ANJALI DEVI vs SHASHI KUMAR PANDEY
- Court
- Jharkhand High Court
2026:JHHC:32560-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
First Appeal No.218 of 2026
Anjali Devi, W/o Shashi Kumar Pandey, Aged about 27
years, R/o Village-Bhagwatidih, P.O. & P.S. Markacho,
District Koderma. At present C/o Sujit Kr. Pandey, Vill-
Dhodhakola, PO & PS Domchnch, District Koderma.
… Appellant/Respondent
Versus
1. Shashi Kumar Pandey, S/o Laxmikant Pandey, aged
about 34 years, R/o Village-Bhagwatidih, PO & PS-
Markacho, District-Koderma.
..Respondent/Petitioner
2. The State of Jharkhand through Senior Superintendent
of Police, Koderma, P.O. & P.S. Koderma, (Markacho),
District-Koderma.
… … Respondent
-------
CORAM: HON’BLEMR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AKHIL KUMAR
-------
For the Appellant : Mr. Pradeep Kumar, Advocate
For the Res. No. 1 : Mr. Dhirendra Kr. Das, Advocate
----------------------------
CAV/Reserved on 29.09.2026 Pronounced on 05/11/2026
Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
Prayer:
1. The instant appeal under Section 19 of the Family Court Act,
1984 is directed against order/judgment dated 05.01.2026
and decree signed on 17.01.2026 passed by the learned
Principal Judge, Family Court, Koderma in Original Suit No.
68 of 2025, whereby and whereunder the learned Principal
Judge has allowed the suit ex-parte in favour of petitioner-
husband and against the respondent-wife, filed herein under
Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and
thereby the marriage between the parties stands dissolved.
1
2026:JHHC:32560-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 between the appellant/wife (respondent before
Family Court) and respondent no. 1/husband (petitioner
before Family Court) was solemnized in 2019 in accordance
with Hindu rites and customs and after living peacefully for
a month, it is alleged that the appellant-wife started
quarreling and abusing her other in-laws leaving home
unannounced. The petitioner-husband got her medically
examined at Kanke, Ranchi whereupon she was diagnosed
and prescribed medicine for schizophrenia, bipolar disorder
and seizure. The respondent-wife, the appellant herein
despite her poor and unstable mental health refused or
avoided taking the medicines. As a result, several
panchayats, meetings at different places, dates and
occasions were held but no fruitful result emerged.
4. It is stated that pursuant to panchayat held on 10.5.2024
the petitioner-husband brought her to Markachho from
where she went back to her parental home on 16.5.2024. A
panchayat was held on 29.12.2024 at Sariya Durga Mandap
that the respondent-wife would be sent to her matrimonial
home only after proper and better treatment, but after few
2
2026:JHHC:32560-DB
months also there was no change in the behavior of the
appellant-wife.
5. In the aforesaid background, the petitioner-husband, the
respondent herein, had filed the suit before the learned
Family Court wherein prayer was made to pass a decree for
dissolution of marriage in favour of the petitioner/
respondent herein.
6. Before the learned family court, since the respondent-wife,
appellant herein, did not appear, as such the case proceeded
ex-parte vide order dated 11.11.2025, as against the
appellant-wife.
7. The petitioner-husband adduced evidence in support of his
case before the Family Court.
8. The learned family court, allowed the suit filed by the
petitioner-husband filed under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955 ex-parte for grant of decree of divorce.
9. The respondent-wife (appellant herein) being aggrieved with
the order passed by the learned family court has approached
this Court by filing the instant appeal.
10. On being noticed by this Court, the respondent-husband has
appeared and contested the appeal.
Submission of learned counsel for the appellant-wife
3
2026:JHHC:32560-DB
11. Submission has been made that the learned family court has
committed a procedural illegality during continuation of the
trial as the process of summoning in accordance with law to
the appellant has not been complied with and further no
mode of substituted service was executed.
12. It has been submitted that the learned family court has
failed to take into consideration while passing the impugned
judgment that the respondent-husband has suppressed
several material fact with regard to the cruelty done to the
appellant by the respondent and his family members i.e.,
demand of additional dowry and due to non-fulfillment of
their illegal demand, the respondent and his mother
assaulted the appellant brutally thereby made her life
critical and on 16.02.2025 ousted the appellant from
matrimonial house and snatched all stridhan like gold chain,
ear ring etc. Thereafter appellant any how reached to her
Parents house and since then she is residing at her parents'
house at Dhanbad with her daughter without any support
from her husband.
13. Learned counsel for the appellant-wife has further submitted
that the learned family Court has failed to take into
consideration the fact that the transfer petition is pending
before this Court, and notices were issued to the respondent,
but in spite of knowing everything, the respondent-husband
4
2026:JHHC:32560-DB
never informed the learned family court regarding the
pendency of the transfer petition before this Court, and
matter has been proceeded in ex parte.
14. Attention has been drawn that the entire proceeding after
declaring ex parte hearing, the learned Family court has
completed the trial just within two months, which shows
that the respondent has intentionally kept the learned family
court in dark and has proceeded into the matter in a very
haste manner just to get the impugned order in his favor.
15. Submission has been made that the impugned order has
been passed treating the statement made by the husband to
be a gospel truth, and on that basis order of divorce has
been passed.
16. The learned family court treated the statement of the
petitioner-husband to be gospel truth to the effect that the
wife has failed to take prescribed medicine for amelioration
of her mental illness, and treated such action of the wife to
be mental cruelty. But, coming to such conclusion the
learned family court did not give any clear finding as to
whether the wife is suffering from any mental illness or not.
On the contrary, no medical practitioner or medical officer
has been examined in the present case to suggest even
whether the applicant was suffering from any mental illness
or what was the extent of such mental illness.
5
2026:JHHC:32560-DB
17. Submission has been made that as a matter of fact, on the
cruelty done by the respondent-husband and his family
members upon the appellant-wife and on being ousted by
them, she left with no support for herself and her minor
daughter as she was having no source of income, she filed
Original Maintenance Case being O.M. Case No. 463 of
2025, which is pending and running at the stage of
appearance of learned Principal Judge, Family Court,
Dhanbad.
18. Therefore, submission has been made that the impugned
order may be quashed and set aside.
Submission on behalf of respondent-husband:
19. While on the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent-husband has submitted that he tried his best to
keep her wife [appellant] but she fled away to her parental
house on her own and despite several efforts being taken by
him, she did not return.
20. It has further been submitted that the appellant-wife had
treated the respondent-husband and his family members
with cruelty and his reputation and character has been
maligned constituting mental torture sufficient for grant of
divorce.
21. So far factum of notice is concerned, submission has been
made that notice has sufficiently been issued by the learned
6
2026:JHHC:32560-DB
family court but the appellant-wife purposely not appeared
in order to harass the respondent-husband and now the
present appeal has been filed only to drag the litigation.
22. Therefore, submission has been made that no interference is
required in the order and decree of divorce as granted in
favour of respondent-husband.
Analysis:
23. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone
through the pleading available on record as also the finding
recorded by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, and
other materials available on record.
24. This Court before proceeding further needs to refer herein
the factual aspect of the matter.
25. The marriage between the appellant and respondent no. 1
was solemnized in 2019 in accordance with Hindu rites and
customs.
26. It is the case of the respondent-husband that after living
peacefully for a month, the appellant-wife started quarreling
and abusing her mother in-law. The petitioner-husband got
respondent/wife (appellant herein) medically examined at
Kanke, Ranchi whereupon she was diagnosed and
prescribed medicine for schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and
seizure but the respondent-wife, refused to take medicines.
7
2026:JHHC:32560-DB
27. It is alleged by the husband that several panchayats‟
meetings were held but no fruitful result emerged. However,
pursuant to panchayat held on 10.5.2024 the petitioner-
husband brought her wife, the appellant to Markachho from
where again she went back to her parental home on
16.5.2024. A panchayat held on 29.12.2024 at Sariya Durga
Mandap that the respondent/wife (appellant herein) would
be sent to her matrimonial home only after proper and better
treatment, but after few months also there was no change in
the behavior of the appellant-wife.
28. In the aforesaid background, the plaintiff-husband, the
respondent herein, had filed the suit before the Family Court
the seeking decree for dissolution of marriage.
29. Coming to the evidence of petitioner/husband (respondent
herein) led before the learned Family Court.
30. The petitioner in order to prove his case, had examined
altogether three witnesses. P.W. 1 is Chandra Dev Singh,
P.W. 2 is Mukund Murari Pandey; and P.W. 3 is Shashi
Kumar Pandey, the petitioner-husband (respondent herein).
31. P.W. 3, Shashi Kumar Pandey, the petitioner-husband, the
respondent herein, has stated that his marriage was
solemnized with the respondent, the appellant herein, in the
year 2019 in accordance with Hindu rites and customs.
According to him, after a month respondent-wife started
8
2026:JHHC:32560-DB
quarreling and abusing his mother leaving home without
informing anyone. Despite medical prescription and advice,
she avoided taking medicines. As per panchayat meeting at
Rathai, Jainagar medical treatment was ensured by both the
families. She came to his home on 10.05.2024 pursuant to
the panchayat but left on 16.05.2024 for her parental home.
32. The other two witnesses, P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 have reiterated
the same version, as stated by P.W. 3.
33. The said matrimonial suit instituted by the respondent-
husband proceeded ex-parte against the appellant-wife on
account of her non-appearance before the learned Family
Court. Consequently, the suit was decreed in favour of the
respondent-husband, and a decree for dissolution of
marriage between the parties came to be passed.
34. Aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment and
decree, the appellant-wife has preferred the present appeal
assailing its legality and propriety.
35. Upon consideration of the aforesaid factual matrix, the
following facts emerge as undisputed and admitted by the
parties:
(i) The suit of dissolution of marriage has been filed by the
respondent husband on the ground of cruelty by taking
aid of mental illness of the appellant/wife.
(ii) The trial proceeded ex-parte due to non-presence of the
appellant/wife before the learned Family Court.
9
2026:JHHC:32560-DB
(iii) Admittedly, on behalf of petitioner/husband
(respondent herein) the doctor who had treated the
appellant-wife for mental illness has not been
examined.
(iv) The suit for dissolution of marriage was allowed in the
favour of the respondent/husband.
36. The contention has been raised by the appellant that the
learned family court treating the statement of the petitioner-
husband to be gospel truth to the effect that the wife has
failed to take prescribed medicine for amelioration of her
mental illness, treated such action of the wife to be mental
cruelty. But, coming to such conclusion the learned family
court did not give any clear finding as to whether the wife is
suffering from any mental illness or not.
37. 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.
38. 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).
39. Sub-section (1) to section 19 of the Family Courts Act
provides that an appeal shall lie from every judgment or
10
2026:JHHC:32560-DB
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.
40. 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.”
41. Further, it needs to refer herein that under section 3 of the
Indian Evidence Act a fact is said to be proved when the
11
2026:JHHC:32560-DB
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.
42. The expression "preponderance of probability" is not capable
of exact definition nor can there be any strait-jacket formula
or a weighing machine to find out which side the balance is
tilted. The preponderance of probability would imply a
positive element about possibility of existence of a fact. This
means a higher degree of probability of happening of
something and existence of a fact.
43. 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.
44. 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.
12
2026:JHHC:32560-DB
45. At this juncture it needs to refer herein the interpretation of
the word “perverse” as has been interpreted by the Hon'ble
Apex Court which means that there is no evidence or
erroneous consideration of the evidence. The Hon'ble Apex
Court in Arulvelu and Anr. vs. State [Represented by the
Public Prosecutor] and Anr., (2009) 10 SCC 206 while
elaborately discussing the word perverse has held that it is,
no doubt, true that if a finding of fact is arrived at by
ignoring or excluding relevant material or by taking into
consideration irrelevant material or if the finding so
outrageously defies logic as to suffer from the vice of
irrationality incurring the blame of being perverse, then, the
finding is rendered infirm in law. Relevant paragraphs, i.e.,
paras-24, 25, 26 and 27 of the said judgment reads as
under:
“24. The expression “perverse” has been dealt with in a
number of cases. In Gaya Din v. Hanuman Prasad [(2001) 1
SCC 501] this Court observed that the expression “perverse”
means that the findings of the subordinate authority are not
supported by the evidence brought on record or they are against
the law or suffer from the vice of procedural irregularity.
25. In Parry's (Calcutta) Employees' Union v. Parry & Co.
Ltd. [AIR 1966 Cal 31] the Court observed that “perverse
finding” means a finding which is not only against the weight of
evidence but is altogether against the evidence itself. In Triveni
Rubber & Plastics v. CCE [1994 Supp (3) SCC 665 : AIR 1994
SC 1341] the Court observed that this is not a case where it can
be said that the findings of the authorities are based on no
evidence or that they are so perverse that no reasonable person
would have arrived at those findings.
13
2026:JHHC:32560-DB
26. In M.S. Narayanagouda v. Girijamma [AIR 1977 Kant
58] the Court observed that any order made in conscious
violation of pleading and law is a perverse order.
In Moffett v. Gough [(1878) 1 LR 1r 331] the Court observed
that a “perverse verdict” may probably be defined as one that is
not only against the weight of evidence but is altogether against
the evidence. In Godfrey v. Godfrey [106 NW 814] the Court
defined “perverse” as turned the wrong way, not right; distorted
from the right; turned away or deviating from what is right,
proper, correct, etc.
27. The expression “perverse” has been defined by various
dictionaries in the following manner:
1. Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary of Current English,
6th Edn.
“Perverse.—Showing deliberate determination to behave in a
way that most people think is wrong, unacceptable or
unreasonable.”
2. Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English,
International Edn.
Perverse.—Deliberately departing from what is normal and
reasonable.
3. The New Oxford Dictionary of English, 1998 Edn.
Perverse.—Law (of a verdict) against the weight of evidence
or the direction of the judge on a point of law.
4. The New Lexicon Webster's Dictionary of the English
Language (Deluxe EncyclopedicEdn.)
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.”
46. 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.
14
2026:JHHC:32560-DB
47. 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.
48. Further Perversity is a high threshold for
intervention, distinguishing it from a mere error of fact or
law. The "safest approach on perversity is the classic
approach on the reasonable man's inference on the facts
but inadequacy of evidence or a different reading of
evidence is not perversity, reference in this regard be made
to the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Damodar Lal v. Sohan Devi, (2016) 14 SCC 197.
49. 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.
50. Herein, submission has been made on behalf of the
petitioner/husband (respondent herein) that the
respondent-wife (appellant herein) after solemnization of
marriage treated the petitioner and his mother with cruelty
15
2026:JHHC:32560-DB
and reputation and character was maligned constituting
mental torture sufficient for grant of divorce.
51. So far the allegation of cruelty is concerned, it needs
to refer herein the definition of „ cruelty’ as has been defined
by Hon‟ble Apex in the judgment rendered in Dr. N.G.
Dastane Vs. Mrs. S. Dastane [(1975) 2 SCC 326], wherein
it has been held that the Court is to enquire as to whether
the charge as cruelty, is of such a character, as to cause in
the mind of the petitioner, a reasonable apprehension that,
it will be harmful or injurious for him to live with the
respondent.
52. The cruelty has also been defined in the case of
Shobha Rani Vs. Madhukar Reddi [(1988) 1 SCC 105],
wherein the wife alleged that the husband and his parents
demanded dowry. The Hon‟ble Apex Court emphasized that
“cruelty” can have no fixed definition.
53. According to the Hon ’ ble Apex Court, “cruelty” is the
“conduct in relation to or in respect of matrimonial conduct
in respect of matrimonial duties and obligations”. It is the
conduct which adversely affects the spouse. Such cruelty
can be either “mental” or “physical”, intentional or
unintentional. For example, unintentionally waking your
spouse up in the middle of the night may be mental cruelty;
intention is not an essential element of cruelty but it may be
16
2026:JHHC:32560-DB
present. Physical cruelty is less ambiguous and more “a
question of fact and degree.”
54. The Hon ’ ble Apex Court has further observed
therein that while dealing with such complaints of cruelty
that it is important for the Court to not search for a
standard in life, since cruelty in one case may not be cruelty
in another case. What must be considered include the kind
of life the parties are used to, “their economic and social
conditions”, and the “culture and human values to which
they attach importance.”
55. 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.
56. In V. Bhagat vs. D. Bhagat (Mrs.), (1994)1 SCC
337 , the wife alleged in her written statement that her
husband was suffering from “mental problems and paranoid
disorder”. The wife ’ s lawyer also levelled allegations of
“lunacy” and “insanity” against the husband and his family
while he was conducting cross-examination. The Hon ’ ble
Apex Court held these allegations against the husband to
constitute “cruelty”.
57. In Vijay kumar Ramchandra Bhate v. Neela
Vijay Kumar Bhate, (2003)6 SCC 334 the Hon ’ ble Apex
17
2026:JHHC:32560-DB
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.
58. 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.
59. 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
18
2026:JHHC:32560-DB
Agrawal v. Sarla Vishwanath Agrawal , (2012) 7 SCC
288 .
60. 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.
61. 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.
62. For considering dissolution of marriage at instance
of a spouse who alleges mental cruelty, result of such
mental cruelty must be such that it is not possible to
continue with matrimonial relationship reference may be
taken from the judgment rendered by the Hon‟ble Apex
19
2026:JHHC:32560-DB
Court in the case of Joydeep Majumdar v. Bharti Jaiswal
Majumdar, (2021) 3 SCC 742.
63. 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.
64. 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
20
2026:JHHC:32560-DB
violence. Continued ill-treatment, cessation of marital
intercourse, studied neglect, indifference may lead to
inference of cruelty.
65. The word “cruelty” under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the
Act has got no static connotation, and therefore, gives a very
wide discretion to the Court to apply it liberally and
contextually. What is cruelty in one case may not be the
same for another and has to be applied from person to
person while taking note of the attending circumstances.
Harm or injury to health, reputation, the working-career or
the like, would be important considerations in determining
whether the conduct of the defending spouse amounts to
cruelty. It has to be shown that the defending spouse has
treated him with cruelty to cause reasonable apprehension
in his/her mind that it will be harmful or injurious to live
with the contesting spouse.
66. This Court, on the backdrop of aforesaid facts,
provisions of law and law laid down by Hon‟ble Supreme
Court, has gone into the grounds on which decree of divorce
has been granted by the learned family court and found
therefrom that allegation against the appellant-wife is that
she did not pay respect to her husband and her in-laws and
further allegation has been made that she was suffering
from mental illness for which she was advised to take
medicine which she refused.
21
2026:JHHC:32560-DB
67. While on the other hand, the specific case of the
respondent-wife(appellant herein) is that the respondent-
husband and his family members demanded additional
dowry and due to non-fulfillment of their illegal demand, the
respondent and his mother assaulted the appellant brutally
made her life critical and on 16.02.2025 ousted the
appellant from matrimonial house snatched all stridhan like
gold chain, ear ring etc. Thereafter, the appellant any how
reached to her Parents house and since then she is residing
at her parents' house at Dhanbad with her daughter
without any support from her husband.
68. A perusal of the impugned judgment reveals that
the learned Family Court has treated the appellant-wife's
non-adherence to the prescribed medical regimen as an act
of cruelty towards the respondent-husband and has
founded the decree of divorce substantially on the said
circumstance. For ready reference the relevant paragraph is
being quoted herein which reads as under:
“10. It therefore emerges that the parties though married in
2019, they have been separate since 16.5.2024, the day the
respondent left her matrimonial home voluntarily. Since
there is no rebuttal of the assertion made by the petitioner
for reason that respondent absented herself from the
proceedings of this case as such this Court has to accept the
averments made in the plaint and as affirmed in the
deposition of witnesses. The respondent failed to take the
prescribed medicine for amelioration of her mental illness
and such a conduct in the considered opinion of this Court
22
2026:JHHC:32560-DB
constituted mental cruelty. Repeated panchayat meetings
have been held and the petitioner all along would abide with
the directions issued to him and has ensured medical
treatment for her illness. The respondent however has
refused medication resulting to deterioration of her mental
condition. The petitioner in such circumstances has no other
option and has rightly sought severance from the marital
bond with the respondent.”
69. Thus, from the findings recorded in the impugned
judgment, it is apparent that the learned Family Court has
primarily founded its conclusion on the premise that the
appellant-wife refused to adhere to the prescribed medical
treatment, which allegedly resulted in deterioration of her
mental condition, and has treated the same as constituting
mental cruelty towards the respondent-husband.
70. However, it is evident that while arriving at the
aforesaid finding, the learned Family Court did not have the
benefit of any evidence from the doctor who had allegedly
treated the appellant-wife. The conclusion regarding her
mental condition and the consequences of her alleged
refusal to take medication appears to have been recorded
solely on the basis of the testimony of the respondent-
husband.
71. This Court is of the considered view that where
mental illness of a spouse is pleaded as a ground for
matrimonial relief and it is further alleged that refusal to
undergo treatment or take prescribed medication
23
2026:JHHC:32560-DB
aggravated the severity of such illness, the Court is under
an obligation to subject such allegations to careful scrutiny.
72. At the very least, an endeavour ought to have been
made to verify the factual aspects relating to her medical
condition. Admittedly, no such exercise was undertaken by
the learned Family Court. Further, it needs to refer herein
that the primary function of a Court is to adjudicate the
dispute between the parties on the basis of substantial
justice. A court's duty is to deliver substantial justice,
meaning ensuring fair outcomes based on merit of the case.
73. In the case of Jasraj Inder Singh v. Hemraj
Multanchand, (1977) 2 SCC 155 the Hon'ble Apex court
has observed that "Justice is truth, is beauty and the
strategy of healing injustice is discovery of the whole truth
and harmonising human relations. Law's finest hour is not
in meditating on abstractions but in being the delivery
agent of full fairness. This divagation is justified by the
need to remind ourselves that the grammar of justice
according to law is not little litigative solution".
74. Justice is nothing but a manifestation of the truth.
It is truth which transcends every other action and when
substantive law, as it appears, does not facilitate the
emergence of the truth, it is the paramount duty of the
Court to interpret the law in light of its teleos. Such an
exercise is warranted in a higher degree, particularly while
24
2026:JHHC:32560-DB
considering a social welfare legislation, reference in this
regard be made to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Om Prakash @ Israel @ Raju @
Raju das Vs. Union of India & Anr. 2025 INSC 43.
75. In the instant case, upon a consideration of the
discussion made hereinabove, it is manifest that the
learned Family Court has failed to consider settled position
of law that even in the absence of cross-examination or
where no evidence has been adduced on behalf of
respondent due to her or his absentia, in the adjudication
of Family Matter, the Court being an adjudicator of
disputes, is duty-bound to examine the evidence in proper
way and in possible manner for the purpose of doing
substantive justice. The obligation of the Family Court is to
ensured that the said adjudication is not rendered
incomplete merely by reason of non-appearance, but is
guided by the overarching principle of fairness and justice.
76. Further this Court is conscious of the fact that the
appellate jurisdiction conferred under Section 19(1) of the
Family Courts Act, 1984 is not confined merely to
examining the legality of the impugned judgment on a
question of law, rather, the High Court is empowered to
examine the correctness of the judgment both on facts and
on law. Thus, this Court, while exercising appellate
25
2026:JHHC:32560-DB
jurisdiction, is required to examine whether the findings
recorded by the learned Family Court are based upon
proper appreciation of the evidence available on record and
whether the procedure adopted by the learned Family Court
is in accordance with the settled principles of law.
77. It is well settled that an appellate court, while
examining a judgment and decree passed by the learned
Family Court, is required to satisfy itself as to whether the
statutory requirements for grant of a decree of divorce have
been fulfilled.
78. The mere fact that the proceeding proceeded ex
parte against the appellant/wife does not dispense with the
petitioner's/husband obligation to establish, through
legally admissible evidence, the grounds pleaded for
seeking a decree of divorce.
79. This Court further finds that the principal
foundation of the matrimonial suit instituted by the
respondent-husband was the allegation that the appellant-
wife was suffering from schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and
seizure and that, despite being advised to take medicines,
she had refused to comply with the medical advice.
According to the respondent-husband, such conduct,
coupled with her alleged quarrelsome behaviour,
constituted mental cruelty within the meaning of Section
13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
26
2026:JHHC:32560-DB
80. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to refer to
the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Ram Narain Gupta versus Smt. Rameshwari Gupta ,
reported in (1988) 4 SCC 247, wherein the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, while considering the issue of mental
disorder as a ground for dissolution of marriage under
Section 13(1)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, has held
that mere existence of a mental disorder is not sufficient to
justify dissolution of marriage. The degree and extent of the
mental disorder must be such that the spouse seeking
dissolution of marriage cannot reasonably be expected to
live with the other spouse. Mere branding of a person as
suffering from schizophrenia would not be sufficient to
grant a decree of divorce.
81. The aforesaid judgment lays down an important
principle that a matrimonial court cannot proceed merely
on the basis of a medical label or an unsubstantiated
allegation regarding the mental condition of a spouse. The
nature, extent and effect of the alleged mental disorder
must be established by reliable evidence.
82. In the present case, admittedly, the medical
practitioner who allegedly examined and treated the
appellant-wife has not been examined by the respondent-
husband. No medical officer or expert witness has been
produced to establish the alleged diagnosis of
27
2026:JHHC:32560-DB
schizophrenia, bipolar disorder or seizure. Further, no
cogent medical evidence has been brought on record to
establish the nature, severity or extent of the alleged illness
or its impact upon the matrimonial relationship.
83. This Court is of the considered view that the alleged
refusal on the part of the appellant-wife to take prescribed
medicines, without establishing the underlying medical
condition and the circumstances surrounding such alleged
refusal, could not, by itself, have been treated as sufficient
proof of mental cruelty. The learned Family Court was
required to examine the relevant facts and circumstances
before arriving at such a conclusion.
84. Further, it is equally important to distinguish
between the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) and
the ground of mental disorder under Section 13(1)(iii) of the
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Both provisions operate in
different fields and have their own statutory requirements.
A matrimonial court cannot mechanically treat the alleged
existence of a mental illness as equivalent to cruelty
without examining whether the conduct complained of, on
the basis of reliable evidence, satisfies the ingredients of
Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act.
85. The refusal or inability of a person to undergo
medical treatment, particularly in relation to an alleged
mental health condition, cannot automatically be
28
2026:JHHC:32560-DB
characterised as an act of cruelty. The Court is required to
examine the conduct in its entirety, the circumstances in
which such conduct occurred and its actual effect upon the
matrimonial relationship. Mental illness cannot, by itself,
be made a ground for stigmatizing a spouse or dissolving
the marriage.
86. In the present case, the learned Family Court
appears to have accepted the version of the respondent-
husband without undertaking the aforesaid exercise. The
absence of any cogent medical evidence assumes
significance in the facts of the present case because the
alleged mental illness and refusal to take medicines
constituted an important part of the respondent-husband's
case for seeking dissolution of marriage.
87. It is a settled principle of law that even in an ex-
parte proceeding, the Court is not expected to grant a
decree mechanically. The petitioner is required to establish
the cause of action and the statutory ground for relief
through legally acceptable evidence. The absence of the
defendant or respondent does not convert the allegations
made in the plaint or petition into admitted facts, nor does
it relieve the Court of its obligation to independently
examine the evidence and record reasons for granting the
relief sought.
29
2026:JHHC:32560-DB
88. In the present case, the learned Family Court was
required to examine whether the alleged conduct of the
appellant-wife, as asserted by the respondent-husband,
was established by cogent evidence and whether such
conduct, in its entirety, amounted to cruelty within the
meaning of Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act,
1955. The learned Family Court was also required to
consider the evidentiary value of the medical allegations,
particularly when no treating doctor or medical expert had
been examined.
89. This Court is of the considered view that the
impugned judgment and decree cannot be sustained
particularly taking into consideration the manner in which
the alleged mental illness has been considered by the
learned Family Court warrant interference by this Court in
exercise of its appellate jurisdiction under Section 19(1) of
the Family Courts Act, 1984.
90. This Court, in view of the aforesaid discussion and
upon due consideration of the legal connotation of the term
"perversity" and in light of the foregoing discussion, is of
the considered view that the impugned judgment and
decree fall squarely within the ambit of perversity.
30
2026:JHHC:32560-DB
91. Consequently, such a decree cannot be permitted to
stand, and in exercise of appellate jurisdiction, this Court
finds sufficient cause to interfere with the same.
92. Accordingly, the impugned judgment dated
05.01.2026 and decree signed on 17.01.2026 passed by the
learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Koderma in Original
Suit No. 68 of 2025 are hereby quashed and set-aside.
93. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands allowed.
94. Office shall proceed accordingly.
95. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also
stands disposed of.
I agree (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Akhil Kumar, J.) (Akhil Kumar, J.)
th
5 November, 2026
Alankar /A.F.R.
Uploaded on 06.11.2026
31