SWAMI NANDAN SINGH vs PRIYA BHARDWAJ ALIAS PRIYA SINGH
- Court
- Jharkhand High Court
2026:JHHC:31665-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
First Appeal No.136 of 2025
-----
Swami Nandan Singh, Aged about 50 years, son of Ramjeet Singh,
Resident of Plot No. 32, Vir Kunwar Singh Colony, Air Port Road, Hinoo,
P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District-Ranchi (Pin-834001).
.......… Petitioner/Appellant
Versus
Priya Bhardwaj @ Priya Singh, wife of Sri Swami Nandan Singh,
Daughter of Sri Bijendra Prasad Singh @ Baban Singh, Resident of Flat
No. 004, Surendra Nath Enclave, Prem Nagar, Road No. 4, Latma, P.O.
& P.S. Hatia, District- Ranchi.
At present resident of Lotus Apartment Flat No. 103, Kilburn Colony,
Hinoo, P.O.- Hinoo, P.S.- Doranda, District- Ranchi.
…………. Respondent/ Respondent
-------
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
-------
For the Appellant : Mr. Atanu Banerjee, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Dilip Kumar Karmakar, Advocate
------
C.A.V on 14.09.2026 Pronounced on 29/10/2026
Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
The instant appeal under section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act,
1984 is directed against the judgment dated 02.05.2025 and the decree
signed on 16.05.2025 passed in Original Suit No.478 of 2020 by the
learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi (in short, 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-husband against the
respondent-wife has been dismissed.
2. The brief facts of the case as pleaded in the plaint having been
recorded by the learned Family Judge, needs to be referred herein as:
(i) The marriage between the petitioner (appellant herein) and the
respondent/wife (respondent herein) was solemnized on 25.11.2007
2026:JHHC:31665-DB
in accordance with Hindu rites and rituals at Arrah, Bihar which is
arranged one.
(ii) Earlier the petitioner had filed a suit bearing Original Suit No.
532/2017 u/s 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 which was
disposed of after settlement before the Mediation Center, Ranchi,
on 30.05.2018, the terms and conditions of settlement was not
complied by the respondent.
(iii) The petitioner is the only son of his parent. The petitioner has four
sisters and out of them one sister and mother of petitioner are not
alive. Three children of the deceased sister were residing with
petitioner but before marriage neither the respondent nor her family
members raised any objection for the same.
(iv) It has been alleged that the marriage between the parties was
negotiated on the false pretext that the respondent is disciplined,
cultured, adjustable lady by the relatives of the respondent.
(v) It has been stated that after marriage the respondent came to her
matrimonial home. The relatives of the petitioner welcomed the
respondent heartily. After arrival of the respondent at matrimonial
home she refused to accept the children and started raising disputes
with them and refused to stay with children.
(vi) The respondent compelled them to leave away from the house and
mentally tortured them. Even the petitioner tolerated the adverse
consequences of the marriage tried to keep the respondent with
respect, dignity and provided every comfort beyond his capacity but
the respondent was not satisfied.
(vii) The respondent started torturing the petitioner mentally and
physically and pressurized to send the father of petitioner at native
2
2026:JHHC:31665-DB
place ignoring his old age and ailment. She started saying that she
cannot live in joint family. The petitioner is the only person to look
after him.
(viii) Inconsequence the respondent consumed 20 sleeping pills due to
which her pregnancy got terminated and this also caused much
mental pain to this petitioner.
(ix) It has been stated that after finding no alternative the father of
petitioner left his house and started living at Arrah at the native
place alone.
(x) On 23.04.2007 the father of respondent got serious cardiac attack.
He required proper care and medical treatment but the respondent
refused to stay with him at Ranchi and soon after she left her
matrimonial home in May 2008 but after much persuasion the
respondent returned back in the month of June 2008. During stay
together as husband and wife the respondent gave birth to two
daughters, namely, Ojasvi Raj Singh Pamay and Tejasvi Raj Singh
on 12.02.2009 and 15.12.2014 respectively, even then behaviour of
the respondent did not change and she refused to Perform any moral
duties and matrimonial obligations.
(xi) The respondent started extorting huge money from the petitioner
and she used to remain busy in gossiping with unknown persons
and on objection by the petitioner the respondent threatened with
dire consequences and attempted to commit suicide several times.
(xii) On 27.09.2016 the father of petitioner came to Ranchi and on very
next day he got paralytic attack due to which he was admitted in Raj
Hospital, Ranchi. After discharge from hospital father of petitioner
started residing at Ranchi as a result the respondent started
3
2026:JHHC:31665-DB
quarreling with petitioner and his father without any rhyme and
reason.
(xiii) The respondent neglected to take care of children also and started
to wander by scooty every day. Whenever, petitioner made any
objection on this she treated to commit suicide and also several
times made attempt to commit suicide.
(xiv) Lastly, in the month of September, 2016 the respondent became
more aggressive and separated her bed and since then no conjugal
life with the petitioner and respondent has been established.
(xv) On 04.05.2017 the respondent left matrimonial home along with
two daughters and with all her belongings without any information
to the petitioner.
(xvi) Later on, 05.06.2017 the respondent along with her parents,
relatives and some unknown persons came to the house of petitioner
at Ranchi, operated the locker and took away everything lying
therein including the valuable jewelries of deceased mother of
petitioner. The petitioner considering the education and future of
the daughters tried to bring back the petitioners but all went in vain.
(xvii) The petitioner finding no alternative filed Original Suit No.
532/2017 u/s 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of
conjugal rights with respondent on 02.08.2017 and due to
continuous threat of the respondent, apprehension and under
compelling circumstances the petitioner instituted an Informatory
petition bearing. No.737/2017 before Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Ranchi on 19.08.2017.
(xviii) The petitioner appeared in Original Suit No. 532/2017 and the
matter was referred to Mediation Center, Ranchi, wherein both
4
2026:JHHC:31665-DB
parties agreed to lead a peaceful, progressive and harmonious
conjugal life with each other under some terms and conditions. As
such the Original Suit No. 532/2017 was disposed off on
30.05.2018.
(xix) That the respondent was doing B.Ed. Course from her parental
home and as per terms and condition the children started living at
the residence of petitioner at Ranchi but respondent flatly refused
to reside at her matrimonial home and started demanding separate
accommodation at Ranchi.
(xx) Thereafter, the petitioner finding no way took a rented flat at Singh
More, Hatia, Ranchi but no improvement came in the cruel
behaviour of respondent and she started saying that until and unless
the matrimonial home is not transferred in her name she will not
live at her matrimonial home.
(xxi) The cruel behaviour of respondent increased day by day and on
29.09.2018 the respondent all of a sudden became aggressive and
started assaulting the petitioner with fist and kick. The petitioner
somehow was saved due to intervention of the neighbours. In spite
of that the petitioner visited to respondent but she started raising
disputes in trifling matter as she was not ready to compromise upon
anything or to make adjustment.
(xxii) The respondent started blackmailing the petitioner by threatening to
commit suicide. She used to slap, dig her nails into the body of
petitioner and tear his clothes. The petitioner also called the
respondent as Idiot, Dog, Behuda etc., and abused him in filthy
languages which caused tremendous physical and mental agony to
5
2026:JHHC:31665-DB
the respondent. The petitioner was mentally depressed and
frustrated too and failed to do his job since May, 2019.
(xxiii) Due to pressure of the respondent, the daughters started to live with
their mother (respondent). The parents of the respondent also
started residing with their daughter (respondent) due to which the
petitioner stopped to make visit to respondent and finding no way
filed the present suit for decree of divorce.
(xxiv) That on provocation of the parents, the respondent filed a criminal
case against the petitioner before Nawada Police Station on the
basis of false and frivolous grounds and only with a view to
humiliate the petitioner.
(xxv) The petitioner tolerated all atrocities of the respondent with a hope
that one day all will be settled but there was no change in her
approach. The respondent continued to quarrel with petitioner and
his father on trifling matters and threatened to commit suicide. The
petitioner suffered terribly and caused mental agony.
(xxvi) The matrimonial tie between both the parties has irreparably broken
down as there is no chance of their re-union and since 04.05.2017
both the parties are living separately.
3. On the aforesaid ground of cruelty and desertion, the appellant-
husband had filed suit being Original Suit No. 478 of 2020 before the
learned Family Court and prayed for a decree of dissolution of the
marriage between him and the respondent-wife.
4. Upon issuance of the notices in the said suit the respondent-wife has
appeared and filed a written statement denying all the allegations levelled
against her by the appellant-husband.
6
2026:JHHC:31665-DB
5. In the written statement, the respondent-wife admitted about her
marriage with the petitioner/appellant and birth of two daughters out of
their wedlock but has denied the other allegations contained in the plaint.
It is stated that after marriage the respondent went to her matrimonial
home and started peaceful conjugal life with petitioner and out of their
wedlock there are two daughters, namely, Ojasvi Raj Singh and Tejasvi
Raj Singh who were born.
6. It is also stated that at the time of marriage 200 grams of gold
jewelries, 400 grams silver jewelries, household articles and cash of
Rs.3.50-Lakhs were given to the petitioner as marriage expenses. She has
denied that she failed to accept the children of deceased sister of petitioner
and started disputes with them, rather the respondent provided every
comfort beyond her capacity.
7. It is further stated that the father of petitioner is an active person
after his retirement. He used to go to his village Shangi Bhojpur, Bihar to
look after his ancestral properties and constructed a Pucca house at his
village and invested huge amount over it. It is also stated that due to assault
by the petitioner her pregnancy was aborted.
8. It is also wrong to say that on 23.04.2007 the respondent refused
to take care of her father-in-law when he suffered from massive cardiac
attack because the marriage between the parties has been solemnized in
the month of November, 2007. It is stated that after six month of marriage
the respondent went to her parental home in the month of May, 2008 with
consent and permission of petitioner and father-in-law and returned. back
to Ranchi in the month of June, 2008.
9. It is stated that at the time of marriage the petitioner was working
in Konark Cement but due to his short temper and aggressive nature his
7
2026:JHHC:31665-DB
employer terminated him from the job. Thereafter, the petitioner started
assaulting the respondent without any rhyme and reason due to which the
respondent sustained injuries.
10. It is further stated that after birth of second daughter Tejashvi
Singh, the petitioner started assaulting the respondent on the pretext she
failed to give birth to a male child and petitioner pressurized the
respondent for getting pregnant again for birth of a male child. The
respondent lived with petitioner under great stress and trauma with a view
to save her matrimonial life. It is stated that the respondent became
pregnant four times but unfortunately her two pregnancy got miscarriage
twice on 05.08.2008 and on 12.05.2014, respectively.
11. It is stated that on 27.09.2016 the father of petitioner came to
Ranchi but unfortunately, he fell down in drawing room and in absence of
petitioner, the respondent rushed him to Raj Hospital and after his
treatment and getting well father-in-law started residing at Ranchi. The
respondent has denied that she ever separated her bed and there is any non-
consummation of marriage since 2016. It is further stated that on
10.04.2017 the petitioner filed a petition before Ranchi Women
Commission for illegal demand of Rs.3-Lakhs against the petitioner but
due to threatening of the petitioner, the respondent requested the Women
Commission to drop the proceedings against the petitioner.
12. On 04.05.2017 the petitioner brutally assaulted the respondent
for non-fulfillment of his demand of Rs.3-Lakhs and ousted her along with
her two daughters from the matrimonial home. The petitioner informed
her brother who sent his Car and the petitioner along with her two
daughters went to the house of her brother situated at Muri and later on
8
2026:JHHC:31665-DB
went to her parental home situated at Arrah, Bihar, along with her
children.
13. It is stated that on 05.06.2017 the respondent took her jewelries
from the joint Locker at Dena Bank, Doranda. On 31.05.2017 the
petitioner went to the parental home of the respondent at Arrah and
assaulted the respondent and also thrashed the parents of the respondent.
The petitioner also demanded Rs.3-Lakhs whereas earlier the father of
respondent had already been given cash of Rs.2-Lakhs and Rs.1-Lakh
through cheque in the year 2009 for purchasing Car to the respondent.
14. It is stated that the respondent gave a written application to
Officer-in-charge, Nawadih Police Station, Arrah, Bihar, through
Registered Post vide Receipt No.2954890811V on 08.06.2017. On
02.08.2017 the petitioner also filed a petition for restitution of conjugal
rights u/s 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before this Court vide M.T.S.
Case No.532/2017. The respondent appeared in that case and matter was
referred to Mediation Center, Ranchi, and after settlement between the
parties the said case was disposed of on 30.03.2018 in light of Mediation
Report.
15. It is stated that after settlement before Mediation Center, Ranchi
the petitioner took the respondent to a rented flat situated at Singhmore,
Ranchi, in spite of that the petitioner has four flats at Ranchi. The
respondent informed that the properties are in the name of his father, so,
only his father and sister will live with him at his residence at Veer
Kunwar Singh Colony. Ranchi. But it was decided during mediation that
petitioner will look after her father-in-law. In spite of that the respondent
took 3 BHK Flat No.004 at Singh More in Surendra Nath Encalve, Prem
9
2026:JHHC:31665-DB
Nagar, Road No.4, Latma, Hatia, Ranchi at monthly rent of Rs.6000/- and
maintenance charge of Rs.1000/- against the consent of petitioner.
16. It is stated that after settlement before Mediation Center, Ranchi
the petitioner took the respondent to a rented flat situated at Singh More,
Ranchi, in spite of that the petitioner has four flats at Ranchi. The
respondent informed that the properties are in the name of his father, so,
only his father and sister will live with him at his residence at Veer
Kunwar Singh Colony. Ranchi. But it was decided during mediation that
petitioner will look after her father-in-law. In spite of that the respondent
took 3 BHK Flat No.004 at Singh More in Surendra Nath Encalve, Prem
Nagar, Road No.4, Latma, Hatia, Ranchi at monthly rent of Rs.6000/- and
maintenance charge of Rs.1000/- against the consent of petitioner.
17. After settlement the petitioner along with her daughters started
living in rented house since 16.04.2018. The respondent was pursuing her
B.Ed Course, so, she has to go to Arrah leaving behind her daughters at
the matrimonial home. It is also stated that during B.Ed. Course of
respondent, the petitioner did not allow the daughters to go to meet the
respondent during her visit to Ranchi. But after several requests the
petitioner used to bring the daughters to Singh More's rented house on
Saturday or Sunday and took the daughters by Sunday evening.
18. Whenever the petitioner used to come visit respondent he used
to assaulted the respondent on petty matters. The respondent has denied
that she ever treated the petitioner with cruelties. The petitioner is using
two vehicles one Wagon-R Car bearing Reg. No.JH01Y 5466 and another
is Bullet Motorcycle bearing Reg. No. JH01CY 5222 which shows that
the petitioner is leading a luxurious life. It is also stated that respondent
after completing her B.Ed. requested the petitioner to allow her daughters
10
2026:JHHC:31665-DB
to live with her but the petitioner failed to yield the request of respondent
and he only dropped elder daughter along with all her belongings and fee
book at Singh More, Ranchi, and sent messages that respondent has
completed her B.Ed., so, she should earn and lead an independent life with
elder daughter and since March, 2019 the respondent along with her elder
daughter was leading her life at the mercy of god as petitioner refused to
pay a single penny towards maintenance of respondent and her elder
daughter. The younger daughter was living with petitioner but on several
requests the petitioner sent the younger daughter of the petitioner, so, she
can see her second daughter as the respondent has not seen her since last
three months.
19. The petitioner also sent the younger daughter to Varanasi along
with his sister during summer vacation in the year 2019 for giving mental
torture to the respondent. since March, 2019 the petitioner stopped paying
rent and other expenses of household. Having no option the respondent
took loan from her family members for running her daily usage. The
respondent sent frequent message to petitioner for bringing her younger
daughter, thereafter, younger daughter was brought with all her
belongings at Singh More’s house, Ranchi. The petitioner abused and
assaulted the respondent and refused to pay a single farthing towards the
maintenance of respondent and her children. The respondent paid
Rs.44,050/- towards the admission and other educational expenses of her
younger daughter at St. Thomas School, Ranchi. The respondent has also
to give Rs.1800/- monthly towards the tuition fee. The respondent has
taken loan of Rs.03-Lakhs from her father, brother and sister and other
relatives. At present the school fee with bus fee of elder daughter is
11
2026:JHHC:31665-DB
Rs.3775/- and school fee and transportation of younger daughter is
Rs.3800/- per month, respectively.
20. It is stated that the entire articles like clothes, utensils, A.C.
Godrej etc. which were given at the time of marriage has been kept by the
petitioner. The respondent has denied that she ever treated the petitioner
with cruelty. The respondent along with her two daughters is living alone
at Singh More, Ranchi. Hence, the present suit of the petitioner is liable to
be dismissed.
21. After appearance of both the parties, the learned Family Judge
has referred the matter for reconciliation before the learned Mediator but
the same was failed.
22. Learned Family Judge, after institution of the said case, taking
into consideration of the pleadings of the plaintiff/appellant and the
respondent/defendant has formulated the issues and has decided the lis by
refusing to grant divorce to the plaintiff/appellant.
23. The aforesaid judgment by which divorce has not been granted
is under challenge by filing the instant appeal.
Submission of behalf of the appellant-husband:
24. Mr. Atanu Banerjee, the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant-husband has taken the following grounds:
(i) There is an error in the impugned judgment, since, each and
every aspect of the matter has not been taken into consideration
based upon the documentary evidences as well as ocular
evidences.
(ii) It has been contended that the element of cruelty has been
found to be there as the respondent-wife has lodged false criminal
cases against the petitioner. Therefore, the ground has been taken
12
2026:JHHC:31665-DB
that once the criminal case has failed, then the element of cruelty
will be said to be by the respondent-wife and not by the appellant-
husband, but without appreciating the same properly, the learned
Family Judge has come to the finding by holding that no element
of cruelty is there and, as such, the impugned judgment and decree
suffers from an error.
(iii) It has been contended that the appellant has been meted out
with cruelty at the hands of the respondent-wife due to her
abnormal and cruel behaviour as would be evident from the
evidence adduced on behalf of the appellant-husband in which it
has come that the respondent-wife used to treat the petitioner with
cruelty and assaulted him several times with fists and kicks. It has
also come in the evidence that the respondent-wife has humiliated
the petitioner by saying Idiot, Dog, Behuda etc., and abused him
in filthy languages, but the same has not been taken into
consideration by the learned Family Judge.
(iv) It has been contended that though the learned Family Judge
has proceeded the matter and dismissed the original suit, but he
has failed to appreciate the evidences adduced on behalf of the
appellant as in the trial, the evidence has come that it was the
respondent-wife who has committed cruelty upon him by her
cruel behaviour and act, deserted the petitioner and even not cared
the petitioner’s old aged parents.
25. The learned counsel, based upon the aforesaid ground, has
submitted that the impugned judgment and decree, therefore, needs
interference on the ground of perversity.
Submission of behalf of the respondent-wife:
13
2026:JHHC:31665-DB
26. On the contrary, the learned counsel appearing for the
respondent-wife has taken the following grounds:
(i) There is no error in the impugned judgement. The learned
Family Judge has considered the entire issue and on the
basis of evidence as led by the parties and has passed the
order impugned as such same may not be interfered with.
(ii) The appellant has sought divorce on the ground that the
behaviour of the respondent-wife is cruel and she has
deserted the appellant 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 in the plaint for divorce suit are
absolutely illegal, uncalled for and has rightly dismissed
the suit.
(iii) It has also been submitted that the learned Family Court
after taking into consideration the material available on
record has found that the conduct of the appellant-husband
has never been towards salvaging the institution of
marriage as it is he who has come for the dissolution of the
marriage, therefore, on the pretext of the aforesaid
categorical finding of the Family Court, the impugned
order requires no interference.
(iv) It has been contended that it is admitted by the petitioner
that prior to institution of the case of divorce he filed a suit
for restitution of conjugal rights and the said suit was
withdrawn after meditation but with an ulterior motive and
later on filed the suit for divorce which proves that the
14
2026:JHHC:31665-DB
petitioner wants to live separately from the respondent by
taking divorce.
(v) The respondent-husband has sought for divorce on the
ground that the behaviour of the appellant-wife is
cruel and she has deserted him without any valid
ground and the learned Family Court, after taking into
consideration the evidence adduced on behalf of the
respondent-wife, has rightly held that there was no
sufficient ground found with regard to cruelty and
desertion by the respondent-wife and, as such, has
dismissed the divorce petition.
(vi) It has been contended that the issue of desertion has
rightly been appreciated, since, the issue of desertion
requires to be considered on the basis of the factum
that if any of the spouse has left the matrimonial house
on his/her own will, but in the instant case the
petitioner-husband himself has admitted that he
himself stopped staying in touch with his wife and
started living separately in another flat and on that
basis the learned Family Judge has rightly dismissed
the suit for divorce.
Analysis:
27. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties,
gone through the impugned judgment as well as the Trial Court Records,
as also the testimonies of the witnesses and the documents exhibited
therein.
15
2026:JHHC:31665-DB
28. The learned Family Judge has formulated altogether seven
issues, for ready reference the same are being quoted hereinbelow:
( I ) Whether the present suit is maintainable in its present
form??
(II) Whether the petitioner has valid cause of action to file the
present suit?
(III) Whether the respondent is the legally wedded wife of the
petitioner?
( IV) Whether the petitioner- husband has been treated with
cruelty by the respondent- wife and deserted him since
04.05.2017?
(V). Whether the petitioner- husband is taking advantage of
his own wrong?
(VI) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get decree of
divorce?
(VI) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get any other relief
or reliefs as prayed for?
29. The learned Family Judge has considered the evidence adduced
on behalf of the parties for deciding the issues involved in Original Suit
No.478 of 2020 as they are interconnected.
30. This Court in order to appreciate the aforesaid rival submission
before entering into the legality and propriety of the impugned judgment
needs to discuss herein the relevant part of the evidences adduced on
behalf of the parties wherein the element of cruelty and desertion has been
shown by the petitioner-husband.
31. During the trial, four witnesses have been examined on behalf of
the appellant-husband who himself has been examined as PW4 and
exhibited some documents.
32. The petitioner has filed the following documents:
16
2026:JHHC:31665-DB
(i) Xerox copy of letter dated 27.07.2017 of Dena Bank has
been marked as 'X' for identification.
(ii) Xerox Copy of Mediation Report dated 27.03.2018
has been marked as 'X/2' for identification
(iii) Xerox Copy of medical prescriptions of RINPAS,
Ranchi, in the name of petitioner have been marked as "X/3
to X/7", respectively, for identification.
(iv) The marriage and reception photographs of
petitioner and respondent have been marked from 'X/B to
X/12" for identification.
33. The respondent-wife has also examined three witnesses
including herself as RW1 and in support of her contention, she has also
exhibited following documents:
(i) Xerox Copy of Prescription of Dr. Samit Lal dated 09.04.2011 has
been marked as 'Y' for identification.
(ii) Xero x Copy of paper relating to opening of Locker dated
15.05.2013 has been marked as "Y/1" for identification.
(iii) Xerox Copy of List of jewelries has been marked as "Y/2" for
identification.
(iv) Xerox Copy of application given to Women Commission dated
10.04.2017 has been marked as "Y/3' for identification.
(v) Xerox Copy of application given to Nawada Pollice Station dated
08.07.2017 has been marked as "Y/4" for identification.
(vi) Xerox copy of Registry Receipt dated 08.07.2020 has been
marked as 'Y/5' for identification.
(vii) Xerox copy of applicant given by the petitioner to RTI has been
marked as 'Y/6' for identification.
(viii) Xerox copy of postal receipt information of applicant has been
marked as 'Y/7' for identification.
(ix) Xerox copy of account statement of Punjab National Bank has been
marked as 'Y/8' for identification.
(x) Xerox copy of school fee structure of Ojasvi Raj Singh has been
marked as 'Y/9' for identification.
17
2026:JHHC:31665-DB
(xi) Xerox copy of School fee receipt and online payment of tuition fee
of Ojaswi has been marked as 'Y/10 & Y/11', respectively, for
identification.
(xii) Xerox Copy of online fee payment of Tejaswi Raj Singh for the
session 2024-25 has been marked as 'Y/12' for identification.
34. In his examination on oath as PW.-4, the petitioner has stated that
he was married with Priya Singh @ Priya Bhardwaj on 25.11.2007 in
accordance with Hindu rites and customs at Arrah, Bihar. The respondent
after marriage unwillingly performed matrimonial rituals and came to start
her conjugal life with him on 26.11.2007. She was given warm welcome
in the matrimonial home but she maintained indifferent attitude on the
occasion of all rituals of the marriage. It appears that the marriage of the
respondent with him had taken place on pressure, she did not like his
economic condition and family atmosphere and started quarreling with
him on petty matters, she committed various type of physical and mental
cruelties on him. She categorically stated that she cannot live with is father
and maternal niece and nephews. She pressurized him to arrange a separate
accommodation for her. He was not agreed to concede the demand of
respondent but considering her cruel attitude his maternal niece and
nephews left his house, but still behaviour of the respondent did not change
she even pressurized his father to go from the house and leave at native
village. Не has further stated that his mother is not alive, so, he was not
willing to send his father to ancestral village. He also stated that to make
pressure the respondent consumed 20 sleeping pills at a time, as a result,
her pregnancy got aborted and compelled him to send his father to his
village and this act of respondent caused immense mental agony to him.
He also stated that he tried his best to keep the respondent properly and
18
2026:JHHC:31665-DB
fulfill all her demand but still she continued to quarrel with him on trifle
matters. She often went away from the house without giving any
information to him and whenever he inquired about this to her, she abused
him and often used to give nail bite on his face. She also used to send
money to her father from the Bank Account. It has also been stated that
the respondent conceived again but without his permission she got the
pregnancy terminated and this also caused mental agony to him. It has
further been stated by the petitioner that the respondent refused to do any
household chores and started making adverse remarks about his family,
she always wanted to show that she comes from a very good family
background. He further stated that whenever any of his family members or
friends used to come to his house she refused to meet with them and on
request, she used to come but never met with them in a proper manner and
also never replied any query properly. He further stated that on one
occasion his friend came and requested the respondent for cup of tea upon
which she loudly told that she is not servant of his father and asked him to
make tea himself and on that occasion, she asked him to take divorce from
her. In May, 2008 she left his house and went to her Maika with all her
belongings, he made several efforts to bring her back but she did not came.
In June, 2008 she herself came to his house but there was no change in her
cruel behaviour, as a result, he got mentally sick and had to take treatment
from Psychiatrist. He somehow tried to run conjugal life with her in spite
of all odds and from his conjugal life the respondent gave birth to a
daughter on 12.02.2009 who is named as Ojasvi and another daughter was
born on 15.12.2014 who is named as Tejaswi Singh. The behaviour of
respondent after birth of daughter became more aggressive and she
continued to fight with him on petty matters and never took proper care,
19
2026:JHHC:31665-DB
as a result, he was forced to do all household chores and whenever asked
to do anything she threatened to commit suicide. He also stated that on
27.09.2016 his father suffered Paralytic attack and he was admitted in Raj
Hospital and in that condition also the respondent continued to quarrel
with him. This petitioner further stated that in May, 2017, respondent
called a vehicle and went to her Maika and she went away with all her
belongings and when after one month she came she operated joint locker
which was in his name along with the name of respondent. She took away
all her belongings and also the jewelries of his mother. He further stated
that he had filed a suit for restitution of conjugal right bearing Original
Suit No. 532/2017 in which mediation had taken place and it was agreed
in Mediation Center, Ranchi, that both will live together and they will give
respect to each other and will not do any such act which causes any distress
to other party. It was agreed that both parties will fulfill their matrimonial
obligations and they will lead the conjugal life together. This petitioner
further stated that as per terms of mediation he tried to call the respondent
to Ranchi but she refused to leave his father and pressurized him to take a
rental house as a result he took a rented house at Singh More, Ranchi,
where she came and started living with him. He got his daughters admitted
in a good school but still cruel behaviour of respondent continued and on
29.09.2018 she abused and assaulted him too much and he was rescued by
neighbourers. He also stated that whenever he used to go to the said rental
house to meet with respondent she abused, assaulted and blackmailed him
to commit suicide. She often put scratches on his face and other parts of
the body with her nails and tore his clothes. She also used to throw
household articles on him for the purpose of causing injuries to him. She
scolded him and used words as " Bewakoof , Kutta , Behuda ", etc. and all
20
2026:JHHC:31665-DB
these acts of respondent caused physical and mental cruelties on him as a
result he got mentally sick and lost his job in the month of May, 2019. The
respondent started living with her parents, so, he discontinued to meet with
her and the respondent made false complaint against him to State Women
Commission and also to Nawada Police but her complaints were found
false and the same were dismissed. He stated that it is not possible for him
to lead conjugal life with the respondent, so, he filed the present suit for
divorce.
35. During cross-examination P.W.-4 (the petitioner) has deposed
that he and respondent lived together in the same house for about 9 years
and during this period respondent got pregnant and on two occasions
miscarriage of her pregnancy took place. He stated that his one daughter
is studying in Bishop West Cott School, Doranda, Ranchi and another
daughter is studying in St. Thomas School, but he is not allowed to meet
with his daughters from last four years. He also stated that he never filed
any application in the Court for felicitating his meeting with daughters. He
also stated that he cannot file any documentary evidence to show that
respondent had consumed sleeping pills as a result miscarriage of her
pregnancy took place. He also stated that Ramvilas Singh, Arvind Kumar,
Naveen Kumar, Santosh Kumar, Lalan Yadav, Raju Tiwari, Perbal Viwas,
Vijay Kumar are his neighbours and they used to come his house. He
further stated in cross-examination that he cannot give documentary
evidence for the purpose of showing that his wife/ respondent used to send
money in her father's account. He also stated that during entire proceeding
of the case he never filed any application that he is unable to attend the
Court as he is mentally sick. He stated that he never made any complaint
before police station regarding wrong behaviour of the respondent. He
21
2026:JHHC:31665-DB
stated that he took the house on rent in April, 2018 and paid last rent in
April, 2019 and he discontinued to pay the rent as the parents of respondent
started to live with her. He stated that the respondent had filed police case
but he has not paper to show that he was called in police station and
enquired only. He also stated in the cross-examination that when his wife/
respondent took admission in B.Ed. he filed an application under RTI Act
that how she has taken admission in the college and how she has appeared
at the examination. He further stated in cross-examination that he had
given application in Bank that he should like to operate joint locker on
which bank replied that joint locker can be operated in presence of both
parties, thereafter, he got the locker seized. He further stated that his wife
took jewelries of his mother from Locker as he saw from a CCTV Footage
of the Bank that respondent took out a " Potli " from the Locker. He stated
that he cannot say that when he filed an application in the Bank regarding
taking off CCTV footage of the locker. He denied the suggestion that his
wife took her jewelries from the locker. He also stated that his father was
getting treatment from Dr. M.P. Singh of Raj Hospital who is the father of
Bhabhi of respondent and till that time their matrimonial relation was
smooth. He denied the suggestion that he has got four flats in Ranchi and
voluntarily stated that his father has a house in Ranchi in which he resides.
He is the only son of his father. He stated that he has opened LIC account
in the name of his both daughters. He denied the suggestion that he
pressurized the respondent to give birth to a male child.
36. P.W.-1 who is friend of the petitioner, P.W.2 who is maternal
niece of the petitioner and P.W.-3 who is brother-in-law (Jija of petitioner)
have fully supported the case of the petitioner in their respective affidavit
examination-in-chief. They have stated that petitioner was married with
22
2026:JHHC:31665-DB
respondent on 25.11.2007 in accordance with Hindu rites and after
marriage she came to her matrimonial home and started leading conjugal
life with the petitioner but from the very beginning the respondent-wife
had adopted indifferent attitude and she was not happy with the marriage.
They stated that it appeared from the behaviour of respondent that she has
married with petitioner against her wishes and on the pressure of her
parents. All these witnesses have consistently stated that she started
fighting with the petitioner on every petty matter and committed physical
and mental cruelties on him. She categorically stated that she does not want
to live with the father of the petitioner and maternal niece and nephew. She
pressurized the petitioner to send his old ailing father to leave the house
and to go to ancestral village. The mother of petitioner had already died
and there was none to take care of the father of petitioner. They also stated
that on one occasion respondent consumed 20 sleeping pills as a result her
pregnancy got aborted and due to the pressure of the respondent, the
petitioner sent his old ailing father to ancestral village. They all have stated
that due to cruel and quarrelsome attitude of the respondent the petitioner
got mentally sick and he had to undergo treatment with a psychiatrist. They
stated that in May, 2018 the respondent left the matrimonial home and
went along with all her belongings to her Maika. The petitioner made
several efforts to bring her back but he could not succeed. The respondent
in the month of June, 2018 all of a sudden came to the house of petitioner
but still her cruel behaviour continued with petitioner. Somehow, the
petitioner tolerated all her activities in order to lead a peaceful conjugal
life with her and petitioner has got two daughters from the respondent.
They also stated that the respondent often threatened the petitioner to
commit suicide. It has been stated by all witnesses that on 27.09.2016 the
23
2026:JHHC:31665-DB
father of the petitioner due to his ailment came to Ranchi and on the next
day i.e. on 28.09.2016 he suffered from paralytic attack and was admitted
to Raj Hospital. The father of petitioner after being discharged started
living with the petitioner as there was none to take care of him but still the
respondent continued to quarrel with the petitioner and separated from the
conjugal life. She called vehicle from her Maika in May, 2017 and again
she went there with all her belongings and she also took away both
children. She came after a month and opened joint Locker and took away
all her jewelries including the jewelries of mother of the petitioner. It has
been stated that petitioner filed suit for restitution of conjugal right in the
Family Court, Ranchi, where mediation took place and as per terms of
settlement the case was disposed of. It was agreed in the mediation that
both parties will respect the sentiment of each other and will not indulge
in any such activities which hurt the sentiments of other and causes any
adverse effect on the future of both children. The respondent had agreed
that she will fulfill her matrimonial obligations after completion of her
B.Ed. Course from Arrah, Bihar, and the petitioner was also supposed to
support the respondent in completing B.Ed. Course of respondent at Arrah.
It was agreed that during continuance of B.Ed. course the respondent will
visit Ranchi during holidays and both children will take admission in any
school of Ranchi. The petitioner as per terms of settlement got his both
daughters admitted in a good school at Ranchi but the respondent refused
to accompany him and on the pressure of respondent the petitioner had to
take a rented house at Singh More, Ranchi. They stated that instead of
complying all terms of settlement the cruel behaviour of respondent
continued and she started make false allegations against him and even
made false complaint in Women Commission and before Nawada Police,
24
2026:JHHC:31665-DB
but the complaints of the respondent were dismissed as baseless. They
have all stated that respondent is not willing to lead conjugal life, so, the
petitioner has filed the present suit for divorce.
37. P.W.-1 in the cross-examination has stated that respondent has
filed FIR against the petitioner. He has also stated that he cannot say that
on which date, month and year respondent left her matrimonial home, but
subsequently says that in the year 2016-17. He also stated in cross-
examination that father of the petitioner has got three other houses in
addition to the house of where he lives. He further stated that Dr. Moti
Singh used to treat the father of the petitioner when he was admitted in Raj
Hospital and said Dr. Moti Singh is the relative of respondent. He also
stated that he cannot say that respondent took ornaments of the mother of
petitioner.
38. P.W.-2 in his cross-examination has stated that the respondent
has filed a maintenance case against the petitioner which is numbered as
Original Maintenance Case No. 478/2020. P.W.-2 in cross-examination
stated that she has no knowledge that respondent got operated thrice and
she has also no knowledge that her maternal / petitioner wanted to have a
male child. She has stated that she has no knowledge that locker was in the
name of her Mami/ respondent but she knows that after lodging of the case
her Mama/ petitioner brought the respondent to his house. She further
stated that before bringing the respondent from her Maika. Her Mama/
petitioner had taken a rental house. She denied the suggestion that due to
assault of the petitioner the respondent got injuries on her head and mark
of injury is still visible on her forehead.
39. PW-3 during cross-examination has stated that petitioner is only
son of his parents. He has four sisters. He stated that he cannot say from
25
2026:JHHC:31665-DB
25.11.2007 to May, 2008 respondent went to her parental home and on
how many occasions. He categorically stated that after marriage
respondent went to her parental home first time in the month of May, 2008.
He also stated that he has not much knowledge about the matrimonial
relation between the petitioner and the respondent. He further stated that
he has knowledge that relative of respondent treated the father of the
petitioner when he was admitted in Raj Hospital. He also stated that he
cannot say that when on last occasion he met with respondent.
40. He denied the suggestion that petitioner assaulted the respondent
and thereafter pushed the respondent along with both children out of the
house and thereafter called her brother and went to Maika .
41. He further stated that he cannot say that who operated the Bank
Locker and he cannot say that the said locker was opened by the
respondent. He also stated that he has no knowledge about any case filed
before Nawada Police. He stated that he has no knowledge that respondent
has filed any criminal case against the petitioner. He also stated that he has
no knowledge that the petitioner has owns a Wagon-R Car and a
motorcycle. He cannot say that daughters of respondent are studying in
Ranchi and where they are residing.
42. R.W.-1 is the respondent herself, R.W-2 is Reeta Singh, Aunt of
the respondent and R.W.-3 is brother of the respondent. The respondent
and other witnesses examined on her behalf have admitted that marriage
of the petitioner with respondent was solemnized on 25.11.2007 in
accordance with Hindu rites and rituals at Arrah, Bihar, and after marriage
the petitioner started leading his conjugal life with respondent and during
continuance of matrimonial life the respondent was blessed with two
daughters who are named as Ojasvi Raj Singh born on 12.02.2009 and
26
2026:JHHC:31665-DB
Tajasvi Singh born on 15.12.2015. The respondent and her witnesses have
also consistently stated that at the time of marriage the parents of the
petitioner had given sufficient gold and silver jewelries amounting to
Rs.3.50-Lakhs, cash of Rs.03-Lakhs for purchasing of a car and incurred
expenses at the time of marriage. They have consistently stated that
petitioner was pressurizing on the respondent for additional dowry and
committed various types of cruelties for not begetting birth of a son. It has
also been stated that behaviour and attitude of the petitioner from the initial
days of marriage was very cruel towards the respondent. He often used to
abuse and assault the respondent as a result on two occasions the
respondent had to suffer miscarriage also due to assault of the petitioner.
It has been stated that on 09.04.2011 the petitioner assaulted the
respondent as a result she got injuries in eardrum and she had to undergo
treatment for her ear injuries from Dr. Samit Lal. The witnesses have also
th
stated that when the respondent got pregnant for the 4 time, the petitioner
pressurized her to undergo sex determination test of her fetus and when
she denied for the same the petitioner again misbehaved with her. The
petitioner always used to say that he is the only son of his parents and he
needs a male child for continuance of his generation and he also used to
say that where the property will go when she does not give birth to a male
child. The respondent due to cruelties and torture of petitioner filed a
complaint on 10.04.2017 to State Women Commission, Jharkhand, and
when petitioner came to know about this, he abused and assaulted her and
pushed out from the matrimonial home as a result she had to go to her
Maika . The respondent and her witnesses further stated that on 31.05.2017
the petitioner went to her Maika and created nuisance and demanded
Rs. 03-Lakhs from her parents and ultimately the respondent had to give a
27
2026:JHHC:31665-DB
written complaint on 08.06.2017 to Officer-in-Charge Nawada Police
Station and the said complaint was sent through Postal Receipt
No.295048908. The respondent during stay at Arrah took admission in
B.Ed. and when this fact came to the knowledge of the petitioner, he gave
an application under RTI on 22.09.2017 in which he made query as to how
she was admitted in the college and he sought information for cancellation
of her admission in B.Ed. The respondent and her witnesses further stated
that petitioner had filed an Original Suit No. 532/2017 u/s 9 of Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights and in the said case
mediation took place and as per terms of settlement the petitioner was
supposed to cooperate for completing her B.Ed. Course and the petitioner
had to also take her to his house and start leading conjugal life but the
petitioner violated the terms of mediation and he kept her in rental house
at Singh More, Hatia, in which there was monthly rent of Rs.6000/- and
maintenance charge of Rs.1000/-. The petitioner gave monthly rent for few
month and thereafter he discontinued to pay the monthly rent and also
stopped providing the household expenses.
43. In the cross-examination also respondent and her witnesses have
remained consistent and supported the case of the respondent that
respondent due to her injuries of ear had to undergo treatment from Dr.
Samit Lal, prescription of Dr. Samit Lal has been filed and marked as "Y"
for identification. They have also reiterated in cross-examination that
petitioner sought application under RTI Act from which it appeared that
the petitioner was intending to get the admission of respondent cancelled
from B.Ed. Course. Respondent in cross-examination has categorically
denied that she has herself left the matrimonial home rather she was
compelled to leave the matrimonial home as she along with her daughters
28
2026:JHHC:31665-DB
was pushed out from the matrimonial home. She denied the suggestion that
she operated the joint locker alone and took away her jewelries and also
jewelries of late mother of the petitioner. The respondent also reiterated in
her cross-examination that when she came to Ranchi after mediation in
Original Suit No. 532/2017, she was not allowed to live in the matrimonial
home and she was kept by the petitioner in a rental house and the petitioner
also discontinued to pay the rent of the said house and she is paying the
rent from her own source and with the help of others.
44. The fact about filing of suit by taking plea of cruelty and
desertion is admitted one as per the evidences adduced on behalf of the
appellant-husband.
45. The appellant-husband all along has alleged the issue of cruelty,
and desertion which he was subjecting to by his wife and in order to
establish the same the evidences has been laid as has been referred
hereinabove.
46. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon
consideration of the impugned judgment, the materials available on the
record, and the evidence referred to by the parties, the following points
arise for determination:
(i) Whether the appellant-husband has established that the
respondent-wife treated him with cruelty within the meaning
of Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act, 1955?
(ii) Whether the appellant-husband has established that the
respondent-wife deserted him within the meaning of Section
13(1)(ib) of the Act, 1955?
29
2026:JHHC:31665-DB
(iii) Whether the impugned judgment and decree suffer from
any illegality, perversity, or material error warranting
interference by this Court in exercise of its appellate
jurisdiction?
47. It needs to refer herein that since appellate jurisdiction has been
invoked herein, therefore, before entering into appreciation of aforesaid
issues, at this juncture it would be purposeful to discuss the appellate
jurisdiction of the High Court.
48. 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).
section 19
49. Sub-section (1) to 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 the Code of Civil Procedure, the scope of which has been dealt with
by the Hon'ble Apex Court in series of judgments.
50. 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,
30
2026:JHHC:31665-DB
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.”
51. 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
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.
52. 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.
53. 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.
31
2026:JHHC:31665-DB
54. Since this Court is exercising the power of appeal as referred
hereinabove and as per the settled position of law which require the
consideration of the appellate Court is that the order/judgment passed by
the appropriate Forum, if suffers from perversity, the same is to be taken
as a ground for its reversal.
55. This Court while appreciating the argument advanced on behalf
of the appellant-husband 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.
56. 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
32
2026:JHHC:31665-DB
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.
33
2026:JHHC:31665-DB
“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.”
57. 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.
58. 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.
59. 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.
60. In the instant case, the ground for divorce has been taken on the
ground of cruelty, therefore, it would be apt for this Court to discuss the
element of cruelty in order to appreciate the claim of the husband that
whether he has been subjected to cruelty by his wife.
61. The “cruelty” has been interpreted by the Hon’ble Apex Court in
the case of Dr. N.G. Dastane vs. Mrs. S. Dastana, (1975) 2 SCC 326
wherein it has been laid down that the Court has to enquire, as to whether,
the conduct charge as cruelty, is of such a character, as to cause in the mind
34
2026:JHHC:31665-DB
of the petitioner, a reasonable apprehension that, it will be harmful or
injurious for him to live with the respondent.
62. 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.
63. According to the Hon’ble Apex Court, “cruelty” is the “conduct
in relation to or in respect of matrimonial conduct in respect of matrimonial
obligations”. It is the conduct which adversely affects the spouse. Such
cruelty can be either “mental” or “physical”, intentional or 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.”
64. 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.”
65. 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:31665-DB
66. 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”.
67. 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.
68. 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.
69. “ 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
36
2026:JHHC:31665-DB
by their social status, reference be made to the judgment rendered by the
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “ Vishwanath Agrawal v. Sarla
Vishwanath Agrawal” , (2012) 7 SCC 288 .
70. 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.
71. 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.
72. 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
be taken from the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the
case of “ Joydeep Majumdar v. Bharti Jaiswal Majumdar”, (2021) 3 SCC
742.
73. 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
37
2026:JHHC:31665-DB
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.
74. 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 another 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.
75. 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
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
38
2026:JHHC:31665-DB
him with cruelty to cause reasonable apprehension in his/her mind that it
will be harmful or injurious to live with the contesting spouse.
76. Since desertion has also been taken as ground by the appellant
for dissolution of marriage, therefore at this juncture, it would be apt to
refer the definition of desertion as defined under explanation part of
Section 13 which 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 willful neglect of the
petitioner by the other party to the marriage.
77. Further, it requires 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 willful neglect of the
petitioner by the other party to the marriage, and its grammatical variations
and cognate expressions shall be construed accordingly.
78. 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 willful neglect of the petitioner by the other party to the
marriage, and its grammatical variations and cognate expressions shall be
construed accordingly.
79. Rayden on Divorce which is a standard work on the subject at p.
th
128 (6 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
39
2026:JHHC:31665-DB
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.”
80. The legal position has been admirably summarised in paras-453
rd
and 454 at pp. 241 to 243 of Halsbury's Laws of England (3 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.
81. 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. The fact that a husband makes an
allowance to a wife whom he has abandoned is no answer to a charge of
desertion.
82. 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.
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
40
2026:JHHC:31665-DB
desertion is not complete, but is inchoate, until the suit is constituted.
desertion is a continuing offence.
83. It is, thus, evident from the aforesaid reference of meaning of
desertion that the quality of permanence is one of the essential elements
which differentiates 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.
84. 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 form the
necessary intention aforesaid. In such a situation, the party who is filing
for divorce will have the burden of proving those elements.
85. 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 .
86. It has been observed 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 consent on the part of the
41
2026:JHHC:31665-DB
deserted spouse and the conduct of the deserted spouse should not give a
reasonable cause to the deserting spouse to leave the matrimonial home.
The view taken by the Hon'ble Apex Court has been incorporated in the
Explanation added to sub-section (1) of Section 13 by Act 68 of 1976. The
said Explanation reads thus:
“ 13. Divorce .—(1) …
Explanation.—In this sub-section, 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.”
87. Now adverting to the factual aspect, it is evident from the
impugned order that the allegations specific to the ground of alleged
cruelty and desertion has been made by petitioner/plaintiff-husband.
88. In the instant case as per pleadings of both the parties the
marriage between them as per Hindu rites is admitted fact. Further the birth
of two children out of the wedlock is also admitted fact.
89. In the present case, the appellant-husband, has alleged that the
respondent-wife frequently quarrelled with him, abused him in derogatory
language, physically assaulted him, scratched his face with her nails, tore
his clothes, threw household articles at him, and repeatedly threatened to
commit suicide.
90. He has also alleged that the respondent-wife objected to his aged
father and the children of his deceased sister residing in the matrimonial
home and insisted upon separate accommodation. According to him, the
cumulative effect of such conduct caused him severe mental distress and
ultimately affected his employment.
42
2026:JHHC:31665-DB
91. On examination of material available on record, it appears that
several allegations of serious misconduct have been made, but the
supporting evidence is limited.
92. During cross-examination, the appellant-husband admitted that
he could not produce documentary evidence to establish that the
respondent-wife had consumed twenty sleeping pills, resulting in the
termination of her pregnancy. He also admitted that he had not produced
documentary evidence to establish that the respondent-wife used to
transfer money to her father’s account. He further admitted that he had not
lodged any police complaint concerning the alleged wrongful conduct of
the respondent-wife.
93. The appellant-husband has also admitted that he stopped paying
rent for the accommodation at Singh More, Hatia in April 2019 because
the parents of the respondent-wife had started residing with her. This
admission is relevant to the subsequent course of the matrimonial
relationship and has to be considered along with the respondent-wife’s
account of the circumstances in which the parties lived separately .
94. Although the witnesses have supported the allegations of cruelty
in their examination-in-chief, their cross-examination reveals material
limitations in their personal knowledge of several disputed incidents.
95. The appellant-husband has further relied upon the allegation that
the respondent-wife subjected him to cruelty by insisting upon separate
accommodation and objecting to the presence of his father and other family
members.
96. In this regard, it is necessary to distinguish between a spouse’s
unreasonable conduct and a demand for separate residence which may
arise from the circumstances of the matrimonial relationship. A spouse’s
43
2026:JHHC:31665-DB
preference for independent accommodation cannot, in every case, be
treated as cruelty. The surrounding circumstances, the needs of the parties,
their obligations towards dependent family members, and the manner in
which the demand was made must all be considered.
97. In the present case, the appellant-husband has alleged that the
respondent-wife refused to reside in the matrimonial home and insisted
that he arrange a separate flat. On the other hand, the respondent-wife has
stated that the appellant-husband himself arranged the rented
accommodation and that she was not permitted to reside with him in the
matrimonial home.
98. The evidence establishes that the parties did, in fact, reside in
rented accommodation at Singh More after the earlier mediation
proceedings. However, the mere fact that the parties occupied separate
accommodation does not, by itself, establish that the respondent-wife
subjected the appellant-husband to cruelty.
99. The evidence must demonstrate that her conduct in this regard
was of such a nature and degree as to satisfy the statutory test. A demand
for separate accommodation, without sufficient evidence of accompanying
oppressive or abusive conduct, cannot automatically be elevated to the
level of matrimonial cruelty.
100. The appellant-husband has also placed reliance upon the alleged
consumption of sleeping pills by the respondent-wife and the consequent
termination of her pregnancy.
101. The respondent-wife, on the other hand, has alleged that she
suffered miscarriages and that the appellant-husband subjected her to
physical cruelty. Both parties have made allegations concerning the
circumstances surrounding the pregnancies.
44
2026:JHHC:31665-DB
102. The appellant-husband has admitted during cross-examination
that he has no documentary evidence to establish the allegation that the
respondent-wife consumed twenty sleeping pills and that such
consumption resulted in the termination of her pregnancy.
103. In the absence of reliable evidence establishing the incident and
its circumstances, the said allegation cannot be treated as a proved act of
cruelty on the part of the respondent-wife.
104. The appellant-husband has strongly contended that the
respondent-wife lodged false complaints before the State Women
Commission and the police authorities, and that such conduct amounts to
mental cruelty.
105. It is well settled that the institution of a criminal complaint by
one spouse against the other does not automatically constitute matrimonial
cruelty. The nature of the allegations, the circumstances in which the
complaint was made, the conduct of the complainant, and the outcome of
the proceedings are relevant considerations.
106. Where a spouse knowingly makes false and reckless allegations
of a serious nature against the other, and such allegations are established
to be false in the circumstances of the case, the conduct may, depending
upon its gravity and effect, constitute mental cruelty. However, a
complaint cannot be treated as false merely because the other spouse
disputes it or because the complainant fails to establish the allegations to
the requisite standard in the relevant proceedings.
107. In the present case, the appellant-husband has asserted that the
complaints made by the respondent-wife were false and had been
dismissed as baseless. The respondent-wife, however, has maintained that
45
2026:JHHC:31665-DB
she approached the concerned authorities because she was subjected to
cruelty and was compelled to leave the matrimonial home.
108. The evidence reproduced before this Court does not cogently
establish or demonstrate, that the respondent-wife knowingly made false
allegations with the intention of causing injury to the appellant-husband.
In these circumstances, the contention that the institution of the complaints
by the respondent-wife, by itself, establishes cruelty is not sustainable on
the materials placed before this Court.
109. Further the medical prescriptions relating to the appellant-
husband’s treatment may be relevant to the question of his mental
condition. However, the fact that a person has received psychiatric
treatment does not, by itself, establish that the other spouse caused the
condition through cruelty. A causal connection between the alleged
conduct and the mental suffering must be assessed on the evidence
available.
110. The allegation that the respondent-wife removed jewellery
belonging to the deceased mother of the appellant-husband from the joint
bank locker is also disputed.
111. The appellant-husband has stated that he saw a CCTV recording
footage in which the respondent-wife allegedly took a bundle from the
locker. However, during cross-examination, he admitted that he could not
state when he had applied for the CCTV footage. One of his witnesses
admitted that he could not say whether the respondent-wife had taken away
the jewellery.
112. The respondent-wife has denied the allegation and has stated that
she withdrew her own jewellery from the joint locker.
46
2026:JHHC:31665-DB
113. In the absence of sufficiently reliable evidence establishing that
the respondent-wife wrongfully removed jewellery belonging to the
deceased mother of the appellant-husband, the disputed allegation cannot
be treated as a proved circumstance of cruelty against her.
114. Upon an overall consideration of the oral and documentary
evidence, this Court finds that the existence of matrimonial discord and the
breakdown of normal marital relations are not, by themselves, sufficient to
establish cruelty within the meaning of Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act, 1955.
The Court is required to determine whether the particular conduct
complained of has been established and whether, in its cumulative effect,
it satisfies the statutory threshold. On the evidence reproduced in the
present appeal, the allegations of cruelty have not been established with
sufficient cogency to warrant reversal of the finding of the learned Family
Court.
115. On the issue of desertion, the appellant-husband has alleged that
the respondent-wife left the matrimonial home on 04.05.2017 along with
their two daughters and has not resumed normal matrimonial life
thereafter. On this basis, he claims that the statutory ground of desertion
stands established.
116. The respondent-wife, however, has specifically denied that she
voluntarily abandoned the matrimonial relationship. Her case is that she
was assaulted and compelled to leave the matrimonial home along with the
children. She has further stated that, following the earlier mediation
proceedings, the appellant-husband arranged separate accommodation for
her and the daughters and subsequently discontinued payment of rent and
household expenses.
47
2026:JHHC:31665-DB
117. The parties have thus presented conflicting versions regarding
the circumstances in which their separation occurred.
118. In order to establish desertion under Section 13(1)(ib) of the Act,
1955, it is not sufficient for the appellant-husband to prove only that the
parties have been living separately for the requisite period. He must also
establish that the respondent-wife abandoned the matrimonial relationship
without reasonable cause, without his consent or against his wish, and with
the intention of permanently bringing cohabitation to an end.
119. The element of intention is particularly important. Physical
separation may result from circumstances in which one spouse is
compelled to leave the matrimonial home, or where the parties mutually
arrange separate accommodation during an attempt to reconcile their
differences. In such circumstances, the fact of separation alone does not
necessarily establish desertion.
120. It is an admitted circumstance that the appellant-husband
instituted Original Suit No. 532 of 2017 under Section 9 of the Act, 1955,
and that the matter was referred to mediation. The parties thereafter arrived
at a settlement under which they contemplated resumption of a peaceful
matrimonial life and compliance with certain obligations towards each
other and their children.
121. The evidence further indicates that, following the settlement, the
respondent-wife came to Ranchi and resided in rented accommodation at
Singh-more. The appellant-husband himself has stated that he arranged the
said accommodation because the respondent-wife was unwilling to reside
with his father in the matrimonial home.
122. The respondent-wife, on the other hand, has stated that the
appellant-husband did not permit her to reside in the matrimonial home
48
2026:JHHC:31665-DB
and that the rented accommodation was arranged pursuant to the
circumstances prevailing after mediation.
123. Whatever the precise nature of the parties’ disagreement
regarding the accommodation, the evidence shows that the parties made an
attempt to resume their relationship following mediation and that their
subsequent separation occurred in the context of continuing disputes over
residence, family responsibilities, and financial support.
124. The appellant-husband has admitted during cross-examination
that he stopped paying the rent for the accommodation at Singh More in
April, 2019 because the parents of the respondent-wife had started residing
with her. This admission is relevant because it demonstrates that the
subsequent course of the parties’ separation cannot be assessed merely by
reference to the respondent-wife’s alleged departure from the matrimonial
home in May, 2017.
125. The appellant-husband’s own testimony indicates that the
parties’ relationship continued to be affected by disputes after the
mediation settlement and that he subsequently discontinued payment of
rent for the accommodation in which the respondent-wife was residing. It
is also relevant that the appellant-husband has stated that he discontinued
meeting the respondent-wife after her parents began residing with her.
126. These circumstances demonstrate the extent of the matrimonial
discord, but they do not conclusively establish that the respondent-wife
voluntarily and without reasonable cause abandoned the appellant-
husband.
127. The respondent-wife has consistently maintained that she was
compelled to leave the matrimonial home and that her subsequent
residence in separate accommodation was not an act of voluntary
49
2026:JHHC:31665-DB
abandonment. Her version is supported by the fact that the parties’ disputes
continued even after the mediation settlement and by the appellant-
husband’s admission regarding the discontinuance of rent payments.
128. Thus, on the evidence reproduced before this Court, the requisite
intention on the part of the respondent-wife to abandon the matrimonial
relationship without reasonable cause has not been sufficiently established.
The fact that the parties have remained separated for a considerable period
cannot, by itself, entitle the appellant-husband to a decree of divorce under
Section 13(1)(ib) of the Act, 1955. The statutory requirement is not merely
prolonged separation but desertion as understood in matrimonial law.
129. Thus, on the materials available, the finding of the learned
Family Court that the ground of desertion was not established does not
suffer from any apparent illegality or perversity warranting interference.
130. This Court after discussing the aforesaid factual aspect along
with the legal position and adverting to the consideration made by the
learned Family Judge in the impugned judgment has found therefrom that
the issue of element of cruelty and desertion has well been considered by
the learned Family Judge.
131. On consideration of the evidence, the learned Family Judge has
come to conclusion that the appellant-husband has miserably failed to
establish the ground of cruelty and desertion against the respondent-wife.
132. The aforesaid reason has led the learned Family Judge to dismiss
the suit.
133. This Court, on consideration of the finding arrived at by the
learned Family Judge and based upon the aforesaid discussion, is of the
view that the judgment and decree passed by the learned Family Judge is
not coming under the fold of the perversity, since, the conscious
50
2026:JHHC:31665-DB
consideration has been made of the evidences, both ocular and
documentary, as would be evident from the impugned judgment.
134. This Court, therefore, is of the view that the judgment dated
02.05.2025 and the decree signed on 16.05.2025 passed in Original Suit
No.478 of 2020 by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi
needs no interference and, accordingly, the instant appeal stands dismissed.
135. Pending I.As, if any, stands disposed of.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
I Agree.
( Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Sudhir
Dated:29/10/2026
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
AFR
Uploaded on 29/10/2026.
51