2025:JHHC:36727-DB 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI F.A. No.168 of 2024 ------ Manoj Bhuiyan, age about 40 years, Son of Late Damodar Bhuiyan, Resident of Village-Katiya, P.O.-Parsabad, P.S.- Jainagar, District-Koderma. … … Appellant Versus Veena Kumari, W/o Manoj Bhuiyan, Daughter of Rambriksh Rikyasan, Resident of Village-katiya, P.O.-Parasabad, P.S.- Jainagar, District-Koderma. … … Respondent ----- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI ….. For the Appellant : Mr. Manoj Kumar No.2, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Randhir Kumar, Advocate ….. Order No.10/Dated 8th December, 2025 Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. 1. At the outset, it needs to refer herein that the instant matter was referred for mediation before the Special Mediation Drive-Mediation ‘For the Nation’. 2. But the mediation failed, therefore, the matter, with the consent of the parties, is taken on merit. 3. The appeal is since barred by limitation of 11 days, for which interlocutory application being I.A. No.590 of 2025 has been filed which has been taken up before entering into the issue on merit to consider the legality and propriety of the judgment passed by the learned Family Court. I.A. No.590 of 2025 4. The instant interlocutory application has been filed for condonation of delay of 11 days in filing the instant appeal. 2025:JHHC:36727-DB 2 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. Having regard to the averments made in this application, we are of the view that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal within the period of limitation. 7. Accordingly, I.A. No.590 of 2025 is allowed and the delay of 11 days in preferring the instant appeal is condoned. Prayer 8. The instant appeal has been filed challenging the legality and propriety of impugned judgment passed on 21.03.2024 and decree signed on 02.04.2024 by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Koderma whereby and whereunder the Original Suit No.86 of 2021 filed by the respondent-wife under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for a decree of divorce has been allowed. Factual Matrix 9. The brief facts of the case of the respondent-wife as narrated in the plaint, is that her marriage was solemnized with Manoj Bhuiyan/defendant (appellant herein) on 05.07.2007 in accordance with Hindu rites & customs and thereafter they were living their conjugal life at the house of defendant situated at village-Katiya, PS-Jainagar, District- Koderma. 10. The respondent-wife got selected as Government 2025:JHHC:36727-DB 3 Teacher and she is in-charge Headmaster of Utkramit Middle School, Alagdiha and has joined in the said school on 28.01.2015. The school is at a distance of 7 KM from the petitioner's residence at village-Katiya. She has got two sons from defendant who are aged about 12 years and 10 years. 11. It has been stated that respondent-wife remains busy in attending school and the defendant takes no care of children and he has been negligent towards education of children also. The defendant doesn't work and he spends his time with person who are retired from worldly affairs and also with gamblers and he also takes too much wine. 12. The respondent-wife tried to convince him for several times to give up the habit of taking liquor and coming late in the house and it is due to this reason rift was started between them. 13. The respondent-wife took several steps for changing the habit of her husband/ defendant and on 05.06.2019, she called Panchayati and persons present in the Panchayati advised him to be a careful guardian and give up the bad habits but there was no change in the behaviour & attitude of the defendant. 14. It has been stated that on 06.09.2019 due to disputes and hot talk taken place between the parties, the defendant/husband brutally assaulted the petitioner/wife 2025:JHHC:36727-DB 4 and ordered her to go out of his house. He was bent upon to oust her children but petitioner somehow saved them from the cruelty of defendant-husband. 15. She also informed to Mahila PS, Koderma from where notice was issued to both parties and they were directed for physical appearance where both appeared and officer-in-charge of Mahila PS convinced the defendant and he promised to never repeat such offences and he gave an undertaking and thereafter from 07.09.2019 both started leading their normal life, but after some time defendant started doing same behaviour and became addict of wine, he never cared for his school going children, indulged in gossiping with idle person and doing gambling and started to come late at night and when petitioner objected she was badly assaulted and he also tried to press the neck of petitioner. 16. On 30.10.2021 the respondent-wife again requested to give up the bad habit on which he became furious and badly assaulted the respondent-wife and went out of his house saying that he will murder her and the children in near future and on the same night he came with two other unknown persons and forcibly entered in the room of respondent-wife and they made the petitioner naked and took her photographs/video from mobile and defendant also 2025:JHHC:36727-DB 5 ordered them to establish physical relation with her, so that she might be blackmailed and humiliated in various ways but somehow respondent-wife saved herself. 17. It has been stated that defendant-husband had planned to murder not only the respondent-wife but also to his both children so that he may get benefits which accrues to family members on the death of a Government Employee. 18. The respondent-wife had filed a Sanha bearing Misc. Case No. 491/21 against the defendant on 02.11.2021 in the court of C.J.M. Koderma. 19. It has further been stated that after the incident of 30.10.2021, the petitioner/wife is afraid of her life that she might be murdered by defendant/husband and the life of her both children are also in danger, so she has taken a decision to take divorce from her husband and it is due to this reason she has filed the divorce case. 20. She has further stated that the cause of action for the suit arose on 07.09.2019 when respondent-wife reported the matter to O/c of Mahila PS and on 30.10.2021 when the defendant badly assaulted the petitioner and took her naked photographs in presence of his notorious companions and on 02.11.2021 when she informed through Sanha regarding the intention of defendant. 21. Due to the aforesaid the respondent-wife has filed a 2025:JHHC:36727-DB 6 suit for dissolution of marriage wherein prayer has been made to pass a decree of divorce in her favour and against the appellant-husband. 22. The learned Family Court has issued notice upon the defendant/husband , consequent upon receipt of notice, the defendant-husband appeared in the case and filed his written statement on 01.11.2022 wherein he has stated that present suit is not maintainable and is fit to be dismissed. 23. It has been stated that the respondent-wife has got no cause of action for the suit and this suit is gross misuse of Hindu Marriage Act. 24. It has been admitted that petitioner is legally wedded wife of this defendant and their marriage was solemnized on 05.07.2007 and they led their conjugal life together at village-Katiya, PS-Jainagar, District-Koderma. 25. It has further been stated that the petitioner was appointed as Government Teacher and she is working as in- charge Headmaster of Utkramit Middle School, Alagdiha. She was selected as Government Teacher with the support and cooperation of the defendant and for the same he spoiled his own carrier. 26. It has been stated that it is not correct to say that the defendant-husband was careless and negligent towards education of children, rather, the petitioner-wife was herself 2025:JHHC:36727-DB 7 negligent and careless towards the children. He has got no companion with gamblers and he never wasted his time with them and he also never takes wine. It has been falsely alleged that he comes to his house at late night 27. He has stated that no Panchayati on 05.06.2019 had taken place. It is also stated that no occurrence had taken place between petitioner & defendant and he never assaulted the petitioner or threatened her to murder. 28. It has also been stated that petitioner-wife herself wants to leave her husband/defendant on totally false and baseless grounds. He is quite a simple man that is why petitioner doesn't want to live with him. She gave application to different police stations with a view to harass him and he has not given any undertaking to any police station. It has further stated that this defendant is not addict of wine, never play cards and never come late in his house and the allegation regarding the alleged incident of 30.10.2021 is totally false and baseless. 29. It has been denied that this defendant with two unknown persons entered in the room of petitioner and made her naked and took her photograph and asked those persons to have physical relations with the petitioner. Further, the petitioner has neither filed any documentary or electronic evidence in support of her contention. 2025:JHHC:36727-DB 8 30. It has further been stated that it is false to say that he wanted to murder the petitioner/wife with her both children so that he may get benefit which accrues to the family on the death of a Government Employee. The petitioner has filed this case on the advice of her mother and sister. He has no knowledge regarding filing of Sanha before the court of C.J.M. Koderma and the police never investigated the matter on the basis of Sanha bearing M.C.A No. 491/2021. 31. It has been stated that the petitioner-wife has got no cause of action for the suit and the allegation made against this defendant-husband is totally false and imaginary and prayed to dismiss the suit with cost. 32. On the basis of the pleading of both sides, the learned Principal Judge, framed four issues for adjudication of the lis, which are as follows: - (i) Whether the present case for divorce is maintainable? (ii) Whether the defendant-husband has committed cruelty against petitioner - wife? (iii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for decree of divorce by dissolution of marriage between the parties? (iv) To what relief or reliefs, the petitioner is entitled 2025:JHHC:36727-DB 9 for? 33. The case proceeded for evidence during which the petitioner/wife has produced and examined five witnesses including herself. 34. The respondent-husband has also examined four witnesses including himself. 35. All the aforesaid issues were decided against the appellant-husband and in favour of respondent-wife and decreed the suit on contest in the following terms: “In the light of above discussion and in the facts and circumstances, I find that the present original suit as filed by wife Veena Kumari is maintainable as petitioner has successfully established the cruelty committed by defendant for seeking the decree of divorce. It is therefore, ORDERED that the instant Original Suit No. 86 of 2021 filed by petitioner- wife Veena Kumari against defendant-husband Manoj Bhuiyan is hereby allowed. The marriage solemnized on 05.07.2007 between petitioner- Veena Kumari and defendant- Manoj Bhuiya is hereby dissolved. Let a decree be prepared accordingly within stipulated period.” 36. The appellant-husband, being aggrieved with the judgment passed on 21.03.2024, has approached this Court by filing the present appeal. Submission made on behalf of the appellant-husband 37. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-husband has submitted that the learned Principal Judge, Family 2025:JHHC:36727-DB 10 Court while passing the impugned judgment and decree committed serious error of law in relying on evidence of the P.Ws. who are interested witnesses of the respondent /petitioner and are not eye witness of the allegation of cruelty as made by respondent-wife in her petition. 38. The learned Principal Judge, Family Court while granting decree of divorce in favour of the respondent-wife has failed to consider that the marriage of parties was solemnized in the year 2007 in accordance with Hindu Rites and after marriage, they were blessed with two children who are aged about 13 years and 11 years which shows that there was good relationships in between them. After 14 years of marriage the suit for divorce has been filed by the wife of the appellant on the ground of cruelty. The appellant has fully supported to his family and his wife. The respondent was selected as Government Teacher with the support and cooperation of the appellant and for the same he spoiled his own carrier and this fact has also been corroborated by evidence of DWs. But the learned court below has failed to take into consideration of this fact and erroneously passed the judgment and decree in favour of the respondent which is bad in the eye of law and liable to be set aside. 39. The learned Family court while passing the impugned judgment and decree failed to take into account the evidence 2025:JHHC:36727-DB 11 of D.W.-1 Binod Bhuian, D.W. 2 Mahavir Choudhary, D.W.- 3 Manoj Bhuiyan (Appellant) and D.W.-4 Anjawa Mossomat who stated in their evidence that when the respondent got Government job and getting salary then she started to desert her husband and lastly left her matrimonial house by levelling false allegation against the appellant. In such fact and circumstances of the case the judgment and decree passed by the learned Principal Judge, family Court is liable to be set aside. 40. The learned Family court while passing the impugned judgment and decree failed to appreciate that there was no proof of carelessness and negligence towards education of children, companion with gamblers, and also taking wine by the appellant. The whole story of the respondent is based on imaginary grounds, concocted and baseless as because she herself does not want to live with her husband after getting Government job and handsome salary and the learned court below has allowed the suit erroneously. 41. It has been submitted that a bald statement that husband used to quarrel with the wife would not amount to cruelty and in absence of cogent evidence to substantiate the allegation of cruelty as made by the wife, it cannot be a ground for grant of decree of divorce. 42. It has been submitted that the impugned judgment passed by the learned Court below is otherwise bad in the 2025:JHHC:36727-DB 12 eyes of law and against the weight of evidence and hence liable to be set aside. 43. Further, it has been submitted that the findings recorded by the learned Family Court while answering issue no. (ii) which pertains to cruelty are perverse and based on mere presumption, therefore, the same will not stand in the eye of law. 44. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant, on the basis of aforesaid grounds, has submitted that the impugned judgment passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Koderma, requires interference. Submission made on behalf of respondent-wife 45. Learned counsel for the respondent/wife has submitted that learned trial court has rightly held that the respondent- wife is entitled for the decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty because there is consistent oral and documentary evidence to substantiate the claim of respondent-wife about the cruelty of appellant-husband and the cruelty alleged by the respondent-wife appears to be of serious in nature and it caused fear in the mind of respondent-wife to lead her conjugal life with appellant-husband. 46. Learned counsel for the respondent-wife, defending the impugned order, has submitted that the divorce has been granted on the ground of cruelty as the respondent-wife was not only subjected to physical and mental torture as she 2025:JHHC:36727-DB 13 was often assaulted within house and pushed out of the house at night as also she was abused and assaulted at public places and the wife cannot reasonably be expected to live with the husband, as such, the learned Family Court, after taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence, has held that the allegations levelled against the appellant-husband are correct and has rightly allowed the suit. 47. It has been argued on behalf of respondent that the learned Family Court has come to the conclusion that the documentary evidence available on the record fully corroborates the contention of the respondent-wife that she was subjected to various types of cruelties by appellant- husband. 48. The appellant-husband has no valid cause of action and he is not entitled to get any relief as claimed by him. 49. Learned counsel for the respondent has further submitted that learned Family court has rightly held that the respondent entitled for the decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty because the appellant has failed to disprove the allegation of cruelty. 50. Learned counsel for the respondent-wife on the aforesaid grounds has submitted that the impugned judgment requires no interference by this Court. 2025:JHHC:36727-DB 14 Analysis 51. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant- husband as also learned counsel for the respondent-wife and perused the material available on record and the finding recorded in the impugned order. 52. 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. 53. The Petitioner-wife(respondent herein), in support of her case, has adduced five witnesses including herself before the learned Family Court. The relevant portion of the testimonies of the witnesses are mentioned as under: - PW.5 is Veena Kumari (wife), has stated in her affidavited examination-in-chief that she has filed this suit for divorce from her husband. She has further stated that she was married with Manoj Bhuiyan/ defendant and has got two sons from him who are named as Manjeet Kumar and Ankit Kumar. She works as Government Teacher and she goes to her school from her house daily and performs her duty. She has stated that her husband is careless towards children, doesn't work in his house and always remains busy in gossiping, gambling and in companion of drunkard. He always comes to house in drunken condition at night and commits nuisance in the house. 2025:JHHC:36727-DB 15 She has stated that she tried her best to convince the defendant-husband not to do so but he took no heed of her advice. Some villagers, at her instance, also advised him to behave properly but there was no change in his behaviour and he always assaulted and misbehaved with her. She has further stated that she called a Panchayati of respectable persons on 05.06.2019 but the defendant became very aggressive and in the night, he had hot talk with her and on the next day on 06.09.2019 he pushed her out from the house and he threatened to murder her if she enters in the house. He was also about to push out the children but with the intervention of villagers he could not do so. She has stated that she informed about the incident of 06.09.2019 to Mahila P.S where on 07.09.2019, a compromise was entered and the defendant gave an assurance that he will not do such activity in future, but again after few days he started doing so and continued to take liquor and whenever she forbade him he assaulted her and on 30.10.2021 he tried to kill her by throttling her neck. She has also stated that he used to make her naked and take photograph and video from mobile with a purpose to blackmail her and he was also saying to her that her naked photograph and video have been seen by two other persons and he was insisting to make physical relation with them and she will have to give Rs.Five lakhs to him. She tried 2025:JHHC:36727-DB 16 to remove those photo and video upon which he assaulted her and sexually exploited her. She has further stated that on 02.11.2021 she filed a Sanha regarding the incident and about evil design of defendant. She also stated that she is scared from the evil design and bad activities of her husband and she has now no faith on him as he is committed to murder her and her children as he wants to take service on compassionate ground after her death. She had no option so she filed the present case for divorce. In her cross-examination, PW.5 stated that her marriage with defendant was a love marriage and against the wishes and desire of her family members. She was working as Para Teacher at the time of marriage and after eight years of marriage she became Government Teacher. She reiterated that the defendant after birth of second child started assaulting her but she didn't lodge any F.I.R and she gave complaint first of all in the year 2019. She has further stated that she had given application in Mahila PS on 07.09.2019 and has filed copy of the same in Court, but at that time the matter was got settled. She reiterated that defendant had made her video but she could not file in the court. She also reiterated that she can't live with her husband as he blackmails her. She further stated that in October 2021 defendant made murderous attack on 2025:JHHC:36727-DB 17 her with knife, but she didn't give any information to any place. She has further stated that after her marriage, the defendant several times tried to kill her but she didn't give information about the same. She also stated that she gave a Sanha in the court of C.J.M only. She further stated that she can't live with her husband as he is not suitable and always lives in drunken state and sleeps. She denied the suggestion the defendant is a simple person and she has filed case on false grounds. The evidence of PW.1, P.W.2 and P.W.4 is taken together for discussion as their affidavited examination-in- chief are almost on similar lines. They stated that they know both parties, they are husband and wife and they have two school going children aged about 13 years and 11 years. They have stated that the petitioner-wife is Government Teacher and she goes to school from her house. The defendant doesn't take care of sons and he spends his time in gossiping, gambling and wandering hither and thither, he takes wine on daily basis and comes to house at late night. The petitioner herself asked several times to defendant to give up his bad habit and also got a message conveyed from respectable persons, but defendant brutally assaulted her on several occasions and he under the effect of intoxication assaulted and ousted from his house. 2025:JHHC:36727-DB 18 The petitioner gave information about this to Mahila RS and Panchayati was also called where defendant gave an undertaking to keep the petitioner properly but he has not complied the undertaking given by him. They further stated that the defendant/husband (appellant herein) is intending to murder the petitioner and take job on compassionate ground. He also forcefully made the petitioner naked and took her photo and video and insisted on her to establish physical relation with other persons so that he may blackmail her. The petitioner having no alternative filed this divorce suit against her husband/defendant. In cross-examination P.W.2 has stated that she is mother of petitioner/wife. She also stated that defendant takes liquor and she can give proof of the same. She reiterated that defendant assaults her daughter and her daughter gave information about the same in Mahila PS. She can't say that whose name is entered as nominee in service book. She has categorically stated that the defendant on daily basis assaults her daughter and at the time of marriage she was working as Para Teacher. She has also stated that she doesn't want her daughter to live with defendant as he always assaults her. She denied the suggestion that defendant wants to keep the petitioner properly and also 2025:JHHC:36727-DB 19 denied that her daughter has lodged this case without any basis. In cross-examination PW.4 has stated that he is maternal uncle of petitioner/wife and reiterated in his cross- examination that they have not lodged any report regarding assault committed on petitioner. The petitioner herself due to continuous assault on her, left the matrimonial house. He also stated that defendant made fatal attack on petitioner but he can't say the date of the same. He denied the suggestion that defendant has not committed cruelties on petitioner. PW.3 is cook of petitioner-wife school. She has stated in her affidavited examination-in-chief that she knows both parties, petitioner is in-charge Headmaster of Government School, Alagdiha and defendant is her husband. She stated that both of them lived in a rental house of Bahadur Das at Alagdiha where she saw that defendant under the effect of intoxication quarreled with petitioner and threatened her to get murdered. She has also stated that brother of landlord of the rental house namely Baijnath Das asked the petitioner to vacate the rental house on which she left the house and complained in Mahila PS regarding wrong behaviour of defendant where he gave an undertaking that he will not misbehave and assault the petitioner. 2025:JHHC:36727-DB 20 She has further stated that later on she came to know that defendant with some other persons took some photograph of petitioner for the purpose of blackmailing her and also was conspiring to murder her and take her job in place of her. In cross-examination she has stated that she is a witness in the application of petitioner which was given by her in Mahila PS regarding threat of her murder. She has also stated that she several times tried to convince the defendant. The petitioner now doesn't want to live with defendant as she has fear of her life. She further stated in cross-examination that defendant under the effect of liquor always assaulted her. 54. The appellant-husband in support of his case, has adduced four witnesses including himself. The relevant portion of the testimony is being dealt hereunder as :- D.W.3 Manoj Bhuiyan is defendant himself. He has stated in his affidavited examination-in-chief that this suit has been filed by his wife Veena Kumari for divorce from him. He was married with Veena Kumari in accordance with Hindu rites & customs on 05.07.2007 in Delhi as they had love affairs and they fled to Delhi and solemnized marriage. He has stated that before marriage Veena Kumari was a homely lady and when he saw that she has interest in studies, he worked as labour and got her educated. He also 2025:JHHC:36727-DB 21 stated that Veena Kumari has got two children from him who are aged about 13 and 11 years and they are living with her. He has also stated that from his efforts Veena Kumari became Para Teacher and after few days she became Government Teacher in upgraded Middle School, Alagdiha and getting monthly salary of Rs. 60,000/-. He has further stated that when petitioner started getting salary of Rs. 60,000/- she started making distance from him and came in contact with her parents. She has left his house and went to her Maika. Several times he went to his Sasural to bring her back but she on one ground or the other refused to come. He has stated that she has filed this case with false allegations. She sometimes gives application to Mahila PS and sometimes got Sanha registered against him in court and he is being harassed. He is unemployed and has got no source of income. He has further stated that he wants to lead his conjugal life with petitioner. He has never physically or mentally exploited her and has never taken her nude photograph and made it viral. She has filed this divorce suit at the instigation of her family members. In his cross-examination, he has stated that his both children are being maintained by petitioner. He has also admitted that he was called in Mahila PS and he executed a 2025:JHHC:36727-DB 22 bond but he denied that he gave undertaking that he will keep the petitioner properly and will not assault her. He denied further that he took naked photograph of petitioner and got her assaulted from others and made her photograph viral. The evidence of DW.1, D.W.2 & D.W.4 are taken together for discussion as their affidavited examination-in- chief are almost on similar lines. They have stated that petitioner Veena Kumari was married with Manoj Bhuiyan on 05.07.2007 in Delhi as they had love affairs and they fled to Delhi and solemnized their marriage. They have stated that Veena Kumari has filed this case for divorce from her husband and that at the time of marriage Veena Kumari was a homely lady, but defendant got her educated as she had interest in studies. They have stated that petitioner has got two children from defendant who are aged about 13 and 11 years respectively and living with petitioner. They have further stated that due to efforts of defendant Veena Kumari got the job of Para Teacher and after some days she became Government Teacher in upgraded Middle School, Alagdiha and getting monthly salary of Rs. 60,000/-, They have further stated that when petitioner started getting salary of Rs. 60,000/- then she started making distance from the defendant and came in contact with her 2025:JHHC:36727-DB 23 parents and she has left the house of defendant and went to her Maika. They have stated that defendant several times went to his Sasural to bring the petitioner back but she on one ground or the other, the petitioner-wife refused to come. Petitioner has filed this case with false allegations and she sometimes gives application to Mahila PS and sometimes got Sanha registered against defendant in court and he is being harassed. They have further stated that defendant is unemployed and has got no source of income and he wants to lead his conjugal life with petitioner and he has never physically or mentally exploited the petitioner and has never taken her nude photograph and made it viral. They have also stated that petitioner has filed this divorce suit at the instigation of her family members. In cross-examination D.W.1 stated that he is brother of defendant and he is living separately from his brother after marriage. He has denied the suggestion that Manoj Bhuiyan under the effect of intoxication used to assault Veena Kumari. He admitted that a Panchayati was held for an incident which took place in the rental house of Bahadur Das, but he was not present in the Panchayati. He also 2025:JHHC:36727-DB 24 admitted that Veena has filed a complaint in Mahila PS but nothing happened in the said case. D.W.2 in cross-examination has stated that he has no knowledge that Veena had taken a rental house near the school where the landlord of the house Bahadur Ravi Das got the house vacated due to bad activities of Manoj Bhuiyan. He also denied to have any knowledge that whenever petitioner objected on the wrongful activities of defendant he brutally assaulted her. He also denied to have any knowledge that Manoj Bhuiyan under the effect of liquor used to assault the petitioner. He has admitted in cross-examination that Veena had filed a complaint in Mahila PS where both parties were called and compromise was entered. He has also denied regarding institution of Sanha filed by petitioner as defendant used to assault her. He further stated that Manoj is quite healthy, but has no knowledge that he works as electrician in Bangalore. In cross-examination D.W.4 stated that she is mother of defendant/husband and they have solemnized love marriage. She has no knowledge that Veena had called any Panchayati or not, but she knows that Veena had filed a case against her son in Mahila PS where his son was also called. She also 2025:JHHC:36727-DB 25 stated that she has no knowledge that her son has several times assaulted the petitioner. 55. From the testimony, as referred hereinabove, it is evident that the wife/plaintiff has consistently stated that her husband/defendant was in the habit of taking too much liquor and under the effect of liquor he assaulted the petitioner. 56. The other witnesses have also consistently stated that under the effect of intoxication, the husband/defendant assaulted and ousted the respondent-wife from his house and when he was asked to amend his behaviour, he became more aggressive and started assaulting the petitioner. 57. From the record it appears that due to bad behaviour and cruelty upon her, the petitioner-wife had called a Panchayati in which defendant was advised to be careful and give up his bad habits. 58. The xerox copy of family settlement cum Undertaking executed by petitioner Veena Kumari and defendant Manoj Bhuiyan has been filed on the record and from the perusal of the said family agreement cum undertaking dated 13.09.2019 it is evident that defendant had agreed that he will not assault the petitioner and not abuse her and will not commit any type of cruelties on her. 59. The learned Principal Judge, from the statements of the witnesses so produced on behalf of the parties and after 2025:JHHC:36727-DB 26 going through the documentary evidence, has come to the conclusion that petitioner-wife has been able to prove the grounds of alleged cruelty pleaded by her in her petition. 60. In the context of the aforesaid factual aspect only seminal issue has to be decide herein that- “Whether the impugned judgment and decree allowing divorce to the wife /respondent on ground of cruelty U/s 13(1) (i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, requires interference? 61. 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. (ii) i.e. issue of cruelty are perverse, therefore, before addressing the aforesaid seminal issue it would be apt to discuss herein the appropriate meaning of word “perverse”. 62. This Court while appreciating the argument advanced on behalf of the appellant on the issue of perversity needs to refer herein the interpretation of the word "perverse" as has been interpreted by the Hon'ble Apex Court which means that there is no evidence or erroneous consideration of the evidence. 63. 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 2025:JHHC:36727-DB 27 finding so outrageously defies logic as to suffer from the vice of irrationality incurring the blame of being perverse, then, the finding is rendered infirm in law. Relevant paragraphs, i.e., paras-24, 25, 26 and 27 of the said judgment reads as under: "24. The expression "perverse" has been dealt with in a number of cases. In Gaya Din v. Hanuman Prasad [(2001) 1 SCC 501] this Court observed that the expression "perverse" means that the findings of the subordinate authority are not supported by the evidence brought on record or they are against the law or suffer from the vice of procedural irregularity. 25. In Parry's (Calcutta) Employees' Union v. Parry & Co. Ltd. [AIR 1966 Cal 31] the Court observed that "perverse finding" means a finding which is not only against the weight of evidence but is altogether against the evidence itself. In Triveni Rubber & Plastics v. CCE [1994 Supp (3) SCC 665 : AIR 1994 SC 1341] the Court observed that this is not a case where it can be said that the findings of the authorities are based on no evidence or that they are so perverse that no reasonable person would have arrived at those findings. 26. In M.S. Narayanagouda v. Girijamma [AIR 1977 Kant 58] the Court observed that any order made in conscious violation of pleading and law is a perverse order. In Moffett v. Gough [(1878) 1 LR 1r 331] the Court observed that a "perverse verdict" may probably be defined as one that is not only against the weight of evidence but is altogether against the evidence. In Godfrey v. Godfrey [106 NW 814] the Court defined "perverse" as turned the wrong way, not right; distorted from the right; turned away or deviating from what is right, proper, correct, etc. 27. The expression "perverse" has been defined by various dictionaries in the following manner: 2025:JHHC:36727-DB 28 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 Encyclopedic Edn.) Perverse.-- Purposely deviating from accepted or expected behavior or opinion; wicked or wayward; stubborn; cross or petulant. 5. Stroud's Judicial Dictionary of Words & Phrases, 4th Edn. "Perverse.--A perverse verdict may probably be defined as one that is not only against the weight of evidence but is altogether against the evidence." 64. 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 against the weight of evidence but is altogether against the evidence. Issue of Cruelty 65. 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], wherein it has been held that the Court is to enquire as to 2025:JHHC:36727-DB 29 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. 66. 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. 67. 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 question of fact and degree.” 68. The Hon’ble Apex Court has further observed 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 2025:JHHC:36727-DB 30 “culture and human values to which they attach importance.” 69. 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. 70. 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 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. 71. 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 2025:JHHC:36727-DB 31 of must be “grave” and “weighty”. 72. 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. 73. Now reverting to the fact of the case it has been stated by the respondent-wife that the appellant-husband was in the habit of taking too much liquor and under the effect of liquor he used to assault the petitioner regularly. 74. Per contra the appellant-husband has stated in his testimony before the learned Family Court that from his efforts Veena Kumari became Para Teacher and thereafter, she became Government Teacher in upgraded Middle School, Alagdiha and getting monthly salary of Rs. 60,000/-. He has further stated that when petitioner/wife (respondent herein) started getting salary of Rs. 60,000/- she started making distance from him and came in contact with her parents. She left his house and went to her maika. Several times he went to his sasural to bring her back but she on one ground or the other refused to come. 2025:JHHC:36727-DB 32 75. Admittedly, the plea of cruelty has been raised by the respondent-wife. 76. This court, based upon aforesaid discussions on the issue of cruelty, as per evidence it appears that appellant and respondent are legally wedded husband and wife, whose marriage was solemnized on 05.07.2007. As per evidence respondent-wife had filed petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty before the Family Court. 77. Five witnesses were examined by the respondent-wife. Respondent-wife was examined as PW.5 and she has stated in her evidence that on effect of intoxication, the respondent- husband(appellant herein) used to assault the her and her husband always comes to house in drunken condition and commits nuisance in the house and her husband is careless towards children. She called a Panchayati on 05.06.2019 and on the next day on 06.09.2019 he pushed her out from the house and he threatened to murder her if she enters in the house. He was also about to push out the children but with the intervention of villagers he could not do so. Respondent had stated that she informed about the incident of 06.09.2019 to Mahila P.S where on 07.09.2019, where a compromise was entered and the defendant-husband gave an assurance that he will not do such activity in future, but again after few days he started doing so and continued to take liquor and whenever she forbade him, he assaulted her 2025:JHHC:36727-DB 33 and on 30.10.2021 he tried to kill her by throttling her neck. 78. On the other hand, appellant-husband had examined four witness and appellant-husband was examined as D.W.3 and he had admitted in his cross-examination that he was called in Mahila P.S. and he had executed a bond. 79. From perusal of the impugned judgment, it is further evident that the learned Family Court while allowing the suit in favour of respondent/wife has taken into consideration the documentary evidence also and found that the documentary evidence available on the record fully corroborates the contention of the petitioner (respondent wife herein) that she was subjected to various types of cruelties by defendant husband (appellant herein). 80. The learned Family Court had further observed that the xerox copy of family arrangement cum Undertaking filed in this case shows that petitioner wife (respondent herein) was not only subjected to physical & mental torture as she was often assaulted within house and pushed out of the house at night. She was abused & assaulted at public places. The defendant (appellant herein) also appears to be great drunkard, the family agreement cum Undertaking signed by defendant further shows that brother of the defendant Binod Bhuiyan was entrusted the responsibility that defendant gives up the habit of drinking and this statement in his undertaking shows that Manoj Bhuiyan is 2025:JHHC:36727-DB 34 in the habit of taking too much liquor. The excessive drinking by husband has also been held to be mental cruelty to wife. 81. Thus, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Koderma, after due appreciation of the evidences led by parties, had found physical as well as mental cruelty committed by the appellant-husband and hence, charges of cruelty was established by the respondent -wife. 82. On the perusal of the impugned judgment, it is considered view of this Court that learned Family Court after due deliberation of factual aspect as well as evidences led by both the parties has recorded its finding, therefore the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that impugned judgment is suffering from perversity, is not fit to be accepted, hence rejected. 83. From the discussions made hereinabove, it is evident that cruelty has been meted out to the respondent-wife by appellant-husband. 84. On the basis of the discussion made hereinabove, this court is of the considered view that the respondent-wife has established that she was subjected to cruelty by her appellant-husband. 85. Accordingly, issue as framed by this court is decided against the appellant-husband and it is held that the judgment and decree passed by the learned family court, 2025:JHHC:36727-DB 35 allowing the decree of divorce to the respondent-wife on the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955 requires no interference. 86. Accordingly, the instant appeal fails and is dismissed. 87. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Arun Kuma Rai, J.) Date: 08/12/2025 Birendra /A.F.R. Uploaded on 17.12.2025