MAYANK KUMAR vs SOMYA KUMARI
- Court
- Jharkhand High Court
2026:JHHC:32502-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
First Appeal No.85 of 2025
-----
Mayank Kumar, aged about 35 years, son of Late Vijay Kumar, resident
of Nilanchal Colony, PO & PS: Seraidhela, District-Dhanbad.
....... … Petitioner/Appellant
Versus
Somya Kumari, aged about 33 years, wife of Sri Mayank Kumar and
daughter of Sri Raj Kumar Prasad, resident of Nilanchal Colony, P.O &
PS-Seraidhela, District-Dhanbad and present address at Ratu Road,
Gobind Nagar, P.O-Hehal,P.S-Sukhdevnagar, District-Ranchi
… … Respondent/Respondent
-------
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AKHIL KUMAR
-------
For the Appellant : Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, Advocate
Mr. Saurabh Sagar, Advocate
For the Respondent : None
------
C.A.V on 23.09.2026 Pronounced on 05/11/2026
Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
The instant appeal under section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act,
1984 is directed against the judgment dated 16.12.2024 and the decree
signed on 21.12.2024 passed in Original Suit No.288 of 2023 by the
learned Addl. Principal Judge, Addl. Family Court No.-II, Dhanbad (in
short, Family Judge) whereby and whereunder the petition filed under
section 13(1) (i-a) & (iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 by the
appellant-husband against the respondent-wife 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:
2026:JHHC:32502-DB
(i) The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 14.07.2021
according to Hindu Rites and Custom at Vivah Sthal, Saraidhela,
Dhanbad.
(ii) After the marriage the parties to the suit had started to lead her
conjugal life at USA and out of the said wedlock there is no issue.
(iii) It is pleaded that after marriage respondent declared that her
marriage with petitioner was not of her choice, rather she was
compelled to give consent for the marriage on undue pressure upon
her from her parents and relatives and her behaviour and attitude
was found to be very abnormal.
(iv) It is alleged that the respondent was also not accustomed with her
residence at her matrimonial home although for a very short spell
and remain aloof from others and kept herself confined to a room
and reacted violently when attempts were made by the petitioner
and his parents and relatives to have even a talk with her.
(v) The abnormal behaviour of the respondent was informed to her
parents by the petitioner and it was assured that normalcy shall
prevailed very soon and the awkward situation occurred due to non
adjustment at a new place in the matrimonial home.
(vi) It is stated that the behaviour of the respondent could not return to
normal and subsequently the parents of the respondent disclosed
that the respondent is suffering from mental disorder since early
child hood.
(vii) It is alleged that the parents of the respondent had also disclosed that
Somya (the respondent) was treated of her mental disorder by
doctors at Mumbai and also she was placed before reputed Tantrik
2
2026:JHHC:32502-DB
as advised by the relatives and well-wishers but no positive results
obtained.
(viii) It is stated the respondent resided in her matrimonial home from 15-
07-2021 to 15-10-2021 when on the occasion of Vijay-Dhashmi she
was taken back by her parents’ place. Thereafter, the respondent was
even not allowed to attend the engagement ceremony of petitioner’s
sister in November, 2021.
(ix) It is pleaded that on 18-06-2022 Somya Kumari (the respondent)
came to Dhanbad and she came to USA on dt. 22-10-2022 where
she had tortured him due to mental disease and no consummation
took place between both spouses.
(x) The unnatural behaviour of respondent was informed to her parents
on 10-01-2023 but they took it very lightly and stated that the
respondent’s condition would be normal. Thereafter, the petitioner
took the respondent to Hospital for check up on 12.01.2023 for her
treatment but a sorrowful event took place with petitioner as his
father died on 13.01.2023 and for that he had to rush to India to
perform Sradha rituals.
(xi) It is stated that at the time of leaving for Airport to return back India
again the mental status of the respondent deteriorated suddenly and
on emergency the petitioner had to cancel his programme and got
the respondent immediately to Wilmington Hospital, where she was
diagnosed as patient of Psychotic disorder and Anemia and admitted
for the treatment for which the petitioner could not take part in
Shradh ceremony of his father.
3
2026:JHHC:32502-DB
(xii) Again on 06.02.2023, the respondent was placed before the doctor
by the petitioner and got admitted in the Hospital for one week and
the respondent was declared as a patient of Paranoid Schizophrenia.
(xiii) On the aforesaid ground suit for dissolution of marriage, was filed
on the ground of cruelty and unsoundness of mind wherein the
appellant-husband has prayed for a decree of dissolution of the
marriage between him and the respondent-wife.
3. It needs to mention herein that in said suit after receipt of notice,
the respondent appeared and filed her written statement denying all the
allegations levelled against her in the plaint stating that the present suit is
not maintainable either in law or facts.
4. She has admitted the factum of marriage with the petitioner on
14.07.2021 as per Hindu rituals and custom at Dhanbad. It is stated that
the suit was filed by the petitioner only to harass the respondent and the
entire allegation made by the petitioner was totally denied by the
respondent and stated that she is not suffering from any mental disorder
rather the petitioner's family is itself liable for giving mental pressure to
her.
5. It is further stated that she is always ready to live and lead the
conjugal life with the petitioner as a wife and husband, but the petitioner
does not want to live with her. It is stated that all type of mental pressure,
cruelty and torture were given by the petitioner and his family members
by alleging her suffering from mental disorder which gave her mental
trauma and, as such, the suit filed by the petitioner for divorce is liable to
be dismissed.
4
2026:JHHC:32502-DB
6. Learned Family Judge, after institution of the said case, taking in
to consideration of the pleading of the parties to the suit has formulated
the issues and has decided the lis by refusing to grant divorce to the
petitioner/appellant.
7. 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:
8. Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, 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) The element of cruelty has been found to be there if the
evidences adduced on behalf of the appellant-husband will be
taken in to consideration as it has come in the evidence that due
to mental disorder the respondent acted abnormally, 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 as the respondent often attacking the appellant with
kitchen knife and attempted to commit suicide which caused acute
mental trauma to the appellant as would be evident from the
5
2026:JHHC:32502-DB
evidence adduced on behalf of the appellant-husband, but the
same has not been taken into consideration.
(iv) It has been contended that the learned Family Judge has failed
to appreciate the evidences adduced on behalf of the appellant as
in the trial, the evidence has come that it was the respondent-wife
who is suffering from mental disorder since her childhood and at
the time of negotiation of marriage the same was concealed by the
parents of the petitioner and thus, the appellant has been cheated
by the respondent and her parents.
(v) It has been contended that the learned Family Judge has not
taken into consideration the fact that the respondent at her
matrimonial home remained aloof from her in-laws and kept
herself confined in a room and reacted violently when attempts
were made by the appellant and his parents/relatives to even have
a talk with her.
9. The learned counsel, based upon the aforesaid ground, has
submitted that the impugned judgment and decree, therefore, needs
interference said to be perverse.
10. As would be evident from the order dated 23.09.2026 that on
that day no one appeared on behalf of the respondent to argue the matter
and, as such, in absence of the argument advanced on behalf of the
respondent, the judgment was reserved after hearing the learned counsel
appearing for the appellant.
Analysis:
6
2026:JHHC:32502-DB
11. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, gone
through the Trial Court Records, the impugned judgment, as also the
testimonies of the witnesses and the documents exhibited therein.
12. The learned Family Judge has formulated altogether five issues, for
ready reference the same are being quoted hereinbelow:
i) Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form?
ii) Whether the petitioner has got valid cause of action for the suit?
iii) Whether the marriage of the petitioner and respondent is fit to be
dissolved on the ground of cruelty u/s 13(1) (i-a) of H.M. Act?
iv) Whether the marriage of the petitioner and respondent is fit to be
dissolved on the ground of incurably of unsound mind u/s 13(1)
(iii) of H.M. Act?
v) Whether petitioner is entitled for any relief as claimed for?
13. The issue pertaining to ground for divorce is by formulating the
specific issues whether the marriage of the petitioner and respondent is fit
to be dissolved on the ground of cruelty u/s 13(1) (i-a) of H.M. Act as issue
no.(iii) and whether the marriage of the petitioner and respondent is fit to
be dissolved on the ground of incurably of unsound mind u/s 13(1) (iii) of
H.M. Act as issue no.(iv).
14. The learned Family Judge has taken into consideration the issue
no.(iii) and (iv) together i.e., the ground of cruelty and ground of
unsoundness of mind of the respondent for deciding the lis . The learned
Family Judge has considered the evidence adduced on behalf of the parties
to the suit for deciding the issues involved in the suit.
15. This Court in order to appreciate the aforesaid rival submission
before entering into the legality and propriety of the impugned judgment
7
2026:JHHC:32502-DB
needs to discuss herein the relevant part of the evidences adduced on
behalf of the parties wherein the element of cruelty and unsoundness of
mind of the respondent has been shown by the plaintiff-husband.
16. During the trial, two witnesses have been examined on behalf of
the appellant-husband who himself has been examined as PW1. PW2 is
Chandra Bhusan Prasad Srivastawa who is an independent witness who
knows the parties to the suit.
17. In support of his contention, the petitioner/appellant-husband has
produced following documents:
(i) Mark X – Copy of whatsapp chat.
(ii) Mark X/1 – Copy of Air Ticket.
(iii) Mark X/2 – Copy of discharge slip of respondent.
18. On the other hand, the respondent has also examined two witnesses
in support of her contention who herself examined as DW1 and DW2-Raj
Kumar Prasad is her father. She has also produced some documents which
are as under:
(i) Ext-A to A/1 – Marriage Cared
(ii) Mark Y to Y/20 -Marriage photographs.
(iii) Mark Y/21 to Y/25 - Photographs of Grih Pravesh of New Flat of
petitioner in Bangalore.
(iv) Mark-Y/26 to Y/31– copy of educational certificate of
respondent.
(v) Mark Y/32- Copy of passport of respondent.
(vi) Mark Y/33 – Copy of VISA appointment confirmation letter.
(vii) Mark Y/34- Copy of VISA of respondent.
(viii) Mark Y/35 t0 Y/36- Copy of Air Ticket of respondent.
8
2026:JHHC:32502-DB
(ix) Mark Y/37 to Y/39 - Photographs of both parties in USA.
(x) Mark Y/40 - Copy of Bank Statement.
(xi) Mark Y/41 to Y/44 – Copy of bills.
(xii) Mark Y/45 to Y/47 – Copy of bank receipt and bank statement.
(xiii) Mark Y/48 to Y/49 – Copy of bank statements.
19. In his examination on oath, the appellant-husband has narrated
entire things as pleaded in the plaint about his marriage with the
respondent. He has stated on oath that he has no issue out of the wedlock
with the respondent. He has stated about change in behaviour of the
respondent just after the marriage. He has stated at para-6 that just after
the marriage the respondent told him that this marriage was performed
against her will on the pressure of her parents and relatives. He found her
abnormal behaviour and when he informed his in-laws about the rude
behaviour of the respondent his in-laws assured that her daughter had gone
at new place and so over the period of time situation will be normal.
20. He has stated that he tried continuously to resume normal married
life but all in vain and later on the respondent disclosed that she was
suffering from mental disorder since her child hood and by concealing the
aforesaid fact the family members of respondent got the marriage
solemnized with him in district Dhanbad and not from Ranchi which is
maika of respondent.
21. He has stated that the parents of Somya Kumari (the respondent) told
him that she got treated for her mental illness from the doctors of Bombay
and also she was taken to Tantrik. He was being continuously tortured by
his wife mentally and several times she tried to kill him and herself by
means of knife. At para-13, the appellant has stated that on 18.06.2022
9
2026:JHHC:32502-DB
Somya Kumari came to his house at Dhanbad with her aunt (badi mummy)
and on 20.10.2022 she went to USA but due to cruel and abnormal
behaviour of the respondent the marriage could not be consummated. At
para-14 he has stated that on 10.01.2023 he informed to the parents of the
respondent about her abnormal behaviour but they took it very lightly and
stated that everything will be normal if she takes sound sleep.
22. He has stated that the respondent was taken to hospital in USA for
treatment on 12-01-2023 but his father expired on 13-01-2023 and since
the mental status of his wife got critical and she had got admitted in
hospital where she was found suffering from psychiatric disorder and
Anemia, so he could not attend the Shradh ceremony of his father.
23. PW1 has further deposed that the respondent was again admitted on
06-02-2023 where doctor diagnosed that she was suffering from paranoids
schizophrenic. Now due to continuous torturing by the respondent the
married life has now breakdown and so he has filed this divorce case.
24. During cross examination, PW 1, at para-20, 21 and 22, has admitted
that aforesaid marriage was performed with the consent of family members
of both parties and he has given his consent for marriage. The marriage
took place at Vivah Sthal, Saraidhela, Dhanbad on 14.07.2021 in which
family members of both the parties were present along with the relatives
and well-wishers. At para-24 he has admitted that before the marriage
there was an engagement ceremony (Ring Ceremony) performed on
27.11.2020 at Sonotel Hotel, Dhanbad. At para-27 he has admitted that
after engagement ceremony , he was on talking terms with the respondent
over mobile phone and through Video Call. He has admitted that Since 18-
10-2021 the respondent resided in her maika at Ranchi for about one year.
10
2026:JHHC:32502-DB
His wife had gone to her maika with his consent and also with consent of
his family members. While leaving of his wife in Ranchi he talked with
his wife on mobile till 28-11-2021. During this period, he visited twice
from USA to India and also met with his wife on 24-11-2021 and 16-06-
2022. At para-35 he has admitted that from 18-06-2022 till 16-07-2022 he
and the respondent were living together thereafter the respondent went to
Ranchi at her maike and he returned to USA via Kolkata by Airplane. At
para-36 PW1 has admitted that his wife with his consent as also with the
consent of family of both the parties came to USA on 20.10.2022 and till
19.03.2023 they lived together at USA. At para-37, he has stated that while
living at USA he came to know about the mental disorder of his wife. At
para-38 he has stated that after attack of mental disorder the behaviour of
the respondent got changed and on 12-01-2023 she underwent treatment
at Newar Urgency Care Delaware, USA but he cannot say the name of
doctor. He again consulted with doctor in Christian Hospital in USA on
13-01-2023 for treatment of his wife where he was told that his wife is
suffering from mental disease which may be Schizophrenia. At para-39
and 40, he has stated that his wife (the respondent) was admitted for her
treatment at hospital where it was advised by a Psychiatrist Doctor that the
respondent was suffering from either mental depression or Schizophrenia
and when she was cured and became normal, she was discharged from the
hospital. At para-42 he has admitted that in the Discharge Instruct Paper
there was no mention of any disease, rather Altered Mental Status
Unspecified was mentioned and nowhere it was mentioned the disease of
Schizophrenia. At para-52 he has admitted that he had not filed any
certificate regarding illness of his wife but he has filed discharge
11
2026:JHHC:32502-DB
instruction in which the illness of his wife was shown as Insomnia, Mental
status, Confusion, abdominal pain etc . At para-55 he has admitted that he
is having no knowledge that since the year 2021 paranoid schizophrenia
has been removed from the medical list used by the USA. At para-61 he
has admitted that he had not produced the medical paper of the concerned
doctor who treated his wife (the respondent) for adducing evidence in the
Court. He has denied the suggestion that he does not want to lead conjugal
life with his wife and as such he has filed this divorce case.
25. PW2 Chandra Bhushan Prasad Srivastava is an independent
witness who is acquainted with both the parties and their family affairs. He
has corroborated the deposition of the appellant on the point of marriage
and the disease of the respondent of being mental disorder. He has also
deposed on the point of the attack of mental disorder upon the respondent,
her treatment at USA and cruelty meted out to the appellant at the hands
of the respondent due to her mental disorder.
During his cross examination, PW2 at para-17 has stated that he
was present at the house of the appellant where the disease of the mental
disorder of the respondent was described and it was discussed that Somya
was suffering from Schizophrenia, but at para-19 he has admitted that he
could not remember the date and day when it was discussed. At para-20,
he has admitted that he had not seen the cruelty meted out at the hands of
the respondent upon the appellant rather he had heard the same. At
paragraph 23, he admitted that he has no knowledge as to in which hospital
and on which date Somya (the respondent) was declared to be suffering
from Paranoid Schizophrenia, nor by which doctor, as mentioned at
paragraph 12 of his examination-in-chief. At para-24, PW2 has admitted
12
2026:JHHC:32502-DB
that he heard on the social level that Somya was suffering from mental
disorder which is incurable.
26. On the other hand, the respondent as RW1 has stated at para-1 of
her examination-in-chief that her husband Mayank Kumar had filed this
suit for divorce on his own will whereas she does not want divorce and she
still wants to live with her husband. She has further stated that her marriage
was solemnized on 14.07.2021 as per Hindu rites and custom at Vivah
Sthal “Krishna Marriage Hall”, Saraidhela, Dhanbad. She has stated that
prior to that, on 27.11.2020 on the instruction of Mayank Kumar (the
appellant) and his parents engagement ceremony was performed at Sonotel
Hotel, Sariadhela, Dhanbad.
27. At para-6 she has deposed that after ten days of marriage, her
husband went to USA to join his duty and she remained at her in- laws’
house with her father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law at the house
situated at Nilanchal Colony. She has stated that on 15.10.2021 her father
took her to her maike at Ranchi and on instruction of Mayank Kumar (the
appellant) her father brought her to her in- laws’ house at Dhanbad to take
part in marriage ceremony of her sister-in-law and after marriage she again
returned to her maike at Ranchi and her husband went to USA.
28. She has stated that her husband had arranged her visa for the trip to
USA, and she reached the destination from Ranchi via Kolkata and Doha,
and after reaching at USA her husband received her. At para-10 she has
stated that due to cold, cough and weakness she had been taken away by
her husband to a doctor on 12.01.2023 and on 13.01.2023 her father-in-
law had died. She has further stated that on 19.01.2023 she left for India
and on 20.03.2023 she reached at Ranchi Airport along with her husband
13
2026:JHHC:32502-DB
where her husband left her sitting at the airport under the pretext of going
to get some water. When a long time had passed, she tried calling him, but
he didn't answer. Three hours later, she called her parents, and they came
and took me to her maike.
29. She has further stated that after reaching home, she tried several
times to contact with her husband but he did not reply. At paragraph 12 of
her examination-in-chief, she categorically stated that she had no
knowledge of the disease alleged by her husband. She further deposed that
she was entirely unaware of when, how, or where the alleged illness
supposedly occurred, and emphasized that no medical examination or
testing had ever been conducted to substantiate the claim as alleged with
regard to her disease. At para-13 she has stated that her husband, namely,
Mayank Kumar has filed this divorce suit on the instigation of others and
she still wants to live with her husband for her entire life time.
30. During cross-examination, RW1 has stated at para-16 that she
completed her Graduation with English (Hons.) from St. Xavier College in
the year 2012. She has stated at para-17 that her father is a retired person
from railway and her mother is a practicing lawyer at High Court, Ranchi.
At para-23 she has admitted that the matter was sent for mediation but her
husband did not talk with her. At para-27 she has admitted that from the
year 2013 to 2019 she was doing the job in Jet Airbess at Mumbai. At para-
36 and 37, RW1 has stated that her marriage was solemnized at Dhanbad
as per instruction of the family member of the appellant so that his all
relatives and well-wishers could take part in the said marriage and it is not
true that her marriage took place in Dhanbad because her neighbors were
14
2026:JHHC:32502-DB
aware of her situation. At para-38 and 39 she has denied that she ever meet
with any tnatrik named Satyam Kumar.
31. At para-41 she has admitted that she had fallen ill at USA and she
was forcefully admitted there for her treatment. At para-45, 46 and 47, she
has admitted that her husband could not come to India on the death of his
father due to her treatment and at that time she was admitted at Hospital
but she is having no knowledge that why she had been admitted in the
hospital. At para-55 she has denied the suggestion that when she was at
Dhanbad and information with regard to her disease was given to her
parents, they told that since it is a new place and it will take time to adjust.
She has admitted at para-56 that she is living separately from her husband
(Mayank Kumar) since 20.03.2023. At para-62 she has admitted that their
marriage was consummated at Dhanbad. At para-65 and 66, RW1 has
stated that she had left her job but not for her mental disorder. At para-70,
she has denied the suggestion that Mayank (the appellant) has filed the
divorce suit after being harassed due to her disease.
32. RW2-Raj Kumar Prasad is the father of the respondent and he
has fully corroborated the statement/deposition made by her daughter as
RW1. He has supported the version of the respondent on the point of her
marriage, her bidai , her going to USA and stayed there for about two
months. He has stated at para-11 of his examination-in-chief that after
reaching at USA due to change of climate, his daughter was fallen ill where
she was suffering from cold, cough and weakness and for that reason the
appellant took her to Willington Hospital for her treatment which was
informed to him by his son-in-law (the appellant). At para-13 he has stated
that on 20.03.2023 when her daughter reached at Ranchi Airport along
15
2026:JHHC:32502-DB
with her husband where her husband left her sitting at the airport under the
pretext of going to get some water and went to Dhanbad. When a long time
had passed, she tried calling him, but he didn't answer thereafter her
daughter informed them over phone and they took her to his house from
the Airport. After reaching home, they tried several times to contact the
appellant over phone but he did not pick their call. At para-15 he has stated
that his son-in-law (the appellant), on instigation of others, has filed the
suit for divorce by getting forged documents of treatment for their
disreputation. At paragraph 16, he has stated that his daughter (the
respondent) desires to live with the appellant for her entire lifetime.
33. During cross-examination, at para-27 he has stated that her daughter
got admitted at Wellington Hospital at USA but he is having no knowledge
that she had been admitted by the police. At para-32 he has admitted that
his son-in-law (the appellant) had informed them about the treatment and
ten-day’s hospitalization of his daughter. At para-36 he has admitted that
in India her daughter (the respondent) had been treated for cold and cough.
At para-38 and 39, he denied the suggestion that his daughter was for
mental disorder treated at Mumbai and Ranchi, and disputed that his
daughter had been undergoing continuous treatment since birth. At para-
40 he has denied the suggestion that since treatment of her daughter for
mental disorder was going on at USA in Chiristiana Care hospital and for
that reason his daughter and son-in-law did not attend the shradh ceremony
of his samdhi . At paragraph 41, he denied the suggestion that his daughter
was suffering from mental disorder since birth and for that reason they did
not solemnize her marriage at Ranchi but rather at Dhanbad.
16
2026:JHHC:32502-DB
34. The learned Family Judge has appreciated the entire facts and
evidence and has come to the conclusion that the appellant-husband has
failed to make the ground either cruelty or mental disorder and, as such,
has dismissed the suit which is under challenge in the instant appeal.
35. The fact about filing of suit on the ground of cruelty and mental
disorder is admitted one as per the evidences adduced on behalf of the
appellant.
36. The appellant-husband has tried to establish the element of
cruelty and mental disorder upon him at the hands of the respondent-wife.
37. The appellant-husband all along has alleged the issue of cruelty
and mental disorder which he was getting subjected by his wife and in
order to establish the same the evidences has been laid as has been referred
hereinabove.
38. It requires 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.
39. 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).
40. 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
17
2026:JHHC:32502-DB
the Code of Civil Procedure, the scope of which has been dealt with by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in series of judgments.
41. 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.”
42. This Court while appreciating the argument advanced on behalf of
the appellant on the issue of perversity needs to refer herein the
interpretation of the word “perverse” as has been interpreted by the Hon'ble
Apex Court which means that there is no evidence or erroneous
consideration of the evidence.
43. 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,
18
2026:JHHC:32502-DB
true that if a finding of fact is arrived at by ignoring or excluding relevant
material or by taking into consideration irrelevant material or if the finding
so outrageously defies logic as to suffer from the vice of irrationality
incurring the blame of being perverse, then, the finding is rendered infirm
in law. Relevant paragraphs, i.e., paras-24, 25, 26 and 27 of the said
judgment reads as under:
“24. The expression “perverse” has been dealt with in a number
of cases. In Gaya Din v. Hanuman Prasad [(2001) 1 SCC 501]
this Court observed that the expression “perverse” means that
the findings of the subordinate authority are not supported by the
evidence brought on record or they are against the law or suffer
from the vice of procedural irregularity.
25. In Parry's (Calcutta) Employees' Union v. Parry & Co.
Ltd. [AIR 1966 Cal 31] the Court observed that “perverse
finding” means a finding which is not only against the weight of
evidence but is altogether against the evidence itself. In Triveni
Rubber & Plastics v. CCE [1994 Supp (3) SCC 665 : AIR 1994
SC 1341] the Court observed that this is not a case where it can
be said that the findings of the authorities are based on no
evidence or that they are so perverse that no reasonable person
would have arrived at those findings.
26. In M.S. Narayanagouda v. Girijamma [AIR 1977 Kant 58]
the Court observed that any order made in conscious violation
of pleading and law is a perverse order.
In Moffett v. Gough [(1878) 1 LR 1r 331] the Court observed
that a “perverse verdict” may probably be defined as one that is
not only against the weight of evidence but is altogether against
the evidence.
In Godfrey v. Godfrey [106 NW 814] the Court defined
“perverse” as turned the wrong way, not right; distorted from
the right; turned away or deviating from what is right, proper,
correct, etc.
27. The expression “perverse” has been defined by various
dictionaries in the following manner:
1. Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary of Current English,
6th Edn.
19
2026:JHHC:32502-DB
“Perverse.—Showing deliberate determination to behave in a
way that most people think is wrong, unacceptable or
unreasonable.”
2. Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, International
Edn.
Perverse.—Deliberately departing from what is normal and
reasonable.
3. The New Oxford Dictionary of English, 1998 Edn.
Perverse.—Law (of a verdict) against the weight of evidence or
the direction of the judge on a point of law.
4. The New Lexicon Webster's Dictionary of the English
Language (Deluxe Encyclopedic Edn.)
Perverse.—Purposely deviating from accepted or expected
behavior or opinion; wicked or wayward; stubborn; cross or
petulant.
5. Stroud's Judicial Dictionary of Words & Phrases, 4th Edn.
“Perverse.—A perverse verdict may probably be defined as one
that is not only against the weight of evidence but is altogether
against the evidence.”
44. 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.
45. 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.
46. 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,
20
2026:JHHC:32502-DB
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.
47. In the context of the aforesaid factual aspect and settled position of
law only seminal issue has to be decided herein that “Whether the
petitioner is entitled to get a decree of dissolution of marriage on the basis
of Section-13(1) (ia) and (iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955?
Issue of Cruelty:
48. The “cruelty” has been interpreted by the Hon’ble Apex Court in
the case of Dr. N.G. Dastane vs. Mrs. S. Dastana, (1975) 2 SCC 326
wherein it has been laid down that the Court has to enquire, as to whether,
the conduct charge as cruelty, is of such a character, as to cause in the mind
of the petitioner, a reasonable apprehension that, it will be harmful or
injurious for him to live with the respondent.
49. 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.
50. 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
21
2026:JHHC:32502-DB
but it may be present. Physical cruelty is less ambiguous and more “a
question of fact and degree.”
51. The Hon’ble Apex Court has further observed therein that while
dealing with such complaints of cruelty it is important for the Court to not
search for a standard in life, since cruelty in one case may not be cruelty
in another case. What must be considered include the kind of life the parties
are used to, “their economic and social conditions”, and the “culture and
human values to which they attach importance.”
52. 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.
53. 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”.
54. 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.
22
2026:JHHC:32502-DB
55. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Joydeep Majumdar v. Bharti
Jaiswal Majumdar, (2021) 3 SCC 742 , has been pleased to observe that
while judging whether the conduct is cruel or not, what has to be seen is
whether that conduct, which is sustained over a period of time, renders the
life of the spouse so miserable as to make it unreasonable to make one live
with the other. The conduct may take the form of abusive or humiliating
treatment, causing mental pain and anguish, torturing the spouse, etc. The
conduct complained of must be “grave” and “weighty” and trivial
irritations and normal wear and tear of marriage would not constitute
mental cruelty as a ground for divorce.
56. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vidhya Viswanathan v.
Kartik Balakrishnan, (2014) 15 SCC 21 has specifically held that cruelty
is to be determined on whole facts of the case and the matrimonial relations
between the spouses and the word ‘cruelty’ has not been defined and it has
been used in relation to human conduct or human behaviour. It is the
conduct in relation to or in respect of matrimonial duties and obligations.
It is a course of conduct and one which is adversely affecting the other.
57. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Joydeep Majumdar v. Bharti Jaiswal
Majumdar, (2021) 3 SCC 742 , has been pleased to observe that while
judging whether the conduct is cruel or not, what has to be seen is whether
that conduct, which is sustained over a period of time, renders the life of
the spouse so miserable as to make it unreasonable to make one live with
the other. The conduct may take the form of abusive or humiliating
treatment, causing mental pain and anguish, torturing the spouse, etc. The
conduct complained of must be “grave” and “weighty” and trivial
23
2026:JHHC:32502-DB
irritations and normal wear and tear of marriage would not constitute
mental cruelty as a ground for divorce.
58. 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 .
59. 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.
60. 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.
61. 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
24
2026:JHHC:32502-DB
taken from the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case
of Joydeep Majumdar v. Bharti Jaiswal Majumdar (supra).
62. 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.
63. 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.
64. 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
25
2026:JHHC:32502-DB
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 him with cruelty to cause reasonable apprehension in his/her
mind that it will be harmful or injurious to live with the contesting spouse.
65. Further in the backdrop of the aforesaid settled position of law and
before entering in to the issue of cruelty, 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.
66. Herein so far as the allegation of cruelty is concerned, the same
remains unproved. The serious allegations regarding attack by knife,
attempts to commit suicide and violent conduct have not been
corroborated by any independent witness, medical record, police report or
contemporaneous document. PW-2 admittedly had not witnessed any such
incident and his testimony is substantially based upon what he had heard
from others. Such hearsay evidence cannot form the basis of a finding of
matrimonial cruelty.
67. Further, the admissions made by PW-1 during cross-examination
show that after the engagement ceremony the parties remained in regular
contact; the respondent visited and resided in her matrimonial home with
the consent of the appellant and his family members; she was subsequently
taken by the appellant to the United States; and the parties continued to
reside together there till March, 2023. These admitted facts are wholly
26
2026:JHHC:32502-DB
inconsistent with the allegation that the appellant was subjected to such
grave cruelty as would render continuation of the marital relationship
impossible.
68. This Court, based upon the aforesaid discussions on the issue of
cruelty, is of considered view that the issue of cruelty as has been alleged
by the appellant-husband against his wife could not be proved because no
concrete evidence to that effect has been produced by the appellant.
69. Thus, as per the discussions made hereinabove and law laid down
by Hon’ble Apex Court which has also been referred herein above this
Court has no reason to take different view that has been taken by the
learned Family Court proving the ground of cruelty.
Issue of mental illness
70. So far as the issue of mental illness is concerned it is evident from
the impugned order that the learned Family Court has categorically held
that no cogent evidence has been adduced by the plaintiff/husband in order
to prove the mental illness of OP-wife and therefore the Family Court has
also decided this issue against the appellant/husband.
71. In the aforesaid context, it needs to refer herein Section 13(1) (iii)
of the Act 1955 which reads as under:
“ 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.”
27
2026:JHHC:32502-DB
( iii) has been incurably of unsound mind, or has suffering
continuously or intermittently from mental disorder of such a kind
and to such an extent that the petitioner cannot reasonably be
expected to live with the respondent.
Explanation- In this clause—
(a) the expression “mental disorder” means mental illness, arrested
or incomplete development of mind, psychopathic disorder or any
other disorder or disability of mind and include schizophrenia;
(b) the expression “psychopathic disorder” means a persistent
disorder or disability of mind (whether or not including
subnormality of intelligence) which results in abnormally
aggressive or seriously irresponsible conduct on the part of the
other party and whether or not it requires or is susceptible to
medical treatment; or………”
72. The aforesaid provision shows that there are two separate
grounds in the provision viz. (a) incurable unsound mind; and,
(b) respondent spouse has been suffering continuously or intermittently
from mental disorder and the disorder is of such kind and of such extent
that the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with the
respondent.
73. From the wording of the aforesaid provision, it can be said that
the mental condition like incurable unsound mind mentioned in the first
part or the mental disorder mentioned in the second part needs to be proved
by expert evidence and that evidence needs to satisfy the Court that such
mental condition exists.
74. From the wording of the provision, it can be said that the second
part of the provision has wide scope. For this part, it is not necessary that
mental disorder is incurable. However, the mental disorder must be of such
kind and extent that the Court needs to be satisfied that it is not advisable
to ask the petitioner to live with the respondent. The scope shows that there
28
2026:JHHC:32502-DB
is no limit to the kind of mental disorder as no specific kind is mentioned.
However, the term “has been suffering” shows that the period of illness
must not be too short or the petition should not be based on one or two
instances showing such mental disorder.
75. The term “intermittently” cannot be misread in this provision to
infer that the mental illness returns after the treatment within few days. The
term “extent” is also important and on that also the Court needs to be
satisfied to come to the conclusion that the petitioner cannot be reasonably
expected to live with the husband.
76. Thus, it is evident that the relief is discretionary and while using
discretion, the Court is expected to keep in mind the aforesaid things as
mentioned above. Further, the burden to prove mental disorder mentioned
as second part of the aforesaid provision or the burden to prove incurable
unsound mind lies on the party who seeks to use the ground.
77. It needs to refer herein that psychiatrist is an expert but in view
of provision of section 45 of the Evidence Act, it is up to the Court to either
rely on the opinion or to refuse to do so. Further, he being a witness, his
credibility can be impeached like the credibility of any other witnesses and
his veracity can be tested as provided in section 146 and other provisions
of Evidence Act. As psychiatrist is expected to give evidence on the basis
of the examination of the patient done by him, the symptoms noted by him,
the treatment and the follow up treatment given by him and the record
created by him needs to be considered both for corroboration and
contradiction purpose. In such a case the evidence of other witnesses or the
circumstances which relates to the behaviour of the respondent can be
29
2026:JHHC:32502-DB
considered by the Court as that can help strengthening the opinion or create
probability that the opinion has no justification and it is weak.
78. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kollam Chandra Sekhar
v. Kollam Padma Latha, (2014) 1 SCC 225 has categorically observed that
the ideas of unsoundness of ‘mind’ and ‘mental disorder’ occur in the
section as grounds for dissolution of a marriage, require the assessment of
the degree of the ‘mental disorder’. Its degree must be such that the spouse
seeking relief cannot reasonably be expected to live with the other. All
mental abnormalities are not recognised as grounds for grant of decree. If
the mere existence of any degree of mental abnormality could justify
dissolution of a marriage few marriages would, indeed, survive in law. For
ready reference the relevant paragraph of the aforesaid judgment is being
quoted as under:
22. The relevant portions with regard to “unsoundness of mind” and
“mental disorder” from the case referred to supra are extracted
hereunder: (Ram Narain Gupta case [(1988) 4 SCC 247] , SCC pp.
254-56, paras 20-24)
“20. The context in which the ideas of unsoundness of ‘mind’ and
‘mental disorder’ occur in the section as grounds for dissolution of a
marriage, require the assessment of the degree of the ‘mental disorder’.
Its degree must be such that the spouse seeking relief cannot reasonably
be expected to live with the other. All mental abnormalities are not
recognised as grounds for grant of decree. If the mere existence of any
degree of mental abnormality could justify dissolution of a marriage
few marriages would, indeed, survive in law.
21. The answer to the apparently simple—and perhaps misleading—
question as to ‘who is normal?’ runs inevitably into philosophical
thickets of the concept of mental normalcy and as involved therein, of
the ‘mind’ itself. These concepts of ‘mind’, ‘mental phenomena’, etc.
are more known than understood and the theories of ‘mind’ and
‘mentation’ do not indicate any internal consistency, let alone validity,
of their basic ideas. Theories of ‘mind’ with cognate ideas of
‘perception’ and ‘consciousness’ encompass a wide range of thoughts,
30
2026:JHHC:32502-DB
more ontological than epistemological. Theories of mental phenomena
are diverse and include the dualist concept—shared by Descartes and
Sigmund Freud—of the separateness of the existence of the physical or
the material world as distinguished from the non-material mental world
with its existence only spatially and not temporally. There is, again, the
theory which stresses the neurological basis of the ‘mental
phenomenon’ by asserting the functional correlation of the neuronal
arrangements of the brain with mental phenomena. The ‘behaviourist’
tradition, on the other hand, interprets all reference to mind as
‘constructs’ out of behaviour. ‘Functionalism’, however, seems to
assert that mind is the logical or functional state of physical systems.
But all theories seem to recognise, in varying degrees, that the
psychometric control over the mind operates at a level not yet fully
taught to science. When a person is oppressed by intense and seemingly
insoluble moral dilemmas, or when grief of loss of dear ones etch away
all the bright colours of life, or where a broken marriage brings with it
the loss of emotional security, what standards of normalcy of behaviour
could be formulated and applied? The arcane infallibility of science has
not fully pervaded the study of the non-material dimensions of ‘being’.
22. Speaking of the indisposition of science towards this study, a
learned author says:
‘… we have inherited cultural resistance to treating the conscious mind
as a biological phenomenon like any other. This goes back to Descartes
in the seventeenth century. Descartes divided the world into two kinds
of substances: mental substances and physical substances. Physical
substances were the proper domain of science and mental substances
were the property of religion. Something of an acceptance of this
division exists even to the present day. So, for example, consciousness
and subjectivity are often regarded as unsuitable topics for science. And
this reluctance to deal with consciousness and subjectivity is part of a
persistent objectifying tendency. People think science must be about
objectively observable phenomena. On occasions when I have lectured
to audiences of biologists and neurophysiologists, I have found many of
them very reluctant to treat the mind in general and consciousness in
particular as a proper domain of scientific investigation.
… the use of the noun ‘mind’ is dangerously inhabited by the ghosts of
old philosophical theories. It is very difficult to resist the idea that the
mind is a kind of a thing, or at least an arena, or at least some kind of
black box in which all of these mental processes occur.’ [ John R.
31
2026:JHHC:32502-DB
Searle, Minds, Brains and Science-Reith Lectures (Harvard University
Press, 1984), pp. 10 and 11.]
23. Lord Wilberforce, referring to the psychological basis of physical
illness said that the area of ignorance of the body-mind relation seems
to expand with that of knowledge. In McLoughlin v. O'Brian [(1983) 1
AC 410 : (1982) 2 WLR 982 : (1982) 2 All ER 298 (HL)] , the learned
Lord said, though in a different context: (AC p. 418 B : All ER p. 301)
‘… Whatever is unknown about the mind-body relationship (and the
area of ignorance seems to expand with that of knowledge), it is now
accepted by medical science that recognisable and severe physical
damage to the human body and system may be caused by the impact,
through the senses, of external events on the mind. There may thus be
produced what is as identifiable an illness as any that may be caused
by direct physical impact. It is safe to say that this, in general terms, is
understood by the ordinary man or woman who is hypothesised by the
courts….’
24. But the illnesses that are called ‘mental’ are kept distinguished from
those that ail the ‘body’ in a fundamental way. In Philosophy and
Medicine, Vol. 5 at p. X the learned editor refers to what distinguishes
the two qualitatively:
‘Undoubtedly, mental illness is so disvalued because it strikes at the
very roots of our personhood. It visits us with uncontrollable fears,
obsessions, compulsions and anxieties….
… This is captured in part by the language we use in describing the
mentally ill. One is an hysteric, is a neurotic, is an obsessive, is a
schizophrenic, is a manic-depressive. On the other hand, one has heart
disease, has cancer, has the flu, has malaria, has smallpox….’”
(emphasis in original)
The principle laid down by this Court in the aforesaid case with all
fours is applicable to the fact situation on hand wherein this Court has
rightly referred to Section 13(1)(iii) of the Act and Explanation to the
said clause and made certain pertinent observations regarding
“unsound mind” or “mental disorder” and the application of the same
as grounds for dissolution of marriage. This Court cautioned that
Section 13(1)(iii) of the Act does not make a mere existence of a mental
disorder of any degree sufficient in law to justify the dissolution of
marriage.
32
2026:JHHC:32502-DB
35. In the English case of Whysall v. Whysall [1960 P 52 : (1959) 3
WLR 592 : (1959) 3 All ER 389] , it was held that a spouse is “incurably
of unsound mind” if he or she is of such mental incapacity as to make
normal married life impossible and there is no prospect of any
improvement in mental health, which would make this possible in
future. The High Court of Judicature of Calcutta, in Pramatha Kumar
Maity v. Ashima Maity [AIR 1991 Cal 123] has held that mental
disorder of the wife, even if proved, cannot, by itself, warrant a decree
of divorce and it must be further proved that it is of such a nature as the
husband could not be expected to live with the wife.
38. We are of the view that the High Court in exercise of its appellate
jurisdiction has rightly come to a different conclusion that the
respondent is not suffering from the ailment of schizophrenia or
incurable unsoundness of mind. Further, the High Court has rightly
rejected the finding of the trial court which is based on Ext. B-10 and
other documentary and oral evidence by applying the ratio laid down
by this Court in Ram Narain Gupta v. Rameshwari Gupta [(1988) 4
SCC 247] referred to supra. A pertinent point to be taken into
consideration is that the respondent had not only completed MBBS but
also did a postgraduate diploma in Medicine and was continuously
working as a Government Medical Officer and had she been suffering
from any serious kind of mental disorder, particularly, acute type of
schizophrenia, it would have been impossible for her to work in the said
post. The appellant husband cannot simply abandon his wife because
she is suffering from sickness. Therefore, the High Court allowed both
the CMAs and dismissed OP No. 203 of 2000 filed by the appellant for
divorce and allowed OP No. 1 of 1999 filed by the respondent for
restitution of conjugal rights wherein the High Court granted decree of
restitution of conjugal rights in favour of the respondent.”
79. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment has
categorically held that marriage is highly revered in India and we are a
nation that prides itself on the strong foundation of our marriages, come
hell or high water, rain or sunshine. Life is made up of good times and bad,
and the bad times can bring with it terrible illnesses and extreme hardships.
The partners in a marriage must weather these storms and embrace the
sunshine with equanimity. Any person may have bad health, this is not
33
2026:JHHC:32502-DB
their fault and most times, it is not within their control, as in the present
case, the respondent was unwell and was taking treatment for the same.
The illness had its fair share of problems. Can this be a reason for the
appellant to abandon her and seek dissolution of marriage.
80. Thus, the Hon’ble Apex Court cautioned that Section 13(1)(iii)
of the Act does not make a mere existence of a mental disorder of any
degree sufficient in law to justify the dissolution of marriage.
81. It needs to refer herein that the appellant-husband in his evidence
had stated that after the marriage he came to know about unsoundness of
mind of his wife. He has further stated that his wife is suffering from a
mental disorder since her birth. He has further stated in his evidence that
the respondent is suffering from such acute mental disorder and in such a
situation that their conjugal life cannot be spent.
82. But the appellant/petitioner-husband has failed to bring any cogent
evidence on record in this regard. At para-61 of his cross examination,
the appellant has admitted that he had not produced the medical paper of
the concerned doctor who treated his wife (the respondent) for adducing
evidence in the Court.
83. Further, the appellant has principally relied upon his own testimony
and the testimony of PW-2, apart from a discharge instruction slip said to
have been issued by a hospital in the United States of America.
Significantly, PW-1 himself, in paragraph-42 of his cross-examination,
admitted that the discharge papers do not record schizophrenia and merely
refer to "Altered Mental Status Unspecified".
84. He further admitted in paragraph-52 that no medical certificate
relating to the alleged illness of the respondent had been filed and that the
34
2026:JHHC:32502-DB
discharge papers only reflected symptoms such as insomnia, confusion
and abdominal pain. Thus, the very foundation of the allegation regarding
paranoid schizophrenia remains unsupported by any expert medical
evidence.
85. This Court is conscious of the settled proposition of law that every
mental disorder or psychiatric ailment does not ipso facto furnish a ground
for dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1)(iii) of the Act. The burden
lies upon the spouse seeking divorce to establish not only the existence of
such mental disorder but also that the disorder is of such a kind and degree
that the other spouse cannot reasonably be expected to live with him or
her. In the present case, apart from vague assertions of abnormal
behaviour, no evidence whatsoever has been placed on record to show that
the respondent was suffering from an incurable mental disorder or from
any psychiatric condition of such severity as would make marital
cohabitation impossible. On the contrary, the materials available on record
indicate that the respondent is an educated lady, having completed her
graduation from St. Xavier's College and having worked for several years
in a reputed airline organisation. No evidence has been adduced to
demonstrate that she had been undergoing psychiatric treatment since
childhood as alleged by the appellant or that any such fact had been
concealed by her parents before the marriage.
86. Thus, on the basis of discussion made hereinabove, it appears that
the aforesaid ground of mental illness has been raised by the appellant/
husband on the flimsy ground and taking in to consideration the aforesaid
factual aspect the learned Family Court has rightly decided the said issue
35
2026:JHHC:32502-DB
against the petitioner-husband, as such, the same requires no interference
by this Court.
87. Therefore, upon an independent reappraisal of the evidence on
record, this Court is of the considered view that the appellant has failed to
establish either the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955 or the ground of incurable unsoundness of
mind/mental disorder under Section 13(1)(iii) thereof.
88. Now coming to the impugned judgment wherefrom it is evident that
learned Family Judge while taking into consideration the material
evidence available on record and has observed that the appellant-husband
has miserably failed to establish the fact that the respondent-wife has been
incurably of unsound mind and has been suffering continuously and
intermittently, from mental disorder of such a kind and to such an extent
that the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with her. This
finding has been recorded by the learned Family Judge in the impugned
judgment at paragraph Nos- 24, 25, 26, 27 and 28, for ready reference the
same are being quoted hereunder as:
24. The case in hand some documents have been on behalf of respondent
also which is Photographs of marriage and another functions. On atching
of the same it appears that respondent along with her husband is looking in
conscious and happy mood. On watching the aforesaid photographs it does
not appear at any angle that she is suffering from mental disorder. Further
on perusal of mark Y/26 and onward documents appears that she is having
good academic record and while studying from class matric up to
graduation she has secured good marks which shows that respondent is
mentally sound lady and she is not suffering from any type of mental
disorder.
25. Though she was treated in USA and doctor has opined that she is having
some symptoms schizophrenia and she was given some medicine but only
on this basis that for a short period she was depressed due to some reason
and she was treated it cannot be said that she is suffering from mental
36
2026:JHHC:32502-DB
disorder. She is regularly attending the court on each and every dated and
she has been examined herself also and she has intelligently got her
recorded and nothing in cross has come that she is suffering from any kind
of mental disorder.
26. As per aforesaid provision the test of unsoundness of mind is such
mental incapacity which waves on in capable of managing himself/herself
and her affairs including the problem of the society and of married life and
it will be incurable if there is no reasonable hope of on being restored to
abnormal health. The conduct of the person who suffers from psychopathic
disorder is determined by such conscious or instinctive level as
distinguished from reason or intention.
27. As discussed above it transpires that petitioner was never subjected to
cruelty by his wife as because regarding cruelty no any complaint was made
by him either in Thana or in court. He has not adduced concrete evidence
that his wife was tortured her while living in sasural.
28. As such in view of the above discussion issue no-III & IV is hereby
decided against the petitioner and in favour the respondent.”
89. Thus, on the basis of discussion made hereinabove it is considered
view of this Court that the findings recorded by the learned Family Court
are based upon proper appreciation of the evidence and do not suffer from
any perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error warranting interference by
this Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.
90. This Court, on consideration of the finding arrived at by the learned
Family Judge and based upon the aforesaid discussion, is of the view that
the judgment and decree passed by the learned Family Judge is not coming
under the fold of the perversity, since, the conscious consideration has
been made of the evidences, as would be evident from the various
paragraphs of impugned judgment which are quoted and referred
hereinabove in the preceding paragraph.
91. This Court, therefore, is of the view that the judgment dated
16.12.2024 and the decree signed on 21.12.2024 passed in Original Suit
No.288 of 2023 by the learned Addl. Principal Judge, Addl. Family Court
37
2026:JHHC:32502-DB
No.-II, Dhanbad need no interference and, accordingly, the instant appeal
stands dismissed.
92. Pending I.As, 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.
38