2025:JHHC:31729-DB 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI F.A. No. 244 of 2024 ------- 1. Abhay Anand, Son of-Late Ashok Prasad, aged about-32 years, Resident of-Flat No.-201, Usha Enclave, Road No.-3, Singh More, P.O.-Hatia, P.S.-Jaggarnathpur, District-Ranchi (Jharkhand). … … Petitioner/Appellant Versus Priyanka Kumari, Wife of-Abhay Anand, Daughter of-Ram Prasad Singh, presently aged about-30 years, Resident of-Veer Kunwar Singh Colony, Airport Road, Hinoo, P.O.-Hinoo & P.S.-Doranda, District- Ranchi (Jharkhand) … … Opposite Party/Respondent ------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR ------- For the Appellant : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Dilip Kr. Karmakar, Advocate ---------------------------- C.A.V. on 06.10.2025 Pronounced on 14/10/2025 Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. Prayer 1. The instant appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 is directed against the order/judgment dated 21.09.2024 passed by the learned Addl. Principal Judge, Additional Family Court-II, Ranchi, in Original Suit No. 97 of 2019, whereby and whereunder, the petition filed under Section 13(1) (i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 by the appellant/petitioner seeking a decree of divorce, has been dismissed. Facts 2. The brief facts of the case leading to filing of the divorce petition by the appellant/petitioner, needs to be referred herein as under: 2025:JHHC:31729-DB 2 As per Original Matrimonial Suit, the facts of the case are that the petitioner (appellant herein) and respondent are husband and wife respectively and their marriage was solemnized on 24.05.2015 as per Hindu rites and customs and subsequently, the petitioner, appellant herein and respondent (wife) were blessed with a baby boy namely Anay Anand, aged about 2 and ½ years out of their wedlock who had taken birth on 20 November, 2016. Before marriage, the respondent, wife was employed and working as Senior Software Engineer in “I Gate Global Solution Private Limited” at Bangalure and at the time of marriage, it was agreed between the parties and their parents that after marriage the respondent-wife would leave her service and would reside with her husband and his widow mother at their residence situated at Koderma and also in the flat situated at Singh More, Ranchi. The petitioner, appellant is also an Engineer and presently working as Program Head in Samanway Sansthan, Koderma. Only after a lapse of 3-4 days of the marriage, the respondent-wife started pressurizing the petitioner/appellant to go to Switzerland for Honey-moon whereupon the appellant shown his inability to do so because he cannot afford such expense during that time, therefore, he assured that after 4-5 months they will visit there but the respondent-wife turned infuriated and refused to reside with her, called her mother and on 06.06.2015 in company of her mother, she left the matrimonial house and went to Bangaluru and joined her service there and the respondent-wife again came back to her matrimonial house on account of "Chhat Puja" in the month of October-2015 but this time, she started pressurizing the 2025:JHHC:31729-DB 3 petitioner to disassociate with the company of his widow mother and reside with her either at her parental house at Hinoo, Ranchi or to somewhere else, but the petitioner, appellant herein declined her proposal because he wants to offer love and affection to her widow mother as per the tradition of his family, who is aged about 61 years. Thereafter, the respondent-wife again left the petitioner's house in the company of her brother namely Ashutosh KumarAnshu and went to her parental house at Hinoo and told the appellant that unless he would not be agreeable to her terms as aforesaid, she would not reside in her matrimonial house either at Koderma or at Ranchi in the association of the mother of the petitioner, appellant herein. On several occasions, the appellant-husband had tried to bring the respondent-wife back and time and again also requested the father and mother of the respondent-wife but the respondent-wife flatly refused to come back. The respondent-wife has left the society of the appellant-husband, therefore, the petitioner-appellant herein who was very much willing and ready to keep his wife (respondent) in dignified manner filed a case vide M.T.S. No. 529/2016 under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, before this Court whereby vide Mega Lok Adalat held on 22.04.2018, the aforesaid suit has been allowed and the respondent has started residing with the petitioner, appellant herein. The respondent came back on 22.04.2018 and started residing with the appellant-husband and mother-in-law at their flat at Usha Enclave but this time without any rhyme and reason she got separate in mess and started 2025:JHHC:31729-DB 4 cooking food for her own and time and continuously used to humiliate the appellant. On 08.12.2018, the respondent-wife started quarreling with the appellant by saying that she would not stay at her matrimonial house in the company of his mother and directed the appellant to ask her mother to bifurcate his share in the entire property otherwise she would leave him forever and in the morning of 09.12.2018 again on the same issue the respondent-wife started quarreling, humiliating and abusing the appellant and upon hearing the same the mother of the petitioner, appellant herein entered into the room to which the respondent in a highly infuriated manner abused her and attempted to press the neck of her mother-in-law and when the appellant tried to stop her, she abused him in very filthy and derogatory manner. On 29.12.2018, the respondent called her father Sri Ram Prasad Singh, mother Smt. Kanchan Singh and brother to the flat situated at Usha Enclave, Singh More, Hatia, Ranchi, at about 8 P.M., who upon their arrival started abusing and assaulting the mother of the appellant, namely, Most. Sobha Kumari and threatened her to transfer the said flat in the name of the respondent, otherwise, she would be killed by setting fire upon her and also dragged her out of the house but due to serious protest by the appellant somehow she managed to escape from there and locked herself inside the room and from there, she made a call to the Jagarnathpur Police Station over mobile phone, who arrived there and brought the above-named persons and also the appellant and his mother to the Police Station and a written report against them was filed by the mother of the 2025:JHHC:31729-DB 5 appellant before the officer-in-charge of Jagarnathpur Police Station, which has been entered as SDE No. 18/2018 dated 29.12.2018. Further, on 30.12.2018, at about 7:00 A.M. the respondent-wife and her brother again came to the petitioner's house, started quarreling with the appellant and his mother to withdraw the aforesaid written report lodged against them as her father who is a Government servant would be affected adversely because of that complaint, the petitioner, appellant herein had taken every effort to pacify the matter but the entire efforts of the petitioner, appellant herein turned futile, the respondent-wife has packed her entire belongings such clothes, ornaments, etc. and sent a part of her belongings to her maternal house through her brother. This time also, the appellant tried to convince her but she was not at all ready to stay in the house and threatened him to commit suicide in case the appellant will not leave the house immediately, therefore, being compelled, the appellant has also left his house on the same day along with her and the child and stayed in Hotel Bless Residency, Station Road, Ranchi with her but on 01.01.2019, the respondent-wife again started humiliating and quarreling with the appellant-husband and left the hotel. The appellant/petitioner went back to his house/flat and on the same day came to the house of the respondent-wife along with his mother to bring the respondent-wife back but this time also, the mother and father of the respondent-wife abused them whereas the respondent told the petitioner, appellant that since you are not agreeable to my terms, therefore, you need not to interfere in her life in future as there exist no relation between them from today and since then she is residing with her 2025:JHHC:31729-DB 6 parents at Hinoo, Ranchi and since the date of arrival of the respondent- wife at her matrimonial house i.e., from 22.04.2018, the respondent has refused to have cohabitate with the petitioner/appellant under the pretext that unless the petitioner, appellant would not be separated with his mother and start living with her, she will not allow her to have cohabitation. The cause of action for initiation of the suit arises on 30.12.2018 when the respondent-wife left her matrimonial house and secondly on 01.01.2019, when the respondent-wife left the society of the petitioner- husband without any reasonable cause, and refused to come/reside with him in future and continuing till date. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner prayed before the Family Court for grant of Decree of Divorce by dissolution of marriage on the pretext that the respondent after the solemnization of the marriage treated the petitioner, appellant herein with cruelty. The opposite party / respondent-wife appeared and has filed her written-statement and submitted that the marriage was solemnized on 24.05.2015 according to Hindu Rites and rituals. At the time of marriage, the valuable articles including jewelery and Rs. 15,00,000/- were given to the appellant-husband on their demands. The marriage was delayed due to arrangement of money and upon receiving the entire dowry amount the marriage was solemnized on 25.05.2015, after marriage, she went to her matrimonial house and stayed for some time. The appellant-husband and her mother left her alone just after the marriage and went to USA, Singapore and other places. The respondent-wife has no option and went 2025:JHHC:31729-DB 7 to join her job at Bangalore. The respondent-wife was Software Engineer and working at Bangalore at the time of marriage. The respondent never desires or demand to visit Switzerland for honey-moon. The respondent-wife came to matrimonial house during Chhath Pooja and stayed with the appellant-husband but the appellant-husband and his mother started demanding more dowry. The mother of the appellant demanded her salary and stated her that dowry was given at the time of marriage was not sufficient. The demand of mother-in-law of respondent- wife remain continued at her work place, the respondent was fed up of such demand and resign from her job and left to matrimonial house to save her conjugal life with the appellant/petitioner. Thereafter, the respondent-wife started living with the petitioner, appellant herein and lead a peaceful conjugal life but suddenly, it has come to notice of mother-in-law that the respondent-wife was pregnant. After knowing the facts of pregnancy of the respondent, the appellant took her to Maika and dropped there. The respondent-wife was blessed with one male child and after hearing the information the appellant-husband went to the place of respondent-wife for one day and left to Koderma. It has further been stated that the newly born child of the appellant got seriously ill and treated at different hospitals for 25 days. The appellant-husband despite knowing the illness of his child neither visited nor provided any means of support for the treatment of newly born child. The appellant and mother-in-law neglected the respondent-wife and her child and all the expenses incurred during treatment are paid by father of the respondent-wife. The appellant-husband falsely filed a Suit Under 2025:JHHC:31729-DB 8 Section-9 of Hindu Marriage Act but it was resolved because she (respondent) has already been resided with the appellant. During matrimonial life, the appellant/petitioner and his mother makes the life measurable for the respondent. The appellant and his mother continuously demanded dowry and due to non-fulfillment of demand both of them assaulted and beaten the respondent-wife on the different occasions and dates. The respondent-wife under compelling circumstances filed a criminal case under Section 498A IPC against the appellant-husband and his mother. The appellant filed divorce case for taking advantage of its own wrong during conjugal life. The respondent- wife always ready to reside with the appellant and lead a peaceful conjugal life. The divorce case filed by the appellant upon false and fabricated grounds and there is no iota of evidence available to show that respondent-wife has committed cruelty against the appellant-husband, as such prayer has been made to dismiss and reject the plaint filed by petitioner U/s- 13 (1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act. 1955. 3. It is evident from the factual aspect that the appellant/petitioner had a motion by filing a petition under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty. 4. The learned Family Judge, on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, has framed altogether five issues, which are as follows: (i) Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form? (ii) Whether the petitioner has valid cause of action for the suit? 2025:JHHC:31729-DB 9 (iii) Whether the respondent has treated the petitioner with cruelty? (iv) Whether the petitioner is entitled to a decree of divorce? (v) To what relief or reliefs, the petitioner is entitled? 5. The evidences have been made on behalf of both the parties. Thereafter, the judgment has been passed dismissing the suit by holding that none of the grounds of cruelty has been established by the appellant/petitioner, which is the subject matter of the present appeal. Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner: 6. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant/petitioner that the factual aspect which was available before the Family Judge supported by the evidences adduced on behalf of the appellant/petitioner has not properly been considered and as such, the judgment impugned is perverse, hence, not sustainable in the eyes of law. 7. It has been submitted that the issue of cruelty has not well been taken into consideration in right perspective. 8. It has been contended that only after lapse of 3-4 days of marriage, the respondent started pressurizing the appellant to go to Switzerland for honeymoon whereupon the appellant shown his inability to do so because he cannot afford such expense. 9. It has further been contended that about 6 months after marriage, she left the matrimonial house and went to Bangaluru and joined her service. On several occasions, the appellant tried to bring the respondent-wife back 2025:JHHC:31729-DB 10 and time and again also requested the father and mother of the respondent but the respondent-wife flatly refused to come back. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner, based upon the aforesaid grounds, has submitted that the judgment impugned suffers from perversity, as such, not sustainable in the eyes of law. Submission of the learned counsel for the respondent: 11. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-wife, while defending the impugned judgment, has submitted that there is no error in the impugned judgement. The learned Family Judge has considered the issue of cruelty and having come to the conclusion that no evidence has been adduced to establish the cruelty, has dismissed the petition. 12. It has been contended that the appellant and her mother left her along just after the marriage and went to USA, Singapore and other places. The respondent has no option and went to join her job at Bangalore. 13. It has also been submitted that the respondent-wife never demanded to visit Switzerland for honey-moon and when the respondent came to matrimonial house during Chhath Pooja and stayed with the appellant, the appellant and his mother started demanding more dowry. 14. It has been submitted that the demand to visit Switzerland was not corroborated by any documentary evidence like passport and Visa. 15. It has further been contended that just to save her matrimonial life, she left the job and went to Koderma and remain stayed with the appellant. 2025:JHHC:31729-DB 11 16. Learned counsel for the respondent-wife, based upon the aforesaid grounds, has submitted that if on that pretext, the factum of cruelty has not been found to be established, based upon which, the decree of divorce has been refused to be granted, the impugned judgment cannot be said to suffer from an error. Analysis: 17. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the finding recorded by the learned Family Judge in the impugned judgment. 18. The case has been heard at length. The admitted fact herein is that the suit for divorce has been filed on the ground of cruelty, i.e., by filing an application under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and accordingly, issues have been framed wherein primarily issue nos.3 pertains to cruelty. 19. The evidence has been led on behalf of both the parties, i.e., the petitioner, (appellant herein) and respondent-wife. For ready reference, the evidences led on behalf of the appellant/petitioner, i.e., P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3, are being referred as under: (i) P.W.-1 – Abhay Anand, who is the petitioner (appellant) himself, has stated in his evidence that his marriage solemnized with respondent on 24.05.2015 at Ranchi. There was no demand of dowry at the time of marriage. He has deposed that out of wedlock one male child born on 20.11.2016 namely Anay Anand. He has also deposed that the respondent-wife was working as Software Engineer at Bangalore at the time of marriage and it was agreed 2025:JHHC:31729-DB 12 between them and their parents that after marriage, the respondent will leave her job and would reside with her husband and his widow mother at their residence situated at Koderma and in the flat situated at Singhmore, Ranchi. He has further deposed that after 3 to 4 months of marriage, the respondent started pressurizing to go to Switzerland for honeymoon and on refusal the respondent called her moth and on 06.06.2015, she left the matrimonial house and went to Bangalore and joined her service there. The respondent- wife again came back to his house on account of Chhath Pooja but this time, she started pressurizing him to get separated from widow mother and reside with her at her parental house at Hinoo. Several efforts have been made to restart conjugal life with respondent-wife but the respondent not ready to join matrimonial house. He has also deposed that he has filed petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal right and it was resolved amicably in the Lok Adalat held on 22.04.2018 and the aforesaid suit bearing no.529 of 2016 was allowed and respondent started residing with him. After some time, the respondent again started insulting him by using abusive language and since 22.04.2018, the respondent has refused to have cohabit with him. The respondent thereafter filed complaint case bearing no.966 of 2019 at Ranchi against him and her mother under Section 498A/34 IPC. He has deposed that he has taken several efforts to restore the conjugal life but all efforts went in vain. 2025:JHHC:31729-DB 13 In his cross-examination at para-24, he has deposed that after disposal of M.T.S. No.529/2016 under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, the respondent started residing with him. At para-35, he has deposed that his son Anay Anand born at Ranchi in Laxmi Nursing Home. At para-45, he has deposed that all the expenses incurred in the treatment of his children paid by him but he was not filed the receipt. At para-65 of his cross-examination, he has deposed that the respondent-wife left her job in the year 2016 and came from Bangalore and started residing with him. At para-76, he has deposed that lastly, he resided with respondent till December, 2018. At para- 78, he has deposed that in the year 2018, he was celebrated birthday of his son in which the family members of the respondent also invited. (ii) P.W.2, namely, Shobha Kumari (mother of the appellant) has deposed that the respondent after marriage committed cruelty against his son and also against her. She has also deposed that the behaviour of respondent-wife was very cruel and she used abusive language. On 06.06.2015, the respondent-wife left her matrimonial house and went to Bangalore. She has further deposed that the respondent left the house and his son filed restitution of conjugal right under Section 9 against the respondent which was resolved at Lok Adalat and thereafter the respondent started staying with them. She has further deposed that on 29.12.2018, the parents of the 2025:JHHC:31729-DB 14 respondent-wife came to her flat and threatened to face the dire consequences. On 01.01.2019, the respondent finally left the matrimonial house. In her cross-examination at para-34, she has deposed that after birth of grand-children he was seriously ill and admitted at Rani Children Nursing Home and she could not visit to see the grand-child. At para-61, she has deposed that after marriage of the appellant, she went to Singapore and thereafter went to New Jersey USA along with petitioner. (iii) PW-3 namely, Sachidanand Sinha, has deposed that the appellant and respondent-wife are known to him. Their marriage solemnized and after marriage the respondent-wife was behaving badly with the appellant and her mother. He has also deposed that the respondent- wife always making quarrel with the appellant in front of him He has further deposed that the respondent-wife filed a criminal complaint case bearing no.966/2019 under Section 498A of the IPC against the appellant and his mother. 20. The evidences led on behalf of the respondent-wife, i.e., O.P.W. No.1 and O.P.W. No.2, for ready reference, the same are being referred as under: (i) O.P.W. No.-1 namely Priyanka Kumari, has deposed that at the time of marriage valuable gift items including jewelery and Rs. 15,00,000/- cash were given to the petitioner, appellant herein. She has also deposed that initially the marriage was fixed on 24.05.2015 but the petitioner and her mother told his father unless 2025:JHHC:31729-DB 15 Rs. 15,00,000/- were not given the marriage will not be solemnized and after arrangement of money the marriage solemnized on 25.05.2015. She deposed that after marriage; she went to her matrimonial house at Koderma and stayed with the appellant and thereafter she went to Bangalore to continue her job. She deposed that her mother-in-law always demanded to give her salary because her parents not given sufficient dowry at the time of marriage. She left the job and came to matrimonial house on 30.01.2016. She deposed that the appellant was running the NGO in which her mother-in-law also working. She deposed that in the year 2016, she got pregnant, the appellant and her mother informed her parents and requested to take the respondent at her Maika and in consequence her brother came and she went to her Maika. On 20.11.2016 a male child was born. She deposed that after 6 days, her newly born child was seriously ill and treated at Vatsaly Hospital and said information given to the appellant but he never visited to see the child. She deposed that her child was admitted in the Rani Children hospital for 23 days but neither appellant nor his mother came to see the child. All the expenses incurred in the treatment of child was bear by her father. All the documents pertaining to treatment and bill marked as exhibit in this case (X to X/32). She deposed that she has taken several efforts to contact the appellant but he has flatly refused to visit her Maika. The appellant-husband and his mother always demanded money. Both of them committed mental and physical cruelty at matrimonial house. She deposed that the appellant never came to bring her and her child to matrimonial 2025:JHHC:31729-DB 16 house but he filed restitution of conjugal right U/s-9 vide MTS Case No. 529/2016 on February 2017. She went to her matrimonial house and stayed for 2 months but her father on 19.11.2017 purchased a Royal Enfield motorcycle in her name and given to appellant on 18.11.2017. She filed the photocopy of the purchased Item marked Ext. X/33 to X/45. She deposed that M.T.S. Case No. 529/2018 was disposed of because she has already been staying with the appellant. She deposed that the appellant and his mother continuously demanded dowry for running a DPS School and due to non-fulfillment of demand there was hot altercation took place on 12.12.2018 at the Singh More house where the appellant assaulted and beaten her and the mother-in-law also beaten her. She deposed that on 29.12.2018, the appellant took her to Koderma and on 30.12.2018, the appellant booked a room in hotel Blish Residency at Ranchi and on 31.01.2018, the appellant and his mother left her in the said hotel and went away. Later on, she called her father and make a payment to hotel room. She deposed that she left her job and returned to matrimonial house to save her marriage. In her cross-examination at para 49, she deposed that her father given Rs. 15,00,000/- and jewellery at the time of marriage. At para 59, she has also deposed that after marriage she went to matrimonial house at Koderma. 2025:JHHC:31729-DB 17 At para 64, she deposed that during stay at her matrimonial house the petitioner, appellant herein and mother-in-law always taunting her. At para-68, she has deposed that the appellant and her mother-in-law always demanded her salary and the said information given to her mother Kanchan Sinha. (ii) O.P.W. No.2, namely, Ram Prasad Singh, has deposed that the petitioner, appellant herein and the respondent (wife) are his son-in-law and daughter respectively. Their marriage was solemnized and at the time of marriage, valuable gift item including jewelry were given to opposite party including cash of Rs.15,00,000/-. He has deposed that the marriage was fixed on 24.05.2015 but the appellant and his mother demanded complete transaction of money and due to delay arrangement of money and marriage, was deferred and solemnized on 25.05.2015 after payment. He has also deposed that after marriage the respondent went to her matrimonial house and thereafter, went to Bangalore where she was working as Software Engineer. He has further deposed that the respondent was fed-up due to such demand and ultimately, she resigned from her job and left Bangalore and went to her matrimonial house on 30.01.2016. He has also deposed that his grand-son got seriously ill and admitted at different hospital at Ranchi and the information given to the appellant about seriousness of his son but the appellant and his mother never visited to see the condition of child. All the expenses incurred during treatment were paid by him. 2025:JHHC:31729-DB 18 In his cross-examination at para-44, he has deposed that there was no documentary evidence available on the record of demand of Rs.15,00,000/- at the time of marriage. 21. The learned Family Judge has gone into the interpretation of the word “cruelty” and assessing the same from the evidences led on behalf of the parties as also the submission made in the pleadings, i.e., plaint and written statement, has found that the element of cruelty could not have been established. 22. The learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner has argued that the evidence of cruelty has not properly been considered and as such, the judgment suffers from perversity, hence, not sustainable in the eyes of law. 23. While on the other hand, argument has been advanced on behalf of the respondent-wife that the judgment is well considered and merely by committing fraud, the suit for divorce has been filed. 24. This Court, while appreciating the argument advanced on behalf of the parties 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. 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 2025:JHHC:31729-DB 19 the finding so outrageously defies logic as to suffer from the vice of irrationality incurring the blame of being perverse, then, the finding is rendered infirm in law. Relevant paragraphs, i.e., paras-24, 25, 26 and 27 of the said judgment reads as under: “24. The expression “perverse” has been dealt with in a number of cases. In Gaya Din v. Hanuman Prasad [(2001) 1 SCC 501] this Court observed that the expression “perverse” means that the findings of the subordinate authority are not supported by the evidence brought on record or they are against the law or suffer from the vice of procedural irregularity. 25. In Parry's (Calcutta) Employees' Union v. Parry & Co. Ltd. [AIR 1966 Cal 31] the Court observed that “perverse finding” means a finding which is not only against the weight of evidence but is altogether against the evidence itself. In Triveni Rubber & Plastics v. CCE [1994 Supp (3) SCC 665 : AIR 1994 SC 1341] the Court observed that this is not a case where it can be said that the findings of the authorities are based on no evidence or that they are so perverse that no reasonable person would have arrived at those findings. 26. In M.S. Narayanagouda v. Girijamma [AIR 1977 Kant 58] the Court observed that any order made in conscious violation of pleading and law is a perverse order. In Moffett v. Gough [(1878) 1 LR 1r 331] the Court observed that a “perverse verdict” may probably be defined as one that is not only against the weight of evidence but is altogether against the evidence. In Godfrey v. Godfrey [106 NW 814] the Court defined “perverse” as turned the wrong way, not right; distorted from the right; turned away or deviating from what is right, proper, correct, etc. 27. The expression “perverse” has been defined by various dictionaries in the following manner: 1. Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary of Current English, 6th Edn. “Perverse.—Showing deliberate determination to behave in a way that most people think is wrong, unacceptable or unreasonable.” 2. Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, International Edn. 2025:JHHC:31729-DB 20 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.”” 25. Further, it needs to refer herein that in the instant case, the ground for divorce has been taken of cruelty. The “cruelty” has been interpreted by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dr. N.G. Dastane vs. Mrs. S. Dastana, (1975) 2 SCC 326 wherein it has been laid down that the Court has to enquire, as to whether, the conduct 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. 26. This Court, deems it fit and proper to take into consideration the meaning of ‘cruelty’, as has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Shobha Rani v. 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. 27. According to the Hon’ble Apex Court, “cruelty” is the “conduct in relation to or in respect of matrimonial conduct in respect of matrimonial 2025:JHHC:31729-DB 21 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.” 28. The Hon’ble Apex Court has further observed therein that while dealing with such complaints of cruelty 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.” 29. 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. 30. 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 a cross-examination. The Hon‟ble Apex Court held these allegations against the husband to constitute “cruelty”. 31. In Vijaykumar Ramchandra Bhate vs. Neela Vijay Kumar Bhate, (2003)6 SCC 334, the Hon‟ble Apex Court has observed by taking into 2025:JHHC:31729-DB 22 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. 32. 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. 33. This Court, on the premise of the interpretation of the word “cruelty” has considered the evidences of the witnesses as has been incorporated by the learned Court in the impugned judgment. For ready reference, the relevant paragraphs of the impugned judgment are being quoted as under: “It transpires from the evidence that the petitioner filed this divorce case on the ground of cruelty committed by the respondent. The plaintiff/petitioner deposed about the demand of visit Switzerland was not corroborated by any documentary evidence like passport and Visa. Rather the plaintiff/petitioner in their evidence admitted that after marriage they went to Singapore, Australia, New Jerscy along with his mother. Every newly married couple have desire to visit at different places just after marriage but in this case the petitioner after marriage left 2025:JHHC:31729-DB 23 the respondent and went to abroad along with mother. It further transpires that the respondent was demanded separation from her mother-in-law but from the evidence it shows that the mother-in-law was working in Giridih and running a NGO which itself proves that she was not residing with the respondent. The respondent was a working lady and doing job at Bangalore at the time of marriage. The contentions of the respondent is very much appreciable that just to save her matrimonial life, she left the job and went to Koderma to remain stay with the petitioner. It further transpires that after birth of male child she was under treatment but the expenses incurred was not completely paid by the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner himself neglects the respondent and her child. The respondent filed dowry case which is resulted into acquittal of petitioner and Ld. counsel for the petitioner submitted that by filing false criminal case by the respondent against petitioner and her mother committed cruelty. I am of the opinion after going through the evidence of parties that merely because there was an sequittal by a criminal court, did not wash away the cruelty committed by the petitioner and her mother of being involved with a young educated working girl during the subsistence of his marriage and merely acquittal in a criminal case could not be a ground to grant divorce. -------- -------- --------- ---------- --------- In this instant case the petitioner not able to brought any cogent evidence which could prove that he has reasonable apprehension that to live with the respondent is harmful or injurious to them. There was no instance except one or two which brought in the evidence by the petitioner which happen in every matrimonial or conjugal life of the spouses. The mental cruelty refers to the infliction of the emotional or psychological distress on one spouse by the other spouse and it can be various forms such as humiliation verbal abused harassment, threat etc. The evidence of the petitioner refers only few instances of threat and verbal exchange or humiliation which could not be considered as mental cruelty.--------- The evidence available on the record which proves that respondent very much performed her loyalty and in consequence 2025:JHHC:31729-DB 24 she got pregnant and blessed with one male child. It is settled position of law that every small dispute / quarrel cannot be viewed as cruelty for the purpose of divorce otherwise many marriages would be on risk as being dissolved even if no cruelty is actually caused by on spouse to the other. The Plaintiff husband alleged that respondent committed continuously cruelty against him and his mother, but no cogent evidence available on the record to relied upon the aforesaid facts. It is well established law that court cannot grant a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty without a pleading on this point by the party and the same being proved by the cogent evidence. The witnesses examined on behalf of plaintiff not consistent, which could prove that the respondent has committed cruelty and withdrawn from the society of the plaintiff. Plaintiff taken advantage of its own wrong to get decree of divorce as the evidence of respondent itself prove the facts. accordingly, issue No. III is decided in favour of the respondent and against the petitioner/plaintiff.” 34. It is evident from the order impugned and as per the evidence available on record that the respondent-wife has very much performed her loyalty and in consequence thereof, she got pregnant and blessed with one male child. 35. The appellant-husband alleged that the respondent-wife committed continuous cruelty against him and his mother, but no cogent evidence available on record to relief upon the aforesaid facts. It is well established law that Court cannot grant a decree of divorce on the ground cruelty without the concrete evidence led by the parties on this point. 36. It is further evident from the order impugned that the witnesses examined on behalf of plaintiff/appellant herein is not consistent that the respondent- wife has committed cruelty and withdrawn from the society of the plaintiff/appellant. The appellant has taken advantage of its own wrong to 2025:JHHC:31729-DB 25 get a decree of divorce as the evidence of respondent-wife itself prove the facts. 37. It is further evident therefrom that the fact about visit of Switzerland was not corroborated by any documentary evidence like passport and visa, rather, the plaintiff/appellant in their evidence admitted that after marriage they went to Singapore, Australia, New Jersey along with his mother. 38. The learned Family Judge, on consideration of the aforesaid issues, has not found the ground for dissolution of marriage on cruelty and therefore, dismissed the suit. 39. This Court, based upon the aforesaid discussions, is of the view that the appellant/petitioner has failed to establish the element of perversity in the impugned judgment as per the discussions made hereinabove, as such, the instant appeal deserves to be dismissed. 40. Accordingly, the instant appeal fails and is, dismissed. 41. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) I Agree (Rajesh Kumar, J.) (Rajesh Kumar, J.) 14/10/2025 Rohit/-A.F.R. Uploaded on 15.10.2025