[Cites 21, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Sandeep Pramanik Aged About 41 Years Son ... vs Jyotsna Paramanik on 22 January, 2026
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
2026:JHHC:1815-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
F.A. No.123 of 2022
------
Sandeep Pramanik aged about 41 years son of Bhuthnath
Paramanik resident of Lower Burdwan Compound, Gulmohar
Park, P.O. & P.S. Lalpur & District-Ranchi.
... ... Appellant/ Petitioner
Versus
Jyotsna Paramanik, aged about 26 years wife Sri Sandeep
Paramanik, daughter of Sunil Paramanik, resident of
Mahulpani, Itor, P.S. Chakradharpur, Dist-West Singhbhum.
... ... Respondent/ Respondent
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI
.....
For the Appellant : Mr. Kalyan Banerjee, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Anjani Kumar, Advocate.
.....
C.A.V. on 08.01.2026 Pronounced on 22/01/2026
Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
Prayer:
1. The instant appeal has been filed under Section 19(1) of
the Family Court Act, 1984, challenging the legality and
propriety of impugned judgment passed on 22.08.2022 and
decree signed on 05.09.2022 by learned Principal Judge,
Family Court, Chaibasa whereby and whereunder the
Original Suit No. 32 of 2018 filed by the petitioner-appellant-
husband under Section 13(1), (ia), (ib) & 26 of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955 for a decree of divorce has been
dismissed.
Factual Matrix
2. The brief facts of the case of the appellant-
husband as narrated, is that the petitioner is working as
Project Associate at IIT Delhi and the respondent is a house
wife. The marriage between the petitioner and respondent
was solemnized on 21.06.2010, according to Hindu
customary rites and rituals, at Mahulpani, Itor,
Chakradharpur and reception took place on 23.06.2010 at
Lower Burdwan Compound, Ranchi.
3. After the marriage, the petitioner started living with
his wife at Lower Burdwan Compound, P.S. Lalpur, Ranchi
alongwith his old parents and last resided there as
husband and wife and out of their wedlock one son was
born on 23.11.2011 at Debuka Nursing Home, Ranchi, who
is aged about 3 years 4 months.
4. After few months of the aforesaid marriage the
respondent started giving undue pressure upon the
petitioner to oust the old parents and his sister namely
Munmun Paramanik and her son namely Soumen
Paramanik.
5. To get her demand fulfilled the respondent started
behaving in extremely rude and violent manner and
regularly abused and insulted her in-laws in front of the
petitioner. On the other hand, the parents of the petitioner
treated the respondent as their child and daughter and did
everything for her welfare including got her admitted in
intermediate course at Bundu College, Bundu and did not
ask her to perform domestic chores so that she can devote her
time in studies but on the contrary she used to get annoyed
and often abused them when they insisted her to study
which she abhorred greatly. To avoid disturbance in her
studies, the father-in-law of the respondent even performed
menial domestic job like sweeping and wiping of floors of the
house and on one such occasion on 18.10.2012 the
respondent abused and kicked him and the tub of water
while her father-in-law was wiping the floor of the room for
asking her to go and study.
6. Amongst other acts of cruelty, the respondent also
regularly threatened the petitioner that she shall commit
suicide and put him and his family members behind bars if
the petitioner does not abandon his parents and other
members of the family for her sake and start living
separately. Without any information and without any rhyme
and reason all of a sudden on 25.10.2012 at about 11 A.M.
the father of the respondent namely Sri Sunil Paramanik,
her own brother named Kartal Paramanik, her cousin
brother namely Haripada Paramanik and her two other
relatives came to the residence of the petitioner and within
10 minutes took away the respondent who was already
ready to leave and left the house of the petitioner alongwith
the son aged only 11 months only. She also took with her all
her belongings, articles, ornaments and 'stridhan' inspite of
repeated requests by the petitioner and his family members
not to leave in this way more so because that day was Bijoy
Dashmi, an auspicious day for Hindus but they refused to
listen and left.
7. The petitioner pleaded with the respondent not to
go alongwith the baby as only one dose of vaccination could
be administered on the boy/child on 07.09.2012 and others
are due in next few months which are very essential and
necessary for the child's health and welfare and requested
her and other members of her family who had come to take
her but they refused to listen to such entireties of the
petitioner and his parents.
8. Whenever, the petitioner showed his intention to go
to her place and fetch her and the child then the respondent
threatened the petitioner not to dare such an attempt or he
and his family members will face dire consequences for
which she will not be responsible.
9. In spite of said threats and warnings, the petitioner
on 19.12.2012 alongwith his father, mother, his cousin
brother Nirmal Pramanik and two maternal uncles namely
Sri Sibeshwar Paramanik and Sri Subardhan Paramanik
and son of eldest maternal uncle namely Nitish Paramanik
and one family friend namely Shanti Mahto went to Itor,
Chakradharpur to bring back the respondent and the baby.
The abovementioned persons reached respondent's house
at Itor, Chakradharpur at about 11 a.m. But the family
members from the very beginning were very aggressive and
when they were requested to allow the respondent and the
baby child to come alongwith them to Ranchi as they have
come to fetch them, they flatly refused to let them go with
the petitioner.
10. The petitioner and his family members who had
gone there only to fetch the respondent and the baby son,
the said intimidating misbehaviour was very shocking and
apprehending any fowl play by the respondent and her
family members and feeling threat to their lives decided to
leave the place and while they were leaving they also found
6-7 persons had gathered around the house of the
respondent who had come to the house on three motorcycles
and were glaring at the petitioner and his family members.
11. The petitioner states and submits that not only his
life is under threat but the innocent boy aged about 3 years
4 months only, his life, health and education is also at
stake as he has not been properly inoculated due to lack of
vaccination facility and child health care and want of proper
education facility in the said remote place where
respondent and the baby child are residing at present after
deserting the petitioner with malafide intention to blackmail
and succumb the petitioner to her illegitimate demands.
12. Due to sudden desertion of the respondent the
important social functions such as
"muhjhoota/annaprasanna" and "namkaran" ceremony of
the baby boy could not be performed causing immense pain
and suffering to the petitioner and his family.
13. For the greater interest and welfare of the baby
child in respect of his health, life and proper education it is
necessary to allow the petitioner the custody of the child
forthwith.
14. On 15.03.2015, the respondent alone without the
baby child alongwith a couple came to the residence of the
petitioner to collect some papers which she claims to be in
the possession of the petitioner and when the petitioner
and his parents inquired as to why she did not bring the
baby child then she told them harshly that she has not
come to co-habit with the petitioner but only to collect those
papers and while she was leaving the respondent loudly told
to everyone who were present in the neighborhood that the
petitioner is of criminal mentality and had threatened her
that he (Petitioner) shall get her (respondent) raped by other
persons. In view of the aforesaid misbehaviour and cruel
treatment by the respondent, the marriage between them
has become irretrievable breakdown and the petitioner is
suffering from severe psychological problems such as
severe depression and frustration leading sometimes to
suicidal tendencies.
15. The cause of action for the present suit arose on
21.06.2010 when both the parties were married, on
20.10.2012 when the parties resided lastly as husband and
wife at Ranchi and the respondent deserted the petitioner,
on several dates when the respondent threatened the
petitioner that she will commit suicide and put the
petitioner and his family members behind bar on
19.12.2012 when the petitioner and other family members
went to Chakradharpur to bring back the respondent and
baby son of the petitioner but she refused to come, on
several dates when the respondent treated the petitioner
with cruelty and finally on 15.03.2015 when respondent
came to petitioner's residence at Ranchi without her child
and abused and defamed the petitioner publicly. The
petitioner has not condoned the act of cruelty and
desertion by the respondent.
16. In the aforesaid circumstances as alleged by the
appellant, an application under Sections 13(1)(i-a)(i-b) and
26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 had been preferred by
him before Family Court, Ranchi for a decree of divorce
and the same was numbered as the Original Suit No. 142
of 2015, but in the light of order passed by the Hon'ble High
Court of Jharkhand in Transfer petition (Civil) No.65/2016
dated 24.04.2018, the instant suit was transferred to the
court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Chaibasa from the
court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi. The case
record was received on 01.06.2018 and it was numbered as
Original Suit No.32/2018.
17. The case was admitted for hearing and upon notice
the respondent wife appeared.
18. Thereafter, the respondent-wife filed her written
statement and strongly denouncing the contentions of the
appellant, as made in the plaint and refuted the allegations
made against her.
19. By virtue of her written statement, the respondent-
wife had inter alia stated that the respondent does not admit
any of the statements made by the appellant/husband in his
application for a decree for dissolution of marriage under the
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the same is not maintainable
in its present form and for the reliefs claimed. The suit filed by
appellant/husband is barred under the principles of estoppel,
waiver and acquiescence.
20. It has been contented that the present baseless suit
has been filed by the appellant only with an ulterior purpose
to harass the respondent. The appellant has no cogent and
reliable grounds to file this matrimonial suit against the
respondent since she is a woman of good character and has
always provided respect and regards to the appellant and
his entire family members, but it is the appellant himself,
who has always neglected the respondent.
21. It has been stated that in fact respondent desires
and wants to spend her entire life with the appellant and is
still ready to live with the appellant to lead her conjugal life
with him.
22. The learned Family Judge has taken into
consideration the pleading made by the parties in the plaint
as well as in the written statement. The case proceeded for
evidence during which the appellant has produced and
examined four witnesses including himself.
23. The respondent-wife has produced and examined
altogether three witnesses including herself.
24. The learned Principal Judge, after hearing learned
counsel for the parties, framed five issues for adjudication of
the lis, which are being referred as under:
1. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present
form?
2. Whether the plaintiff/petitioner has valid cause of
action for filing the suit?
3. Whether the petitioner has been treated with
cruelty by the respondent?
4. Whether the petitioner has been deserted by the
respondent for a continuous period of not less than
two years?
5. Whether the petitioner is entitled to get relief/reliefs
as prayed for?
25. The aforesaid issues were decided against the
appellant-husband and in favour of respondent-wife and the
suit was decreed on contest in the following terms:
"Considering the entire facts and
circumstances emerging from case in hand
and submission advanced by the learned
amicus for both sides, it is evident that the
petitioner failed to establish the allegation of
cruelty and desertion raised by him against
her wife/respondent. Therefore, the instant
suit is not maintainable in its present form
and also the petitioner failed to establish the
allegations of cruelty and desertion on the
basis of evidence led on behalf of petitioner,
there is no cause of action for filing the suit,
hence, it is, hereby, ORDERED that the suit
be and the same is dismissed on contest but
there is no order as to cost."
26. The appellant-husband, being aggrieved with the
judgment passed on 22.08.2022 and decree signed on
05.09.2022 by learned Principal Judge, Family Court,
Chaibasa approached this Court by filing the instant appeal.
Submission made on behalf of the appellant-husband
27. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-husband
has submitted that the Learned Family Court below has
failed to appreciate that the petitioner /appellant has
produced credible evidence which are sufficient to establish
that the respondent-wife has subjected him to cruelty and
on account of cruelty and desertion, the petitioner /
appellant is entitled for grant of decree of divorce.
28. Further, it has been submitted that the findings
recorded by the learned Trial Court while answering issue
no.3 (cruelty) are perverse and based on mere presumption,
therefore, the same will not stand in the eye of law.
29. It has also been submitted that the learned court
below has failed to appreciate that the respondent-wife used
to threatened the appellant to implicate him and his entire
family in a false criminal case which caused the appellant to
suffer extreme mental cruelty, loss of mental and family
peace and harmony, loss of family prestige and reputation in
society.
30. 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.
31. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant, on the
basis of aforesaid grounds, has submitted that the judgment
passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court,
Chaibasa requires interference.
Submission made on behalf of respondent-wife
32. Learned counsel for the respondent-wife, defending the
impugned order, has submitted that the appellant has
sought divorce but the learned Family Court, after taking
into consideration the oral and documentary evidence, has
rightly dismissed the suit.
33. Learned counsel for the appellant has further
submitted that learned trial court has rightly held that the
appellant is not entitled for the decree of divorce on the
ground of cruelty and desertion because the appellant has
miserably failed to prove the allegation of cruelty and
desertion by her.
34. Learned counsel for the respondent-wife has submitted
that the appellant has taken desertion as a ground for
divorce but this plea is not available to him since it is the
appellant and their family members who demanded dowry
from her parents and when her poor parents failed to fulfill
the illegal dowry demands of the appellant and his family
members, she was subjected to constant torture,
harassment and cruelty by the appellant and her in-laws
and thus, learned Family Court, taking into consideration
the evidence led by the respondent-wife, has rightly rejected
the prayer for divorce made by the appellant.
35. Submission has been made that the learned Principal
Judge, Family Court on the backdrop of the evidence led by
the parties has come to the conclusion that the appellant-
husband has miserably failed to establish the grounds of
cruelty and desertion by his wife.
36. Learned counsel for the respondent-wife on the
aforesaid grounds has submitted that the impugned
judgment requires no interference by this Court
Analysis
37. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant-
husband as also learned counsel for the respondent-wife and
perused the material available on record and the finding
recorded in the impugned order.
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. The appellant, in support of his case, has adduced
four witnesses including himself. The relevant portion of
the testimonies of the witnesses are mentioned as
under:-
P.W.-1 Bhutnath Pramanik (father of the petitioner)
deposed that the marriage of his son was solemnized on
21.06.2010 by Hindu rites and custom. Reception
ceremony was performed on 23.06.2010 from his
residence situated at Lower Burdwan Compound, Ranchi.
The respondent came to her matrimonial home and she
was blessed a son at Debuka Nursing Home on
23.11.2011. After some months of marriage, the
respondent pressurized the petitioner to oust his parents
and sister from the house. He resides with his wife, son,
daughter-in-law and grand-son together at Ranchi. The
respondent started quarreling with petitioner and his in-
laws and so many times defamed her in-laws in front of
the petitioner. The witness further deposed that the
admission of respondent was made in Bundu College so
that she could study but the respondent was not
interested to continue her study. The witness deposed that
on 18 20.2012, he was effacing on ground and requested
to respondent to continue her study as a result she kicked
him as well as kicked bucket with her leg. The respondent
threatened that if the petitioner will not reside with her
separately then she will commit suicide and the entire
family would be behind the bar. On 25.10.2012 at 11.00
a.m. all of sudden the father of respondent namely Sunil
Pramanik, brother Kartal Pramanik, Cousin Haripadorai
Mani and two others entered into his house and took his
daughter-in-law and grand-son with them. The petitioner
requested repeatedly to not take his son as there is
vaccination on 07.09.2012 but the respondent and her
father did not consider the same and proceeded for
Chakradharpur. The petitioner so many times requested
through telephone to lead conjugal life but the respondent
replied that if the petitioner/husband wants to lead a
peaceful life with her then he will have to oust his parents
from the house. The witness further deposed that on
19.12.2012 he, his son, his wife, his niece Nirmal
Pramanik and his both sala Shiveshwar Pramanik and
Subardhan Pramanik went to the house of respondent to
take respondent and her son but the respondent
threatened that she would get the murder of petitioner and
she would possess the entire property under her control.
On 15.03.2015, the respondent arrived at Ranchi and
collected some documents and return to her parental
home. The witness further deposed that the respondent
lodged FIR in Mahila Thana Chaibasa on 12.08.2015
bearing Mahila P.S. Case No.12/2015, G.R. No.476/2016
U/s 498A IPC and ¾ D.P. Act. The entire family was under
pressure after filing a fake criminal case.
During his cross-examination, the witness deposed in
para-19 that his son never kept the respondent with her
and never took her to Delhi with him. The witness further
deposed in para-20 that his son petitioner never filed any
case for restitution of conjugal right. The witness deposed in
para-29 that son came to his house once or twice in a year.
The witness deposed in para-38 his son petitioner does not
want to keep his wife. The witness deposed in para 55 that
he did not file any case against the incident occurred on
19.12.2012. witness deposed in para-61 that he cannot
adduce any neighbour as witness for the occurrence of
15.03.2015. The witness deposed in para-69 that he has no
objection if his son leads conjugal life with his wife at Delhi.
The witness deposed in para-70 that it is true that his son
has filed the divorce case on the basis of false allegations.
The witness deposed in para-72 that the behaviour of
respondent was good till she resides with him and she has
no complaint against her daughter-in-law respondent.
P.W.-2 Nirmal Pramanik (cousin brother of the
petitioner), deposed that the marriage of his brother was
solemnized on 21.06.2010 by Hindu rites and custom.
Reception ceremony was performed on 23.06.2010 from the
residence of petitioner, situated at Lower Burdwan
Compound Ranchi. The respondent came to her
matrimonial home and she was blessed a son at Debuka
Nursing Home on 23.11.2011. After some months of
marriage, the respondent pressurized the petitioner to oust
his parents and sister from the house. The father of
petitioner resides with his wife, son, daughter-in-law and
grand-son together at Ranchi. The respondent started
quarreling with petitioner and his in-laws and so many
times defamed her in-laws in front of the petitioner. The
witness further deposed that the admission of respondent
was made in Bundu College so that she could get study but
the respondent was not interested to continue her study.
The witness deposed that on 18.10.2012, the father of
petitioner was effacing on ground and requested to
respondent to continue her study as a result she kicked him
as well as kicked bucket with her leg. The respondent
threatened that if the petitioner will not reside with her
separately then she will commit suicide and the entire family
would be behind the bar. On 25.10.2012 at 11.00 a.m. all of
sudden the father of respondent namely Sunil Pramanik,
brother Kartal Pramanik, Cousin Haripadorai Mani and two
others entered into his house and took his daughter-in- law
and grandson with them, family member of petitioner
requested repeatedly to not take her son as there is
vaccination on 07.09.2012 but the respondent and her
father did not consider the same and proceeded for
Chakradharpur. The witness further deposed that on
19.12.2012 he alongwith others went to the house of
respondent to take respondent and her son but the
respondent threatened that she would get the murder of
petitioner and she would possess the entire property under
her control. On 15.03.2015, the respondent arrived at
Ranchi and collected some documents and return to her
parental home. The witness further deposed that the
respondent lodged FIR in Mahila Thana Chaibasa on
12.08.2015 bearing Mahila P.S. Case No. 12/2015, G.R.
No.476/2016 U/s 498A IPC and ¾ D.P. Act. The entire
family was under pressure after filing a fake criminal case
and they were defamed in society.
During his cross-examination, the witness clearly
admitted that he has no personal knowledge about the
facts mentioned in para-4, 6 & 7 of his examination-in-chief.
The witness clearly deposed in para-17 that he never went
to take the respondent with the petitioner Sandeep
Pramanik. The witness admitted in same para that the
respondent never told that she wants to live with petitioner
at Chakradharpur leaving her in-laws at Ranchi. The
witness further deposed in para-18 that the respondent
Jyotsana Pramanik and her family members never
threatened to anyone. The witness clearly deposed in para-
19 that he has no knowledge that what occurred in between
Jyotsana and Sandeep.
P.W.-3 Rajendra Pramanik (Bahnoi of the petitioner),
deposed that the marriage of his son- in-law was solemnized
on 21.06.2010 by Hindu rites and custom. Reception
ceremony was performed on 23.06.2010 from the residence
of petitioner, situated at Lower Burdwan Compound
Ranchi. The respondent came to her matrimonial home and
she was blessed a son at Debuka Nursing Home on
23.11.2011. After some months of marriage, the
respondent pressurized the petitioner to oust his parents
and sister from the house. The father of petitioner resides
with his wife, son, daughter-in-law and grand-son together
at Ranchi. The respondent started quarreling with
petitioner and his in-laws and so many times defamed her
in-laws in front of the petitioner. The witness further
deposed that the admission of respondent was made in
Bundu College so that she could get study but the
respondent was not interested to continue her study. The
witness deposed that on 18.10.2012, the father of petitioner
was effacing on ground and requested to respondent to
continue her study as a result she kicked him as well as
kicked bucket with her leg. The respondent threatened that
if the petitioner will not reside with her separately then she
will commit suicide and the entire family would be behind
the bar. On 25.10.2012 at 11.00 a.m. all of sudden the
father of respondent namely Sunil Pramanik, brother
Kartal Pramanik, Cousin Haripadorai Mani and two others
entered into his house and took his daughter-in- law and
grand-son with them. The family member of petitioner
requested repeatedly to not take her son as there is
vaccination on 07.09.2012 but the respondent and her
father did not consider the same and proceeded for
Chakradharpur. The witness further deposed that the
respondent lodged FIR in Mahila Thana Chaibasa on
12.08.2015 bearing Mahila P.S. Case No. 12/2015, G.R.
No.476/2016 U/s 498A IPC and ¾ D.P. Act. The entire family
was under pressure after filing a fake criminal case and
they were defamed in society.
During his cross-examination, the witness
deposed in para-18 that Sandeep does not want to keep his
wife at Delhi as his parents will be isolate in Ranchi. The
witness deposed in para-21 that Sandeep did not take the
respondent with him at Delhi as the respondent is less
educated. If she got educated then he might be taken to her
at Delhi. The witness deposed in para-35 that no
occurrence took place in his presence about the
threatening caused by respondent against her husband-
petitioner and his in-laws' family. The witness deposed in
para-37 that if respondent is willing to stay with her
husband, then it is not a wrong fact.
P.W.-4 Sandeep Pramanik (petitioner), deposed that his
marriage was solemnized on 21.06.2010 by Hindu rites and
custom. Reception ceremony was performed on 23.06.2010
from his residence situated at Lower Burdwan Compound
Ranchi. The respondent came to her matrimonial home and
she was blessed a son at Debuka Nursing Home on
23.11.2011. After some months of marriage, the respondent
pressurized the petitioner to oust his parents and sister
Hom/the house. He resides with his parents at Ranchi. The
respondent started quarreling with petitioner and his in-
laws and so many times defamed her in-laws in front of the
petitioner. The witness further deposed that the admission
of respondent was made in Bundu College so that she could
study but the respondent was not interested to continue
her study as a result she was declared fail in intermediate.
The witness deposed that on 18.10.2012, his father was
effacing on ground and requested to respondent to continue
her study as a result she kicked his father as well as kicked
bucket with her leg. The respondent threatened that if the
petitioner will not reside with her separately then she will
commit suicide and the entire family would be behind the
bar. On 25.10.2012 at 11.00 A.M. all of sudden the father of
respondent namely Sunil Pramanik, brother Kartal
Pramanik, Cousin Haripadorai Mani and two others
entered into his house and took his daughter-in-law and
grandson with them. The petitioner requested repeatedly to
not take his son as there is vaccination on 07.09.2012 but
the respondent and her father did not consider the same
and proceeded for Chakradharpur. The petitioner so many
times requested through telephone to lead conjugal life but
the respondent replied that if the petitioner/husband wants
to lead a peaceful life with her then he will have to oust his
parents from the house. The witness further deposed that on
19.12.2012 he, his parents, his cousin Nirmal Pramanik
and his both maternal uncle Shiveshwar Pramanik and
Subardhan Pramanik went to the house of respondent to
take respondent and her son but the respondent threatened
that she would get the murder of petitioner and she would
possess the entire property under her control. On
15.03.2015, the respondent arrived at Ranchi and collected
some documents and return to her parental home and she
was screaming that the petitioner is the man of bad
character. The witness further deposed that the respondent
lodged FIR in Mahila Thana Chaibasa on 12.08.2015
bearing Mahila P.S. Case No.12/2015, G.R. No.476/2016
U/s 498A IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act. The entire family was under
pressure after filing a fake criminal case. The petitioner
requested to court to grant decree of divorce as well as the
protection to his son for proper education.
During examination in chief the witness identified
the birth certificate of his son issued by Debuka Nursing
Home on 23.11.2011 which has been marked as Ext.1. The
witness further identified the mark sheet of respondent
which has been marked as Ext.2. The witness also
identified the vaccination card and vaccination record
issued from Debuka Nursing Home which has been marked
as Ext.3. The witness has filed the certified copy of
judgment dated 05.09.2020 passed in Criminal Appeal
No.04/2020, whereby and whereunder the petitioner and
his parents have been acquitted, which has been marked as
Ext.4. The witness also identified the original copy of
informatory petition filed by his father before the court of Id.
CJM, Ranchi which has been marked as Ext.5.
During his cross-examination, the witness
deposed in para-26 that he does not want to keep his wife
as she has lost her faith. The witness deposed in para-29
that the person who gets salary of Rs.54,000/- is capable to
keep his family with him. The witness deposed in para-34
that his wife respondent never told that she wants to live
with him at Delhi. The witness deposed in para-46 that it is
wrong to say that he does not want to take his wife at Delhi
as she is not educated. The witness denied in para-63 that
he has filed the suit after lodging FIR by the respondent
against him.
40. The respondent-wife has also adduced three
witnesses in support of her case which are being dealt
hereunder as: -
R.W.-1 Natraj Pradhan (villager of respondent),
deposed that the marriage of respondent with petitioner was
solemnized on 21.06.2010 and reception ceremonies was
performed on 23.06.2010. The respondent was blessed a son
on 23.11.2011 at Debuka Nursing Home, Ranchi who is
presently aged about 11 years. The petitioner is posted as
Project Associates in IIT Delhi but never kept his wife with
him and left his wife with his parents at Ranchi. The
petitioner and his family members committed subjected to
physical and mental cruelty as a result the respondent left
her matrimonial home and residing at her parental home.
The respondent is still ready to live with her husband.
During his cross-examination, the witness
deposed in para-14 that no cruelty was committed in his
presence.
R.W.-2 Kartal Singh (brother of Respondent), deposed that
the marriage of his sister was solemnized on 21.06.2010.
Her sister was blessed a son on 23.11.2011 at Debuka
Nursing Home, Ranchi. The petitioner is posted as Project
Associates in IIT Delhi but he never took his sister with him.
After three years of marriage the petitioner and his in-laws
started subjected to physical and mental cruelty to his
sister and snatched her educational certificate and her
'stridhan'. Her sister respondent lodged a criminal case on
20.05.2015 against her husband and his family members
in Chaibasa and the parties were called for mediation
before police station, where the petitioner refused to keep
his sister with him. Then the officer-in-charge lodged FIR on
12.08.2015 which was later on registered as G.R. Case
No.476 of 2015. The court found guilty to petitioner and his
family members and convicted them. Being aggrieved with
the judgment the petitioner and his family members referred
Cri. Appeal No.04/2020 in which the appeal was allowed
and appellant were acquitted. His sister has preferred
appeal against acquittal before the Hon'ble High Court
which has been pending now. His sister is presently
residing at her parental home. The respondent is still
Steady to live with her husband.
During his cross-examination, the witness
deposed in para-14 that no physical and mental cruelty was
committed in his presence. The witness deposed para-18
that it is wrong to say that his sister kicked her father-in-
law while he was effacing the floor. The witness also denied
that the respondent committed subjected to cruelty against
her husband and in- laws. The witness deposed in para-26
that his sister and petitioner Sandeep Pramanik are
residing separately since 2014.
R.W.-3 Jyotsana Pramanik (Respondent), deposed that
her marriage was solemnized with petitioner on 21.06.2010
and reception ceremony was performed on 23.06.2010. She
was blessed a son on 23.11.2011 at Debuka Nursing Home,
Ranchi. Her husband is posted as Project Associates IIT
Delhi but he never took her with him. After three years of
marriage petitioner and his parents started hurling filthy
languages and deprived her from food. At the time of
marriage, Rs.2,00,000/- and household articles were gifted.
Her husband and in- laws started cruelty against her. The
in-law's family started demanding Rs.5,00,000/- cash and
threatened her that if the demand is not fulfilled then, the
petitioner would solemnize second marriage. She was
ousted from matrimonial home and her in-laws and family
members were snatched by them. Her husband and his
family members arrived at Chakradharpur and forced her
to put her signature on blank paper but she raised alarm so
they fled away. Her husband filed divorce case before the
court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi for
disturbing her family. On 20.05.2015, she filed criminal
case against her husband and in-laws' family. Both parties
were called but her husband refused to keep her. So, the
FIR was instituted on 12.08.2015 which was later on
instituted on G.R.No.476/2015. The husband in-laws were
convicted by trial court but they were acquitted by appellate
court and presently the criminal appeal is pending before
the Hon'ble Court. The witness deposed that she wants to
live with her husband.
During her cross-examination, the witness deposed in
para-27 that she is residing at her parental home since
01.12.2014 and on that day she came alone from her
matrimonial home. The witness denied that she subjected to
cruelty against her husband and in-laws family. The witness
also denied that she kicked her father-in-law while he was
effacing the floor. The witness deposed that her husband does
not deserve divorce.
41. Besides oral evidence, documentary evidences were also
adduced, which were marked as exhibits.
42. From the testimony, as referred hereinabove, it is
evident that the appellant-husband has been examined as
PW-4 before the Family Court, who in his deposition has
mainly taken the ground of petitioner has filed the instant
suit on the basis of cruelty and desertion caused by the
respondent against the petitioner. The petitioner has alleged
that his wife just after few months of the marriage started
giving undue pressure upon the petitioner to oust his parents
and his sister from her matrimonial home and started living
separately in some other place in Ranchi. The petitioner
further alleged that on 18.10.2012, the respondent abused
and kicked his father while his father was effacing the floor of
the house and the respondent regularly threatened the
petitioner that she shall commit suicide if her demand is not
considered. The petitioner further alleged that on 25.10.2012
at about 11.A.M., the father of the respondent namely Sunil
Pramanik, her Kartal Pramanik her cousin brother namely
Haripadorai Mani and two others arrived at Ranchi and took
the respondent with them alongwith her all belongings. The
petitioner also alleged that on 19.12.2012, the petitioner his
father, mother, cousin brother Nirmal Pramanik and two
maternal uncle Shiveshwar Pramanik and Subardan
Pramanikand one family friend Shanti Mahto went to
Chakradharpur to bring back the respondent and her son but
the family members of respondent were aggressive and
misbehaved with them. The petitioner also alleged that on
15.03.2015, the respondent alone arrived at the resident of
the petitioner at Ranchi and collects some papers and without
consulting with petitioner returned to her house and she told
that she has not come to cohabit with the petitioner and
loudly screamed that the petitioner is of criminal mentality
and had threatened her that the respondent (petitioner) shall
get her (respondent) raped by the others. Therefore. on the
basis of above grounds, he claimed divorce from the
respondent.
43. In cross-examination, he has deposed that even if his
wife desires to live and stay with him with good behaviour
and attitude then also he would not keep his wife with him
because he has no faith and confidence upon her.
44. From the aforesaid testimony of the appellant-husband
it is evident that though cruelty and desertion have been
pleaded by him in his petition, but no cogent evidence
has been produced by him to prove these allegations.
45. The brother of the respondent-wife who has been
examined as RW- 2 has fully supported the version of
Respondent/wife.
46. The respondent-wife has deposed that she was ousted
from matrimonial home. She further stated that her husband
filed divorce case before the Family Court, for disturbing her
family. On 20.05.2015, she filed criminal case against her
husband and in-laws' family. Both parties were called but her
husband refused to keep her. So, the FIR was instituted on
12.08.2015 which was later on instituted on
G.R.No.476/2015. The husband in-laws were convicted by
trial court but they were acquitted by appellate court and
presently the criminal appeal is pending before the Hon'ble
Court. The witness deposed that she wants to live with her
husband.
47. The learned Family Judge has gone into the
interpretation of the word "cruelty" and "desertion" and
assessing the same from the evidences led on behalf of the
parties as also the submission made in the pleading, i.e.,
plaint and written statement, has found that the element of
cruelty and desertion could not have been established.
48. In the context of the aforesaid factual aspect only
seminal issue has to be decide herein that "Whether the
petitioner/husband is entitled to get divorce dissolving the
marriage of the petitioner/appellant with OP/wife on the
ground of mental cruelty and desertion U/s 13(1) (i-a) (1-b)
of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955?
49. The learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner has
argued that the evidence of cruelty and desertion has not
properly been considered and as such, the judgment suffers
from perversity, hence, not sustainable in the eyes of law.
50. While on the other hand, argument has been advanced
on behalf of the respondent has submitted that the
judgment is well considered one.
51. 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 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.
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."
52. Thus, from the aforesaid it is evident that if any
order made in conscious violation of pleading and law then
it will come under the purview of perverse order. Further
"perverse verdict" may probably be defined as one that is
not only against the weight of evidence but is altogether
against the evidence.
Issue of cruelty
53. Now this Court is adverting to the issue of Cruelty. It
requires to refer herein the definition of 'cruelty' as has
been defined by Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment
rendered in Dr. N.G. Dastane Vs. Mrs. S. Dastane
[(1975) 2 SCC 326], wherein it has been held that the
Court is to enquire as to whether the charge as cruelty, is
of such a character, as to cause in the mind of the
petitioner, a reasonable apprehension that, it will be
harmful or injurious for him to live with the respondent.
54. The cruelty has also been defined in the case of
Shobha Rani Vs. 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.
55. According to the Hon'ble Apex Court, "cruelty" is the
"conduct in relation to or in respect of matrimonial
conduct in respect of matrimonial duties and obligations".
It is the conduct which adversely affects the spouse. Such
cruelty can be either "mental" or "physical", intentional or
unintentional. For example, unintentionally waking your
spouse up in the middle of the night may be mental
cruelty; intention is not an essential element of cruelty but
it may be present. Physical cruelty is less ambiguous and
more "a question of fact and degree."
56. The Hon'ble Apex Court has further observed therein
that while dealing with such complaints of cruelty that it
is important for the Court to not search for a standard in
life, since cruelty in one case may not be cruelty in
another case. What must be considered include the kind
of life the parties are used to, "their economic and social
conditions", and the "culture and human values to which
they attach importance."
57. 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.
58. In V. Bhagat vs. D. Bhagat (Mrs.), (1994)1 SCC
337, the wife alleged in her written statement that her
husband was suffering from "mental problems and
paranoid disorder". The wife's lawyer also levelled
allegations of "lunacy" and "insanity" against the husband
and his family while he was conducting cross-
examination. The Hon‟ble Apex Court held these
allegations against the husband to constitute "cruelty".
59. In Vijay Kumar Ramchandra Bhate v. Neela Vijay
Kumar Bhate, (2003)6 SCC 334 the Hon'ble Apex Court
has observed by taking into consideration the allegations
levelled by the husband in his written statement that his
wife was "unchaste" and had indecent familiarity with a
person outside wedlock and that his wife was having an
extramarital affair. These allegations, given the context of
an educated Indian woman, were held to constitute
"cruelty" itself.
60. 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.
61. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vidhya
Viswanathan v. Kartik Balakrishnan, (2014) 15 SCC
21 has specifically held that cruelty is to be determined on
whole facts of the case and the matrimonial relations
between the spouses and the word 'cruelty' has not been
defined and it has been used in relation to human conduct
or human behaviour. It is the conduct in relation to or in
respect of matrimonial duties and obligations. It is a
course of conduct and one which is adversely affecting the
other.
62. In the backdrop of the settled position of law as well
as factual aspect and testimony of witnesses available on
record that the respondent committed subjected to
cruelty against the Bhuthnath Pramanik while he was
effacing the floor but the father of the petitioner himself
deposed in para-72 that it is right to say that his
daughter-in-law (respondent) during stay at her
matrimonial home, did the entire domestic work and he
has no complained against his daughter-in-law. Further it
has come on record that father of the petitioner himself
deposed in para-70 that it is true that his son (petitioner)
has filed the suit for divorce on the basis of false
allegations. It has been stated by the petitioner that the
occurrence of 18.10.2012 took place in his presence but it
was not supported by P.W.1 in para-30 wherein he had
stated that his son (petitioner) did not come to Ranchi
after birth of his grandson till 25.10.2012, therefore, the
presence of the petitioner at Ranchi on 18.10.2012 is
doubtful.
63. P.W.2 has also deposed in para-18 that Jyotsana
(respondent) and her family members never threatened to
petitioner or family members in his presence. Therefore,
the allegations raised by the petitioner regarding
occurrence of 28.10.2012 has not been substantiated by
the petitioner witnesses.
64. Further, the learned Family Court has categorically
observed that this court is of the finding that no
occurrence took place on 19.12.2012 and it is totally fake
and false allegation against the respondent and the father
of the petitioner himself deposed in para-70 that it is true
that his son (petitioner) has filed the suit for divorce on
the basis of false allegations.
65. This Court, based upon the aforesaid discussions on
the issue of cruelty, is of considered view that the issue of
cruelty as has been alleged by the appellant-husband
against his wife could not be proved because no concrete
evidence to that effect has been produced by the appellant.
66. Thus, as per the discussions made hereinabove and
law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court which has also been
referred herein above this Court has no reason to take
different view that has been taken by the learned Family
Court proving the ground of cruelty.
Issue of desertion
67. Now coming to the issue of desertion, which is also
taken as a ground for decree of divorce. It is evident from
the from the plaint of the petitioner before Family Court
which has also taken note in the impugned order, that the
wife was ousted from matrimonial home and the
respondent wife never deserted to petitioner.
68. Learned Principal Judge, taking into consideration
the fact that since even otherwise there is no desertion on
the part of respondent-wife as she in her evidence also has
deposed that she is very keen and desirous to live and stay
with her husband all through her life and perform her
wifely duties. Thus, although the husband appellant had
filed petition under sub-section (ib) of Section 13(1) of the
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 but no evidence was led in this
respect, as such the same was discarded by the learned
family court.
69. It needs to refer herein that the word 'desertion' has
been given in Explanation to Section 13 (1) wherein it has
been stated that "the expression desertion means the
desertion of the petitioner by the other party to the
marriage without reasonable cause and without the
consent or against the wish of such party, and includes
the wilful neglect of the petitioner by the other party to the
marriage, and its grammatical variations and cognate
expressions shall be construed accordingly."
70. It is pertinent to note that the word 'desertion', as
has been defined in Explanation part of Section 13 of the
Act, 1955, means the desertion of the petitioner by the
other party to the marriage without reasonable cause and
without the consent or against the wishes of such party,
and includes the wilful neglect of the petitioner by the
other party to the marriage, and its grammatical variations
and cognate expressions shall be construed accordingly.
71. Rayden on Divorce, which is a standard work on
the subject at p. 128 (6th Edn.), has summarised the
case-law on the subject in these terms:
"Desertion is the separation of one spouse from the
other, with an intention on the part of the deserting
spouse of bringing cohabitation permanently to an end
without reasonable cause and without the consent of
the other spouse; but the physical act of departure by
one spouse does not necessarily make that spouse the
deserting party."
72. The legal position has been admirably summarised in
paras-453 and 454 at pp. 241 to 243 of Halsbury's Laws
of England (3rd Edn.), Vol. 12, in the following words:
"In its essence desertion means the intentional permanent
forsaking and abandonment of one spouse by the other
without that other's consent, and without reasonable cause.
It is a total repudiation of the obligations of marriage. In view
of the large variety of circumstances and of modes of life
involved, the Court has discouraged attempts at defining
desertion, there being no general principle applicable to all
cases."
73. Desertion is not the withdrawal from a place but
from a state of things, for what the law seeks to enforce is
the recognition and discharge of the common obligations
of the married state; the state of things may usually be
termed, for short, 'the home'. There can be desertion
without previous cohabitation by the parties, or without
the marriage having been consummated. The person who
actually withdraws from cohabitation is not necessarily
the deserting party.
74. The offence of desertion is a course of conduct which
exists independently of its duration, but as a ground for
divorce it must exist for a period of at least two years
immediately preceding the presentation of the petition or,
where the offence appears as a cross-charge, of the
answer.
75. Desertion as a ground of divorce differs from the
statutory grounds of adultery and cruelty in that the
offence founding the cause of action of desertion is not
complete, but is inchoate, until the suit is constituted,
desertion is a continuing offence.
76. It is, thus, evident from the aforesaid reference of
meaning of desertion that the quality of permanence is
one of the essential elements which differentiate desertion
from wilful separation. If a spouse abandons the other
spouse in a state of temporary passion, for example, anger
or disgust, without intending permanently to cease
cohabitation, it will not amount to desertion. For the
offence of desertion, so far as the deserting spouse is
concerned, two essential conditions must be there,
namely, (1) the factum of separation, and (2) the intention
to bring cohabitation permanently to an end.
77. Similarly, two elements are essential so far as the
deserted spouse is concerned: (1) the absence of consent,
and (2) absence of conduct giving reasonable cause to the
spouse leaving the matrimonial home to from the
necessary intention aforesaid.
78. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Debananda Tamuli vs.
Kakumoni Kataky, (2022) 5 SCC 459 has considered
the definition of 'desertion' on the basis of the judgment
rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Lachman
Utamchand Kirpalani v. Meena, AIR 1964 SC 40 which
has been consistently followed in several decisions of this
Court.
79. The law consistently has been laid down by the Court
that desertion means the intentional abandonment of one
spouse by the other without the consent of the other and
without a reasonable cause. The deserted spouse must
prove that there is a factum of separation and there is an
intention on the part of deserting spouse to bring the
cohabitation to a permanent end. In other words, there
should be animus deserendi on the part of the deserting
spouse. There must be an absence of consent on the part
of the deserted spouse and the conduct of the deserted
spouse should not give a reasonable cause to the
deserting spouse to leave the matrimonial home.
80. From impugned order it is evident that desertion has
not been proved before the Family Court through concrete
and tangible evidence and further it has come on the
record that even otherwise there is no desertion on the
part of respondent-wife as she in her evidence also has
deposed that she is still ready to live with her husband
and perform her wifely duties. Moreover, the father of the
appellant husband (PW-1) has deposed before the Family
Court in para 70 that his son (i.e appellant) has filed the
suit for divorce on the basis of false allegations.
81. This Court, on the basis of discussions made
hereinabove, is of the view that the appellant husband has
not been able to prove the ground of desertion for one of
the grounds for divorce before the learned Family Court.
As such, we have no reason to take a different view that
has been taken by the learned Family Court.
82. This Court, on the basis of discussions made
hereinabove, is of the view that the judgment passed on
22.08.2022 and decree signed on 05.09.2022 by the
learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Chaibasa, whereby
and whereunder the Original Suit No. 32 of 2018 filed by
the petitioner-appellant-husband under Section 13(1), (i-a),
(i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for a decree of divorce
has been dismissed, requires no interference by this Court.
83. Accordingly, the instant appeal fails and is
dismissed.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
I agree.
(Arun Kumar Rai, J.) (Arun Kumar Rai, J.)
Date : 22/01/2026
Birendra / A.F.R.
Uploaded On: - 24/01/2026
