KUMARI ANJALI vs VIKASH CHOUDHARY

2026:JHHC:32533-DB

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

First Appeal No. 273 of 2026
-----
Kumari Anjali, aged about 32 years, W/0 Vikash Choudhary, D/O
Surendra Prasad, R/O Mohalla Jailhata, Ward No.19, Mohan Cinema
Road, P.O. & P.S. Daltonganj, District-Palamau, Jharkahand.
.......…Petitioner/Plaintiff/Appellant
Versus

Vikash Choudhary, S/O Ram Mohan Choudahry, R/O 20/ Cart Sarai
Road, Upper Bazar, Besides Todi Heights, Ranchi P.O. GPO, P.S.
Kotwali, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand
......... Opposite Party / Defendant/ Respondent
-------

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AKHIL KUMAR
-------
For the Appellant : Mr. Amit Kumar Chaturvedi, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Arbind kumar, Advocate
Mr. Prem Prakash, Advocate
Ms. Sakshi Diksha, Advocate
------

C.A.V on 06.10.2026 Pronounced on 05/11/2026
Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
1. The instant appeal under section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act,
1984 is directed against the judgment dated 30.04.2026 and the decree
dated 07.05.2026 passed in Original Suit No.61 of 2022 by the learned
Principal Judge, Family Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj (in short, learned
Family Judge) whereby and whereunder the petition filed under section
13(1) (i-a) (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 by the appellant-wife
against the respondent-husband, has been dismissed.
Factual Matrix
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 of the appellant/wife was solemnized with
respondent on 15.02.2015 according to Hindu rites and

2026:JHHC:32533-DB
custom at Jailhata Ward No. 19, Mohan Cinema Road, PO
& P.S. Daltonganj, District-Palamau and after marriage,
petitioner (appellant herein) came to the house of the
respondent/husband and both started living together as
husband and wife.
(ii) It is alleged that from very beginning of marriage, the
respondent started to insult the petitioner and her family
members by using abusive and unparliamentary language
without any cause and petitioner has been physically and
mentally tortured by the respondent.
(iii) It is further alleged that petitioner/appellant/wife
requested to the respondent/husband to change his
behaviour, but on that very request, respondent always
tortured the petitioner and also done cruel behaviour with
her and respondent does not want to keep relation with the
petitioner and due to account of non-cohabitation and
cruel behaviour of the respondent, the petitioner is
suffering from pain and agony.
(iv) It is stated that cause of action arose severally times for
petitioner and finally on 09.08.2019, when
respondent/husband deserted the petitioner at her maike
without any reason and after several attempt did not agree
to live with petitioner and treated her with cruelty.
(v) Based upon the aforesaid fact the petitioner/appellant-
wife has filed a suit before the learned Family Court
praying therein to pass a decree of divorce on the ground
of cruelty and desertion,
2

2026:JHHC:32533-DB
3. In pursuance to issuance of notice, the respondent-husband
appeared in the said suit and filed written statement on 28.04.2023 stating
therein that the suit filed under section 13 1(i-a) (i-b) of the Hindu
Marriage Act is not maintainable in law and is fit to be dismissed. The
factum of marriage has been admitted. It is stated that the petitioner has
not come up before this learned Court with clean hands and the petition
under reply has been pressed with suppression of material facts.
4. It has been stated that the petitioner since studying in Ranchi, met
with the respondent and both the parties have love and affection for each
other. They amicably decided to marry and therefore, they have
solemnized their love marriage in the presence of their common friends
and well-wishers on dated 15.02.2015 and registered it before the marriage
registrar, at Ranchi vide Registration No. 634/2015 dated 25.05.2015.
5. It is stated that after hearing about marriage of the petitioner with
the respondent, the parents of respondent came at Ranchi on 04.09.2015
and threatened the respondent with dire consequences. They made fun of
the physical appearance and dark skin of the respondent and they abused
the respondent that he belongs to the poor family. After hearing abusive
language of the parents, petitioner went to the Mahila Thana, Ranchi,
along with the respondent and gave a Complaint against her parents. Then
after intervention of Mahila Thana Police, Ranchi, a compromise petition
was made in which it was amicably settled that a social marriage be
solemnized between the petitioner and the respondent. The date of
marriage was fixed by the parents of the petitioner on 27.02.2016 and the
social marriage of the petitioner and the respondent solemnized at
Daltonganj, Palamau.
3

2026:JHHC:32533-DB
6. It is further stated that the petitioner left the respondent alone
th
and went to her maike at Palamau on 20 March, 2020.
7. The petitioner and the respondent had gone for three consecutive
years to Mata Vaishno Devi Mandir at Jammu Kashmir since 2015 to 2017
along with the parents of the petitioner and in the year 2019, the petitioner
and respondent visited Mahakal Mandir Ujjain and they also visited
Kolkata and Darjeeling in the year, 2020, therefore instance of cruelty by
respondent/husband upon petitioner/wife is not correct.
8. It is further stated that since the beginning of the marriage, the
petitioner never intended to stay with the respondent and her in-laws. The
petitioner pressurized the respondent to stay alone in separate room. It is
pertinent to mention here that the petitioner used to give threat of putting
the opposite party behind the bars on false charge of Domestic Violence
Act and Dowry Act on being objected to her misbehaviour, therefore,
petition is incorrect, baseless, concocted and manufactured for the purpose
of the present suit.
9. Learned Family Judge, after institution of the said case taking
into consideration of the pleadings of the parties, after scrutinizing the
evidence adduced on behalf of both the parties, oral as well as
documentary, has dismissed the suit for dissolution of marriage.
10. The impugned judgment by which the suit for dissolution of
marriage has been dismissed is under challenge by the appellant-wife by
filing the instant appeal.
Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant-wife:
11. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-husband has
taken the following grounds:
4

2026:JHHC:32533-DB
(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 evidences produced by
the appellant-wife
(ii) The element of cruelty and desertion has been found
to be there if the evidences adduced on behalf of the
appellant-wife 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 and desertion is there and, on that
ground, dismissed the suit and, as such, the impugned
judgment and decree suffer from an error.
(iii) It has been contended that the appellant-wife has
been compelled by the respondent/husband to live in her
maike and, thus, has deserted the petitioner, but the same
has not been taken into consideration by the learned
Family Judge.
(iv) It has been contended that the learned Family Judge
has failed to appreciate the evidences adduced on behalf
of the appellant-wife as in the trial, the evidence has
come that it was the respondent-husband who has treated
the appellant-wife with cruelty and compelled her to
leave the matrimonial home, but this fact has not been
considered by the learned Family Judge.
(v) It is further submitted that the appellant is living in
her parental home since 09.08.2019 and there is no
chance of settlement between the parties.
5

2026:JHHC:32533-DB
(vi) Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that
the respondent-husband had filed a separate proceeding
being O.S. No. 07 of 2023 under Section 9 of the Hindu
Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights. It has
been submitted that the said suit was dismissed by the
same Court under the presiding authority of the same
learned Judge who had also dismissed the suit filed by
the petitioner-wife seeking a decree of divorce.
(vii) In the OS No. 07 of 2023 the court has given its
finding that the wife has reasonable justification for her
reasonable excuse in withdrawing from the society of
respondent/husband and the said suit for restitution was
dismissed.
(viii) The learned Family Court in the OS No. 07 of 2023
has observed that it would not be safe for the
appellant/wife to cohabit with the petitioner under hostile
state of affairs in existing her matrimonial home.
12. The learned counsel, based upon the aforesaid grounds, has
submitted that the impugned judgment and decree, therefore, needs
interference said to be perverse.
Submission by the learned counsel for the respondent-husband:
13. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-
husband has taken the following grounds:
(i) There is no error in the impugned judgement as the
learned Family Judge has considered the entire issue and
on the basis of evidence laid by the parties and has passed
the order impugned.
6

2026:JHHC:32533-DB
(ii) The appellant/wife is cruel, has deserted the
respondent without any valid ground but the learned
Family Court, after taking into consideration the oral and
documentary evidence, has held that the entire
allegations levelled against the respondent husband are
not true and accordingly dismissed the suit.
(iii) It has also been submitted that the conduct of the
appellant-wife has never been towards salvaging the
institution of marriage as it is the appellant-wife has
come for the dissolution of the marriage, therefore the
impugned order requires no interference.
(iv) It has been contended that the petitioner/appellant-
wife has neglected to care the respondent and, as such,
the petitioner has deserted the respondent and acted
cruelty upon him.
14. Learned counsel, based upon the aforesaid grounds, has
submitted that if on that pretext, the factum of cruelty and desertion has
not been found to be established, hence, the impugned judgment cannot be
said to suffer from an error.
Analysis:
15. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties,
gone through the impugned judgment, as also the testimony of the
witnesses, the materials available on record and the documents exhibited
therein.
16. The learned Family Judge has formulated altogether four issues,
for ready reference the same are being quoted hereinbelow:

7

2026:JHHC:32533-DB
1-Whether the suit, as framed, is maintainable ?
11-Whether the petitioner has valid cause of action for filing this suit ?
Ⅲ-Whether the petitioner is entitled for a decree of divorce against
her husband-O.P on the ground of cruelty and desertion U/s 13(1)
(i-a), (i-b) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ?
IV-Whether the petitioner is entitled for any other relief or reliefs ?
17. This Court is now adverting to the impugned order/judgment by
which prayer for dissolution of marriage has been dismissed by the learned
Family Court.
18. In support of her case, three witnesses have been examined on
behalf of the appellant-wife including herself as P.W.1, P.W.2: -Prabhat
Kumar, maternal uncle of petitioner, P.W.3: -Sandhya Gupta, mother of
petitioner. Petitioner/wife has not exhibited any document.
19. In this case, respondent-husband has also examined three
witnesses including himself as witness, R.W.1: -Vikash Chaudhary, the
Respondent himself, R.W.2: -Ashish Bhagat, brother-in-law of the
respondent and R.W.3: -Rina Bhagat, Sister of the respondent.
20. The learned Family Judge has taken into consideration the issue
nos. (III) as first issue i.e., Whether the petitioner is entitled for a decree
of divorce against her husband-O. P on the ground of cruelty and desertion
U/s 13(1) (i-a), (i-b) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955?
21. Thereafter, the learned Family Judge has considered the evidence
adduced on behalf of the parties for deciding the issues involved in
Original Suit.
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 appellant-wife and the respondent-husband.
8

2026:JHHC:32533-DB
23. During the trial, the appellant /wife herself has been examined as
PW1 before learned Family Court. In her examination the appellant-wife
has narrated entire things as pleaded in the plaint about her marriage with
the respondent-husband. She had deposed that her marriage was
solemnized with the respondent Vikash Chaudhary on 15.02.2015,
according to Hindu Rites and ceremonies at Jail Hata, Daltonganj.
Thereafter again, her marriage ceremony was held according to Hindu rites
and rituals on 27.02.2016 in the presence of her family members with
Vikash Choudhary.
24. She had deposed that after marriage she went to her sasural
where she lived for about 10 days in her sasural. After that she fell sick,
then her husband did not get her medically treated and also did not look
after her. Thereafter she came to her maike with her husband where maike
people got her medically treated. During the time of living in her maike,
her husband and in-laws used to taunt her for dowry and tortured her. Her
husband demanded Rs 5,00,000/- cash and one four-wheeler vehicle from
her and on small matters used to beat her and abuse her maike people. Her
husband always used to say about giving divorce to her. Her husband used
to abuse the relatives and say about giving divorce. Ornaments worth Rs.
10,00,000/- was given to her by her maike people, they have been sold by
her husband and her husband has also kept all her clothes.
25. She had further deposed that after she had fallen sick, since then
there has been no physical relationship between her and her husband. On
08.09.2019, her husband ousted her from her sasural and since then she is
living in her maike . Her brother had given money to her husband for doing
business, but her husband did not start business. Her husband always used
9

2026:JHHC:32533-DB
to harass and torture her; therefore, she wants to take divorce from her
husband.
26. During her cross-examination, she has deposed that on
15.02.2015 she and her husband Vikash Chaudhary by their own will had
solemnized marriage in a temple in Daltonganj and at that time she has
solemnized marriage after hiding the said fact from her family members.
She used to love Vikash Chaudhary and she had solemnized marriage
secretly because her family members would not have agreed for her
marriage. She had met Vikash Chaudhary for the first time in January,
2015 and before that she had never met him. It is not true that after
marriage, her maike people used to torture them both. It is correct to say
that written complaint with her signature was given in Mahila P.S, Ranchi,
but she says that her husband had forcefully taken her signature on the
Complaint petition. It is correct that Mahila P.S Ranchi had called her
maike people and there was a written compromise. According to that
Compromise on 27.02.2016, their marriage was solemnized with all rites
and rituals in which her maike and sasural people had all participated.
Before 27.02.2016 she had visited Vaishnao Devi temple with her
husband. Her maike people had taken them, wife and husband, in the year,
2015, 2016 and 2017 during Navratri to Vaishnao Devi temple. She and
her husband had gone to Ujjain during Nag Panchami in the year, 2019.
She says by herself that expenses for reservation and hotel booking at
Ujjain were done by her maike people.
27. She has further stated that in the year, 2020, her father had
purchased a car and Puja of the Car was performed in Deori Temple,
Tamar and her husband Vikash Chaudhary was also present there. It is not
true that in the year, 2021, her husband had come to her maike on the
10

2026:JHHC:32533-DB
occasion of Holi. Her marriage Anniversary was on 27.02.2021 and her
husband had participated in the marriage Anniversary without invitation
and on the said date, photographs were also taken on the occasion of
Marriage Anniversary. At present she is ad-hock teacher in DAV Public
School, Daltonganj where her salary is Rs. 15,000/- per month. She had
deposed that her maike people had given a proposal to her husband that he
should take a house and live with her in Daltonganj, but her husband did
not agree. She says by herself that her maike people had apprehension that
her husband would kill her, therefore, they had given the proposal to live
in Daltonganj. Even if her husband wants to keep her in Daltonganj by
taking a house, even then she will not live with him. She is not aware that
her husband has filed O.S Case No. 07/2023 which is pending before this
Court for her Bidai .
28. She had further deposed that before she falls sick, on one
occasion physical relation was established between her and her husband
and after that only she started facing problem. All the medical treatment
papers are in the house of her husband, therefore, she cannot file the same
in Court. Her treatment was done firstly done by their family doctor Anand
Kumar in Daltonganj and when he could not diagnose the problem, then
her treatment was done by Dr. Jitendra Singh at Ranchi, who diagnosed
her disease and treated her. No test was done. Her husband had also
reached the clinic of Dr. Jitendra Singh. Doctor had told the name of her
disease as Honeymoon cystitis. That her father is present in the Court on
the said date.
29. She had further deposed that it is not true that her husband had
got her medically treated with Dr. Shobha Chakravorty in Ranchi. She says
by herself that her mother had borne all the expenses of her treatment with
11

2026:JHHC:32533-DB
Dr. Shobha Chakravorty. She will not live with her husband even if her
husband keeps her properly and maintains her. It is not true that her
husband has not tortured her for dowry. It is not true that under the
influence of her maike people and due to their protest, she has filed this
divorce case. In Court question, she has stated that in or about October,
2016, her illness of Honeymoon cystitis was cured. After she was cured of
her illness from October, 2016 to August, 2019, altogether she lived with
her husband for about three months in Ranchi, she by herself some times
for two days and some times for 4 days used to go to her sasural. The
sasural people used to oust her by saying something or the other. In her
further cross-examination, she has stated that there was no physical
relationship with her husband before marriage. It is not true that despite
physical relationship, as she was not conceiving, for that she was medically
treated. She cannot file in court any documentary proof or medical
prescription that her husband is not capable to establish physical
relationship. It is not true that she under the influence of her parents has
made the allegation that her husband is not capable of establishing physical
relationship.
30. P.W.2, Prabhat Kumar, in his examination-in-chief on affidavit,
has stated that he knows both the parties to the case and the marriage of
petitioner Kumari Anjali was solemnized on 15.02.2015 with the
respondent according to Hindu rites and ceremonies for which marriage
certificate was issued from the office of Marriage Officer, Ranchi,
Jharkhand on 25.05.2015. After marriage, petitioner went to her sasural at
Ranchi and lived there for few days, but after that respondent always used
to behave cruelly with her and used to beat her and without permission of
the petitioner, secretly took out the Gold and silver ornaments of the
12

2026:JHHC:32533-DB
petitioner kept in the drawer, which was all her stridhan, which were given
to the petitioner by her parents and relatives in the marriage as gift, which
were worth Rs. 10,00,000/- and after stealing them, the respondent sold
the ornaments and spend the money in his debauchery.
31. This witness had further stated that few days after marriage,
respondent/husband started demanding dowry of Rs. 5,00,000/- and one
car and said that she should get the same from her parents, brother and
relatives and give it to him otherwise she will not be allowed to live in the
house. That always petitioner was assaulted, abused and threatened for her
life by the respondent. It has further been deposed that respondent is a
very clever and useless person and does illegal work and has made
different types of fake I.Ds and does illegal work and when the petitioner
stopped him from doing such illegal work, then he used to beat her.
32. This witness has further deposed that respondent by giving false
assurance and taking advantage of the innocence of the petitioner by
cheating her had solemnized marriage with the petitioner and by giving
threats of dire consequences to the petitioner and her family, forced the
petitioner also to make false allegation against the parents and brother of
the petitioner. The respondent always used to abuse the petitioner and also
her parents and brother and disrespected them and by making excuses used
to take money from them. sometime after marriage, respondent tortured
the petitioner physically and mentally in various ways and used to say that
she should earn and give him and that he will solemnize second marriage
as he is done with her and used to give threatening of giving divorce. There
is no issue from the marital life of the petitioner and respondent and
petitioner is living separately from her husband since 09.08.2019 and the
petitioner is living in her maike house of her parents. Several times,
13

2026:JHHC:32533-DB
panchayati was convened regarding the cruelty, abuse, assault and illegal
demand of dowry by the respondent and also for doing bad behaviour with
the parents of the petitioner but the respondent did not listen to anyone and
even threatens the petitioner of dire consequences and to face bad
consequences if she does not withdraw her case. Petitioner has threat to
her life by living with the respondent and any time respondent can cause
harm to the life of the petitioner, her parents and her brother.
33. In his cross-examination, he has stated that petitioner Kumari
Anjali is his niece (Bhanji) and petitioner has done her education at
Daltonganj and she has passed matric probably in the year, 2003 and also
passed 12th from Daltonganj. He does not remember in which year,
petitioner had gone to Ranchi for her studies. He had deposed that Parents
of the petitioner were not aware about the registered marriage of the
petitioner and respondent. He is not aware that after the knowledge about
the Court marriage of the petitioner, her parents went to Ranchi and also
beat her for which petitioner gave a petition in Mahila P.S., Kotwali
against her parents.
34. He further stated the parties were married according to Hindu
rites and ceremonies in Daltonganj and he is aware about the same and had
participated in the marriage. He came to know in the year, 2019 that
respondent was not keeping the petitioner properly. He is not aware
whether petitioner has filed any Complaint either in Police Station or any
where regarding assault upon her by her husband. He does not know the
day, date and month when demand of dowry was made from the petitioner.
He does not have personal knowledge that respondent is a clever, useless
person and does illegal works by making fake I.Ds. He has stated that
respondent had told the petitioner before marriage that he has a steel
14

2026:JHHC:32533-DB
rolling factory and does work of contract, but later-on she came to know
that he does not have any of these. Respondent had threatened on his phone
that he will destroy the petitioner and her brother and has also kill them,
but he cannot say the day, date and month of the said phone call. He is not
aware on which day, date and month and how much money respondent has
taken from the brother of the petitioner. Respondent had come to his house
once and at that time he had abused the petitioner, then he had tried to
make the respondent understand, but he cannot say the day, date and year
of the said occurrence. He was not present in any panchayati. After
09.08.2019, he came to know that relation of petitioner and respondent is
not good, therefore, petitioner is living in her maike . He has stated that it
is not true that he is not aware of any facts of this case.
35. P.W.3, Sandhya Gupta, in her examination in chief on affidavit
has stated that she knows both parties to the case. She has further stated
that the marriage of petitioner Kumari Anjali was solemnized on
15.02.2015 with the respondent according to Hindu rites and ceremonies
for which marriage certificate was issued from the office of the Marriage
Officer, Ranchi, Jharkhand on 25.05.2015. After marriage, petitioner went
to her sasural at Ranchi and lived there for few days, but after that her
husband always used to behave cruelly and used to beat her and without
permission of the petitioner, secretly took out the Gold and silver
ornaments of the petitioner from the drawer, which was all her stridhan,
which were given by her parents and relatives in the marriage as gift,
which were worth Rs. 10,00,000/- and after stealing them, the respondent
sold the ornaments and spend the money for his debauchery.
36. She has further deposed that few days after marriage, respondent
started demanding dowry of Rs. 5,00,000/- and one car and said that
15

2026:JHHC:32533-DB
petitioner should get the same from her parents, brother and relatives and
give it to him otherwise she will not be allowed to live in the house.
Petitioner was assaulted, abused and threatened for her life by the
respondent. That respondent is a very clever and useless person and does
illegal work and has made different types of fake I.Ds and does illegal
work and when the petitioner stopped him from doing such illegal work,
then he used to beat her and kept her confined in a room. She had stated
that respondent by giving false assurance and taking advantage of the
innocence of the petitioner by cheating her had solemnized marriage with
the petitioner and by giving threats of dire consequences to the petitioner
and her family, forced the petitioner also to make false allegation against
the parents and brother of the petitioner. The respondent always used to
abuse the petitioner and also her parents and brother and disrespected them
and by making excuses used to take money from them.
37. She has stated that sometime after marriage, respondent tortured
the petitioner physically and mentally in various ways and used to say that
petitioner should earn and give him and that he will solemnize second
marriage as he is done with her. She had stated that petitioner is living
separately from her husband since 09.08.2019 and the petitioner is living
in her maike house of her parents and Several times, panchayati was
convened regarding the cruelty, abuse, assault and illegal demand of
dowry by the respondent and also for doing bad behaviour with the parents
of the petitioner but the respondent did not listen to anyone and even
threatens the petitioner of dire consequences and to face bad consequences
if she does not withdraw her case. she had further deposed that the instant
suit for divorce filed by the petitioner against the respondent is true
because petitioner has threat to her life by living with the respondent and
16

2026:JHHC:32533-DB
any time respondent can cause harm to the life of the petitioner, her parents
and her brother.
38. In her cross-examination, she has deposed that affidavit has been
prepared as per her instruction and the contents of her affidavit are correct.
she knows the respondent since 05.09.2015 and she has seen the marriage
certificate, therefore, she has written the date of marriage as 15.02.2015 in
para-2 of her affidavit and date of marriage as 25.05.2015 before Marriage
Officer, Ranchi. On 05.09.2015, brother-in-law of the respondent had
shown her the marriage certificate, then she came to know about the
marriage and at that time her daughter was living in Upper Bazar, Ranchi
in a rented house where she had taken for her studies. She had deposed
that the primary education of her daughter has been made in Daltonganj.
She does not remember in which year her daughter passed Matric.
Probably at the time of marriage, her daughter was studying in M.A., since
the time, her daughter has gone to study at Ranchi. She had deposed that
it is not true that she had assaulted and abused her daughter for which her
daughter along with the respondent had registered a Complaint in Mahila
PS, Ranchi where both the parties entered into a compromise that they
would get the boy and girl married, according to social norms. She says
herself that she had not gone, but her husband had gone. She does not know
who had signed on the compromise. It is true that as per terms of
compromise on dated 18.11.2025, the boy and girl were engaged in Hotel
Krishna INN in Ranchi in which family members of both the parties were
present. Once she came to know that her daughter has solemnized marriage
with the respondent, then they got the boy and girl engaged as per the
norms of the society. She married her daughter with the respondent
according to Social norms. The marriage of her daughter was solemnized
17

2026:JHHC:32533-DB
from their residence according to Social norms. She herself says that once
in the year, 2017-2018, during the time of Dashara, for 10 days, her
daughter was assaulted. No Complaint was registered in the Police Station
regarding the assault. Her daughter was treated by the doctor, but she does
not have the proof. It is true that after marriage, they had gone to Vaishnao
Devi along with the respondent. She does not know that after marriage,
her daughter had gone to Ujjain. It is true that in the year, 2020 at the time
of Dushera, they had gone to Deori Temple, Tamar, Ranchi for doing
worship but they had not called the respondent for the said puja, nor had
they gone to the house of the respondent to take him. She says by herself
that respondent himself came for worship. It is not true that on 27.02.2021,
respondent had come to their house at Daltonganj to celebrate his marriage
Anniversary. She says by herself that she was not informed about the death
of the father of the respondent and at that time it was Corona period.. It is
not true that they want their daughter to take divorce from their husband
by putting pressure upon her and they want to solemnize second marriage
of their daughter.
39. Per contra, evidence of three witnesses has been adduced by the
respondent-husband.
40. The respondent while examining herself as RW 1 has stated that
petitioner and respondent became friends in the year, 2014 and after some
time, they both were in love with each other and on 15.02.2015, they
solemnized their marriage, according to Hindu rites and customs and also
registered their marriage voluntarily under the Hindu Marriage Act, having
Registration No. 634/2015 dated 25.05.2015.
41. He has stated that when the petitioner told about relationship and
registration of her marriage with the respondent in her house, then parents
18

2026:JHHC:32533-DB
and brother of the petitioner became angry and came to the rented house
of the petitioner at Mahavir Chowk, Ranchi and scolded her, as a result of
which, petitioner had left her parents at the house and came to the house
of respondent at Upper Bazar, Ranchi and told everything to the
respondent. On 04.09.2015, petitioner along with respondent had gone to
Mahila P.S Ranchi and gave a Complaint against her parents in the Police
Station in which her parents was pressurizing her to come out from the
marriage and on 05.09.2015, a meeting of both the parties was called in
the Mahila P.S, Ranchi and with consent, there was a compromise between
the parties in Mahila P.S. Ranchi that parents of the petitioner will
solemnize the marriage of petitioner with the respondent, according to
social norms and decided that Ring ceremony will be performed in Ranchi
and Tilak and other rituals of marriage will be performed at the permanent
residence of the petitioner at Daltonganj. Thereafter, on 18.11.2015, Ring
ceremony (Chheka) rituals was performed at Hotel Krishna INN, Ratu
Road, Ranchi between the petitioner and the respondent in which family
members of both the parties and friends had participated. As per the wishes
of the parents and brother of the petitioner, date of marriage was fixed on
27.02.2016 and on the said date, respondent along with his family
members, came with Barat to Daltonganj, Palamau and on 27.02.2016 in
the night, firstly Tilak ritual was performed and thereafter marriage ritual
were performed in the presence of family members of both the parties
according to Hindu rites and customs and in the marriage, both the parties
as per their capacity and rituals and customs, voluntarily exchanged the
gifts.
42. This witness has further deposed that on the second day after
marriage; petitioner came to the house of the respondent at her sasural at
19

2026:JHHC:32533-DB
Ranchi and both started living as wife and husband at Ranchi. The
petitioner along with her parents and brother as well as with the
respondent, before their marriage which was schedule on 27.02.2016, had
gone to Jammu and Kashmir to visit Mata Vaishnao Devi during Navratri
of 2015 and also during Navratri of 2016 and 2017. In the year, 2019,
petitioner and respondent, both together went to Ujjain and Darjeeling via
Kolkata for tourism. In the year, 2020 during Navratras, father of the
respondent had purchased a Car, then respondent had also gone along with
her parents and brother of the petitioner for worship in Deori Temple,
Tamar, Jharkhand.
43. He has deposed that since 20th March, 2020, petitioner is living
in her maike continuously and doing Private job for which respondent has
no objection. Respondent on 27.02.2021 came to his sasural, Palamau to
celebrate his Marriage Anniversary at Palamau and celebrated his
marriage Anniversary with the parents and family members of the
petitioner and returned to Ranchi and had also gone to sasural in the year,
2021 for celebrating Holi at his sasural. He has deposed that his father
died on 31.12.2021 and he informed the petitioner on phone about the
same and requested her to come to Ranchi at once but petitioner refused to
come to Ranchi. Respondent talked to the parents and brother of the
petitioner on phone and requested them to sent the petitioner to Ranchi,
but they also refused. Neither the petitioner nor her parents or brother came
and participated in the Shrad Karma of his father. After the death of his
father, he did not go to celebrate Holi in the year, 2022 to the house of the
petitioner at Palamau according to Hindu customs due to which, petitioner
and her parents became annoyed and said that now their daughter will not
go to Ranchi. That respondent tried to make them understand, but they did
20

2026:JHHC:32533-DB
not listen to the respondent, then respondent went to the house of the
petitioner at Palamau and told her to come to Ranchi with him, but
petitioner clearly refused to come to Ranchi and after that her parents also
started saying that if he wants, he can come and live in Palamau, and now
their daughter will live here and not return to Ranchi. The petitioner spends
the money which she earns from Private job on her parents and does not
share the house hold expenses with the respondent. The petitioner never
lived with her in-laws in her sasural and also never celebrated any festivals
in her sasural and she always wants to live only in her maike and her
parents and brother also wants the same.
44. This witness has deposed that as per wish of the petitioner, he
gave a new look to his house at Ranchi and as per her liking, constructed
the Kitchen and Bath room, but despite that petitioner is living in her maike
since 20.03.2020 and despite several attempts by the respondent, the
petitioner under the influence of her parents and brother does not want to
come to Ranchi and on asking she also does not clearly say reason for not
going to Ranchi. This witness had further deposed that Petitioner has
brought all her gold and silver ornaments, clothes and articles of her
personal use with herself and voluntarily after leaving her husband and
relatives, is living in her maike . Despite all the social and family attempts
made by the respondent, when the petitioner did not return to Ranchi, then
respondent filed a case for Bidal of the petitioner U/s 9 of the Hindu
Marriage Act being case no. 562/2022 in family Court, Ranchi and on the
request of the petitioner, the said case has been transferred by the Hon'ble
High Court to this Court having no. 07/2023. He had deposed that he even
today wants to keep the petitioner in his house with respect and will keep
her with all respect and is capable to provide her all the marital facilities
21

2026:JHHC:32533-DB
and he is physically, mentally and financially capable to maintain her. He
had deposed that respondent or his family members had never misbehaved
with the petitioner and have also not demanded cash or articles as dowry
and under the influence of her parents, petitioner has filed this divorce case
only on false facts and evidence and when respondent did not agree for
divorce at the mediation Centre at Ranchi, then for getting pressure,
parents of the petitioner got filed a criminal case by the petitioner against
the respondent being Complaint Case no. 2037/2022, U/s 323, 379, 498A,
504 and 506 of the I.PC in which respondent is on bail. This witness has
exhibited the Original Invitation Card of his marriage with Kumari Anjali
which has been exhibited as Ext. A. He has also filed copy of three
photographs of himself, his wife and other family members and these
photographs are marked as Y to Y/2 for identification. The medical
treatment papers of the petitioner and respondent of Dr. Shobha
Chakravorty of Ranchi which are in photo copies and are in 10 pages have
been collectively marked as Mark Y/3 for identification. The Colour photo
copy of marriage certificate has been marked as Y/4 for identification.
45. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he has not filed any
papers about which he has stated in Para-3 of his affidavit that on
05.09.2015, compromise took place between both the parties, papers were
also prepared, but he does not have papers, therefore, he has not filed the
same in the Court. He himself says that the papers are with his wife. He
has not filed the papers relating to the program that took place in the Hotel
and its booking etc. He himself says that he has filed the photos of the
program. It is correct to say that the photographs which has been filed by
him, no dates are mentioned. He has not filed the tickets by which they
had gone to Vaishnao Devi and also not filed any documentary proof of
22

2026:JHHC:32533-DB
stay at that place. He says by himself that he has given the photo. He has
not filed any documents relating to job of his wife in Court. During Holi
his wife had gone to Ranchi with her brother on a car for marketing, then
he had also come to Daltonganj with them in the said car, therefore he does
not have any documentary proof of going to Daltonganj. He had returned
by Bus but he has not kept the Bus ticket. He has filed the photo of Holi
festival. He has stated that it is true that since 20.03.2020, his wife is
continuously living in her maike . He himself says that till the month of
March/April of the year, 2021, during the time of Holi and marriage
Anniversary, he had come to his sasural. It is correct to say that Section 9
case filed by him in Ranchi Court and was filed after filing of this case for
divorce. He had stated that he has given cash as well as gifts to his wife
after marriage, but he cannot give proof. He has no Complaint against his
wife and if he had said anything against his wife any where, then he takes
them back. It is not true that he used to beat his wife and had sold all her
ornaments and when his wife questioned, he behaved badly with his wife,
assaulted her and tortured her and said that he does not want to live with
her and she should take divorce. It is not true that he has never tried to
improve his relationship with his wife and threatens to his wife.
46. R.W.2, Ashish Bhagat, has deposed in his examination-in-chief
that the mother, father and brother of the petitioner were not happy with
the marriage of the petitioner and respondent. They had gone to the rented
house of the petitioner at Mahavir Chowk, Ranchi and scolded the
petitioner and on 04.09.2015, petitioner along with respondent had gone
to Mahila P.S Ranchi and gave a Complaint against her parents in the
Police Station in which her parents was pressurizing her to come out from
the marriage. Then a meeting was called of both the parties in Mahila P.S,
23

2026:JHHC:32533-DB
Ranchi and with consent, there was a compromise between the parties in
Mahila P.S. Ranchi that parents of the petitioner will solemnize the
marriage of petitioner with the respondent, according to social norms and
decided that Ring ceremony will be performed in Ranchi and Tilak and
other rituals of marriage will be performed at the permanent residence of
the petitioner at Daltonganj.
47. He had stated that on 18.11.2015, Ring ceremony ( Chheka )
rituals was performed at Hotel Krishna INN, Ratu. Road, Ranchi between
the petitioner and the respondent in which family members of both the
parties and friends had participated. As per the wishes of the parents and
brother of the petitioner, date of marriage was fixed on 27.02.2016 and on
the said date, respondent, came with Barat to Daltonganj, Palamau and on
27.02.2016 in the night, firstly Tilak ritual was performed and thereafter
marriage rituals were performed in the presence of family members of both
the parties according to Hindu rites and customs.
48. This witness had further stated that on the next day of marriage,
petitioner came to the house of the respondent at her sasural at Ranchi and
both started living as wife and husband at Ranchi. The petitioner along
with her parents and brother as well as with the respondent, several times
went to Jammu and Kashmir to visit Mata Vaishnao Devi and in the year,
2019, petitioner and respondent, both together went to Ujjain and
Darjeeling via Calcutta for tourism. In the year, 2020, father of the
petitioner had purchased a Car, then respondent had also gone along with
her parents and brother for worship in Deori Temple, Tamar, Jharkhand.
That the petitioner after marriage, always used to come and go to her maike
for which petitioner or his family members neither objected and she used
th
to go to her maike voluntarily or when her parents called her. Since 20
24

2026:JHHC:32533-DB
March, 2020, petitioner is living in her maike continuously. Petitioner is
posted as Teacher in DAV School, Palamau. Every year, respondent used
to came to his sasural to celebrate his Marriage Anniversary and otherwise
also, he also used to come to his sasural to meet them. He had stated that
the father of the respondent died on 31.12.2021 at Ranchi. Respondent
informed the petitioner on phone about the same and requested him to
come to Ranchi at once but petitioner refused to come to Ranchi. The
petitioner never lived with her in-laws in her sasural and also never
celebrated any festivals in her sasural and she always wants to live only in
her maike and despite several attempts by the respondent, the petitioner
under the influence of her parents and brother does not want to come to
Ranchi and on asking she also does not clearly say any reason for not going
to Ranchi. Despite all the social and family attempts made by the
respondent, when the petitioner did not return to Ranchi, then respondent
filed a case for Bidai of the petitioner U/s 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act
being case no. 562/2022 in family Court, Ranchi and on the request of the
petitioner, the said case has been transferred by the Hon'ble High Court to
this Court having no. 07/2023. He had further stated that neither the
respondent nor his family members had ever misbehaved with the
petitioner and have also not demanded cash or articles as dowry. Neither
the respondent nor his family members have ever tortured the petitioner
physically and mentally. He had further deposed that under the influence
of her parents, petitioner has filed this divorce case only on false facts and
evidence and when respondent did not agree for divorce at the mediation
Centre at Ranchi, then for getting pressure, parents of the petitioner got
filed a criminal case and maintenance case by the petitioner and all the
cases are currently pending in Palamu Court.
25

2026:JHHC:32533-DB
49. In his cross-examination, he has deposed that Vikash Chaudhary
is his own brother-in-law (Sala). He does not remember what was written
in para-3 of his affidavit, but the affidavit has been prepared as per his
instruction. He has seen the marriage certificate of the petitioner and the
respondent. He does not remember its number. He has no proof of the fact
written by him in para-4 of the affidavit. He has not brought any proof
regarding the Ring ceremony held on 18.11.2015 stated by him in Para-5
of his affidavit. It is not true that on 18-11-2015, no Ring ceremony was
performed. He himself says that he very frequently goes to Ranchi and for
1-2 hours he also goes to his sasural. Petitioner and respondent had gone
to Vaishnao Devi, Ujjain, Calcutta and Darjeeling but he had not gone
along with them and he knows this fact because Vikash Chaudhary had
consulted and discussed with him about his tour and after returning from
their tour he had told him that they had gone for tour. After 20.03.2020,
the girl has never gone to her sasural. His in-laws told him that petitioner
did not live properly with them and also did not celebrate any festival with
them because he always go to his sasural.
50. R.W.3, Rina Bhagat, has deposed in her examination-in-chief
that she knows both the parties to the case and the mother, father and
brother were not happy with the marriage of the petitioner and respondent.
They had gone to the rented house of the petitioner at Mahavir Chowk,
Ranchi and scolded the petitioner. On 04.09.2015, petitioner along with
respondent had gone to Mahila P.S Ranchi and gave a Complaint against
her parents in the Police Station in which her parents was pressurizing her
to come out from the marriage. Then a meeting was called of both the
parties in Mahila P.S. Ranchi and with consent, there was a compromise
between the parties in Mahila P.S. Ranchi that parents of the petitioner will
26

2026:JHHC:32533-DB
solemnize the marriage of petitioner with the respondent, according to
social norms and decided that Ring ceremony will be performed in Ranchi
and Tilak and other rituals of marriage will be performed at the permanent
residence of the petitioner at Daltonganj. On 18.11.2015, Ring ceremony
( Chheka ) rituals was performed at Hotel between the petitioner and the
respondent in which family members of both the parties and friends had
participated. As per the wishes of the parents and brother of the petitioner,
date of marriage was fixed on 27.02.2016 and on the said date, respondent
along with his family members and relative came with Barat to Daltonganj,
Palamau and on 27.02.2016 in the night, firstly Tilak ritual was performed
and thereafter marriage rituals were performed in the presence of family
members of both the parties according to Hindu rites and customs. That on
the next day of marriage, petitioner came to the house of the respondent at
her sasural at Ranchi and both started living as wife and husband at Ranchi.
She has further deposed that the petitioner along with her parents and
brother as well as with the respondent, several times went to Jammu and
Kashmir to visit Mata Vaishnao Devi and in the year, 2019, petitioner and
respondent, both together went to Ujjain and Darjeeling via Calcutta for
tourism. In the year, 2020, father of the petitioner had purchased a Car,
then respondent had also gone along with her parents and brother for
worship in Deori Temple, Tamar, Jharkhand. The petitioner after
marriage, always used to come and go to her maike for which petitioner or
his family members neither objected and she used to go to her maike
voluntarily or when her parents called her.
51. She had further stated that since 20th March, 2020, petitioner is
living in her maike continuously. Petitioner is posted as Teacher in DAV
School, Palamau. Every year, respondent used to came to his sasural to
27

2026:JHHC:32533-DB
celebrate his Marriage Anniversary and otherwise also, he also used to
come to his sasural to meet them. The father of the respondent died on
31.12.2021 at Ranchi. Respondent informed the petitioner on phone about
the same and requested her to come to Ranchi at once but petitioner refused
to come to Ranchi. Respondent talked to the parents and brother of the
petitioner on phone and requested them to send the petitioner to Ranchi,
but they also refused. Neither the petitioner nor her parents or brother came
and participated in the Shradh Karma of the father of the respondent. After
the death of the father of the respondent, respondent did not go to celebrate
Holi in the year, 2022 to the house of the petitioner at Palamau according
to Hindu customs due to which, petitioner and her parents became annoyed
and said that now their daughter will not go to Ranchi. That respondent
tried to make them understand, but they did not listen to the respondent,
then respondent went to the house of the petitioner at Palamau and told her
to come to Ranchi with him, but petitioner clearly refused to come to
Ranchi and after that her parents also started saying that if he wants, he
can come and live in Palamau, and now their daughter will live here and
not return to Ranchi. The petitioner never lived with her in-laws in her
sasural and also never celebrated any festivals in her sasural and she
always wants to live only in her maike .
52. It is stated that despite all the social and family attempts made by
the respondent, when the petitioner did not return to Ranchi, then
respondent filed a case for Bidai of the petitioner U/s 9 of the Hindu
Marriage Act being case no. 562/2022 in Family Court, Ranchi and on the
request of the petitioner, the said case has been transferred by the Hon'ble
High Court to this Court having no. 07/2023. She had deposed that neither
the respondent nor his family members had ever misbehaved with the
28

2026:JHHC:32533-DB
petitioner and have also not demanded cash or articles as dowry. Neither
the respondent nor his family members have ever tortured the petitioner
physically and mentally. That the parents and brother of the petitioner
could not digest the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent and only
for keeping their respect in their society, they solemnized the marriage of
petitioner with the respondent again but they are always trying that
somehow they should be divorced. Under the influence of her parents,
petitioner has filed this divorce case only on false facts and evidence and
when respondent did not agree for divorce at the mediation Centre at
Ranchi, then for getting pressure, parents of the petitioner got filed a
criminal case and maintenance case by the petitioner and all the cases are
currently pending in Palamu Court. She says by herself that since the
period of Corona they are living separately. That the petitioner is living in
her maike and respondent is living in his house at Ranchi.
53. She had deposed that it is not true that she has no personal
knowledge of the case and has deposed in favour of her brother as told by
her brother. It is not true that her brother always used to assault his wife
and tortured her and therefore, petitioner has filed this case for divorce. It
is not true that she has deposed falsely in favour of her brother.
54. Upon consideration of the rival submissions and the materials
available on record and further taking into consideration the factual
aspects as referred hereinabove, this Court is of the view that the
following points arise for determination in the instant appeal:
(i) Whether the learned Family Court has properly
appreciated the oral and documentary evidence adduced by
the parties?
29

2026:JHHC:32533-DB
(ii) Whether the conduct of the respondent-husband, as
established from the evidence on record, amounts to
matrimonial cruelty within the meaning of Section 13(1)(ia)
of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955?
(iii) Whether the appellant has established the ground of
desertion under Section 13(1)(ib) of the Act?
(iv) Whether the impugned judgment and decree warrant
interference by this Court in exercise of its appellate
jurisdiction?
55. Since all the aforesaid issues are intrinsically interconnected and
have a bearing upon one another, the same are taken up together for
consideration and adjudication.
56. Before answering the aforesaid issue, it would be apt to refer
herein the settled proposition of law regarding appellate jurisdiction.
57. It needs to refer herein that since appellate jurisdiction has been
invoked herein, therefore, before entering into merit of the case, at this
juncture it would be purposeful to discuss the appellate jurisdiction of the
High Court.
58. It needs to refer herein that under section 7 of the Family Courts Act,
the Family Court shall have and exercise all the jurisdiction exercisable by
any District Court or any Sub- ordinate Civil Court under any law for the
time being in force in respect of suits and proceedings of the nature which
are described in the explanation to section 7(1).
59. Sub-section (1) to section 19 of the Family Courts Act provides that
an appeal shall lie from every judgment or order not being an interlocutory
order of a Family Court to the High Court "both on facts and on law".
Therefore, section 19 of the Family Courts Act is parallel to section 96 of
30

2026:JHHC:32533-DB
the Code of Civil Procedure, the scope of which has been dealt with by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in series of judgments.
60. The law is well settled that the High Court in a First Appeal can
examine every question of law and fact which arises in the facts of the case
and has powers to affirm, reverse or modify the judgment under
question. In "Jagdish Singh v. Madhuri Devi" (2008) 10 SCC 497 the
Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that it is lawful for the High Court acting
as the First Appellate Court to enter into not only questions of law but
questions of fact as well and the appellate Court therefore can reappraise,
reappreciate and review the entire evidence and can come to its own
conclusion. For ready reference the relevant paragraph of the said
judgment is being quoted as under:
“It is no doubt true that the High Court was exercising power as the
first appellate court and hence it was open to the Court to enter into not
only questions of law but questions of fact as well. It is settled law that
an appeal is a continuation of suit. An appeal thus is a rehearing of the
main matter and the appellate court can reappraise, reappreciate and
review the entire evidence--oral as well as documentary--and can come
to its own conclusion.”
61. 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. 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.
62. Further, it needs to refer herein that under section 3 of the Indian
Evidence Act a fact is said to be proved when the Court either believes it
to exist or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man under the
31

2026:JHHC:32533-DB
circumstances would proceed on the supposition that such fact really
exists. Therefore, the normal rule of preponderance of probability is the
rule which governs the civil proceedings like this.
63. The expression "preponderance of probability" is not capable of
exact definition nor can there be any strait-jacket formula or a weighing
machine to find out which side the balance is tilted. The preponderance of
probability would imply a positive element about possibility of existence
of a fact. This means a higher degree of probability of happening of
something and existence of a fact.
64. In "A. Jayachandra v. Aneel Kaur" (2005) 2 SCC 22 the
Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that the concept, a proof beyond the
shadow of doubt, is to be applied to criminal trials and not to civil matters
and certainly not to matters of such delicate personal relationship as those
of husband and wife.
65. At this juncture, it 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.
66. 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
32

2026:JHHC:32533-DB
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.)
33

2026:JHHC:32533-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.”

67. Thus, from the aforesaid, it is evident that any order said to be
perverse 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.
68. Thus, "perversity" refers to a finding or decision so unreasonable
or irrational that no reasonable person acting judicially could have reached
it. It signifies a gross and unreasonable assessment of evidence or law by
a court.
69. Further Perversity is a high threshold for intervention,
distinguishing it from a mere error of fact or law. The "safest approach on
perversity is the classic approach on the reasonable man's inference on the
facts but inadequacy of evidence or a different reading of evidence is not
perversity, reference in this regard be made to the judgment rendered by
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Damodar Lal v. Sohan Devi, (2016)
14 SCC 197.
70. In the instant case, the ground for divorce has been taken on the
pretext of cruelty and desertion.
71. 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
34

2026:JHHC:32533-DB
mind of the petitioner, a reasonable apprehension that, it will be harmful
or injurious for him to live with the respondent.
72. 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.
73. According to the Hon’ble Apex Court, “cruelty” is the “conduct
in relation to or in respect of matrimonial conduct and in respect of
matrimonial obligations”. It is the conduct which adversely affects the
spouse. Such cruelty can be either “mental” or “physical”, “intentional”
or “unintentional”. For example, unintentionally waking your spouse up
in the middle of the night may be mental cruelty; intention is not an
essential element of cruelty but it may be present. Physical cruelty is less
ambiguous and more “a question of fact and degree.”
74. 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 to include is 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.
75. 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.
35

2026:JHHC:32533-DB
76. 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”.
77. In Vijaykumar Ramchandra Bhate v. Neela Vijay Kumar
Bhate, (2003)6 SCC 334 the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed by taking
into consideration the allegations levelled by the husband in his written
statement that his wife was “unchaste” and had indecent familiarity with
a person outside wedlock and that his wife was having an extramarital
affair. These allegations, given the context of an educated Indian woman,
were held to constitute “cruelty” itself.
78. Further, it requires to refer herein that the Hon’ble Apex Court
in Joydeep Majumdar v. Bharti Jaiswal Majumdar, (2021) 3 SCC 742 ,
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. 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.
79. 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
36

2026:JHHC:32533-DB
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.
80. Cruelty” has an inseparable nexus with human conduct and is
always dependent on social strata or milieu to which parties belong, their
ways of life, relationship, temperaments and emotions that are conditioned
by their social status, reference be made to the judgment rendered by the
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case Vishwanath Agrawal v. Sarla Vishwanath
Agrawal, (2012) 7 SCC 288.
81. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A.
Deepa , (2013) 5 SCC 226 has observed that cruelty is evident where one
spouse so treats other and manifests such feelings in other, as to cause
reasonable apprehension in mind of other that it would be harmful or
injurious to reside with other spouse and cruelty may be physical or
mental. It has further been observed that staying together under the same
roof is not a precondition for mental cruelty. Spouse can cause mental
cruelty by his or her conduct even while he or she is not staying under the
same roof.
82. In matrimonial relationship cruelty mean absence of mutual
respect and understanding between spouses which embitters relationship.
Sometimes it may take form of violence, or at times may just be an attitude
or approach. Silence in some situations may also amount to cruelty
reference be made to the case of Ravi Kumar v. Julmidevi, (2010) 4 SCC
476.
83. For considering dissolution of marriage at instance of a spouse
who alleges mental cruelty, result of such mental cruelty must be such that
it is not possible to continue with matrimonial relationship reference may
37

2026:JHHC:32533-DB
be taken from the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the
case of Joydeep Majumdar v. Bharti Jaiswal Majumdar (supra).
84. Further the word ‘cruelty’ is used 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. The cruelty may be mental or physical,
intentional or unintentional. There may be cases where the conduct
complained of itself is bad enough and per se unlawful or illegal. Then the
impact or the injurious effect on the other spouse need not be enquired into
or considered. In such cases, the cruelty will be established if the conduct
itself is proved or admitted, reference in this regard be made to the
judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vinita
Saxena v. Pankaj Pandit , (2006) 3 SCC 778.
85. Further, in the case of Manish Tyagi v. Deepak Kumar , (2010)
4 SCC 339 the Hon’ble Apex Court has categorically observed that to
constitute ‘cruelty’, it is enough that conduct of one of parties is so
abnormal and below accepted norm that other spouse could not reasonable
be expected to put up with it. Conduct is no longer required to be so
atrociously abominable which would cause reasonable apprehension that
it would be harmful of injurious to continue cohabitation with another
spouse. Hence, it is not necessary to establish physical violence.
Continued ill-treatment, cessation of marital intercourse, studied neglect,
indifference may lead to inference of cruelty.
86. The word “cruelty” under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Act has got
no static connotation, and therefore, gives a very wide discretion to the
Court to apply it liberally and contextually. What is cruelty in one case
may not be the same for another and has to be applied from person to
38

2026:JHHC:32533-DB
person while taking note of the attending circumstances. Harm or injury
to health, reputation, the working-career or the like, would be important
considerations in determining whether the conduct of the defending
spouse amounts to cruelty. It has to be shown that the defending spouse
has treated him with cruelty to cause reasonable apprehension in his/her
mind that it will be harmful or injurious to live with the contesting spouse.
87. 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.
88. Since issue of desertion has also been raised before the learned
Family Court it would be apt to discuss herein the element of constituting
desertion.
89. 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 one spouse 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 one
spouse by the other party to the marriage, and its grammatical variations
and cognate expressions shall be construed accordingly.
90. 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 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.
39

2026:JHHC:32533-DB
91. 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.”
92. 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.”
93. 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.
94. 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.
95. Desertion as a ground of divorce differs from the statutory
grounds of adultery and cruelty in that the offence founding the cause of
40

2026:JHHC:32533-DB
action of desertion is not complete, but is inchoate, until the suit is
constituted, desertion is a continuing offence.
96. 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.
97. 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.
98. 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.
99. The law consistently has been laid down by the Hon’ble Apex
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
41

2026:JHHC:32533-DB
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.
100. In the backdrop of the aforesaid settled position of law and
before entering in to the issue of cruelty and desertion , 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.
101. Now re-adverting to the factual aspect of the instant case.

102. The appellant herself examined P.W.1 and supported the
material allegations made in her matrimonial petition. She specifically
deposed that after marriage she was not properly treated by the
respondent; that she was subjected to demands for cash and a vehicle; that
her ornaments were taken away; and that she was subjected to physical
and mental harassment. She further stated that the respondent repeatedly
threatened to divorce her and that ultimately, she was compelled to reside
at her parental home.
During cross-examination certain aspects of the matrimonial
103.
relationship have emerged, including the fact that the appellant and
respondent had initially married by their own choice, that their families
subsequently participated in a social marriage ceremony and that they
had undertaken certain religious and recreational journeys together.
However, in our considered view, the aforesaid circumstances, by
themselves, cannot be treated as conclusive proof that no cruelty was
ever committed by the respondent.

104. A matrimonial relationship may remain outwardly cordial on
certain occasions and yet one spouse may be subjected to humiliation,
42

2026:JHHC:32533-DB
harassment and mental agony during the course of ordinary
matrimonial life. Occasional visits to religious places, participation in
family functions or photographs taken during celebrations cannot
automatically neutralise the effect of other acts of cruelty.
105. The evidence of P.W.2 Prabhat Kumar and P.W.3 Sandhya
Gupta, the maternal uncle and mother of the appellant respectively, also
supports the appellant's case regarding the matrimonial difficulties
faced by her. It is settled that in matrimonial proceedings, the standard
of proof is the preponderance of probabilities and not proof beyond
reasonable doubt. The Court must examine whether, considering the
totality of the circumstances, the allegations are more probable than
not.
106. The respondent, on the other hand, examined himself as R.W.1
and produced R.W.2 and R.W.3 in support of his defence. The
respondent has relied heavily upon the fact that the parties had visited
Vaishno Devi, Ujjain and other places together. However, during cross-
examination, R.W.1 admitted that he had not produced the travel tickets
or any documentary material establishing the details of such visits.
107. Significantly, the respondent admitted in his cross-
examination that the appellant had been residing continuously at her
parental home since 20.03.2020. He further admitted that his
proceeding under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act was instituted
after the appellant had already filed the matrimonial suit seeking divorce.
108. It is also relevant that the respondent has not produced the
alleged compromise documents relating to the intervention of Mahila
Police Station, Ranchi, despite asserting that such documents had been
43

2026:JHHC:32533-DB
prepared. He has further admitted that he could not produce several
documents relating to the alleged ceremonies and other events relied
upon by him.
109. Applying the aforesaid principles in relation to cruelty along
with the facts of the present case, this Court finds that the appellant's
evidence regarding repeated humiliation, harassment, threats of divorce
and the circumstances compelling her to leave the matrimonial home
has to be considered collectively.
110. The learned Family Court appears to have attached
considerable importance to the fact that the appellant and respondent
had travelled together and had participated in social and religious
functions. However, the said circumstances were not sufficient to
negate the other evidence brought on record. The learned Family Court
was required to examine whether the appellant's matrimonial life,
viewed in its entirety, was marked by conduct which caused her
sustained mental agony and made it unreasonable to expect her to
continue the matrimonial relationship.
111. It is considered opinion of this Court that the cumulative
effect of the evidence, particularly the testimony of P.W.1 read with the
supporting circumstances emerging from the depositions of P.W.2 and
P.W.3, establishes that the appellant was subjected to conduct which
caused serious matrimonial discord and mental suffering. The
respondent's subsequent expression of willingness to maintain the
appellant cannot obliterate the effect of the conduct which had already
taken place. Matrimonial cruelty is required to be assessed with
44

2026:JHHC:32533-DB
reference to the entire course of the relationship and not merely on the
basis of the respondent's subsequent offer to resume cohabitation.
112. It is equally important to observe that a wife cannot be
compelled to resume cohabitation merely because the husband
expresses his willingness to take her back. The Court must first
examine whether her withdrawal from the matrimonial home was
supported by reasonable circumstances.
113. Therefore, the finding of the learned Family Court that the
appellant had failed to establish cruelty, without a proper cumulative
assessment of the material evidence, cannot be sustained.
114. Another relevant circumstance brought to the notice of this
Court is the proceeding instituted by the respondent under Section 9 of
the Hindu Marriage Act, being Original Suit No. 07 of 2023, which is
stated to have been dismissed by the learned Family Court.
115. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that while
dismissing the said proceeding, the learned Family Court observed that
the appellant had reasonable justification for withdrawing from the
society of the respondent and that, in the prevailing hostile
circumstances, it would not be safe to compel her to resume
matrimonial cohabitation.
116. If the aforesaid findings form part of the judgment in Original
Suit No. 07 of 2023 and the certified copy thereof is available on the
appellate record, the same constitute a relevant circumstance which
deserves consideration. The dismissal of a proceeding under Section 9
does not, by itself, establish the ground of divorce under Section 13.
Nevertheless, the findings recorded therein, insofar as they relate to the
45

2026:JHHC:32533-DB
circumstances surrounding the appellant’s withdrawal from the
matrimonial home, cannot be ignored while assessing the rival claims
of the parties.
117. So far as the ground of desertion under Section 13(1)(ib) of the
Hindu Marriage Act is concerned, the statutory requirement is that the
respondent must have deserted the petitioner for a continuous period of
not less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the
divorce petition.
118. The explanation appended to Section 13 provides that
desertion means desertion without reasonable cause and without the
consent or against the wish of the other spouse and includes wilful
neglect.
119. In the present matter, the appellant has alleged that she was
compelled to leave the matrimonial home on account of the
respondent's conduct. The respondent, however, contends that she
voluntarily left and refused to return.
120. The essential ingredients of desertion, including the factum of
separation and the intention to bring cohabitation permanently to an
end, have to be established with reference to the evidence and the
statutory period.
121. It is necessary to notice that the matrimonial relationship
between the parties is not in dispute. Their marriage was solemnized
and registered in year 2015 and later on in February, 2016 the marriage
ceremony was performed as per social level by the family members of
the parties. The dispute essentially relates to the circumstances under
46

2026:JHHC:32533-DB
which the parties started living separately and whether the appellant
had established the statutory grounds for dissolution of marriage.
122. From the materials available on record, it appears that the
appellant left the matrimonial home in the year 2020 and has not
returned thereafter. It is the case of the respondent that the appellant has
been residing at her parental home without any reasonable cause or
justification and has persistently refused to resume cohabitation.
According to the respondent, despite opportunities to return to the
matrimonial home, the appellant has remained adamant in her decision
not to rejoin the matrimonial household.
123. However, the aforesaid allegations were seriously disputed by
the appellant in the present appeal. Her specific case is that she was
subjected to cruelty and harassment on account of demand of dowry and
was ultimately compelled to leave the matrimonial home. She has also
asserted that the respondent/husband had filed suit under Section 9 of
Hindu Marriage Act 1955 for restitution of conjugal right which has
already been dismissed by the learned Family Court by giving
conclusive finding that the wife has reasonable justification for her
reasonable excuse in withdrawing from the society of
respondent/husband.
124. Thus, on the basis of discussion made hereinabove this Court
is of the considered view that in the case at hand, the appellant-wife was
being compelled to left the matrimonial house having reasonable cause.
125. Upon a careful consideration of the evidence, this Court finds
that the learned Family Court has not adequately appreciated the
47

2026:JHHC:32533-DB
cumulative effect of the appellant's and testimony of other witness and
the surrounding circumstances.
126. The approach adopted by the learned Family Court in giving
substantial weight to the photographs, visits to religious places and
occasional participation in family functions, without properly
examining the allegations of sustained matrimonial harassment, has
resulted in an incomplete appreciation of the evidence.
127. It is well settled that the existence of some cordial moments in
a matrimonial relationship does not necessarily exclude the possibility
of cruelty. A marriage is required to be assessed in its entirety, and the
Court cannot disregard the suffering of one spouse merely because the
parties were seen together on certain occasions.
128. This Court is also of the view that the respondent's subsequent
willingness to maintain the appellant cannot be treated as sufficient to
defeat her claim when the overall circumstances establish that the
matrimonial relationship had become seriously disturbed on account of
his conduct.
129. The appellant has been residing separately for a considerable
period. The matrimonial relationship has not been restored despite the
passage of time and the institution of proceedings before the Family
Court.
130. Having regard to the nature of the allegations, the evidence
adduced by the parties, the subsequent course of litigation and the
cumulative circumstances, this Court hold that the appellant-wife has
successfully established that the conduct of the respondent-husband,
considered cumulatively, amounted to matrimonial cruelty within the
48

2026:JHHC:32533-DB
meaning of Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and due to
alleged cruelty she was compelled to leave the society of the
respondent/husband and she is residing at her maike since year 2020.
131. The impugned judgment and decree, insofar as they reject the
appellant's claim for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty and
desertion, therefore, suffer from an error in appreciation of evidence and
warrant interference by this Court.
132. Accordingly, the judgment dated 30.04.2026 and the decree
dated 07.05.2026 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court,
Palamau, in Original Suit No. 61 of 2022 are hereby set aside.
133. Consequent thereto the instant appeal stands allowed.
134. Office shall proceed accordingly.
135. Pending Interlocutory Application, if any, stands disposed of.

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
I Agree.
(Akhil Kumar, J.)

(Akhil Kumar, J.)



Sudhir
Dated:05/11/2026
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
AFR




Uploaded on 05/11/2026.
49