Jitendra Kumar Vs Priyanka Devi

2025:JHHC:37281-DB

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI F.A. No.105 of 2023

----- -

Jitendra Kumar, aged about 33 years, son of Vishwanath Choubey, resident of Qrs. No. 32, Street-09, B.S.L, L.H., P.O. - Siwandih, P.S. - B.S. City, Bokaro, District - Bokaro, Jharkhand. … … Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

Priyanka Devi, aged about 28 years, wife Jitendra Kumar, daughter of Satyendra Pathak, present resident of village Pathak Semri, P.O. - Raipur Chor, P.S. - Sheosagar, District - Sasaram, Bihar. … … Respondent

¶7

P R E S E N T

¶8

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI

¶9

For the Appellant : Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent : Ms. Sharda Kumari, Advocate : Mr. Aditya Kumar, Advocate

¶10

C.A.V. on 03.12.2025 Pronounced on 10/12/2025 Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

¶11

Prayer:

¶12

1. The instant appeal has been filed challenging the legality and propriety of impugned judgment passed on 31.03.2023 and decree signed on 12.04.2023 by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bokaro whereby and whereunder the Original Suit No.78 of 2019 filed by the appellant-husband under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for a decree of divorce has been dismissed.

¶13

Factual Matrix

¶14

2. The brief facts of the case of the appellant-husband as narrated in the plaint, is that the marriage of appellant

¶15

1

¶16

2025:JHHC:37281-DB

¶17

with the respondent was solemnized on 28.05.2013 as per Hindu rites and custom in the parents’ house of the respondent.

¶18

3. After marriage, they lived together as man and wife at Bokaro. Out of their wedlock, they have been blessed with a female baby viz, Vaishnavi on 10.11.2015.

¶19

4. The appellant is an employee of C.I.S.F. He is the only breadwinner of his family. His wife used to live with his family members at Bokaro. During her stay in his house, she used to harass his parents by various means.

¶20

5. On 01.07.2018, keeping naphthalene on her hand, the respondent lit fire and threatened to implicate the parents of the appellant in false case. She also instigated him (petitioner/ appellant herein) against his parents on phone and made false complaint against his parents.

¶21

6. The respondent levelled false allegations against the character of his younger brother and called him insane too. She also pressurized him to live separately with her and threatened to implicate them in Dowry Prohibition Case.

¶22

7. On 09.06.2018, the appellant without any information came to his house and came to know from neighbours that his wife abuses his whole family members. She also hatched conspiracy to live separately with him.

¶23

8. Thereafter, the appellant tried to persuade the

¶24

2

¶25

2025:JHHC:37281-DB

¶26

respondent but she threatened to get him dismissed from his service. She also falsely alleged about having his illicit relationship with his mother and Bhabi. Hearing such inhuman allegations, his mother died on 29.08.2018 due to heart attack. She also told him that he should die so that she could be the inheritor. Even her parents also used to support her.

¶27

9. On 12.09.2018, she went to his maternal parents’ house, so that she could prevail good sense, but on 08.01.2019, she pressed neck of his old aged maternal grand-mother. However, due to intervention of his elder brother viz. Ajay Kumar Tiwari, her life could be saved. The respondent also tried to kill his brother sprinkling kerosene and lighting him on fire. Thereafter, his brother Ajay Kumar Tiwari made a complaint to her parents, but they even threatened to teach them a lesson.

¶28

10. On 10.01.2019, she abused his maternal grandmother and went to her parents’ home taking away jewelries of his Bhabi, including cash amounting Rs.50,000/- and also threatened to implicate in false case. Since then, her parents and relatives used to threaten them on phone to implicate in false case. Due to such cruelty and torture by his wife, no alternative is left but to take divorce from his wife.

¶29

11. On these grounds, prayer has been made to pass a

¶30

3

¶31

2025:JHHC:37281-DB

¶32

decree for dissolution of marriage in favour of the petitioner.

¶33

12. After service of summon, the respondent-wife has appeared and filed her written statement denying the allegations of the Petitioner contending that the suit has been filed on false and baseless grounds. As a matter of fact, she is honest and a skilled housewife. She never ever harassed anyone of her in-laws by any means. She was subjected to cruelty and torture for demand of dowry. Due to non-fulfillment, they tried to kill her by burning. However, her life could be saved.

¶34

13. They have levelled false and baseless allegations against her, only to save their skin and make a ground to take divorce from her. The Petitioner wants to solemnize another marriage. At the time of marriage, her father had given sufficient household articles and cash to the Petitioner. They started demanding Rs.5,00,000/- cash, for which she subjected to cruelty and torture by them by various means.

¶35

14. There is no cause of action for filing this suit and the instant suit is not maintainable in the eyes of law. Therefore, the instant suit of the Petitioner(appellant herein) is liable to be dismissed.

¶36

15. The case proceeded for evidence during which the petitioner/appellant has produced and examined four witnesses including himself.

¶37

4

¶38

2025:JHHC:37281-DB

¶39

16. However, the respondent-wife has only been

¶40

examined from her side.

¶41

17. The learned Principal Judge, after hearing learned counsel for the parties, framed four issues for adjudication of the lis , which are as follows :-

¶42

(i) Is this suit maintainable in its present form?

¶43

(ii) Whether the petitioner has valid cause of action for the suit?

¶44

(iii) Whether the respondent (Wife) has subjected the petitioner (husband) to mental and physical cruelty after marriage?

¶45

(iv) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get the relief as prayed for?

¶46

18. Issues were decided against the appellant-husband and in favour of respondent-wife and decreed the suit on contest in the following terms:

¶47

“Thus, in the light of discussions made hereinabove and the material available on record, I am of the considered view that the Petitioner has miserably failed to prove his case that he has been subjected to cruelty (mental and physical) by his wife (respondent). So, he is not entitled to get a decree of divorce from his wife/respondent. Hence, Issue Nos. iii & iv ae decided against the Petitioner/Husband.

¶48

It is therefore, ORDERED that the suit be and the same is dismissed on contest. However, no order as to costs ”

¶49

5

¶50

2025:JHHC:37281-DB

¶51

19. The appellant-husband, being aggrieved with the judgment passed on 31.03.2023, has approached this Court by filing the present appeal.

¶52

Submission made on behalf of the appellant-husband

¶53

20. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-husband has submitted that the Learned Family Court below has failed to appreciate that the petitioner /appellant has produced credible evidence which are sufficient to establish that the respondent-wife has subjected him to cruelty and on account of cruelty, the petitioner / appellant is entitled for grant of decree of divorce.

¶54

21. The learned court has failed to appreciate the case of the appellant and has wrongly concluded that the appellant was not subjected to cruelty (mental and physical) by his wife/respondent.

¶55

22. Further, it has been submitted that the findings recorded by the learned Family Court while answering issue no. (iii) (cruelty) are perverse and based on mere presumption, therefore, the same will not stand in the eye of law.

¶56

23. It has been argued on behalf of appellant that altogether four witnesses have been examined in this case including appellant and all have consistently supported that the behaviour of respondent was very rude towards appellant and his family members and she used to quarrel and abuse them.

¶57

6

¶58

2025:JHHC:37281-DB

¶59

24. The learned Family Court has failed to consider that the ingredients of cruelty are contained in paragraph in 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 28 of the plaint and these facts have not been specifically controverted by the respondent wife but there was only an evasive denial.

¶60

25. It has been submitted that the learned Family Court ought to have considered the ingredients of mental cruelty committed by the respondent wife by filing a false criminal case after receiving summons of O.S. No. 78 of 2019 against the appellant and his family members which was clearly an afterthought.

¶61

26. The learned court has failed to consider the mental cruelty inflicted by the respondent upon the appellant by filling series of applications before different authorities imputing biased and uncalled for allegations against the appellant with an intention to malign and bring disrepute to the appellant.

¶62

27. The learned court has also failed to consider the mental pain, agony and suffering caused to the appellant by the respondent wife by making false allegations of illicit relationship with none other than his own mother and sister-in-law (Bhabhi) and ultimately which resulted in the sudden death of his mother.

¶63

28. The Learned Family Court has refused to grant the decree of divorce without taking into consideration the evidence adduced on behalf of the appellant such P.W 2,

¶64

7

¶65

2025:JHHC:37281-DB

¶66

P.W. 3 and P.W. 4 who have supported the case of the appellant.

¶67

29. It has been submitted that the Learned Family Court has dismissed the suit brought by the appellant husband in total disregard of the settled principle of law as decided in a catena of decisions wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down that if the injurious reproaches, complaints, accusations or taunts are so injurious and painful that the spouse charged with them ought not be called upon to endure and the maintenance of matrimonial home is no longer possible.

¶68

30. It has further been argued that from the evidence it is evident there is no possibility of reunion as husband and wife between appellant and respondent and it is not possible to continue their matrimonial relationship without mental agony, torture and distress hence, the impugned judgment passed by the learned Family Court needs interference.

¶69

31. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant, on the basis of aforesaid grounds, has submitted that the judgment passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bokaro requires interference.

¶70

Submission made on behalf of respondent-wife

¶71

32. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that learned trial court has rightly held that the appellant is not entitled for the decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty because the appellant has failed to prove the allegation of

¶72

8

¶73

2025:JHHC:37281-DB

¶74

cruelty against her.

¶75

33. Learned counsel for the respondent-wife, defending the impugned order, has submitted that the appellant has sought divorce on the ground of cruelty as the behaviour of the respondent-wife towards him and his parents was always rough and she used to mentally and physically torture his parents and the appellant cannot reasonably be expected to live with the respondent but the learned Family Court, after taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence, has held that the entire allegations levelled are not correct and has rightly dismissed the suit.

¶76

34. It has been argued on behalf of respondent that she never treated the appellant with cruelty rather it is the respondent who is sufferer and being tortured mentally and physically by the appellant and his family members for demand of dowry.

¶77

35. It has also been submitted that only after one month of their marriage, her elder brother-in-law and sister-in-law started torturing her for demand of dowry and they were torturing her in various ways.

¶78

36. It has been submitted that the appellant-husband never tried to create a bonding with his wife (respondent herein) as he had never taken the respondent to the place of his work even for a single day and after the death of her mother-in-law, the appellant sent her to their village with

¶79

9

¶80

2025:JHHC:37281-DB

¶81

elder mother-in-law.

¶82

37. The appellant-husband has no love and affection with his wife (respondent herein) and the suit for dissolution of marriage had been filed by the appellanthusband only to fulfill his oblique and illegal purpose and desire of divorce.

¶83

38. The appellant-husband has no valid cause of action and he is not entitled to get any relief as claimed by him.

¶84

39. Learned counsel for the respondent has further submitted that learned Family court has rightly held that the appellant is not entitled for the decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty because the appellant has failed to prove the allegation of cruelty against the respondent.

¶85

40. Submission has been made that the learned Principal Judge, Family Court on the backdrop of the evidence led by the parties has come to the conclusion that the appellanthusband has not been able to bring any such act of respondent-wife on record which can be termed as cruelty on the part of respondent and whatever allegations have been made by the appellant against the respondent, seems nothing more than the ordinary wear and tear of a family life which cannot be made basis for divorce.

¶86

41. Learned counsel for the respondent-wife on the aforesaid grounds has submitted that the impugned judgment requires no interference by this Court.

¶87

10

¶88

2025:JHHC:37281-DB

¶89

Analysis

¶90

42. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellanthusband as also learned counsel for the respondent-wife and perused the material available on record and the finding recorded in the impugned order.

¶91

43. This Court, before looking into the legality and propriety of the impugned order, requires to consider the testimonies of the witnesses, as available on record.

¶92

44. The appellant, in support of his case, has adduced four witnesses including himself. The relevant portion of the testimonies of the witnesses are mentioned as under :-

¶93

PW-1 Jitendra Kumar (appellant-husband) has stated in his examination-in-chief that his marriage with the respondent was solemnized on 28.05.2013 as per Hindu rites and custom. Out of their wedlock, they have been blessed with a female baby viz. Vaishnavi, born on 10.11.2015.

¶94

He is posted as A.S.I., in C.I.S.F. At the time of filing of the suit, he was posted at Ranchi Airport, but at present he is posted in Varanasi.

¶95

He has further stated that after marriage, they were living in Bokaro in a joint family consisting his four brothers. His father has lost his eye sight and is under treatment in Ranchi. He is the only earning member of his family. His elder brother is living in their maternal grand-father's home.

¶96

He has stated that his wife (respondent) was living with his parents. Her behaviour towards him and his parents was

¶97

11

¶98

2025:JHHC:37281-DB

¶99

always rough and she used to mentally and physically torture his parents.

¶100

It has been stated that on 01.07.2018, by placing camphor on her hand, she tried to burn it and threatened his parents to implicate them in false case. She used to call him on phone and instigate him against his parents.

¶101

He has stated that his elder brother and elder sister-inlaw are living in their maternal grand-father's home at Bhairwa, P.S., Kargahar, Rohtas (Bihar). His elder brother when talked with the parents of the respondent, they have threatened him to implicate in false case. The respondent used to call his younger brother Mahender Kumar Choubey characterless and mentally ill.

¶102

He has further stated that the respondent-wife pressurized him to live separately from his family, otherwise threatened to implicate them in false case.

¶103

He has stated that on 09.06.2018, without informing anyone, he came to his house and talked to his neighbours. He got information that the respondent used to abuse his family members. He tried to talk to the family members of the respondent but they have threatened him to get him removed from his job and also alleged to have an illicit relationship with his mother and sister-in-law.

¶104

He has stated that his mother died on 29.08.2018 of heart attack. The respondent on 12.09.2018 went to his maternal grand-father's house and tried to press the neck of

¶105

12

¶106

2025:JHHC:37281-DB

¶107

his maternal grand-mother on 08.01.2019. On her hullah, his elder brother came and saved her life. Then she tried to sprinkle Kerosene oil on Ajay Kumar Tiwari and tried to set him on fire. Ajay Kumar Tiwari had informed her parents, but they have threatened him.

¶108

He has further stated that on 10.01.2019, she again abused his maternal grand-mother and by taking away jewelleries and Rs.50,000/- cash from his elder sister-in-law, went to her parents’ home. He was informed by his maternal grand-mother and family members, then he has filed the case for dissolution of marriage.

¶109

He has stated that the respondent-wife has filed a case in Kargahar P.S.Case No. 228 of 2019 u/S. 498A/34 IPC. Further, he has stated that they have purchased the house from BSL. His brother Mahender Kumar Choubey is Home Guard, posted in Bokaro. His elder brother lives in their maternal grand-father's home and looks after their properties. He has not filed any complaint anywhere regarding atrocities committed by his wife. He lived with his wife for about 250 days. At present, his wife is living with his family members in Bokaro. He never took her at his place of posting. When he used to go to his duty, she never cooked food.

¶110

Further, he has stated that he has not filed any case for restitution of conjugal rights against his wife. A Panchayati was held in Sasaram. At that that, his wife was in her

¶111

13

¶112

2025:JHHC:37281-DB

¶113

parents’ home. That Panchayati was attended by his wife, his father-in-law and maternal father-in-law viz. Bipin Choubey. He only attended from his side. Though the proceeding was jotted down, but he has no document to show regarding the said Panchayati.

¶114

He has admitted that in the medical papers of his mother, nowhere it is written that his mother died due to torture by the respondent. He has given in writing in Kargahar Police Station regarding the occurrence of 17.11.2018. He has admitted that before filing of this case, his wife has not filed any case against him. Since 10.01.2019, the respondent is living in her parents home.

¶115

He admits that in August when she came to Ranchi, he has given Rs.5,000/- to her and after that he has not paid any money. He does not know who is maintaining his wife and daughter. He admits that he is responsible to maintain his wife and daughter, but he cannot say whether his wife is ready to live with him or not. He denied that for getting more dowry, he has filed this case. He has denied the case of the respondent. He admits that 5-6 months prior to death of his mother, she underwent a surgery in Stomach in Sasaram. He also admits that his father is a Diabetic and due to diabetes, he lost his eye sight.

¶116

PW-2 Dinanath Pandey (Neighbour) has stated same

¶117

facts as stated by PW-1 (Petitioner) in his examination-in-

¶118

14

¶119

2025:JHHC:37281-DB

¶120

chief and further stated that he knows the family of both the parties and have friendly relation with them.

¶121

He admits that the Petitioner and his learned Counsel have told him what to say in his evidence.

¶122

He admits that as per advice of learned Counsel of the Petitioner, he has deposed before the court.

¶123

He has stated that the respondent used to quarrel with her father-in-law and mother-in-law. In his presence, the respondent put camphor on her hand and tried to burn it. In his presence, the respondent has alleged younger brother of the Petitioner as a characterless, but he cannot give the details. He cannot say whether the petitioner is maintaining his wife or not. He denied the case of the respondent.

¶124

He has stated that the mother of the petitioner died due to quarreling.

¶125

PW-3 Siya Devi (Neighbour) has also stated the same facts as stated by PWs. 1 & 2 in their examination-in-chief and further stated that she is next door neighbour of the petitioner. At first, the respondent has filed a case. She admits that the Petitioner is not maintaining his wife and daughter and he never took the respondent with him at his place of posting. Mother of the Petitioner told her about physical and mental cruelty and she is not an eye witness. She was informed by the Petitioner about conduct and behaviour of the respondent.

¶126

15

¶127

2025:JHHC:37281-DB

¶128

PW-4 Ajay Tiwari (Brother) has supported the case of the Petitioner in his examination-in-chief and further stated that his younger brother (Petitioner) is posted in Varanasi Airport. The respondent was living with her father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law and her daughter. He lives in his maternal grand-father's house. He came to know about the case by his parents and the Petitioner. His mother died due to heart attack. He states that no document was prepared in the Panchayati.

¶129

45. The respondent-wife has only been examined from her side. The relevant portion of the testimony is being dealt hereunder as :-

¶130

RW-1 Priyanka Devi (Respondent) has fully supported her case in her examination-in-chief and has further stated that her marriage with the Petitioner was solemnized on 28.05.2013 as per Hindu rites and custom. Out of their wedlock, they have been blessed with a daughter, viz. Vaishnavi, aged about 06 years. Gifts were given at the time of her marriage by her father.

¶131

She has further stated that after 01 months of their marriage her elder brother-in-law and sister-in-law started torturing her for demand of dowry.

¶132

She has stated that on 01.01.2014, she came to Bokaro to live with her father-in-law and mother-in-law. Her husband was posted in C.I.S.F., Hyderabad. Her mother-inlaw used to advise the petitioner to take her at his place of

¶133

16

¶134

2025:JHHC:37281-DB

¶135

posting, but he was not ready to take her with him rather asked her to look after his parents.

¶136

She has further stated that after birth of their daughter, her elder brother-in-law and sister-in-law used to assault her. On 01.07.2018, her sister-in-law and in-laws tried to put her on fire. Whenever she used to pray, her sister-in-law asked her to place a camphor on her hand instead of a bowl and forcibly put her on fire.

¶137

She has stated that her husband never came to see her and always used to quarrel with his mother for money. After death of her mother-in-law, her husband sent her to the village with her elder mother-in-law where she was not given food and he used to abuse her.

¶138

On 17.01.2019, when her husband came, he started demanding Rs.5,00,000/- as dowry and since then she is living in her parents, home.

¶139

She has also stated that she has tried for restitution of their conjugal rights, but they are not ready to keep her without payment of Rs.5,00,000/-. On 10.07.2022, even she went to her matrimonial home, but she was not allowed in her matrimonial home.

¶140

She has further stated that village, Bhairwa is village of maternal grand-father of her husband. After marriage, she went to Bhairwa.

¶141

She denied that her father-in-law has lost his eye sight. She was living in a joint family in her matrimonial home. She

¶142

17

¶143

2025:JHHC:37281-DB

¶144

admits that she has filed a criminal case in Sasaram under Dowry Prohibition Act against her husband. Before that, she has not filed any case. She denied that she lit camphor by placing it on her hand. She admits that she has made complaint in C.I.S.F. in writing on 18.01.2022 to D.G.P., C.I.S.F, New Delhi.

¶145

46. From the testimony, as referred hereinabove, it is evident that the appellant-husband has been examined as P.W.1 before the Family Court, who in his deposition has mainly taken the ground of bad behaviour of his wife toward him and his family members. He has deposed that he has not filed any complaint anywhere regarding atrocities committed by his wife.

¶146

47. From the aforesaid testimony of the appellant-husband it is evident that though cruelty has been pleaded by him in his petition, but no cogent evidence has been produced by him to prove the allegations.

¶147

48. The respondent-wife has been examined as RW-1 who has stated that after their marriage her elder brother-in-law and sister-in-law started torturing her for demand of dowry.

¶148

She has further stated that she has tried for restitution

¶149

of their conjugal rights, but they are not ready to keep her without payment of Rs.5,00,000/-. They were compelling her to work in cowshed and her husband had no affection for her.

¶150

18

¶151

2025:JHHC:37281-DB

¶152

She has stated that her mother-in-law used to advise the petitioner/appellant to take her at his place of posting, but he was not ready to take her with him.

¶153

She has further stated that after birth of their daughter, her elder brother-in-law and sister-in-law used to assault her.

¶154

She has stated that the allegation levelled against her in the petition is false, concocted and are baseless.

¶155

49. The learned Principal Judge, from the statements of the witnesses so produced on behalf of the parties, has come to the conclusion that appellant has failed to prove the grounds of alleged cruelty pleaded by him in his petition. 50. In the context of the aforesaid factual aspect only seminal issue has to be decide herein that “Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get divorce dissolving the marriage of the plaintiff/husband with OP/wife on ground of cruelty U/s 13(1) (i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955?

¶156

51. Since the learned counsel for the appellant has raised the issue of perversity by contending that the findings recorded by the learned Family Court while answering issue no. (iii) (cruelty) are perverse, therefore, before addressing the aforesaid seminal issue it would be apt to discuss herein the appropriate meaning of word “perverse”.

¶157

52. 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

¶158

19

¶159

2025:JHHC:37281-DB

¶160

been interpreted by the Hon'ble Apex Court which means that there is no evidence or erroneous consideration of the evidence.

¶161

53. 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:

¶162

"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.

¶163

20

¶164

2025:JHHC:37281-DB

¶165

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.

¶166

The expression "perverse" has been defined by various dictionaries in the following manner:

¶167

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.

¶168

The New Oxford Dictionary of English, 1998 Edn.

¶169

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.

¶170

Stroud's Judicial Dictionary of Words & Phrases, 4th Edn.

¶171

"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."

¶172

54. Thus, from the aforesaid it is evident that if any order made in conscious violation of pleading and law then it will come under the purview of perverse order. Further “perverse verdict" may probably be defined as one that is not only

¶173

21

¶174

2025:JHHC:37281-DB

¶175

against the weight of evidence but is altogether against the evidence.

¶176

Issue of Cruelty

¶177

55. Now this Court is adverting to the issue of cruelty. It requires to refer herein the definition of ‘ cruelty’ as has been defined by Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgment rendered in Dr. N.G. Dastane Vs. Mrs. S. Dastane [(1975) 2 SCC 326],

¶178

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.

¶179

56. 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.

¶180

57. 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 present. Physical cruelty is less ambiguous and more “a

¶181

22

¶182

2025:JHHC:37281-DB

¶183

question of fact and degree.”

¶184

58. 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.”

¶185

59. 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.

¶186

60. 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”.

¶187

61. In Vijay Kumar Ramchandra Bhate v. Neela Vijay Kumar Bhate, (2003)6 SCC 334 the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed by taking into consideration the allegations levelled by the husband in his written statement that his

¶188

23

¶189

2025:JHHC:37281-DB

¶190

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.

¶191

62. 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.

¶192

63. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vidhya Viswanathan v. Kartik Balakrishnan , (2014) 15 SCC 21 has specifically held that cruelty is to be determined on whole facts of the case and the matrimonial relations between the spouses and the word ‘cruelty’ has not been defined and it has been used in relation to human conduct or human behaviour. It is the conduct in relation to or in respect of matrimonial duties and obligations. It is a course of conduct and one which is adversely affecting the other.

¶193

24

¶194

2025:JHHC:37281-DB

¶195

64. Thus, from the aforesaid settled position of law it is evident 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.

¶196

65. 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.

¶197

66. In the backdrop of the aforesaid settled position of law this Court is now reverting to the fact of the case. It has been stated by the appellant/husband that the respondent/wife used to quarrel and her behaviour towards him and his parents was always rough and she used to mentally and physically torture his parents.

¶198

67. Per contra the respondent/wife had stated in her testimony before the learned Family Court that the members of her matrimonial home were pressurizing her to bring Rs.5,00,000/- in cash from her father and she has tried for restitution of their conjugal rights, but they are not ready to keep her without payment of Rs.5,00,000/-. On 10.07.2022, even she went to her matrimonial home, but she was not allowed in her matrimonial home.

¶199

25

¶200

2025:JHHC:37281-DB

¶201

68. Admittedly, the plea of cruelty has been raised by the appellant husband thus onus is upon him to prove the fact of cruelty caused upon him by the respondent/wife. It is evident from the oral evidence of petitioner that the petitioner has himself said in his evidence as P.W. 1 that one day when he came to his house without informing anyone, and talked with his neighbours, he got information that the respondent used to abuse his family members, meaning thereby, he has never seen his wife abusing or misbehaving with his family members. Had it been a case, his family members would have told the appellant about the misbehaviour of the respondent.

¶202

69. Further appellant has stated Panchayati was held and the same was attended by his wife, his father-in-law and maternal father-in-law viz. Bipin Choubey and the proceeding was jotted down, but he has no document to show regarding the said Panchayati.

¶203

70. Further he himself admitted that he never took her (respondent) at his place of posting and he further admitted that he does not know who is maintaining his wife and daughter.

¶204

71. From the aforesaid factual aspect, it is evident that appellant himself has not fulfilled his marital obligation. Further, the aforesaid statement of appellant/petitioner clearly indicates that whatever the allegation has been made by the appellant/petitioner regarding the alleged cruelty on

¶205

26

¶206

2025:JHHC:37281-DB

¶207

behalf of respondent/wife are nothing more than daily abrasion of a marital life.

¶208

72. Further, the respondent/wife has said that her husband/appellant was never loving towards her and the said statement of respondent is being fully corroborated from this fact also that her mother-in-law used to advise the petitioner to take her at his place of posting, but he was not ready to take her with him rather asked her to look after his parents.

¶209

73. Thus, from the aforesaid it is evident that the appellant husband has not produced any cogent evidence in regard to the cruelty which has been subjected to him by the respondent/wife and he had categorically stated that he had not lodged any complainant regarding the alleged occurrence.

¶210

74. The learned Family Court has finally observed that “ in the light of discussions made hereinabove and the material available on record, I am of the considered view that the Petitioner has miserably failed to prove his case that he has been subjected to cruelty (mental and physical) by his wife (respondent). So, he is not entitled to get a decree of divorce from his wife/respondent. Hence, Issue Nos. iii & iv ae decided against the Petitioner/Husband. ”

¶211

75. This Court, based upon the aforesaid discussions on the issue of cruelty, is of considered view that the issue of cruelty as has been alleged by the appellant-husband

¶212

27

¶213

2025:JHHC:37281-DB

¶214

against his wife could not be proved because no cogent evidence to that effect has been produced by the appellant and further since, the learned Principal Family Judge after appreciating the entire evidence had recorded its finding, therefore, it is considered view of this Court that the appellant/petitioner has failed to establish the element of perversity in the aforesaid finding of the learned Family Court.

¶215

76. This Court, based upon the aforesaid discussions on the issue of cruelty, is of considered view that the issue of cruelty as has been alleged by the appellant-husband against his wife could not be proved because no concrete evidence to that effect has been produced by the appellant.

¶216

77. Thus, as per the discussions made hereinabove and law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court which has also been referred herein above this Court has no reason to take different view that has been taken by the learned Family Court proving the ground of cruelty.

¶217

78. Accordingly, seminal issue as framed by this Court is decided against the appellant-husband, therefore it is considered view of this Court that the learned Family Court had rightly not granted the decree of divorce in favour of the appellant husband on the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, as such, the same requires no interference by this Court.

¶218

28

¶219

2025:JHHC:37281-DB

¶220

79. This Court, on the basis of discussions made hereinabove, is of the view that the judgment dated 31.03.2023 and decree signed on 12.04.2023 by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bokaro whereby and whereunder the Original Suit No.78 of 2019 filed by the appellant-husband under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for a decree of divorce has been dismissed, requires no interference by this Court.

¶221

80. Accordingly, the instant appeal fails and is dismissed.

¶222

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

¶223

I agree.

¶224

(Arun Kumar Rai, J.)

¶225

(Arun Kuma Rai, J.)

¶226

Date : 10/12/2025