Dismissed¶44

Appu God v. Chanda Jha

Jharkhand HC14 Jul 2025FA/315/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

First Appeal No.315 of 2023, High Court of Jharkhand (DB), decided 14.07.2025 — restitution of conjugal rights; Section 9 Hindu Marriage Act; Section 19(1) Family Courts Act; decree for restitution granted to wife by Family Court Dumka upheld; perverse finding / perversity standard (Arulvelu (2009) 10 SCC 206); burden of proving reasonable excuse on withdrawing spouse; Suman Singh v. Sanjay Singh (2017) 4 SCC 85; no evidence adduced by appellant-husband; cruelty and desertion allegations; Original Suit No.66 of 2020; appeal dismissed.

What did the court decide?

None to the appellant; the appeal was dismissed and pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of, leaving intact the Family Court's decree for restitution of conjugal rights in favour of the respondent-wife. ¶44

Appu God Vs Chanda Jha — Matrimonial and Divorce | Jharkhand HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶44

Issue for consideration

Is the suit maintainable in its present form? +4 more

¶75

Ratio / Principle

A finding is 'perverse' where it is arrived at by ignoring or excluding relevant material, by taking into consideration irrelevant material, or where it outrageously defies logic as to suffer from the vice of irrationality; 'perverse' means there is no evidence or erroneous consideration of the evidence.

¶111

Key takeaways

A decree for restitution of conjugal rights is granted when one spouse has withdrawn from the other's society without reasonable excuse; the requirements are (i) withdrawal by the respondent from the society of the petitioner, (ii) withdrawal without reasonable cause or lawful ground, (iii) no other legal ground for refusal, and (iv) the court's satisfaction as to the truth of the statements in the petition.ratio¶40
Where a question arises whether there has been reasonable excuse for withdrawal from the society of the other spouse, the burden of proving such reasonable excuse lies on the spouse who withdrew from the society.ratio¶133

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND (Ranchi) — Double Bench (Sujit Narayan Prasad & Rajesh Kumar, JJ.; order per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.), Order No.09 dated 14.07.2025 — First Appeal No.315 of 2023 preferred under S.19(1) of the Family Courts Act against the judgment dated 11.11.2023 and decree dated 22.11.2023 of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dumka in Original Suit No.66 of 2020, whereby the wife's petition under S.9 of the Hindu Marriage Act was allowed and a decree for restitution of conjugal rights granted in her favour. The Court recalled the test of perversity — a finding unsupported by evidence, or arrived at by ignoring or excluding relevant material or by considering irrelevant material, or one that outrageously defies logic (Arulvelu, (2009) 10 SCC 206) — and the requisites of a restitution decree under S.9, Hindu Marriage Act, including the statutory burden on the withdrawing spouse to prove 'reasonable excuse' (Suman Singh v. Sanjay Singh, (2017) 4 SCC 85). Three witnesses testified for the wife; no evidence was adduced by the husband. Finding that the wife had bonafidely and consistently sought to lead a happy conjugal life while the husband avoided her without any reasonable excuse, the Court held that the impugned judgment and decree needed no interference, dismissed the appeal and disposed of the pending I.As.

¶1

2025:JHHC:19640-DB

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

First Appeal No.315 of 2023

¶4

-----

¶5

Appu God, aged about 38 years, S/o late Makrand Jha, R/o VillageDumariya, PO-Dumariya, PS-Godda(M), Dist.-Godda, Jharkhand, permanent Address. Mohalla-Saketpuri, Ward No.-7, PS+Town+Dist.Godda ......… Appellant/Defendant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Chanda Jha, W/o Appu God, present address D/o Ruplal Jha, R/o villageSukhjora, PO-Petsar, PS-Jarmundi, Dist-Dumka, Jharkhand, Permanent Address, Vill.-Dumaria, PO-Dumaria, PS-Godda (M), Dist.-Godda

¶8

… …Respondent/Plaintiff

¶9

¶10

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

¶11

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

¶12

¶13

For the Appellant : Mr. Pankaj Kumar Choudhary, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Abhijeet Kumar, Advocate

¶14

¶15

Order No.09/Dated:14.07.2025

¶16

Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

¶17

The instant appeal under section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act is directed against the judgment dated 11.11.2023 and the decree dated 22.11.2023 passed in Original Suit No.66 of 2020 by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dumka (in short, Family Judge) whereby and whereunder the petition filed by the respondent-wife under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act has been allowed.

¶18

The brief facts of the case as pleaded in the plaint having been recorded by the learned Family Judge, needs to be referred herein as:

¶19

(i) The marriage of the appellant with the respondent was solemnized on 12.05.2013 according to Hindu rites and customs at Basukinath Temple, Dumka and after marriage they started living as wife and husband at village-Dumaria and subsequently at Saketpuri in Godda District.

¶20

2025:JHHC:19640-DB

¶21

(ii) It is pleaded that out of the wedlock the couple was blessed with a male child namely Apurva Jha aged 05 years at the time of filing of Original Suit No.66 of 2020.

¶22

(iii) It is pleaded in the plaint that after two months of marriage the plaintiff (respondent herein) came back to the parent's house at village Sukhjora, P.S. Petsar, P.S. Jarumundi, DistrictDumka for performance of 'Madhusrawani' where participation of the defendant (the appellant) was also required but he avoided otherwise. During her stay at Dumaria, her in-laws started torturing her through various methods like taunting her about her looks, upbringing, family background, cooking skills, educational status etc. The taunts increased day by day and verbal abuse in daily life became a regular phenomenon.

¶23

(iv) It is pleaded that the verbal torture then led to physical abuse. In the year 2014, the plaintiff's sister-in-law's husband died due to heart attack and in 2018 her father-in-law died due to Blood Cancer. She was branded as an ominous/ill-omened woman who caused deaths in the family. After the death of the plaintiff's father-in-law, the plaintiff and the defendant started residing at another house of her father-in-law at Mohalla Saketpuri, Ward no.7, P.S. Godda Town, District- Godda.

¶24

(v) It is alleged that during he stay at Saketpuri the plaintiff was selfemployed as she used to give tuitions to students of primary school which was not liked by the mother-in-law and she forced the plaintiff to stop giving tuitions. The defendant was employed as a computer operator (contact) at Collectorate, Godda. He was

¶25

¶26

2025:JHHC:19640-DB

¶27

removed on charges of discipline and corruption in November, 2019.

¶28

(vi) It is alleged that after loss of job, the defendant (appellant herein) became ill-tempered and started torturing the plaintiff citing small excuses. The mother-in-law and sister-in-law used the defendant in causing more mental and physical agony to the plaintiff. In December 2019 while the plaintiff was residing at Mohalla Saketpuri, Ward no.7, P.S. Town, District- Godda the defendant and his mother hatched a conspiracy against the plaintiff by sending her to bring grocery and in her absence, they took plaintiff's 05 years old child to their native place at village Dumaria, P.O. Dumaria, P.S. Muffasil, District-Godda.

¶29

(vii) It is alleged that the by that act, the plaintiff was left to die. When the plaintiff tried to meet her child, she was denied entry at her inlaws house at Dumaria. When the father of the plaintiff got the information of the above incident, he brought the plaintiff to village Sukhjora, P.O. Petsar, P.S. Jarmundi, District- Dumka.

¶30

(viii) It is alleged that the plaintiff started residing with her parents since December 2019 and the defendant has not heeded to any reconciliatory calls/ meeting called by the father of the plaintiff. Not only this; the defendant has threatened that he will remarry. The defendant sent a pleader's notice dated 09.05.2020 to the plaintiff. In the pleader's notice, the defendant has accused the plaintiff that she had taken away all the gold jewellery. The accusation is completely untrue as the plaintiff is not in possession of any gold jewellery. The defendant has also claimed that he came several

¶31

¶32

2025:JHHC:19640-DB

¶33

times to Sukhjora but the plaintiff is not ready to go with him. Such claim of defendant is completely false.

¶34

It is alleged that the plaintiff, however welcome the endeavour of the defendant for 'Bidai' and is ready to go to her in-law's house if the defendant comes to plaintiff's parental house at Sukhjora, Dumka because according to customs of Brahmin Society the bride goes to the matrimonial home with her groom. God has graced fortune of plaintiff when a residence in the name of plaintiff under P.M. Awas scheme was sanctioned, built at Saketpuri of Godda Town. She along with her son has been residing therein and she started giving tuition of Students, was living peacefully and satisfactorily but defendant, his mother has interfered into, resisted guardian of students. So, to malign social reputation and livelihood, peace of plaintiff.

¶35

It is alleged that the plaintiff apprehends danger of her life at the hands of the defendant and his family members at the house at Dumaria so she wishes the defendant to take her with him at the house at Mohala Saketpuri, Ward No.7, P.S.-Godda Town, District-Godda where the neighbours are kind and may help her in case of any emergency

¶36

On the aforesaid ground, the plaintiff/wife has, therefore, prayed

¶37

for passing an order directing the defendant to approach the plaintiff at Sukhjora and take her back to the matrimonial home forthwith for restitution of her conjugal rights with full dignity including provision of her residence at Saketpuri, with her son.

¶38

It needs to mention herein that in Original Suit No.66 of 2020 upon issuance of the notices, the defendant (the appellant herein) has appeared and filed a written statement denying all the allegations levelled against her by the appellant-husband.

¶39

¶40

2025:JHHC:19640-DB

¶41

It is alleged in the written statement stating therein that save and except what are expressly admitted in this written statement all the allegations levelled against him are vehemently denied and put the plaintiff to the strict proof thereof.

¶42

It is alleged that the suit is not maintainable on the point of nonjoinder of necessary party. He has admitted the factum of marriage with the plaintiff and birth of child out of their wedlock. He has stated that he has not neglected her nor ignored the plaintiff or made any distance, she herself at her own accord left the defendant and the son along with old mother with the reason best known to her.

¶43

It needs to mention herein that in course of mediation as well as in this written statement, the defendant has shown his inclination to keep the plaintiff with due regard and dignity of wife as their own family. It will be evident from the petition that no allegation has been levelled by the plaintiff against physical and social life of the defendant but it is elder one who have put bar and their old age. It is admittedly true that in comparison to economic status the defendant is weak than the plaintiff even after the discharge om the service has not neglected the plaintiff and tried to maintain till now and if there had been any incident with the plaintiff at Dumariya or Godda it must be reported to the police station concerned either Godda Muffasil or town not the same has been alleged to the person of locality and it is totally false to say that the defendant is not eager for bidai rather has become fed up to make request to them and her family elders to give ‘ bidagiry’ even undertaking written bond defendant express his great desire for bidagiry even from Court or any terms or condition or as ordered by Court, which deems fit and proper as

¶44

¶45

2025:JHHC:19640-DB

¶46

the defendant has to look after the boy and old mother .e. from kitchen to nourishment and earning in absence of any rest in between day and night.

¶47

Learned Family Judge, after institution of the said case, taking into consideration of the pleadings of the parties has formulated the issues and has decided the lis by granting a decree for restitution of conjugal rights in favour of the plaintiff-wife.

¶48

The aforesaid judgment by which the decree for restitution of conjugal rights has been granted in favour of the plaintiff-wife is under challenge by filing the instant appeal.

¶49

Submission of behalf of the appellant-husband:

¶50

Mr. Pankaj Kumar Choudhary, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-husband has taken the following grounds:

¶51

(i) There is an apparent error in the impugned judgment, since, each and every aspect of the matter has not been taken into consideration and the learned trial Court has failed to take into consideration the evidences available on record.

¶52

(ii) The learned trial Court has failed to take into consideration that respondent-wife is living separately from her husband and minor son namely Apurva Jha as per her own will from and, as such, the impugned judgment and decree suffers from an error.

¶53

(iii) It has been contended that the learned trial Court has failed to take into consideration that the minor son, namely, Apurva Jha, who is aged about 8 years is living with the appellant and left the companionship of the petitioner with his own will.

¶54

¶55

2025:JHHC:19640-DB

¶56

(iv) It has been contended that the learned trial Court has not permitted the appellant herein to adduce the evidence on his behalf due to non-deposit of maintenance amount but the learned trial Court has to take in to consideration that it is the matter of Restitution of Conjugal Rights and not the maintenance case. Therefore, the appellant has been deprived to adduce evidence on his behalf which is contrary to law.

¶57

(v) It has been contended that Court has failed to take into consideration that the respondent is at present living at Dumka and O.P. No. 2 is residing with her uncle and the said uncle is misguiding the O.P. No. 2 for his personal benefit and disturbing the peaceful conjugal life of the petitioner.

¶58

(vi) The learned trial Court has failed to take into consideration that the appellant is looking after his son and providing him the school education and giving full attention in day-to-day affairs.

¶59

(vii) The learned trial Court has failed to appreciate that purpose of the Restitution of Conjugal Right U/s 9 of Hindu Marriage Act is to reunite and start a conjugal right between the parties and not for the maintenance.

¶60

The learned counsel, based upon the aforesaid ground, has submitted that the impugned judgment and decree is suffering from perversity, therefore, needs interference.

¶61

Submission of behalf of the respondent-wife:

¶62

Mr. Abhijeet Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-wife has taken the following grounds:

¶63

¶64

2025:JHHC:19640-DB

¶65

(i) There is no error in the impugned judgement as the learned Family Judge has considered the entire issue and on the basis of evidence as led by the respondent-wife has passed the order impugned as such same may not be interfered with.

¶66

(ii) The appellant himself has deserted the respondent-wife and her child and did not care to maintain them and, as such, the learned Family Court, after taking into consideration the evidence available on record has rightly held that the respondent-wife is entitled to get maintenance and has granted a decree in her favour for Restitution of Conjugal Rights.

¶67

(iii) It has also been submitted that the learned Family Court after taking in to consideration the material available on record has found that the conduct of the appellant- husband has never been towards salvaging the institution of marriage as it is he who has deserted the respondent-wife and, therefore on the pretext of the aforesaid categorical finding of the Family Court, the impugned order requires no interference.

¶68

Learned counsel, based upon the aforesaid grounds, has submitted that the learned Family Judge has rightly recorded its finding that the respondent-wife is bonafidely since beginning always tried her best to lead a happy conjugal life but it is the appellant-husband who at every moment of time avoided her for the reason best known to him, hence, the impugned judgment cannot be said to suffer from an error.

2025:JHHC:19640-DB

Analysis:

We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, gone through the impugned judgment as well as the Trial Court Records, as also the testimonies of the witnesses and evidences available on record.

¶73

The learned Family Judge has formulated altogether five issues,

¶74

for ready reference the same are being quoted hereinbelow:

¶75

i) Is the suit maintainable in its present form? ii) Has the plaintiff got valid cause of action for the suit? iii) Whether the respondent/husband has withdrawn himself from the company and society of the petitioner/wife without any reasonable cause and refused to live with the petitioner as husband and wife?

¶76

iv) Whether the respondent after marriage treated the petitioner with cruelty?

¶77

v) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for any relief or reliefs?

¶78

First of all, the learned Family Judge has taken into consideration the issue no.(iii) and (iv) i.e., the ground of refusal of the appellanthusband to keep the respondent-wife with him without any valid reason or cause and the ground of cruelty. The learned Family Judge has considered the evidence adduced on behalf of the parties for deciding the issues involved in Original Suit No.66 of 2020.

¶79

This Court in order to appreciate the aforesaid rival submission before entering into the legality and propriety of the impugned judgment needs to discuss herein the relevant part of the evidences adduced on behalf of the petitioner-wife (respondent herein) before the learned Family Court, wherein the element of cruelty and desertion has been shown by the defendant-husband.

¶80

During the trial, three witnesses have been examined on behalf of the plaintiff-wife who herself has been examined as PW1. PW2-Rama Kant Jha is the elder brother of the plaintiff-wife and PW3-Kamla Kant Jha is the near relative of the plaintiff.

¶81

¶82

2025:JHHC:19640-DB

¶83

The plaintiff-wife as PW1 in her evidence on oath has fully supported her case. She has deposed about her marriage with the plaintiff and birth of a male child, namely, Apurva Jha out of the said wedlock. She has deposed that after two months of the marriage the plaintiff came back to the parent’s house for performance of “Madhusrawani” Puja, where participation of the defendant was also required but he avoided otherwise. She further deposed that during her stay at her sasural her inlaws started torturing her through various methods like taunting her about her looks, upbringing, family background, cooking skills, educational status etc. and in the year 2014 the plaintiff's sister-in-law's husband died due to heart attack and in 2018 her father-in-law died due to Blood Cancer, so she was branded as an ominous/ill-omened woman who caused deaths in the family. After the death of the plaintiff's father-in-law, she along with her husband started residing at another house of her father-in-law at Mohalla Saketpuri, Ward no.7, P.S. Godda Town, District- Godda. She has stated that since the year 2019 they were residing separately and in the year 2021 a compromise was held in between them and she went to her matrimonial home with her husband and lead their conjugal life for two months. She has further stated that she was driven out from her matrimonial home after assault. Her husband is working as computer Operator at Collectorate, Godda and due to indiscipline, he has been removed from service. She has further stated that due to removal of service behaviour of her husband became arrogant and thereafter she was assaulted physically as well as mentally. She has further deposed that in the month of December 2019 her mother-in-law took her son from her house and went to village Dumaria and when she approached to meet her son she was not allowed to meet with him. Thereafter, her father came

¶84

¶85

2025:JHHC:19640-DB

¶86

there and brought her to her ‘maike’ and since then she is living there. She has further deposed that on 09.05.2020 she sent a legal notice to her husband through her lawyer for restitution of conjugal rights but her husband has levelled false allegation against her of taking out all her jewelleries from in laws house. She has stated that she is willing and ready to go to her in laws’ house. She has further stated that she wants that husband took her back to in laws’ house after performing ‘ bidai’ rituals and for that she is waiting her husband. She has further deposed that her husband after settlement in the Court has taken her back to in laws’ house but after some time, he ousted her from in laws’ house.

¶87

She has further stated that she has constructed a house under the Prime Minister Awas Yojna at Saketpuri and she is residing peacefully there. She has stated that she is still ready to live with her husband and go to her in-laws’ house.

¶88

In the cross-examination, she has stated that since the year 2019 she has been residing separately from her husband and after settlement in the month of April 2021 she went to her in-laws’ house and lived there for about two months and during that period they are living as husband and wife. At para-18, she has denied that it is not true that in the month of April 2021when she went to her in-laws’ house there was no conjugal relationship between them. At para-19 she has denied that when she went to her in laws’ house in the month of April 2021 she and her husband were living separately in different room. At para-20 she has denied the suggestion that during that period after taking dinner she used to sleep in another room and locked the door from inside. At para-21 she has further denied that when she went to her in-laws’ house she has avoided to cook food. At para-22 she has denied that she on her own will left her in-laws’

¶89

¶90

2025:JHHC:19640-DB

¶91

house rather she was driven out from there after assault. At para-23 she has stated that it is true that a written report was given by her husband about her leaving out from her in laws’ house at Godda PS.

¶92

She has stated that thereafter she also went to Godda PS where the officer-in-charge heard both the parties after settlement she called her father to Godda. She has stated that her mother-in-law used to taunt her by saying insane. At para-32 she has denied that her mother-in-law was not living with her and her husband at Godda when he was working as Computer Operator at Collectorate. At para-43 she denied that her cousin sister is handicapped and she used to look after her. At para-46 she has stated that it is false to say that since the day when she instituted a case her husband is ready to take her back but she does not want to reside with him. At para-51 she has stated that since the year 2021 she is residing at Dumka. At para-52 she has denied that she is adamant to live on her own terms and that is why she do not want to live with her husband. She has stated that she wants to go with her husband if her husband has allowed her to continue her study which she does at Dumka as also if her husband provide facility for study of her son. She has deposed that she wants to go to her village during vacation with her family.

¶93

PW3- Kamla Kant Jha has deposed in his examination-in-chief that Chanda Jha was married with Appu God on 12.05.2013 and after marriage she went to her matrimonial home at village-Dumaria, DistrictGodda and a son was born out of their wed lock namely Apurva Jha at present aged about 7 years six. He has deposed that after two months of marriage, Chanda Jha came back to her parent's house for performance of

¶94

¶95

2025:JHHC:19640-DB

¶96

'Madhusrawani' Puja, where participation of her sasural people was also required but he avoided otherwise.

¶97

He has further deposed that during stay of his niece at her sasural her in-laws started torturing her through various methods like taunting her about her looks, upbringing, family background, cooking skills, educational status etc. and in the year 2014 the plaintiff's sister-in-law's husband died due to heart attack and in 2018 her father-in-law died due to Blood Cancer, so she was branded as an ominous/ill-omened woman who caused deaths in the family. After the death of the plaintiff's father-in-law, she along with her husband started residing at another house of her fatherin-law at Mohalla Saketpuri, Ward no.7, P.S. Godda Town, DistrictGodda. Appu God is computer operator at Collectorate, Godda but he was removed on charges of indiscipline and corruption in November 2019 and after loss of job the defendant became ill-tempered and started torturing his niece physically and mentally. In December 2019, while his niece was residing at Mohalla Saketpuri, Ward no.7, P.S. Town, District- Godda the defendant and his mother hatched a conspiracy against his niece and they took her child to their native place at village Dumaria, P.O. Dumaria, P.S. Muffasil, District- Godda and she was left alone with any food. Thereafter, his younger brother Ruplal Jha brought his daughter Chanda Jha to his own house at village Sukhjora, PS. Jarmundi, District- Dumka. After few months the defendant sent à pleader's notice dated 09.05.2020 to the plaintiff mentioning there in that she had taken away all the gold jewellery from her matrimonial home. He has also deposed that on 25.03.2021 a compromise was held in between both the parties and to obey the order his niece had gone to Saketpuri, Godda on 02.04.2021 and

¶98

¶99

2025:JHHC:19640-DB

¶100

after few days she was brought to village Dumaria and on 02.06.2021 she was driven out from her matrimonial home.

¶101

In the cross-examination he has deposed that he resides in his own house at Dumka and the plaintiff-Chanda Jha is residing there with him. At para-19 he denied the suggestion that whatever his niece has written in her application is fabricated one at his instance. He has further denied that since his niece is the one who serves and takes care of his grandchildren, so he does not want to see that his niece would lead a happy conjugal life. At para-23, he has denied that it is not true that he never went to the house of the respondent-husband to settle the matter along with the plaintiff-Chanda Jha.

¶102

P.W.3 Kamla Kant Jha has deposed in his examination-in-chief that Chanda Jha was married with Appu God on 12.05.2013 and after marriage she went to her matrimonial home at village-Dumaria, DistrictGodda and a son was born out of their wed lock, namely, Apurva Jha at present aged about 7 years six months. He has deposed that after two months of marriage Chanda Jha came back to her parent's house for performance of 'Madhusrawani Puja, where participation of her sasural people was also required but they avoided otherwise. He has further deposed that during stay of Chanda Jha at her sasural, her in-laws started torturing her and in the year 2014 Chanda Jha's sister-in-law's husband died due to heart attack and in 2018 her father-in-law died due to Blood Cancer, so she was branded as an ominous/ill-omened woman who caused deaths in the family. They stopped the education of Chanda Jha for three years and she passed B.A. in the year 2019. After the death of her fatherin-law, Chanda Jha along with her husband started residing at another house of her father-in-law at Mohalla Saketpuri, Ward no.7. P.S. Godda

¶103

¶104

2025:JHHC:19640-DB

¶105

Town. District- Godda. In December 2019 while Chanda Jha was residing at Mohalla Saketpuri, Ward no.7, P.S. Town, District- Godda the defendant and his mother hatched a conspiracy and they took her child to their native place at village Dumaria, P.O. Dumaria, P.S. Muffasil, District- Godda and she was left alone with any food. Thereafter his younger brother Ruplal Jha brought his daughter Chanda Jha to his own house at village Sukhjora, PS.Jarmundi, District- Dumka. After few months Appu God (OP-husband) sent a pleader's notice dated 09.05.2020 to Chanda Jha mentioning there in that she had taken away all the gold jewellery from her matrimonial home. This witness has further deposed that on 25.03.2021 a compromise was held in between both the parties and to obey the order Chanda Jha had gone to Saketpuri, Godda on 02.04.2021 and after few days she was brought to village Dumaria and on 02.06.2021 she was driven out from her matrimonial home.

¶106

In the cross-examination, at para-18 he has stated that he went to in laws’ house of her daughter and met with her husband, mother-in-law and sister-in-law and they told him that they would not go and bring her back rather you should bring her. At para-19 she has denied that Appu God wants to bring her daughter back to her in- laws’ house and they were not ready to perform “bidai’ rituals. At para-22 he has denied that it is not true that the husband of her daughter wants to bring her daughter back to her in laws’ house but they were not ready as she is looking after them properly.

¶107

On the other hand, no evidence was adduced on behalf of the appellant-husband.

¶108

This Court while appreciating the argument advanced on behalf of the appellant on the issue of perversity needs to refer herein the

¶109

¶110

2025:JHHC:19640-DB

¶111

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.

¶112

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:

¶113

“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.

¶114

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.

¶115

¶116

2025:JHHC:19640-DB

¶117

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.

¶118

27. The expression “perverse” has been defined by various dictionaries in the following manner:

¶119

1. Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary of Current English, 6th Edn.

¶120

“Perverse.—Showing deliberate determination to behave in a way that most people think is wrong, unacceptable or unreasonable.”

¶121

2. Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, International Edn.

¶122

Perverse.—Deliberately departing from what is normal and reasonable.

¶123

3. The New Oxford Dictionary of English, 1998 Edn.

¶124

Perverse.—Law (of a verdict) against the weight of evidence or the direction of the judge on a point of law.

¶125

4. The New Lexicon Webster's Dictionary of the English Language (Deluxe Encyclopedic Edn.)

¶126

Perverse.—Purposely deviating from accepted or expected behavior or opinion; wicked or wayward; stubborn; cross or petulant.

¶127

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

¶128

“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.”

¶129

In backdrop of the aforesaid factual aspect, 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:

¶130

¶131

2025:JHHC:19640-DB

¶132

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.

¶133

[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.]

¶134

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.

¶135

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.

¶136

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).

¶137

¶138

2025:JHHC:19640-DB

¶139

In the Dictionary of English Law, 1959 Edn. at page 453, Earl Jowitt defines 'conjugal rights' thus:

¶140

" 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)".

¶141

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.

¶142

Thus, the requirements of the provision of restitution of conjugal rights are the following:

¶143

(i) The withdrawal by the respondent from the society of the petitioner.

¶144

¶145

2025:JHHC:19640-DB

¶146

(ii) The withdrawal is without any reasonable cause or excuse or lawful ground.

¶147

(iii) There should be no other legal ground for refusal of the relief.

¶148

(iv) The court should be satisfied about the truth of the statement made in the petition.

¶149

The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Suman Singh v. Sanjay

¶150

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:

¶151

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.

¶152

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.

¶153

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

¶154

¶155

2025:JHHC:19640-DB

¶156

in the interest of all family members in the long run and will bring peace, harmony and happiness. We find that 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.

¶157

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.

¶158

Now adverting to the factual aspect of the instant case wherefrom it is evident from the testimony and evidence available on record that the plaintiff/wife (respondent herein) since beginning always tried her best to lead happy, conjugal life and she has shown her willingness to come in the matrimonial home, which would be evident from the pleading as made in plaint. But from the testimony of the appellant /husband, it is evident that from beginning he has avoided his wife (respondent herein) without any reasonable excuse.

¶159

Further, from the perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that the learned family Judge while allowing the appeal in favour of the plaintiff/wife (respondent herein) has also taken into consideration the aforesaid factual aspect as well as settled proposition of law related to the restitution of conjugal right, which would be evident from the paragraph 14 of the impugned judgment, for ready reference the paragraph 14 is being quoted as under:

¶160

¶161

2025:JHHC:19640-DB

¶162

“14. Upon making scrutiny and analyzing the factual matrix of the case, taking into consideration the plaint as well as w.s, evidences led on behalf of the plaintiff, 1 come to the conclusion that the plaintiff/wife is bonafidely since beginning always tried her best to lead happy, conjugal life but it is the husband who at every moment of time avoided her for the reason best known to him. To decide a matrimonial dispute for a court like Family Court the intention, conduct, behaviour, attitude, the social, economical and environmental atmosphere of both the parties are very much important fact of the consideration and given much waged to. “

¶163

Thus, on the basis of the discussion made hereinabove, this Court, therefore, is of the view that the judgment dated 11.11.2023 and the decree dated 22.11.2023 passed in Original Suit No.66 of 2020 by the learned Family Judge need no interference.

¶164

Accordingly, the instant appeal stands dismissed.

¶165

Pending I.As, if any, stands disposed of.

¶166

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

¶167

(Rajesh Kumar, J.)

¶168

Sudhir Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi AFR

¶169

Appu God v. Chanda Jha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Appu God v. Chanda Jha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rabeka Murmu Vs Suruj Kisku

Najmul Hoda Nanho And Ors. Vs State of Bihar

Gorelal Yadav Vs Priyanka Bharti

Emtiyaz Hussain Vs State of Bihar

Mohamood Alam Vs State of Bihar

Munendra Kumar Vs Priyanka Kumari

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

Rabeka Murmu Vs Suruj Kisku

Najmul Hoda  Nanho And Ors. Vs State of Bihar

Gorelal Yadav Vs Priyanka Bharti

Emtiyaz Hussain Vs State of Bihar

Mohamood Alam Vs State of Bihar

Munendra Kumar Vs Priyanka Kumari

Najmul Hoda Nanho And Ors. Vs State of Bihar