MANOJ KUMAR vs SNEHA KUMARI
- Court
- Jharkhand High Court
2026:JHHC:32573-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
First Appeal No.310 of 2026
Manoj Kumar aged about 31 years, son of Ram Awatar
Sharma, resident of Qr. No. 10, Road No.12, Farm Area
Kadma, P.O. and P.S. Kadma, Town Jamshedpur, District
East Singhbhum, Jharkhand.
… Appellant/Applicant
Versus
Sneha Kumari wife of Manoj Kumar and daughter of Mere
Lal Sharma, resident of Radhika Niwas, Bagbera,
Harharguttu, near Prem Kunj Bagbera, P.O. and P.S.
Bagbera, Town Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum,
Jharkhand.
… … Respondent
-------
CORAM: HON’BLEMR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AKHIL KUMAR
-------
For the Appellant : Mrs. Seema Kumari Singh, Adv
For the Respondent : Mr. Jitendra Nath Upadhyay, Adv.
----------------------------
CAV/Reserved on 13.10.2026 Pronounced on 05/11/2026
Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
Prayer:
1. The instant appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Court
Act, 1984 is directed against order/judgment dated
24.01.2025 passed by the learned Additional Principal
Judge, Additional Family Court No.2, Jamshedpur in
Original Suit No. 357 of 2019, whereby and whereunder the
learned Additional Principal Judge has dismissed the suit
filed by the appellant-petitioner under Section 9 of the
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which was filed for restitution of
conjugal rights.
1
2026:JHHC:32573-DB
Brief facts of the case :
2. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleading made in the
original suit, needs to be referred herein reads, which reads
as under:
3. The marriage of the appellant and respondent was
solemnized on 22.01.2014 according to Hindu rites and
customs at Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum. After marriage
the applicant, the appellant herein, and the respondent
started living together as husband and wife.
4. It is stated that the father of the appellant has got his own
house at Adityapur, District Saraikella-Kharsawan, where
the parents and other brother of the appellant were living
and there was insufficient accommodation, due to which the
petitioner and the applicant used to live together in a rented
house at the same locality in Adityaur, District Saraikella-
Kharsawan. It is further stated that from very beginning of
the marriage there was no connection with the parents and
other family members of the applicant and only the
applicant and the respondent used to live together as
husband and wife separately. Moreover the respondent-wife
was not ready and willing to live in the joint family of the
appellant at Adityapur-2 Road No. 19., Block No. 92/1/5,
Saraikella-Kharsawan, and as per her sweet will the
appellant arranged for a rented house at Adityapur but the
2
2026:JHHC:32573-DB
respondent was not satisfied with the said rented house and
had the desire to live in Bagbera area, where her parents
were residing.
5. It has further been stated that the appellant, who was
working in Tata Steel Ltd., had no company's quarter at
Bagbera area, so the appellant failed to fulfill the demand of
the respondent, and lastly the appellant got allotment of the
company quarter bearing Qr. No. 10, Road No.12, Farm
Area, Kadma, and the respondent reside together at Farm
area, Kadma for some days but the respondent went away
to her Maike at Bagbera along with her articles, ornaments
silver and gold, cloths, and cash of Rs. 50,000/- and stayed
there leaving the appellant.
6. It is the case of the appellant that he was being harassed by
the respondent in several ways and she used to torture the
appellant mentally and physically and she disclosed that
she was not ready and willing to live with the appellant as
her mother was poisoning the mind of the respondent.
Thereafter the respondent, her mother and father asked the
appellant to reside at Bagbera as " , otherwise
GharJamai"
the respondent is not ready and willing to live with the
appellant and she wants to obtain "Divorce" from the
appellant, failing which the respondent would falsely
implicate the applicant and his entire family members in
3
2026:JHHC:32573-DB
some false cases of heinous nature including the case U/s
498(A) I.P.C and other sections.
7. It is stated that immediately the appellant tried to contact
the respondent on phone but intentionally the respondent
did not receive the call then the appellant went personally
to the parent's house of the respondent at Bagbera and
asked her to come with him to his house at Farm Area,
Kadma and to live with him but the appellant was
threatened to be falsely implicated in some false cases and
to put the applicant in jail if he would try to take back the
respondent to his house at Company's Quarter at Kadma.
Thereafter, the appellant brought the matter to Mahila P.S
and it was referred to Nyaya Sadan for restitution of
conjugal rights and the last opportunity was given to the
respondent to appear on 13.05.2019 but due to the
arrogant behavior of the respondent the matter remained
unsettled as after making the agreement, the respondent
was absent on 13.05.2019. At Nyay Sadan she did not agree
to live with the appellant and the respondent is living at her
parents’ house and in spite of several request, the
respondent is not ready and willing to restitute the conjugal
rights with the appellant.
4
2026:JHHC:32573-DB
8. It has further been stated a male child was born out of their
wedlock, namely Anant Daksh, but she used to reside at
her parent's house most of the period after the marriage.
9. It is stated that left with no other option, the appellant had
filed the suit wherein prayer was made for a decree for
restitution of conjugal rights directing the respondent/wife
to restitute the conjugal rights with the appellant.
10. On receipt of notice in the said suit respondent-wife
appeared before the learned family court and filed her
written statement stating that all the allegations made in
the plaint are incorrect and wrong.
11. It has been submitted that the respondent and appellant
lived together in a joint family and the respondent and
appellant never lived in any separate rented house in
Adityapur or anywhere. The respondent and the appellant
never resided together at Farm area Kadma as husband and
wife. The applicant never allowed the respondent to go to
her Maikey . The reality is opposite of what has been said in
the suit, in fact the appellant used to torture the respondent
physically and mentally just after the marriage. The
allegation that the mother of the respondent always
poisoned the mind of the respondent is totally false as
because the respondent was not allowed to go to her
parental house at Bagbera or talk to them on phone. She
5
2026:JHHC:32573-DB
never threatened the appellant. So far as the allegation that
the respondent did not sign the agreement arrived at Nayay
Sadan, it is stated that it is the appellant who refused to
sign the agreement made by the mediator at Nayay Sadan.
The appellant has filed the suit only to harass the
respondent, the appellant does not want to restore his
marital life with the respondent, he, rather wants to get a
divorce. It has further been stated that the respondent was
assaulted by the appellant in her matrimonial house in
small matters. She was subjected to cruelty for demand of
dowry but respondent never complained anywhere with a
hope that one day behaviour of the appellant will change.
The respondent is anxious about the future of her only son.
Accordingly, prayer was made that the suit filed by the
petitioner-appellant may be dismissed as the same is devoid
of any merit.
12. The learned family court, after hearing the parties, framed
issues and appreciated the evidences which were adduced
by the parties on the said issue and after appreciating the
same dismissed the suit against which the instant appeal
has been filed.
Submission of learned counsel for the appellant-husband
13. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the
impugned judgment passed by the learned Additional
6
2026:JHHC:32573-DB
Family Court is perverse as the learned family court did not
consider the testimony and other materials available on
record and without appreciating the same dismissed the
suit.
14. Submission has been made that at paragraph 7 of cross-
examination of RW-1, the respondent had specifically stated
that she is residing to her parental house as per her own
will and for that there is no pressure from her either
matrimonial house or her parental house and she does not
want to live with her husband and from her husband she
only wants money, for which she has filed a maintenance
case.
15. It has been submitted that when the matter came before the
Mahila Police Station, the officer-in-Charge sent the matter
to mediation and from 21.02.2019 to 13.05.2019, the
mediation took place but on 13.05.2019 the respondent
flatly refused to stay with the appellant.
16. Further, in Nyaya Sadan, the respondent imposed several
conditions and without any reasonable cause left the
appellant and refused to stay with the parents of the
appellant.
17. Submission has been made that on 04.06.2018, the
respondent went away from the house of the appellant and
when the appellant went to the house of parental house of
7
2026:JHHC:32573-DB
the respondent for searching her, the father of the
respondent not allowed the appellant to get inside.
18. Further submission has been made that the appellant is
always ready and willing to keep his wife and son with him
and wanted to lead a happy conjugal life, for which no
signature or agreement is required to be made before
mediation as the appellant by heart is always ready to lead
a happy conjugal life with the respondent but the
respondent refused to with live the appellant, which has
been clearly expressed by her in para-7 of her affidavit.
19. Submission has been made that without just and sufficient
reason, the respondent deserted the appellant and
withdrawn herself from the society of the appellant, and she
has specifically stated that she does not want to live with
the appellant and she only wants money from him.
20. It has been submitted that though, the respondent had
arrogant nature and she continuously pressurized the
appellant to become Gharjamai, but in spite that the
appellant never deviated from his stand and is always ready
to lead a conjugal life with the respondent, and therefore,
the appellant has not filed any divorce case against the
respondent.
21. One of the reasons behind the refusal to live with the
appellant is that the respondent runs a coaching centre in
8
2026:JHHC:32573-DB
the name of Sunita Coaching Centre along with her mother,
moreover she also teaches in St. Xavier Public School,
Kitadih and having self-sufficient money, she does not want
to live with him.
22. It has been submitted that though the appellant fulfilled
every criteria for restitution of his conjugal rights, but the
learned concerned family court overlook the same and
dismissed the matrimonial suit filed by the appellant for
restitution of his conjugal rights.
Submission on behalf of respondent-wife
23. Learned counsel for the respondent-wife has submitted that
at the time of her marriage cash of Rs. 4 lakhs and other
household articles was given but they started saying that
the articles are of sub-standard quality and asked her to
demand a car from her parents and Rs. 3 lakhs for a land
and when she did not fulfill their demand the petitioner-
appellant herein and his family members started torturing
her and finally on 03.06.2018 she along with her son was
ousted from the matrimonial house after pushing her and
told her not to come back and in spite of making several
requests she was not allowed to enter the house.
24. She made several request, but her husband did not come to
take her back and then she made complaint in Sakchi P.S
bearing P.S Case NO. 48/19 wherefrom the matter was sent
9
2026:JHHC:32573-DB
for mediation but he refused to sign on the agreement and it
remained unsettled. Therefore, she is staying at her
parental place as she was tortured there and her life was
not safe there.
25. Learned counsel for the respondent has further submitted
that the learned family court taking into consideration all
aspects of the matter has refused to grant relief, as sought
for by the appellant, which requires no interference.
Analysis:
26. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and gone
through the pleading available on record as also the finding
recorded by learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional
Family Court, Jamshedpur and other materials available on
record.
27. Before entering into legality and propriety of the impugned
order, it needs to refer herein the testimonies of the
witnesses adduced on behalf of parties.
28. The appellant-husband had adduced three witnesses.
29. The appellant, Manoj Kumar himself has been examined as
A.W.1 who in his examination-in-chief given by way of
affidavit dated 05.03.2022 has stated that he got married to
respondent Sneha Kumari on 22.01.2014 in Jamshedpur
and they are having a son aged 7 years. After the marriage
his wife started living with his parents but she was not
10
2026:JHHC:32573-DB
ready to live in a joint family, so he took a rented house in
Adityapur for taking care of his old parents but it was not
acceptable to her and her parents. He has further deposed
that his wife and her parents several times tortured him but
keeping in mind his marital life he did not take any legal
action and his wife and parents asked him to stay in their
house in Bagbera as Ghar Jamai but he refused to the same
then they threatened him that he will be implicated in false
cases. After his wife went away from his house, several
times he tried to bring her back but she refused. He even
tried to contact her on phone but she ignored his calls and
due to which he remained mentally tensed as he was
staying alone in a rented house in Adityapur. Due to mental
tension he is unable to work properly in Tata Steel Blast
Furnace which dangerous department.
30. He has further deposed that then suddenly he came to
know about a complaint made in Mahila P.S by his wife
which disturbed him mentally and in the police station also
his in-laws mentally tortured him and seeing all this the
Officer in Charge sent the matter to mediation and from
21.02.2019 to 13.05.2019 mediation took place but on
13.05.2019 his wife flatly refused to stay with him. As
asked in Nyaya Sadan he took a quarter in Kadma but she
imposed several conditions for staying there and lastly on
13.05.2019 she refused to stay with him.
11
2026:JHHC:32573-DB
31. He has deposed that his wife without any reasonable cause
and excuse has left him and staying with her parents in
Bagbera and working as a teacher there in St. Xavier Public
School. He has further deposed that even today even he is
ready to stay with his wife, child and his parents as his
parents are not of sound health and who needs his service.
Presently he is staying with his parents in Adityapur. He
has further stated that as per order of the court he
deposited Rs. 72,000/- in favour of his wife in three
installments.
32. In the cross-examination he has stated that his son is
studying in Tagore Academy but he is not knowing that in
which class he is studying. He got Rs. 50,000/- cash and a
car as dowry and when his wife came, she brought furniture
and household articles. He has further stated it is true that
till date his wife has not filed case U/s 498A I.P.C and on
04.06.2018 his wife went away from his house and he used
to call her on her landline number but he is not
remembering the number. He went to the house of father of
his wife searching his wife on 07.06.2018 but he was not
allowed to get inside. He did not make any complaint as he
wanted to take back his wife. Further he has denied the
suggestion that he is not having any mental disturbance
from his wife and he has filed this case to harass his wife
and her family, although his wife was also ready to go with
12
2026:JHHC:32573-DB
him. Further he has denied the suggestion that in
mediation center it was decided that he will take his wife
but he refused to sign on the agreement. Further he has
denied the suggestion that he has filed false case.
33. A.W.2 Ram Awtar Sharma who is father of the petitioner,
in his examination-in-chief given by way of affidavit dated
20.05.2022 has stated that his son got married to Sneha
Kumari on 22.01.2014 in Jamshedpur as per Hindu
customs and his son and daughter-in-law is having a son
namely Daksh out of their wedlock. After the marriage his
son was staying with his wife with him in his house but she
was not ready to live in a joint family, so his son took a
rented house in Adityapur to make his wife happy. But his
son told him that his wife is not satisfied there also. His son
took rented house in Adityapur area because he and his
wife are old and they remain ill so they needed help of their
son Manoj. But his daughter in law and his parents did not
take it in good taste, so his daughter in law always used to
fight. His daughter in law and her parents continuously
tortured his son to stay in their house in Bagbera as Ghar
Jamai and when they objected to it then they were
threatened that they will be implicated in false cases. Then
his son informed over phone that his daughter in law has
left the rented house then came to know that his daughter
in law Sneha Kumari has left his son and went to her
13
2026:JHHC:32573-DB
parental place. Thereafter his son several times went to the
parental house of his wife to bring her back but she refused
to stay with his son. He even tried to make her understand
and even met her father in his BSNL Office but he was
insulted. Then her son several times tried to contact his
daughter in law but she did not respond. Thereafter, he
came to know that his daughter in law has made a
complaint in Mahila P.S and there also his son was tortured
by his wife and in-laws and seeing it the Officer in Charge
sent the matter to mediation and from 21.02.2019 to
13.05.2019 mediation took place and in mediation centre he
was insulted and abused by the parents of his daughter in
law. However, as asked in Nyay Sadan his son took a
quarter in Kadma, Farm area but she imposed several
conditions for staying there and lastly on 13.05.2019 his
daughter in law refused to stay with his son. Then his son
in order to bring his daughter in law back filed this case.
34. He has further deposed that he and his wife is not having
any interference in the marital life of his son and daughter
in law. He several times requested his daughter in law to
allow him to meet his grandson but she did not allow him to
meet his grandson and always insulted him. His daughter
in law is staying away from his son without any reasonable
cause in Bagbera and doing job of teacher in St. Xavier
Public School. Due to which his son remains unhappy. So,
14
2026:JHHC:32573-DB
he requests the court so that his daughter in law stays with
his son and with them in a joint family happily as because
he and his wife remain ill after covid 19 and he needs
service of his son. It has been deposed that as per order of
the court his son has deposited Rs. 72,000/- in favour of
his wife in three installments.
35. In the cross-examination he has stated that he worked in
Tata Steel and retired in 2007. Further he has denied that
Rs. 50,000/- was given to his son and Rs. 3,50,000/- to
him at the time of his marriage. Initially his daughter in law
Sneha Kumari used to live properly and used to cook food
and serve to them. Further he has denied the suggestion
that his son tortured his wife and that the claim of his son
is false and he has filed this case to harass Sneha.
36. A.W.3 Ravi Kumar who is the friend of the
petitioner(appellant herein) of this case , in his examination
in chief given by way of affidavit dated 18.07.2022 has
stated that his friend got married to respondent Sneha
Kumari on 22.01.2014 in Jamshedpur and they are having
a son aged 7 years. After the marriage his friend and his
wife stayed in his parental house with his parents.
Sometime after the marriage he met his friend Manoj and he
was very perturbed and on asking him he said that his wife
is not ready to live in joint family and due to compulsion, he
took a house on rent in Adityapur. He even tried to make
15
2026:JHHC:32573-DB
wife of his friend Sneha Kumari understand but she did not
listen and started staying in the rented house. His friend
told him that his wife is not satisfied there also. When he
wanted to know the reason then his friend told him that
wife and in-laws of his friend wanted him to stay in their
house in Bagbera as Ghar Jamai and when his friend
refused to the same then they threatened his friend and his
parents that they will be implicated in false cases. After the
marriage his friend made his wife go for higher education
and he helped her in studying till graduation. Suddenly he
got information from his friend on phone that his wife has
left his house and has gone somewhere and on making
search it was found that Sneha Kumari has gone to her
parental house. His friend several times went to his in-laws
place to bring his wife but his wife refused to come back
and thereafter father of his friend tried to make her
understand and his father even went to the BSNL Office of
his father-in-law but there, father of his friend was insulted.
Then his friend tried several times to contact his wife but
she did not respond. His friend informed him that his wife
has made a complaint in Mahila P.S and the Officer in
Charge of Mahila P.S sent the matter for mediation but
there in the Nyaya Sadan wife and parents of his friend
insulted his friends and his parents and threatened them
and due to which his friend remained mentally tensed. As
16
2026:JHHC:32573-DB
asked in Nyaya Sadan his friend took a quarter in Kadma
but the respondent imposed several conditions for staying
there and lastly on 13.05.2019 wife of his friend refused to
stay with him. Then his friend took shelter of law for
bringing his wife. Wife of his friend is staying at her
parental home for last three- four years and she is a teacher
in St. Xavier Public School, Kitadih and along with her
mother she is also running a coaching center in the name of
Sunita Coaching center. Still his friend and his parents
want that Sneha Kumari stays with them happily in a joint
family.
37. In the cross-examination he has stated that he is a very
good friend of Manoj and he attended the marriage of
Manoj. In May or June 2018 his friend informed him that
his wife left his house but he cannot say the date and his
friend went to bring back his wife 5-6 times but he cannot
state the date. Further he has denied the suggestion that he
has given evidence as per instruction of his friend Manoj
Kumar.
38. On behalf of respondent three witnesses have also been
examined.
39. The respondent Sneha Kumari has been examined as R.W.1
who in her examination in chief given by way of affidavit
dated 20.12.2022 has deposed that she got married to the
petitioner Manoj Kumar on 22.01.2014 and after the
17
2026:JHHC:32573-DB
marriage she went along with her husband to her in laws
place in Adityapur-2, Road No. 19, Block No. 92/1/5 near
Kasturba Gandhi School, Seraikella and started living in a
joint family and she was blessed with a son on 27.09.2015.
Her husband is working in Tata Steel and he is getting free
medical facilities but in spite of that he never wanted to
take her and her child for treatment whenever they fell ill.
At the time of her marriage her parents gave cash of Rs. 4
lakhs and other household articles and her parents spent
Rs. 15 lakhs in her marriage. But only some months after
the marriage the petitioner and his parents started
commenting that the articles given are sub standard and
started telling her to demand a car and Rs. 3 lakhs form her
parents and when she refused then the petitioner and his
parents started torturing her mentally and physically and
she has never stayed in any rented house and it is a
concocted story. The petitioner-appellant and his parents
did not allow her to talk to her parents and she was also not
having a phone and she was also not allowed to go to her
parents’ house. When her parents used to come to her
matrimonial house they used to be abused and insulted.
She was only allowed twice to go to her parental house after
the marriage. She always stayed in joint family and the
petitioner never arranged for a separate accommodation. He
and his parents continuously tortured her mentally and
18
2026:JHHC:32573-DB
physically but she kept on bearing the torture and she used
to be assaulted after locking the door and she had to be
admitted in hospital. Several times her husband even
threatened her of taking away her life and once she was
assaulted so brutally that blood clotted near her eye. He
always asked her to tell her parents to keep him as a Ghar
Jamai but as his parents is having two sons so it is not
possible. On 02.06.2018 she gave keys of her car to her jeth
and when her husband came from office then he said that
why she gave the key and then she was badly pulled and
kicked. On 03.06.2018 her husband ousted her and her son
from his house and asked her not go come again. In spite of
her request, she was not allowed to go inside the house. She
kept on bearing the torture in a hope that in future
everything will be fine. For a reasonable period, her father
tried for a settlement but they were not ready to talk to
them unless Rs. 2 lakhs are given to them for a land. Then
she was compelled to make complaint in Mahla P.S bearing
Case No. 48/19 and from there the matter was sent in
Mediation Center, Jamshedpur and the mediation
continued for three months and she got ready to go with her
husband but finally the appellant-husband refused to sign
on the agreement so the matter was unsettled on
13.05.2019. In January 2020 she came to know from
newspaper that her husband has filed a case U/s 9 of the
19
2026:JHHC:32573-DB
H.M. Act. The petitioner has filed this case to harass her
and her family and not to restitute his conjugal right so that
he can get divorce. She was always tortured on small issues
in her in laws place but she did not make any complaint
with a hope that the behaviour of the husband will change.
40. In the cross-examination she has stated that she has not
filed any case regarding torture for dowry against her
husband till date. Her husband messaged her but she could
not see Whatsapp on that day as her phone got discharged
and voluntarily said that her husband used to delete the
message after sending it. After seeing the messages, she did
not give response as her husband was supposed to come to
her house and not to message her. It is true that she
attends all the functions of school in Kitadih and her son is
studying in Xavier Public School, Kitadih. Her husband is
capable to keep her and her child in spite of that she will
not go with him, and she is living separately from husband
since 03.06.2018 and since then there is no connection
between them. Further she has denied the suggestion that
all the allegations levelled against her husband are false
and baseless.
41. R.W.2 Mere Lal in his examination in chief given by way of
affidavit dated 11.08.2023 has stated that his daughter got
married to the petitioner Manoj Kumar on 22.01.2014 in
Jamshedpur as per Hindu customs. After the marriage she
20
2026:JHHC:32573-DB
went along with her husband to her in laws place in
Adityapur-2, Road No. 19, Block No. 92/1/5 near Kasturba
Gandhi School, Seraikella Kharswan and started living in a
joint family and his daughter was blessed with a son on
27.09.2015 namely Daksh and his responsibility is on his
daughter. Her husband is working in Tata Steel and he is
getting free medical facilities but in spite of that he never
wanted to take his daughter and grandson for treatment
whenever they fell ill, so they had to be taken to private
doctor. At the time of marriage of his daughter, he gave
cash of Rs. 4 lakhs and other household articles and he
spent Rs. 15 lakhs in her marriage. But only some months
after the marriage the petitioner and his parents started
commenting that the articles given are substandard and
started telling her to demand a car and Rs. 3 lakhs from
him for purchasing a land. When his daughter did not pay
any heed then the petitioner and his parents stared
torturing her mentally and physically and she has never
stayed in any rented house and it is a concocted story. The
petitioner and his parents did not allow his daughter to talk
to them and she was also not having a phone and she was
also not allowed to go to their house. When they used to go
to the matrimonial house of his daughter they used to be
abused and insulted. Whenever he went to bring back his
daughter she was not allowed to come. And his daughter
21
2026:JHHC:32573-DB
always stayed in joint family and the petitioner never
arranged for a separate accommodation. The petitioner and
his parents continuously tortured her mentally and
physically but his daughter kept on bearing the torture and
she used to be assaulted after locking the door and she had
to be admitted in hospital. Several times her husband even
threatened her of taking away her life and once she was
assaulted so brutally that blood clotted near her eye. He
always tortured his daughter so that they can keep him as a
Ghar Jamai but as his daughter was knowing that she was
having two brothers, so she never told him regarding that
and kept on bearing the torture with a hope that one day
the matter will settle. On 02.06.2018 his daughter gave
keys of her car to her jeth and when her husband came
from office then he said that why she gave the key and then
she was badly pulled and kicked her. On 03.06.2018
husband of her daughter ousted her and her son from his
house and asked her not to come again. In spite of her
request, she was not allowed to go inside the house. She
kept on bearing the torture with a hope that in future
everything will be correct. Several times they tried to meet
the family members of the petitioner, so that petitioner
takes his daughter but they did not allow them to enter
their house and insulted them and repeated their demand
that unless Rs. 3 lakhs is given for land they will not take
22
2026:JHHC:32573-DB
his daughter. In spite of several efforts when the petitioner
did not come and he even did not made calls, then his
daughter was compelled to lodge a complaint in Mahila P.S
bearing Case No. 48/19 and there also his daughter was
attacked by the petitioner and his family, so she was sent to
MGM by the police of Sakchi P.S and the matter was sent
for mediation in Mediation Center, Jamshedpur. Both the
parties appeared in the mediation centre for 3-4 months
and agreement was also prepared and the respondent got
ready to go with the petitioner but finally he refused to sign
on the agreement, so the matter remained unsettled on
13.05.2019. From the notice published in paper on
18.01.2020 they came to know regarding this case. The
petitioner has filed this case to harass them and to defame
the respondent and not to save his marriage. Till his
daughter was with her husband no quarter had been
allotted to him, so there was no question of staying with her
husband in a quarter in Kadma. His daughter was always
tortured on small issues in her in-laws’ place but she did
not make any complaint with a hope that the behaviour of
the husband will change and their marital life will be
restored, so she did not file any criminal case also and she
is still ready to restitute conjugal right but the petitioner
has a negative approach towards the marriage.
23
2026:JHHC:32573-DB
42. In the cross-examination he has stated that it is true that
they did not make any complaint regarding the occurrence
dated 03.06.2018 and they made complaint Mahila P.S after
10 months. His son in law till date has not come once to
take his daughter and he has even not called her on phone.
Further he has denied the suggestion that his daughter
tortured his son in law and they are also continuously
torturing him. Further he has also denied the suggestion
that his son in law wants to keep his wife and child properly
but due to their interference it has not become possible.
43. Lastly coming to the evidence R.W.3 Sunita Devi. She in
her examination in chief given by way of affidavit dated
09.02.2024 has stated that her daughter got married to the
petitioner Manoj Kumar on 22.01.2014 in Jamshedpur as
per Hindu customs. And after the marriage she went along
with her husband to her in laws place in Adityapur-2, Road
No. 19, Block No. 92/1/5 near Kasturba Gandhi School,
Seraikella Kharswan and started living in a joint family and
her daughter was blessed with a son on 27.09.2015 namely
Daksh and his responsibility is on her daughter. Her son-
in-law is working in Tata Steel and he is getting free medical
facilities but in spite of that he never wanted to take her
daughter and grandson for treatment whenever they fell ill,
so they are taken to private doctor. At the time of marriage
of her daughter, they gave cash of Rs. 4 lakhs and other
24
2026:JHHC:32573-DB
household articles and they spent Rs. 15 lakhs in her
marriage. But only some months after the marriage the
petitioner and his parents started commenting that the
articles given are substandard and started telling her
daughter to demand a car and Rs. 3 lakhs from them for
purchasing a land. When her daughter did not pay any
heed then the petitioner and his parents stared torturing
her mentally and physically and she has never stayed in
any rented house and it is a concocted story. The petitioner
and his parents did not allow her daughter to talk to them
and she was also not having a phone and she was also not
allowed to go to their house. When they used to go to the
matrimonial house of her daughter they used to be abused
and insulted. Whenever they went to bring back her
daughter she was not allowed to come. Her daughter always
stayed in joint family and the petitioner never arranged for a
separate accommodation. The petitioner and his parents
continuously tortured her mentally and physically but her
daughter kept on bearing the torture and she used to be
assaulted after locking the door and she had to be admitted
in hospital. Several times her husband even threatened her
of taking away her life and once she was assaulted so
brutally that blood clotted near her eye. He always tortured
his daughter so that they can keep him as a Ghar Jamai
but as her daughter was knowing that she was having two
25
2026:JHHC:32573-DB
brothers, so she never told them regarding that and kept on
bearing the torture with a hope that one day the matter will
settle. On 02.06.2018 her daughter gave keys of her car to
her jeth and when her husband came from office then he
said that why she gave the key and then she was badly
pulled and kicked. On 03.06.2018 husband of her daughter
ousted her and her son from his house and asked her not to
come again. In spite of her request, she was not allowed to
go inside the house. She kept on bearing the torture in a
hope that in future everything will be ok. Several times they
tried to meet the family members of the petitioner, so that
the petitioner takes her daughter but they did not allow
them to enter their house and insulted them and repeated
their demand that unless Rs. 3 lakhs are given for land they
will not take her daughter. In spite of several efforts when
the petitioner did not come and he even did not made calls,
then her daughter was compelled to lodge a complaint in
Mahila P.S bearing Case No. 48/19 and there also her
daughter was attacked by the petitioner and his family, so
she was sent to MGM by the police of Sakchi P.S. The
matter was sent for mediation in Mediation Center,
Jamshedpur and both the parties appeared in the
mediation centre for 3-4 months and agreement was also
prepared and the respondent got ready to go with the
petitioner but finally he refused to sign on the agreement so
26
2026:JHHC:32573-DB
the matter remained unsettled on 13.05.2019. From the
notice published paper on 18.01.2020 they came to know
regarding this case. The petitioiner has filed this case to
harass them and to defame the respondent and not to save
his marriage. Till her daughter was with her husband no
quarter had been allotted to him, so there was no question
of staying with her husband in a quarter in Kadma. Her
daughter was always tortured on small issues in her in-laws
place but she did not make any complaint with a hope that
the behaviour of the husband will change and their marital
life will be restored, so she did not file any criminal case
also and she is still ready to restore her conjugal right but
the petitioner has a negative approach towards the
marriage.
44. In the cross-examination, she has stated that beside this
case her daughter has also filed a case for maintenance and
it is true that her son in law is giving Rs. 7,000/- P.M to her
daughter and grandson. She cannot say whether her
daughter is ready to live with her son in law or not and her
daughter can only take decision on this. Her daughter is
staying in her house since June 2018 and since then she
has not gone to her matrimonial home. It is true that till
date the petitioner neither called nor came to their place.
Further she has denied that due to their interference the
marital life of her daughter has been disturbed.
27
2026:JHHC:32573-DB
45. It needs to refer herein that since appellate jurisdiction has
been invoked herein, therefore, before entering into merit of
the case, at this juncture it would be purposeful to discuss
the appellate jurisdiction of the High Court.
46. 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).
47. 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 the Code of Civil Procedure, the scope of
which has been dealt with by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
series of judgments.
48. 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
28
2026:JHHC:32573-DB
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.”
49. 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.
50. 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
29
2026:JHHC:32573-DB
fact. This means a higher degree of probability of happening
of something and existence of a fact.
51. 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.
52. 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.
53. Since the issue of perversity has also been raised, as such,
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.
54. 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
30
2026:JHHC:32573-DB
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.
31
2026:JHHC:32573-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.”
55. 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.
56. 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.
57. 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
32
2026:JHHC:32573-DB
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.
58. In the backdrop of the aforesaid factual and legal
circumstances, this Court has carefully examined the
impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned
Family Court in order to ascertain whether the findings
recorded therein suffer from perversity, arbitrariness, or any
patent illegality warranting interference in the exercise of
appellate jurisdiction.
59. Further in backdrop of the aforesaid factual aspect and
settled position of law, it would be apt to discuss the object
and scope of decree of restitution. The object of restitution
decree was to bring about cohabitation between the
estranged parties so that they could live together in the
matrimonial home in amity. The leading idea of Section 9
was to preserve the marriage. For ready reference Section 9
of the Hindu Marriage Act is being referred as under:
9. Restitution of conjugal rights.— When either the husband or the
wife has, without reasonable excuse, withdrawn from the society
of the other aggrieved party may apply, by petition to the district
court, for restitution of conjugal rights and the court, on being
satisfied of the truth of the statements made in such petition and
that there is no legal ground why the application should not be
granted, may decree restitution of conjugal rights accordingly.
33
2026:JHHC:32573-DB
[Explanation.—Where a question arises whether there has been
reasonable excuse for withdrawal from the society, the burden of
proving reasonable excuse shall be on the person who has
withdrawn from the society.]
60. From perusal of the aforesaid provision it is evident that if
either the husband or the wife has, without reasonable
excuse, withdrawn from the society of the other, the
aggrieved party may apply, before the court concerned, for
restitution of conjugal rights and the court, on being
satisfied of the truth of the statements made in such
petition and further taking into consideration the legal
ground that why the application should not be granted, may
decree restitution of conjugal rights accordingly.
61. Further in explanation part of the said provision, it has
been prescribed that when a question arises whether there
has been “reasonable excuse” for withdrawal from the
society, the burden of proving “reasonable excuse” shall be
on the person who has withdrawn from the society.
62. It needs to refer herein that conjugal rights may be viewed
in its proper perspective by keeping in mind the dictionary
meaning of the expression "Conjugal" wherein the meaning
of 'conjugal' as "of or pertaining to marriage or to husband
and wife in their relations to each other" is given (Shorter
Oxford English Dictionary, 3rd Edn. Vol. I page 371).
63. In the Dictionary of English Law, 1959 Edn. at page 453,
Earl Jowitt defines 'conjugal rights' thus:
34
2026:JHHC:32573-DB
" The right which husband and wife have to each other's
society and marital intercourse. The suit for restitution of
conjugal rights is a matrimonial suit, cognizable in the Divorce
Court, which is brought whenever either the husband or the
wife lives separate from the other without any sufficient reason,
in which case the court will decree restitution of conjugal rights
(Matrimonial Causes Act, 1950, s. 15), but will not enforce it by
attachment, substituting however for attachment, if the wife be
the petitioner, an order for periodical payments by the husband
to the wife (s.22). Conjugal rights cannot be enforced by the act
of either party, and a husband cannot seize and detain his wife
by force (R.V. Jackson [1891] 1 Q.B. 671)".
64. In India it may be borne in mind that conjugal rights i.e.
right of the husband or the wife to the society of the other
spouse is not merely creature of the statute. Such a right is
inherent in the very institution of marriage itself. Thus, the
restitution of conjugal rights is often regarded as a
matrimonial remedy. The remedy of restitution of conjugal
rights is a positive remedy that requires both parties to the
marriage to live together and cohabit.
65. Thus, the requirements of the provision of restitution of
conjugal rights are the following:
I. The withdrawal by the one of spouse from the
society of the other spouse.
II. The withdrawal is without any reasonable cause or
excuse or lawful ground.
III. There should be no other legal ground for refusal of
co-habitation.
35
2026:JHHC:32573-DB
IV. The court should be satisfied about the truth of the
statement made in the petition.
66. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Suman
Singh v. Sanjay Singh, (2017) 4 SCC 85 has categorically
observed that when there is evidence establishing that it
was respondent husband who withdrew from appellant's
company without any reasonable cause, appellant is
entitled to decree for restitution of conjugal rights. For
ready reference the relevant paragraph is being quoted as
under:
24. In our considered view, as it appears to us from perusal of the
evidence that it is the respondent who withdrew from the appellant's
company without there being any reasonable cause to do so. Now
that we have held on facts that the respondent failed to make out any
case of cruelty against the appellant, it is clear to us that it was the
respondent who withdrew from the company of the appellant without
reasonable cause and not the vice versa.
25. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeals succeed and are
allowed. The impugned judgment [Suman Singh v. Sanjay Singh,
2013 SCC OnLine Del 2138 : (2013) 136 DRJ 107] is set aside. As a
result, the petition filed by the respondent (husband) under Section
13(1) of the Act seeking dissolution of marriage is dismissed. As a
consequence thereof, the marriage between the parties is held to
subsist whereas the petition filed by the appellant against the
respondent under Section 9 of the Act seeking restitution of conjugal
rights is allowed. A decree for restitution of conjugal rights is,
accordingly, passed against the respondent.
26. We hope and trust that the parties would now realise their
duties and obligations against each other as also would realise their
joint obligations as mother and father towards their grown up
daughters. Both should, therefore, give a quiet burial to their past
deeds/acts and bitter experiences and start living together and see
that their daughters are well settled in their respective lives. Such
reunion, we feel, would be in the interest of all family members in the
long run and will bring peace, harmony and happiness. We find that
36
2026:JHHC:32573-DB
the respondent is working as a “Caretaker” in the Government
Department (see Para 4 of his petition). He must, therefore, be the
“Caretaker” of his own family that being his first obligation and at the
same time attend to his government duties to maintain his family
.
67. Thus, on the basis of aforesaid settled position of law, it is
evident that the court will grant a decree for restitution of
conjugal rights when one spouse has withdrawn from the
other's society without reasonable excuse. This means if a
husband or wife leaves the marital home or refuses to live
with their spouse without a justifiable reason, the other
spouse can petition the court for this remedy. The court, if
satisfied with the truth of the petition and finding no legal
barrier, may order the withdrawing spouse to return and
resume cohabitation.
68. In the backdrop of aforesaid provisions of law, on
appreciation of the evidence adduced on behalf of parties,
has taken note above, it is admitted fact that the appellant
and the respondent are legally wedded husband and wife.
Both started living as husband and wife in the house of the
father of the petitioner/appellant in Adityapur in a joint
family. One child was born to them namely Daksh who was
presently aged about 7 years at the time of passing of
impugned order.
69. It is evident from the averments made in the plaint that the
petitioner-appellant has alleged that the respondent-wife
was unwilling to reside in a joint family set-up. According to
37
2026:JHHC:32573-DB
him, in order to accommodate her wishes, he shifted from
the joint family residence and arranged a rented
accommodation at Adityapur, where both of them started
residing separately. However, even thereafter, the
respondent allegedly remained dissatisfied and frequently
quarrelled with him.
70. The further case of the petitioner-appellant is that the
respondent-wife and her parents (R.W.-2 and R.W.-3)
exerted pressure upon him to reside with them as a Ghar
Jamai . The said allegation, however, has been categorically
denied not only by the respondent-wife but also by the
witnesses examined on her behalf. No convincing evidence
has been brought on record by the appellant to substantiate
such assertion.
71. Upon consideration of the pleadings and the evidence
available on record, this Court finds that the petitioner-
appellant does not appear to have approached the Court
with a genuine intent to secure restitution of conjugal
rights. A reading of the plaint reveals that it is largely
replete with grievances and allegations against the
respondent. The same stand has been reiterated by him in
his deposition. The respondent-wife, on the other hand, has
denied the allegations levelled against her and has
specifically asserted that she herself was subjected to
cruelty at the hands of the appellant.
38
2026:JHHC:32573-DB
72. The documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the
respondent-wife, particularly the medical documents
marked as exhibits, lends support to her case that she was
subjected to physical and mental harassment by the
petitioner. The records further disclose that complaints
were lodged by her pursuant to which the matter was
referred for mediation, though the mediation proceedings
ultimately failed. The allegations contained in Exhibits-C
and D further corroborate her stand regarding the ill-
treatment meted out to her by her husband, namely Manoj
Kumar, as has also been noticed by the learned Additional
Family Court while passing the impugned order. Exhibit-A,
being the emergency prescription issued by MGM Medical
College and Hospital, Jamshedpur dated 16.02.2019,
records a history of assault and indicates that she was
medically examined and prescribed treatment accordingly.
73. The materials available on record further reveal that the
petitioner-appellant has levelled allegations touching upon
the character of the respondent-wife and has accused her of
maintaining an illicit relationship with one Sk. Siddique.
However, during his cross-examination, the appellant failed
to produce any cogent, reliable or convincing evidence
whatsoever to substantiate such serious allegations. As
such, the said accusations remain wholly unproved.
39
2026:JHHC:32573-DB
74. This Court finds it rather incongruous that while the
petitioner professes his desire to resume cohabitation and
seeks restitution of conjugal rights, he simultaneously
indulges in making unsubstantiated allegations affecting
the chastity and character of his wife. Such conduct casts a
serious doubt upon the bona fides of his claim and his
professed intention to restore matrimonial harmony.
75. It is a well-settled principle of matrimonial jurisprudence
that the foundation of a petition for restitution of conjugal
rights lies in the reciprocal entitlement of each spouse to
the society, consortium and companionship of the other.
The burden lies upon the petitioner to establish that the
other spouse has withdrawn from his or her society without
reasonable cause. Such withdrawal must be proved by
clear, cogent and convincing evidence. Equally, the
justification for such withdrawal is to be assessed on the
touchstone of whether the circumstances were such as
would render cohabitation impossible or unreasonable for
the spouse concerned.
76. In the facts of the present case, the burden squarely rested
upon the petitioner-husband to establish that the
respondent-wife had withdrawn from his society without
any reasonable excuse. However, for the reasons discussed
hereinabove, this Court is of the considered view that the
appellant has failed to discharge the said burden. The
40
2026:JHHC:32573-DB
evidence on record does not establish that the respondent
has been living away from the matrimonial home without
sufficient and reasonable cause.
77. In view of the discussions made hereinabove and having
regard to the evidence, facts and circumstances of the case,
this Court is of the opinion that the essential ingredients
required for grant of relief under Section 9 of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955 have not been established by the
petitioner-appellant. Consequently, he has failed to make
out a case for restitution of conjugal rights and is, therefore,
not entitled to the relief sought.
78. This Court has also carefully examined the impugned
judgment and order passed by the learned Additional
Family Judge. It is evident therefrom that while dismissing
the suit, the learned family has duly considered the relevant
factual aspects, appreciated the evidence available on
record and correctly applied the settled principles governing
restitution of conjugal rights. The findings so recorded are
based on proper appreciation of the materials on record and
do not suffer from any perversity or legal infirmity
warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its
appellate jurisdiction.
79. Accordingly, order/judgment dated 24.01.2025 passed by
the learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family
41
2026:JHHC:32573-DB
Court No. 2, Jamshedpur in Original Suit No. 357 of 2019,
requires no interference.
80. Resultantly, the instant appeal stands dismissed.
81. Pending Interlocutory Application, if any, stands disposed
of.
I agree (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Akhil Kumar, J.) (Akhil Kumar, J.)
05/11/2026
Alankar
/A.F.R.
Uploaded on 06.11.2026
42