Headline: Persistent criminal conduct and manipulation of children against a spouse constitute matrimonial cruelty warranting divorce.

The appellant-husband and respondent-wife were married on October 28, 1998, according to Christian rites and have two children.

The wife filed a suit for divorce under Section 10(x) of the Divorce Act, 1869, alleging physical and mental torture, continuous demands for money, and financial exploitation.

Specifically, she alleged that the husband mischievously added his name to the title deed of a flat purchased solely from her income and EMI deductions.

Furthermore, she alleged he illegally inducted a tenant into her company-allotted quarter without her consent.

Assaulted her and her mother on October 30, 2013, over a demand for Rs. 2,00,000.

The husband denied all allegations, claiming the property was joint and that the marital discord was caused by the interference of the wife’s parents.

The Principal Judge, Family Court, Jamshedpur, granted the divorce on August 5, 2021.

1. Whether the findings of the Trial Court regarding cruelty were perverse and based on mere presumption.

2. Whether the respondent-wife successfully established "cruelty" under Section 10(x) of the Divorce Act, 1869, to warrant a decree of dissolution of marriage.

The Court applied Section 10(x) of the Divorce Act, 1869, which allows dissolution if the respondent has treated the petitioner with such cruelty as to cause reasonable apprehension of harm.

It relied on the interpretation of "cruelty" from Dr. N.G. Dastane v. Mrs. S. Dastane, emphasizing a reasonable apprehension of injury to life or health.

Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi, stating cruelty includes conduct that adversely affects the spouse, whether mental or physical.

Regarding "perversity," the Court cited Arulvelu v. State, holding that a finding is perverse only if it ignores relevant material or defies logic.

Furthermore, it noted per Vijay Kumar Ramchandra Bhate v. Neela Vijay Kumar Bhate, that baseless allegations against a spouse's character in legal pleadings constitute cruelty.

The Court found that the parties had been living separately since October 30, 2013.

It observed that the husband had engaged in a pattern of conduct that constituted mental and physical cruelty, including using his then-minor daughter to file a false criminal case against the wife and her parents, which the daughter later recanted in testimony.

The Court highlighted the husband's involvement in several criminal cases (dacoity and Arms Act), which contributed to the wife's sense of insecurity.

The Court also took note of "Exhibit 4," photographs suggesting the husband attempted to marry another woman during the pendency of the suit, finding his and his brother's evasive testimony on the matter "fishy".

The High Court concluded that the Trial Court had properly weighed the evidence and that the husband’s actions—financial exploitation, false litigation, and criminal antecedents—rendered it impossible for the wife to live with him without reasonable apprehension of harm.

It rejected the appellant's argument of perversity, finding the Trial Court’s judgment was based on a sound appreciation of oral and documentary evidence.

The High Court affirmed that the marriage was a "legal fiction" and that the bitterness between the parties was irreparable.

The appeal was dismissed, and the decree of divorce dated August 5, 2021, was upheld.