicant has valid cause of action?
iii) Whether the respondent has meted out cruelty on the
applicant/petitioner?
iv) Whether the applicant/petitioner is entitled to a decree for
dissolution of marriage under section13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu
Marriage Act?
v) To what other relief or reliefs the applicant/petitioner is entitled?
20. The issue pertaining to ground for divorce is by formulating a
specific issue whether the respondent has meted out cruelty on the
applicant/petitioner as issue no.(iii).
21. The learned Family Judge has considered the evidence adduced
on behalf of the parties for proper adjudication of the lis.
22. 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 wherein the element of cruelty has been shown by the
plaintiff-husband as also the evidence adduced on behalf of the
2026:JHHC:2803-DB
respondent-wife wherein the allegation of cruelty at the hands of the
respondent has been denied.
23. During the trial, three witnesses have been examined on behalf
of the appellant-husband who himself has been examined PW1 whereas
the respondent-wife has examined three witnesses in support of her case
including herself as R.W1.
24. On behalf of the petitioner-husband, the following documents
have been produced which have been exhibited during trial:
Ext.1 - Deposit Slip for Rs.500/-.
Ext.2 - Original bio-data of Sunita Kumari Singh.
Ext.3 - Letter written by Lalmani Singh.
Ext.3/1 - Letter written by Sunita Singh.
Ext.4 - Original Marriage Certificate.
Ext.5 - A book written in Odiya.
25. As P.W1, the petitioner has admitted that his marriage was
solemnized with the respondent on 22.02.2016 as per mutual agreement of
both the parties at Hotel Alcore, Jamshedpur. He has deposed that after the
marriage, the respondent came to her matrimonial house at Jamshedpur
where she remained only for two days and did not allow the petitioner to
consummate the marriage on the pretext that she is one of the disciples of
Satsang Philanthropy, Deoghar and for consummation of marriage, she is
required to get permission from that Satsang. Thereafter, she went to her
parents' house at Joda, Keonjhar.
26. The petitioner has further stated that at the time of marriage, the
facts of her being a disciple of the Satsang Philanthropy, Deoghar was
concealed by the family members of the respondent-wife. He has further
deposed that in mid of July, 2016 the respondent came back to her
2026:JHHC:2803-DB
matrimonial house and started insisting the petitioner that he would also
become a member/disciple of the aforesaid Satsang by taking Diksha
otherwise she would not allow him to consummate the marriage to which
the petitioner has refused to do so. He has further deposed that the
respondent-wife insisted the petitioner to live separately from his old aged
parents and on refusal, she refused to cooperate or to perform her
matrimonial obligation in any manner and even denied to consummate the
marriage.
27. The petitioner has deposed that on refusal, the respondent-wife
went back to her matrimonial house at Joda and repeated her earlier
demand of living separately and to become a member/disciple of the
aforesaid Satsang by taking Diksha and when the petitioner denied she
refused to come back to her matrimonial house and, thus, he was meted
out with cruelty at the hands of the respondent.
During cross-examination, at para-30 the petitioner has admitted
that before the marriage both the parties were acquainted with each other,
but again stated that many things were concealed at the time of marriage
about the respondent. At para-31 he has deposed that before marriage it
was informed by the respondent's side that she is a graduate but after
marriage, he came to know that she has not completed graduation course
and on inquiry, he came to know that she appeared in the graduation
examination, but could not succeed. At para-32, he has stated that at Ring
Ceremony, there was no talk between the respondent and him. At para-37,
he has stated that after marriage the respondent lived with him for about
2-3 days. At para-40, he has stated that he found the deposit slip of
Rs.500/- per month to be deposited in Satsang from the Almirah of his
2026:JHHC:2803-DB
wife. At para-43, he has stated that in the month of February, 2016, the
parents of the respondent took her to her parents' house on the assurance
that after ten days she would come back to her matrimonial house but they
refused to send her. Thereafter, on pressure, they agreed to send her back
and he went to take back her. At para-45, P.W1 has admitted that it is true
that when the parents of the petitioner refused to take back the respondent
to their house, then the brother and brother-in-law of the respondent came
to his house to make a request to keep the respondent with the petitioner.
At para-46, he admitted that when the petitioner and his parents refused to
keep the respondent with them, then her brother and brother-in-law gave a
letter to the petitioner. At para-47, he admitted that when the respondent
wrote a letter to him thereafter, he has filed the divorce suit.
28. P.W2-Lal Mohan Kumar is brother-in-law of the petitioner and
a distant relative of the respondent and, as such, he knows both the parties.
He has corroborated the factum of marriage of the parties and has stated
that at the time of marriage the fact of the respondent being a disciple of
the Satsang Philanthropy, Deoghar was concealed by her parents and
family members. He has deposed that the respondent insisted the petitioner
to become a disciple of the aforesaid Satsang and when he denied, she has
refused to consummate the marriage. He has deposed that after refusal by
the petitioner to fulfill her demand, the respondent refused to come back
to her matrimonial home.
During cross-examination, at para-8, this witness has stated that
after reception ceremony there was some dispute between the parties
thereafter, he went there and the reason was that the respondent is a
disciple of Satsang at Deoghar and she demanded separate bathroom, bed
2026:JHHC:2803-DB
etc. for living there. At para-11, he has stated that the respondent told him
that she cannot sleep with her husband because she had taken diksha from
Anukul Thakur of Deoghar.
29. PW3-Rekha Devi is the mother of the petitioner. She has
corroborated the fact of marriage between the petitioner and the
respondent and stated that the respondent is a disciple of the Satsang
Philanthropy, Deoghar. She has further stated that this fact was concealed
by the parents of the respondent at the time of marriage. She has further
deposed that the respondent demanded separate accommodation,
household things and even separate washroom and bed for herself since
the day of reception of marriage. This witness has deposed that the
respondent started insisted that the petitioner also to become a member of
Satsang by taking Diksha and on refusal by the petitioner, she went to her
parents' house and denied to come back to her matrimonial house. She has
stated about the demand of respondent to live separately from her inlaws
and when the petitioner refused to do so, she has denied to come back to
her matrimonial home.
During cross-examination, at para-10, P.W3 has stated that the
respondent started demanding a separate accommodation for herself since
the day of reception of marriage as she is vegetarian and when she asked
the respondent about the same, she has stated that she cannot adjust in her
matrimonial house as they are non-vegetarian. At para-17, P.W3 has
admitted that the respondent's brother and brother-in-law had come to her
house with request to take her back to her matrimonial house but she
refused to permit her to return to her matrimonial house as her son was not
ready to adjust with the respondent. This witness has also admitted to have
2026:JHHC:2803-DB
received request letters from the respondent and her brother for taking the
respondent back to her matrimonial home and that only after receiving said
letters, her son (the petitioner/appellant) filed the case for divorce against
the respondent.
30. On the other hand, the respondent herself as R.W1 has stated that
her marriage with the petitioner was solemnized on 22.02.2016 at Hotel
Alcor, Jamshedpur according to Hindu rites and custom. She has stated
that at the time of marriage a sum of Rs.25 lakhs was spent by her parents
for dowry, clothes, jewellery, household utensils and in the shape of cash.
After the marriage, he went to her parents' house with her husband where
he stayed there for about one week and thereafter returned to Jamshedpur.
She has deposed that the petitioner never came back to take her back and
when her brother requested him, the petitioner assured that he would take
back the respondent with him but he never did so. She has further stated
that the petitioner neglected to keep her with him and when she made
telephonic call, the petitioner used to disconnect the call. On being
compelled, she wrote letter to the petitioner to keep her with him thereafter
the petitioner has filed the suit for divorce.
31. At para- 10, she has stated that neither she participated in any
Satsang nor she took Diksha from any religious guru. At para-12, R.W1
has stated that she is vegetarian but her brother and sister are non-
vegetarian and she never hated being a non-vegetarian. At para-14, this
witness has stated that since her marriage was solemnized with the
mediation of family members who acquainted both the parties and, as such,
at the time of marriage everything was informed to the petitioner and his
parents and nothing was concealed from them.
2026:JHHC:2803-DB
32. At para-18 and 19, she has stated that she wanted to live with her
husband and inlaws in future. At para-20 she has stated that she does not
want to take divorce from the petitioner.
During cross-examination, she has stated that she is vegetarian and
her husband has not pressurized her to cook or eat non-vegetarian food.
She has denied that she ever took Diksha from any religious guru. At para-
27, RW1 has admitted that Shailesh Singh is her brother whose name was
mentioned at the receipt of donation which has been exhibited as Ext.1. At
para-35 R.W1 has denied that at the time of marriage her brother and her
family members got her married by keeping her husband and in-laws in
the dark about her education. At para-59, she has denied that there was
concealment of fact about her religious and spiritual interests as well as
her education being a graduate.
33. RW2-Ashok Kumar Singh is the elder brother-in-law of the
respondent. He is acquainted with both the parties as he is maternal uncle
of the petitioner's brother-in-law. At para-13, this witness has stated that
on the repeated requests made by him and his brother-in-law, the petitioner
has refused to keep the respondent with him. Thereafter, his brother-in-
law wrote a letter making request to the petitioner to take back the
respondent with him. At para-4, RW2 has stated that the respondent desires
to live with the petitioner as his wife.
During cross-examination, at para-27, R.W2 has stated that in his in-
laws' house, except his mother-in-law and father-in-law, no other member
had taken Guru Mantra. At para-30, this witness has stated that at the time
of negotiation of marriage, he informed the in laws of the respondent that
she completed graduation but crossed in one subject.
2026:JHHC:2803-DB
34. RW.3-Lalmuni Singh is the elder brother of the respondent. She
has corroborated the factum of marriage and has stated that at the time of
negotiation of marriage, everything about the education of the respondent
was told by him to her in- laws. He has stated that the petitioner's family
was told that if they wished, the respondent could pursue further studies.
At para-17, this witness has stated that after the marriage, the petitioner
left Sunita Devi (respondent) to her maike at Joda after saying that he
would take her back soon but he never came there.
35. After awaiting a long period, when the petitioner and his parents
did not allow the respondent to come back her matrimonial house, he went
to petitioner's house at Jamshedpur with a request to keep the respondent
but they did not heed. Thereafter, he wrote a letter making request to keep
the respondent with them and thereafter, the petitioner filed the divorce
suit. At para-24, RW3 has stated that after the marriage his mother took
care of the respondent and the petitioner did not pay any penny for her
maintenance. At para-27, he denied the fact that the respondent took any
Diksha from any religious guru. At para-28, he has stated that the
respondent has no income of her own and he never saw that she had made
any donation for any Satsang. At para-31, R.W3 has stated that the
respondent wants to live with the petitioner.
During cross-examination, at para-51 RW3 has stated that except his
mother and father, no one from his family had taken guru mantra. At para-
59, this witness has admitted that there was no talk between the petitioner
and the respondent for compromise. At para-61, he has denied that before
marriage he deliberately did not produce the educational certificate of the
respondent before the petitioner or his family members.
2026:JHHC:2803-DB
.
36. The learned Family Judge has appreciated the entire facts and
evidence and has come to the conclusion that the appellant-husband has
failed to make the ground of cruelty and, as such, has dismissed the suit
which is under challenge in the instant appeal.
37. The fact about filing of suit on the ground of cruelty is admitted
one as per the evidences adduced on behalf of the appellant and the
appellant-husband has tried to establish the element of cruelty upon him at
the hands of the respondent-wife.
38. The appellant-husband all along has alleged the issue of cruelty
which he was subjecting to by his wife and in order to establish the same
the evidences has been laid as has been referred hereinabove.
39. 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.
40. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Arulvelu and Anr. vs. State
[Represented by the Public Prosecutor] and Anr., (2009) 10 SCC 206
while elaborately discussing the word perverse has held that it is, no doubt,
true that if a finding of fact is arrived at by ignoring or excluding relevant
material or by taking into consideration irrelevant material or if the finding
so outrageously defies logic as to suffer from the vice of irrationality
incurring the blame of being perverse, then, the finding is rendered infirm
in law. Relevant paragraphs, i.e., paras-24, 25, 26 and 27 of the said
judgment reads as under:
2026:JHHC:2803-DB
"24. The expression "perverse" has been dealt with in a number of
cases. In Gaya Din v. Hanuman Prasad [(2001) 1 SCC 501] this Court
observed that the expression "perverse" means that the findings of the
subordinate authority are not supported by the evidence brought on
record or they are against the law or suffer from the vice of procedural
irregularity.
25. In Parry's (Calcutta) Employees' Union v. Parry & Co. Ltd. [AIR
1966 Cal 31] the Court observed that "perverse finding" means a
finding which is not only against the weight of evidence but is altogether
against the evidence itself. In Triveni Rubber & Plastics v. CCE [1994
Supp (3) SCC 665 : AIR 1994 SC 1341] the Court observed that this is
not a case where it can be said that the findings of the authorities are
based on no evidence or that they are so perverse that no reasonable
person would have arrived at those findings.
26. In M.S. Narayanagouda v. Girijamma [AIR 1977 Kant 58] the
Court observed that any order made in conscious violation of pleading
and law is a perverse order. In Moffett v. Gough [(1878) 1 LR 1r 331]
the Court observed that a "perverse verdict" may probably be defined
as one that is not only against the weight of evidence but is altogether
against the evidence.
In Godfrey v. Godfrey [106 NW 814] the Court defined "perverse" as
turned the wrong way, not right; distorted from the right; turned away
or deviating from what is right, proper, correct, etc.
27. The expression "perverse" has been defined by various
dictionaries in the following manner:
1. Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary of Current English, 6th
Edn.
"Perverse.--Showing deliberate determination to behave in a way
that most people think is wrong, unacceptable or unreasonable."
2. Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, International
Edn.
Perverse.--Deliberately departing from what is normal and
reasonable.
3. The New Oxford Dictionary of English, 1998 Edn.
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.)
2026:JHHC:2803-DB
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."
41. Thus, a perverse verdict may probably be defined as one that is
not only against the weight of evidence but is altogether against the
evidence.
42. It needs to refer herein that in the instant case, the ground for
divorce has been taken on the ground of cruelty.
43. 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.
44. This Court deems it fit and proper to take into consideration the
meaning of 'cruelty' as has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi, (1988)1 SCC 105 wherein the wife
alleged that the appellant-husband and his parents demanded dowry. The
Hon'ble Apex Court emphasized that "cruelty" can have no fixed
definition.
45. According to the Hon'ble Apex Court, "cruelty" is the "conduct
in relation to or in respect of matrimonial conduct in respect of
matrimonial obligations". It is the conduct which adversely affects the
spouse. Such cruelty can be either "mental" or "physical", intentional or
2026:JHHC:2803-DB
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."
46. 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."
47. 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.
48. 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".
49. In Vijaykumar Ramchandra Bhate v. Neela Vijay Kumar
Bhate, (2003)6 SCC 334 the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed by taking
into consideration the allegations levelled by the husband in his written
statement that his wife was "unchaste" and had indecent familiarity with a
person outside wedlock and that his wife was having an extramarital affair.
2026:JHHC:2803-DB
These allegations, given the context of an educated Indian woman, were
held to constitute "cruelty" itself.
50. It needs to refer herein that it is settled position that a proceeding
under Hindu Marriage act is not criminal proceeding where proof beyond
reasonable doubt is required rather preponderance of probability" is
enough. However, the character of spouse affects his/her reputation in the
society. Therefore, it is established proposition of law, that not only the
pleading in respect of charge of adultery should be specific, it should also
be established in all probabilities. The accepted rule, therefore, is that
circumstantial evidence is all that can normally be expected in proof of
charge; However, the circumstances must be such as to lead to fair
inference, as a necessary conclusion. In other words, proof required to
prove adultery need not necessarily be what is at times said to be proof
beyond a shadow of doubt, "It need not reach certainty but must carry a
high degree of probability".
51. 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.
2026:JHHC:2803-DB
52. Further, in the case of Vishwanath Agrawal v. Sarla
Vishwanath Agrawal, (2012) 7 SCC 288, the Hon'ble Apex Court has
held as follows:
"22. The expression "cruelty" has an inseparable nexus with human
conduct or human behaviour. It is always dependent upon the social
strata or the milieu to which the parties belong, their ways of life,
relationship, temperaments and emotions that have been conditioned by
their social status.
25. After so stating, this Court observed in Shobha Rani case about the
marked change in life in modern times and the sea change in
matrimonial duties and responsibilities. It has been observed that : (SCC
p. 108, para 5)
"5. ... when a spouse makes a complaint about the treatment of cruelty
by the partner in life or relations, the court should not search for
standard in life. A set of facts stigmatised as cruelty in one case may
not be so in another case. The cruelty alleged may largely depend upon
the type of life the parties are accustomed to or their economic and
social conditions. It may also depend upon their culture and human
values to which they attach importance."
26. Their Lordships in Shobha Rani case referred to the observations
made in Sheldon v. Sheldon wherein Lord Denning stated, "the
categories of cruelty are not closed". Thereafter, the Bench proceeded
to state thus: (Shobha Rani case, SCC p. 109, paras 5-6)
"5. ... Each case may be different. We deal with the conduct of human
beings who are not generally similar. Among the human beings there is
no limit to the kind of conduct which may constitute cruelty. New type
of cruelty may crop up in any case depending upon the human
behaviour, capacity or incapability to tolerate the conduct complained
of. Such is the wonderful (sic) realm of cruelty. 1. These preliminary
observations are intended to emphasise that the court in matrimonial
cases is not concerned with ideals in family life. The court has only to
understand the spouses concerned as nature made them, and consider
their particular grievance. As Lord Reid Gollins v. Gollins : (All ER p.
972 G-H) observed in „... In matrimonial affairs we are not dealing
with objective standards, it is not a matrimonial offence to fall below
the standard of the reasonable man (or the reasonable woman). We are
dealing with this man or this woman.‟"
2026:JHHC:2803-DB
53. In the case of Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh, (2007) 4 SCC 511
it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court as follows: --
99. Human mind is extremely complex and human behaviour is equally
complicated. Similarly human ingenuity has no bound, therefore, to
assimilate the entire human behaviour in one definition is almost
impossible. What is cruelty in one case may not amount to cruelty in
other case. The concept of cruelty differs from person to person
depending upon his upbringing, level of sensitivity, educational, family
and cultural background, financial position, social status, customs,
traditions, religious beliefs, human values and their value system.
100. Apart from this, the concept of mental cruelty cannot remain static;
it is bound to change with the passage of time, impact of modern culture
through print and electronic media and value system, etc. What may be
mental cruelty now may not remain a mental cruelty after a passage of
time or vice versa. There can never be any straitjacket formula or fixed
parameters for determining mental cruelty in matrimonial matters. The
prudent and appropriate way to adjudicate the case would be to
evaluate it on its peculiar facts and circumstances while taking
aforementioned factors in consideration.
54. Thus, from the aforesaid settled position of law it is evident that
"Cruelty" under matrimonial law consists of conduct so grave and
weighty as to lead one to the conclusion that one of the spouses cannot
reasonably be expected to live with the other spouse. It must be more
serious than the ordinary wear and tear of married life.
55. Cruelty must be of such a type which will satisfy the conscience
of the Court that the relationship between the parties has deteriorated to
such an extent that it has become impossible for them to live together
without mental agony. The cruelty practiced may be in many forms and it
must be productive of an apprehension in the mind of the other spouse
that it is dangerous to live with the erring party. Simple trivialities which
can truly be described as a reasonable wear and tear of married life cannot
amount to cruelty. In many marriages each party can, if it so wills,
2026:JHHC:2803-DB
discover many a cause for complaint but such grievances arise mostly
from temperamental disharmony. Such disharmony or incompatibility is
not cruelty and will not furnish a cause for the dissolution of marriage.
56. Now re-adverting to the factual aspect, it is evident from the
impugned order that the allegations specific to the ground of alleged
cruelty has been made by petitioner/plaintiff-Husband vide paras- 5, 8, 9,
10,11, and 12 of his petition/plaint. Starting with paras-5 of the
petition/plaint, the plaintiff-husband has alleged that OP/his wife while
staying for two days with him, did not allow the petitioner to consummate
the marriage by cohabitation on the ground that she is one of the disciples
of aforesaid Satsang and permission is required before consummation the
marriage and unless she is permitted by her Satsang Philanthropy,
Degohar, she cannot consummate the marriage.
57. It is further alleged that the respondent started insisting that the
petitioner also to become member of Satsang by taking Diksha otherwise
she would not allow him to consummate the marriage. In para-9, his
specific allegation is that the respondent made unreasonable demand to
the petitioner for living separately away from his aged parents which was
unacceptable for the petitioner because being the eldest son of his family,
he has to maintain and support his parents' need. At para-10, it is alleged
that after refusal of demand of the respondent, she refused to co-operate
to perform her matrimonial obligation in any manner and on repeated
requests made by the petitioner, she refused to co-operate with the
petitioner and denied to consummate the marriage. At para-12 of the
plaint, it is alleged that after refusal by the petitioner to fulfill her demand,
2026:JHHC:2803-DB
the respondent/Opposite Party refused to come back to her matrimonial
home.
58. The aforesaid pleading has been taken care of by the learned
Family Judge and it has been observed that "though it is strongly alleged
that the respondent-wife had caused mental cruelty by depriving the
petitioner-husband to establish sexual intercourse with his wife for a
considerable period of time but such an allegation has not been proved.
On the other hand, there is material to suggest that the respondent-wife
took all possible efforts to restore her marital life with the petitioner, but
she was not allowed to do so".
59. The learned Family Judge further observed that the mother of the
petitioner as P.W3 has admitted during cross-examination that on call,
when brother and brother-in-law of the respondents came to their house
and requested to keep the respondent with them, she refused to keep her
as her son was not ready to adjust with her. This shows that the respondent
and her family members wanted to live with the petitioner and his family
but they refused to keep her with them.
60. Thus, from the aforesaid it is evident that the learned Family
Judge has considered the fact that the appellant-husband has miserably
failed to establish the allegation of cruelty at the hands of the respondent-
wife rather it was the petitioner-husband who himself has acted cruelty
upon the respondent by refusing to keep her with him as wife.
61. At para-12 of the impugned judgment, the learned Family Judge
after going through the evidence on record has explained in detail about
the non-proving of the allegation of cruelty against the respondent-wife
which reads as under:
2026:JHHC:2803-DB
"12. The learned counsel representing the petitioner sought dissolution
of marriage on the ground that the matrimonial ties between the parties
had irretrievably broken down. It was, therefore, the contention of the
learned counsel for the petitioner that this Court would be justified in
annulling the marriage between the parties, especially when the parties
have lived apart for almost 8 years. It was, therefore, sought to be
suggested that there was no likelihood of the parties ever living together
as husband and wife. It was accordingly submitted that this Court should
consider the annulment of the matrimonial ties between the parties on
the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage.
In the case on hand, though it is strongly alleged that the respondent/wife
had caused mental cruelty by depriving the petitioner/husband to
establish sexual intercourse with his wife for a considerable period of
time but such an allegation has not been proved by the
petitioner/husband. On the other hand, there is material to suggest that
the respondent/wife took all possible efforts to restore her marital life
with the petitioner, but she was not allowed to do so for the reasons as
stated by petitioner's mother PW3 Rekha Devi that even she turned down
the request of the respondent to return to her matrimonial house to lead
conjugal life with the petitioner because her son (Petitioner) was not
ready to adjust with the respondent. The respondent in her written
statement as also during her evidence has given statement that the
marriage was consummated within two days of marriage. There is
evidence to the effect that the respondent had always been inclined to
lead conjugal life with the petitioner but it was the petitioner himself who
was quite averse to continue his marital life with the respondent. In such
facts and circumstances, this court finds that the petitioner himself is
taking advantage of his own wrong to seek relief of decree of divorce on
the ground of cruelty and thus his case for the relief sought because of
his own conduct come within the meaning of "wrong" as occurring in
section 23(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act. So far as the contention of
irretrievable breakdown of marriage is concerned, on a bare reading of
Section 13 of the Act, it is crystal clear that no such ground of
irretrievable breakdown of the marriage is provided by the legislature
for granting a decree of divorce. Apart from this, here in this case, the
petitioner himself is responsible for such long period of separation as he
himself did not cooperate the respondent to return to her matrimonial
house to lead conjugal life and thus he can not be permitted to take
advantage of his wrong to plead irretrievable breakdown of marriage to
seek relief. Hence, considering the whole facts and circumstances of this
case together with the established law and evidence discussed above, this
2026:JHHC:2803-DB
court has come to the conclusion that the petitioner has failed to
discharge the burden of proving that he was subjected to cruelty of such
a nature which has now made impossible for him to continue his marital
tie with the respondent. Accordingly, Both these issues are decided
against the petitioner."
62. Now, again coming on the issue of cruelty, it requires to refer
herein that the Hon'ble Apex Court in Joydeep Majumdar v. Bharti
Jaiswal Majumdar(supra) has observed 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.
63. It needs to refer herein that the foundation of a sound marriage is
acceptance, adjustment and respecting one another. Tolerance to each
other's fault to a certain bearable extent has to be inherent in every
marriage. Petty quibbles, trifling differences should not be inflated to
abolish what is said to have been made in heaven. All quarrels must be
weighed from that point of view in determining what constitutes cruelty
in each particular case and as noted above, always keeping in view the
physical and mental conditions of the parties, their character and social
status. A too technical and hyper-sensitive approach would be counter-
productive to the institution of marriage. The Courts do not have to deal
with ideal husbands and ideal wives. It has to deal with particular man and
woman before it. The ideal couple or a mere ideal one will probably have
no occasion to go to Matrimonial Court.
64. The Hon'ble Supreme Court consistently held that the petitioner
must show a consistent pattern of behavior by the respondent to prove
cruelty, and occasional outbursts of anger or quarrels do not necessarily
amount to cruelty.
2026:JHHC:2803-DB
65. In the instant case, it is evident from the evidence of the
petitioner-husband as P.W1 who has admitted at para-45 of his cross-
examination that the family members of the respondent has requested
them to keep the respondent with him. Thereafter, on call the brother and
brother-in-law of the respondent came to his house to make a request to
keep the respondent with him. At para-46, he has admitted that it is true
that when the petitioner and his family members refused to keep the
respondent with him, then her brother-Lal Muni Singh and brother-in-law,
Babloo Singh had written a letter to him. At para-47, he has admitted that
it is true that after refusal by them to keep the respondent with him, the
respondent also wrote a letter to him in her own handwriting and thereafter
he has filed the suit for divorce. Thus, it is evident from the aforesaid
admission that it is the petitioner who has meted out cruelty upon the
respondent by not agreeing to keep her.
66. 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.
67. It is evident from the interpretation of the word cruelty that the
same is to be considered on different parameters depending upon the
material, if available on record as discussed hereinabove in the preceding
paragraphs.
68. Herein, the appellant-husband although has taken the ground of
cruelty meted to him by his wife but, in course of trial he has failed to
establish the element of cruelty meted out to him at the hands of the
respondent-wife as discussed hereinabove.
2026:JHHC:2803-DB
69. This Court after discussing the aforesaid factual aspect along
with the legal position and adverting to the consideration made by the
learned Family Judge in the impugned judgment has found therefrom that
the issue of element of cruelty has well been considered by the learned
Family Judge.
70. On consideration of the evidence, the learned Family Judge has
come to conclusion that the appellant-husband has miserably failed to
establish the ground of cruelty against the respondent-wife, rather it is the
appellant-husband, who himself has committed cruelty upon the
respondent by making allegation of being a disciple of particular religious
order and by not allowing to live with him and, thus, deserted her.
71. It needs to refer herein that a spouse converting to another
religion (non-Hindu,) is a valid ground for divorce as per section 13(1)
(ii) of the Act 1955 however, merely becoming a disciple or following a
specific sect within Hinduism does not constitute legal conversion,
making it an insufficient ground for divorce.
72. Thus, it is considered view of this Court that adherence of
respondent wife to a specific guru or religious philosophy within the fold
of Hinduism does not automatically qualify the appellant/husband for
dissolution of marriage, but if the disciple-ship constitutes complete
detachment from worldly life and marital obligation and if the wife's
devotion to the religion causes extreme mental cruelty, such as
abandoning household responsibilities or causing harm to the marital
relationship, it may be pursued under the ground of cruelty but in the
instant case the appellant/husband has failed to prove the element of
cruelty against the respondent-wife.
2026:JHHC:2803-DB
73. This Court, on consideration of the finding arrived at by the
learned Family Judge and based upon the aforesaid discussion, is of the
view that the judgment and decree passed by the learned Family Judge is
not coming under the fold of the perversity, since, the conscious
consideration has been made of the evidences, both ocular and
documentary, as would be evident from the impugned judgment.
74. This Court, therefore, is of the view that the judgment dated
07.05.2024 and the decree dated 16.05.2024 passed in Original
(Matrimonial) Suit No.295 of 2017 by the learned Family Judge need no
interference and, accordingly, the instant appeal stands dismissed.
75. Pending I.As, if any, stands disposed of.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
I Agree.
(Arun Kumar Rai, J.)
(Arun Kumar Rai, J.)
Sudhir
Dated:03/02/2026
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
AFR
Uploaded on 04/02/2026
