2025:JHHC:35988-DB 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI First Appeal No. 37 of 2025 Tulsi Ram Bhalotia S/o Late Matadin Bhalotia, aged about 58 years, residents of H.No.28, Old C.H. Area, Road No.3, Duplex No.3, P.O. & P.S.-Bistupur, District-East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur at Present residents of Flat No.1242, Mangalam City, Near Sudha Dairy, Gamharia, P.O. & P.S. Gamharia, District-Seraikella-Kharsawan. … … Appellant/Petitioner Versus Sunita Bhalotia W/o Tulsi Ram Bhalotia, D/o Late Radhe Shyam Tantia, residents of H.No.28, Old C.H. Area, Road No.3, Duplex No.3, P.O. & P.S. Bistupur, District-East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur. … … Respondent/Defendant ------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI ------- For the Appellant : Mr. Jitesh Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Jitendra Nath Upadhyay, Adv ---------------------------- CAV on 21.11.2025 Pronounced on 02/12/2025 Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. 1. The instant appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Court Act, 1984 is directed against the order/judgment dated 9th May, 2024 and decree signed on 16th May, 2024 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court No. 2, Jamshedpur in Original Suit No. 699 of 2017, whereby and whereunder, the suit filed by the petitioner- appellant [husband] for dissolution of marriage by decree of divorce u/s 13(1)(i-a)(i-b) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 against respondent/wife, has been dismissed. 2025:JHHC:35988-DB 2 2. The brief facts of the case leading to filing of the divorce petition by the appellant-petitioner, as taken note in the impugned order as emanated from the plaints, needs to be referred herein, which as under: 3. The marriage of the appellant and respondent was solemnized according to Hindu custom and rights in the year 1984 at Jamshedpur with the consent of both the parties. After consummation of marriage, out of their wedlock one daughter was begotten who has been married to well to do family and she is leading peacefully conjugal life. 4. It is stated that since they have no male issue as such with the consent of both the parties, one male child was adopted in the year 2004, who was imparted education in Shyan International School, Jamshedpur. It is further stated that till May 2015 the conjugal life of both spouse continued peacefully. 5. It is further submitted that with full trust and confidence, the petitioner-husband [appellant herein] purchased land and house in the name of respondent-wife. After 2015, due to paucity of fund and financial crisis on the part of petitioner, he was forced to cut short his normal day to day expenses to pace with the emergent situation prevalent at that time but it is alleged that the respondent did not agree and was not ready to cope with the petitioner to such situation and behaved rudely and became very quarrelsome, 2025:JHHC:35988-DB 3 crafty, cantankerous and nagging house wife and started quarreling with the petitioner on very frail, frazile and flimsy manner, hence the life of petitioner was not only deserted but was very rueful, heart rending, harrowing and relentless. It is stated that the petitioner was forced to digest the rude behaviour taking his prestige and his family and averting any untoward incident which he apprehended from respondent but gradually the respondent started showing rough and blunt behaviour towards the petitioner because she has different attitude, in-disciplined and non-cooperative in every matter related to household affairs and she used to go outside the house and remained outside for several hours and on query the respondent quarrelled and challenged to do so as per her choice. Not only this she started abusing and using filthy language number of times. 6. It is alleged that the respondent-wife adopted all sorts of tactic and method to humiliate, demoralize and pressurize the petitioner for abrupt demand for lavish living and regularly attending club and other activities without the consent of petitioner. She misbehaved with the petitioner and tortured him mentally by not providing food and paying proper respect and regards to the petitioner and adopted arrogant behaviour all the times. It is stated that the respondent treated the petitioner with cruelty by causing mental torture, disgrace and harassment. 2025:JHHC:35988-DB 4 7. It is stated that the situation became unbearable and intolerable due to cruel behaviour of respondent towards petitioner when she filed fake and planted criminal case on 02.06.2015 against the petitioner and his brothers to suffer and put them in irreparable loss and injury. But during investigation truth crystallized and the petitioner and his brother were exonerated for the offence U/s 498(A) of I.P.C and other offences being bailable, they were saved to go behind the bar although best effort was exerted by respondent to implicate them in false and fabricated case. 8. Further with revengeful attitude and to satisfy her whim and caprice she further did herculean task to launch prosecution under provision of Domestic Violence Act 2003. The petitioner was forced to quit his residential house at C.H. Area, Jamshedpur and started living alone in Mangalam City at Adityapur to avert and avoid any future complication respecting matrimonial discord. The respondent has also flashed disparaging remarks in newspaper to lower down the prestige of petitioner and also tried her utmost to even disturb the peaceful living on pointing out finger on the integrity and character of petitioner approaching at Mangalam City, Adityapaur. 9. Further, the respondent is not even allowing the petitioner to have ingress and egress in his self-acquired property in which she is exclusively residing and not permitted the 2025:JHHC:35988-DB 5 petitioner to enter the house otherwise he is cautioned to follow worse consequences. Even she tried her best to disturb the smooth functioning of company by stopping Bank Account operation in the month of March 2015 for causing irreparable loss and injury and mental agony to the petitioner. 10. However, on the intervention and best effort of the brothers of petitioner any how operation of Bank Account was resumed. Furthermore, even having locker in joint name she removed all the valuable articles belonging to petitioner as the petitioner had handed over the key of locker. It is further alleged that the respondent also encased all the deposits of LIC on premature date. The respondent crossing all the limitation, barriers and reservations sold out the vehicle XYLO entrusted to her for the personal use without the consent and knowledge of the petitioner for which the petitioner was forced to file criminal case U/s 467/468/420/406/120(B) of the I.P.C in which cognizance has been taken. The case is still pending for adjudication bearing C1-470/17 before J.M at Jamshedpur. The petitioner apprehends that she may alienate the property of petitioner in future if no coercive measure will be adopted to check her illegal and immoral activities. 11. Therefore, contention has been made that the petitioner has been illegally deprived from the right to have conjugal 2025:JHHC:35988-DB 6 happiness by the respondents since June 2015 the petitioner is residing at Mangalam City at Adityapur apprehending danger of his life and prestige and false implication in false cases cannot be ruled out. The respondent has deserted the petitioner and refused to join the conjugal life with the petitioner as such the petitioner has been compelled to lead miserable life without his fault on his part. Therefore ground has been taken that for the aforesaid illegal, immoral and cruel act of the respondent, the petitioner has sustained mental shock and injury. As such having left with no other adequate and alternative option, the petitioner approached the learned family court seeking decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion since June, 2015 they are living separately. 12. After being noticed, the respondent appeared and filed written statement denying the allegation leveled against her and raised the issue of maintainability of the suit. 13. Contention has been made that it is the petitioner-husband who meted out atrocities against her which compelled her to file criminal cases against her. Submission has been made that it is the petitioner-husband who extended all sorts of atrocities, which was beyond her tolerance and the torture extended upon her both physically and mentally by the appellant and his family members went up-to its extreme. The allegations made in the plaint showing that the 2025:JHHC:35988-DB 7 petitioner was in any way subjected with cruelty either physically or mentally at the hands of the respondent are nothing but an hoax only to draw sympathy of the court to fulfill the evil desire of the petitioner-appellant. Therefore, pleading was made that the proceeding is nothing but a bunch of falsehood. Therefore, prayer was made to dismiss the suit by denying the relief as sought for by the petitioner- husband. 14. On the basis of the pleadings of both the parties, the learned family court framed the issue as to whether the petitioner, the appellant herein [husband] is entitled for a decree of divorce and accordingly evidence was adduced on behalf of parties. 15. The learned Principal Judge, family court, after appreciating the evidence adduced on behalf of parties, came to the conclusion that the petitioner-husband, the appellant herein, could not prove the ingredients of cruelty and desertion against the respondent-wife, as such it was held that the petitioner-husband is not entitled to get a decree of divorce, against which, the instant appeal has been preferred. Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant: 16. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that the factual aspect which was available before the learned family court supported by the evidences adduced on behalf of the 2025:JHHC:35988-DB 8 appellant has not properly been considered and as such, the judgment impugned is perverse, hence, not sustainable in the eyes of law. 17. It has been submitted that the issue of cruelty has not been taken into consideration in the right perspective even though the fact about living separately has well been established. 18. Submission has been made that the judgment passed by learned court below is perverse in the eye of law as the wife has committed mental cruelty and physical cruelty towards the appellant by filing false case against the appellant and his entire family members though during investigation charge-sheet has been filed showing lack of evidence under Section 498A IPC and lack of evidence against the entire family members of the appellant though there was clear intention of the respondent-wife that appellant and his family members be sent for jail custody and this conduct has caused mental cruelty to the appellant-husband hence the judgment and decree passed by the learned court below is erroneous and bad in the eye of law, which is fit to be quashed and set aside. 19. It has been submitted that the respondent-wife sold the vehicle of the company of the appellant without knowledge of the appellant for which case for theft was lodged due to which he sustained mockery and loss of his prestige in the society but this aspect of the matter has also not been taken 2025:JHHC:35988-DB 9 into consideration by learned family court while passing the impugned order. 20. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that from bare perusal of documentary and oral evidence it is quite apparent that the respondent-wife has treated the appellant with cruelty by causing mental and physical torture, disgrace, harassment by creating ugly scene and taunting which resulted in disruption in his normal life and his life became hell, which resulted into mental depression but this aspect of the matter has also not been taken into consideration by learned Single Judge. 21. It has been submitted that due to odd and eccentric behavior of the respondent-wife, the appellant was forced to leave his own house in June, 2015 and since then there was desertion on the part of the wife for a long period of nine period as such the factum of desertion has well been established but that has not been taken into consideration by learned family court. 22. Learned counsel for the appellant, based upon the aforesaid grounds, has submitted that the judgment impugned suffers from perversity, as such, is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Submission of the learned counsel for the respondent: 23. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent- wife, while defending the impugned judgment, has submitted 2025:JHHC:35988-DB 10 that there is no error in the impugned judgment. The learned Additional Principal Judge has considered the issue of cruelty and desertion and having come to the conclusion that no evidence has been adduced to establish cruelty and desertion has dismissed the suit. 24. Submission has been made that due to compelling circumstances as the atrocities extended to her became intolerable she initiated criminal proceeding against the petitioner-appellant and her in-laws and due to which even the news item was published in the newspaper. Further, it is the petitioner-appellant, who had filed a false case against her without any cogent evidence. 25. Learned counsel, based upon the aforesaid ground, has submitted that if on that pretext, the factum of cruelty and/or desertion 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 error. Analysis: 26. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the finding recorded by the learned Family Judge in the impugned judgment. 27. The admitted fact herein is that the suit for divorce has been filed on the ground of cruelty and desertion i.e., by filing an application under Section 13 (1) (i-a) (i-b) of the Hindu 2025:JHHC:35988-DB 11 Marriage Act, 1955 and accordingly, issues have been framed and decided against the petitioner-appellant. 28. The evidence has been led on behalf of both the parties. On behalf of petitioner-husband, two witnesses have been examined, namely, Tulsi Ram Bhalotia [PW 1], the appellant himself; and Sanjeet Srivastava [PW 2]. Further examination-in-chief of one petitioner-appellant witness namely Hem Kant Jha was filed on 26.03.2019 but as the petitioner was not examined as such examination of Hem Kant Jha was objected by the respondent and accordingly he was not examined and thereafter also neither his fresh examination in chief was filed nor he was produced for cross-examination, so his examination in chief filed on 26.03.2019 stood expunged. 29. Whereas on behalf of respondent-wife two witnesses have been examined, namely, Sunita Bhalotia, the respondnet examined herself as R.W- 1, the respondent and her daughter Priyanka Jajodia as R.W-2. 30. This Court in order to appreciate the testimony available on record has gone through the testimonies of the witnesses. 31. P.W. 1-Tulsi Ram Bhalotia, the appellant-husband, in his examination-in-chief has reiterated what he has stated in the plaint. Therefore, the same is not being reiterated herein. 32. In the cross-examination he has stated that he got married in 1984 but he do not remember the date and after the 2025:JHHC:35988-DB 12 marriage he went to Malaysia, China and Singapore along with his wife and children and he is having a company in the name of Bharat Safety Glass Pvt. Ltd. in which his wife was a Director from 1997-2018, and after the case he removed her and his wife must be having 42% of share and he purchased land measuring 7200 Sq.ft. in the name of his wife in RIT and he has also purchased land in her name in other places and his wife lodged a case U/s 498(A) I.P.C but the police did not find case U/s 498(A) I.P.C rather found a case of Section 323 I.P.C which is pending. He started living with his wife in Jugsalai and he as well as his wife are members of United and Beldih Club and his wife never stopped him from going to Club. He used to give Rs. 50,000/- to his wife as Director but when he stopped giving he cannot remember. He cannot say the date since when he stopped giving maintenance allowance to his wife. The C.J.M Court ordered him to give Rs. 45,000/- to his wife but he appealed against the order and it was stayed and he also went for review and he is staying in Mangalam City, Adityapur since 2015. He has denied that in Mangalam City allegation was levelled against him for misbehaving with a girl. But the police found it wrong in inquiry. During festivals he used to give money to his wife and children for expenses. He stayed with his wife in Mangalam for 20 days 2025:JHHC:35988-DB 13 and led conjugal life. He has not filed any case for bringing back his wife. 33. P.W.2 Sanjeet Srivastava in his examination-in-chief has stated that he is well acquainted with the petitioner [appellant] and respondent as he is serving in the concern of applicant [appellant] since year 2005 and the respondent was sometimes visiting the premises of the company when she was one of the Directors. In March 2015 she with malafide intention stopped Bank Account operation of the company for causing irreparable loss and injury and mental agony to the appellant and later on with the best effort and intervention of the brothers of appellant any how the operation of Bank Account of Company was resumed. After this instance the relation between appellant and respondent became strained and reached at the climax when having no rhyme or reason the respondent filed false and frivolous case U/s 498(A) I.P.C against appellant and his other two brothers. 34. During investigation police when found the allegation not true the two brothers of appellant were exonerated forthwith and the appellant-petitioner was also exonerated from the allegation U/s 498(A) of I.P.C. Further to lower down the prestige of appellant, the respondent remained with appellant but hatched conspiracy in Mangalam apartment and flashed the fake news in newspaper knowing to be false. 2025:JHHC:35988-DB 14 The matter was investigated and report was submitted to S.P Seraikella by Adityapur P.S in which the allegation against the appellant was found baseless having no clue. The respondent imposed mental cruelty in multifold ways that it created metal depression in the mind of appellant, god's shake the appellant has not taken drastic step of committing suicide but a prudent man ought to have done so. The respondent has ousted the applicant from his dwelling house at Circuit House Area and threatened him to implicate in false cases. To avoid further suffering and disparaging situation the appellant is residing in Mangalam City at Adityapur and continuing as such. The respondent sold the XYLO car of the appellant without his consent for which the appellant was forced to prosecute against her. She is not the registered owner of vehicle. And arrogant and rude behaviour of respondent is very much abnormal and objectionable and she always tried her best to pass disparaging remarks and putting mental torture, disgrace and harassment by creating ugly scene and taunting. Life of appellant has become hell and he is not in a position to pace with these alarming situations and live with respondent. The respondent has deserted him willfully by neglecting him all the times, this way or that way creating mental agony to appellant. He has further deposed that he having opportunity to observe the behaviour of respondent, he felt 2025:JHHC:35988-DB 15 that the life of appellant is so miserable that it is very much difficult for him to live with the respondent. 35. In the cross-examination he has stated that he is working in Bharat Safety Glass, Gamharia and its owner is Tulsi Ram Bhalotia, who has come to court with him. He has no knowledge about the property of Tulsi Ram Bhalotia and he do not know as to when both of them got married and he also do not know that both of them went to which places on a tour. 36. R.W.1 Sunita Bhalotia, who is the respondent in this suit, in her examination-in-chief she has stated that she got married to the appellant on 20.01.1984 as per Hindu customs in Jamshedpur and she is having a daughter out of the wedlock who got married to Aditya Jajodia on 05.12.2006. Both of them adopted a son namely Sahil Bhalotia who is aged 18 years at that time. After their marriage they stayed in joint family for sometimes and lived their conjugal life peacefully. She has further deposed that her husband made her partner in the company i.e., Bharat Safety Glass Company as per capital invested by her and she was made Director. She has never fought with her husband whereas it is the appellant-husband who assaulted her after taking liquor. Her husband always kept illicit relation with other females, due to which people of the society of Mangalam Home lodged a case against her husband in 2025:JHHC:35988-DB 16 Seraikella Civil Court. She whenever used to object him in doing such acts he used to abuse and assault her. Her husband fought with him with regard to a girl namely Shyama who was working in the Office of her husband and he used to say that he will keep that girl and will divorce her. 37. In the testimony, she has further alleged that her husband has sold her ornaments worth crores and has kept on fighting with her and even fought with her regarding paying fees of boarding school of her son. 38. It has further been deposed that her husband has filed this case only to grab her property and has filed a Title Suit for her property. Her husband has filed false case against him for selling the vehicle although it was sold with their consent. She has further deposed that there was always love between her and her husband but due to property and bad habits of her husband there used to be fight. She is connected with her husband mentally, physically and economically and also as per family values. In the case of Domestic Violence order was made by the court for giving maintenance allowance but he violated the order of the court. Further, as per the order of the court her husband was supposed to give Rs. 28 lakhs which he has not given. Lastly, she has stated that she does not want divorce from her husband. 2025:JHHC:35988-DB 17 39. In her cross-examination she has deposed that she stayed in the joint house for 10 years and after death of her father-in- law it was sold and thereafter her husband purchased a house in Circuit House Area in which she started living and her husband is the sole owner of the Glass Factory. Presently she is not a director of the company as she has been terminated in 2016 although she got information in 2019. It has been stated that as her husband was having illicit relation and he used to abuse her, so her relation with her husband got strained. She and her husband both got their daughter married by performing Kanyadan. Since 2015 his son is with her. 40. It is true that her husband purchased 5 decimal of land in RIT for sum of Rs. 80 Lakhs which she recently sold it as she was in need of money and she has half share in the house at CH Area and it is true that her husband fulfilled the obligation of a husband and he gave her half share in his land and house. It is true that her husband is sending the said amount in her account for the studies of their son. And she was put a question that whether she is having relationship of love with her husband or for money, to which she has nothing to say. 41. Further she has denied that she is staying separately from her husband since 02.06.2015 and now she has no love or emotions for her husband. It is true that she sold the vehicle 2025:JHHC:35988-DB 18 of Bharat Glass Factory for which a case of theft was lodged against her and the case is still pending. Further she has denied that she tortured her husband mentally, physically and economically and due to which his prestige in the society got maligned. Further she has denied the suggestion of the petitioner side that her husband always fulfilled his marital obligations and helped her economically in every places and his Rs 5 Crores is safe with her and she does not want to stay with him as a wife, so the petitioner was compelled to file this case for divorce. 42. R.W.2 Priyanka Jajodia, who is the daughter of the parties has stated in her examination-in-chief that petitioner- appellant and respondent are her father and mother respectively and she got married on 05.12.2006 with Aditya Jajodia as per consent of her parents. The petitioner- appellant and the respondent with their consent adopted a son namely Sahil Bhalotia. Her father has made her mother shareholder as per capital invested by her and she is also a Director in the company. Prior to this case, petitioner- appellant and respondent stayed together and respondent never fought with the petitioner-appellant and petitioner- appellant always assaulted the respondent after taking liquor. The petitioner-appellant had illicit relations with other females due to which people of society of Mangalam Home lodged a case against the petitioner-appellant in 2025:JHHC:35988-DB 19 Seraikella Court. Whenever the respondent used to object him in doing such acts he used to abuse and assault her. The appellant fought with the respondent with regard to a girl namely Shyama who was working in his Office and he used to say that he will keep that girl and will divorce the respondent. The petitioner-appellant has sold ornaments worth crores of her mother which she got from her parents and used to fight with her mother on asking for her jewelries. The appellant has filed this case for divorce and a Title Suit to grab the property of the respondent. There was always love between the appellant and the respondent but due to property and bad habits of the appellant there used to be fight between them. In the case of Domestic Violence filed by her mother, order was made by the court for giving maintenance allowance of Rs. 45,000/- per month to the respondent and her son but he violated the order of the court and not giving the said amount. 43. In the cross-examination she has stated that since she was 11 years old her father tortured her mother. Her father is torturing her mother since 1995. In 2005 her father took her, her mother and brother on a tour to Singapore and Malaysia. She has denied the suggestion that her father did not torture her mother till 2005. Prior to 2005 also her father tortured her mother. It is true that her mother organized exhibition and her father helped her mother in 2025:JHHC:35988-DB 20 that. It is true that her father purchased a land in C.H.Area in his name and name of her mother. Her mother is having possession of the C.H.Area house but it is wrong to say that her mother does not allow her father to enter the house and gives him threatening. It is also false to say that her mother earns Rs. 50,000/- per month from the said house as rent. Further she has also denied the suggestion of the petitioner- appellant side that her mother tortured her father mentally and physically and filed false cases against him for extorting money from him. 44. On the basis of the pleading of the parties the learned Principal Family Judge had framed issues for proper determination of the lis, and after due appreciation of the ocular as well as documentary evidence had negated the claim of the husband/appellant and observed that the petitioner/husband has totally failed to prove and establish the allegation of cruelty and desertion on the part of wife for dissolution of marriage. 45. Herein, the learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the evidence of desertion and cruelty has not properly been considered and as such, the judgment suffers from perversity, hence, not sustainable in the eyes of law. 46. While on the other hand, argument has been advanced on behalf of the respondent that the judgment is well considered and the learned family court has rightly come to 2025:JHHC:35988-DB 21 the conclusion by denying the decree of suit of divorce in favour of petitioner-husband accordingly, dismissed the suit which requires no interference by this Court. 47. From the pleadings available on record and the arguments advanced on behalf of parties, the issue which requires consideration is as to: “Whether the judgment and decree passed by the learned family court denying the decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act and/or on the ground of desertion under Section 13(1)(ib) requires interference?” 48. 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 the finding so outrageously defies logic as to suffer from the vice of irrationality incurring the blame of being perverse, then, 2025:JHHC:35988-DB 22 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:35988-DB 23 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.” 49. Herein, cruelty has been taken by the appellant as the main ground for dissolution of marriage. 50. So far the allegation of cruelty is concerned, it requires to refer herein the definition of „cruelty’ as has been defined by Hon‟ble Apex 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 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. 51. 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. 2025:JHHC:35988-DB 24 52. 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.” 53. The Hon’ble Apex Court has further observed therein that while dealing with such complaints of cruelty that it is important for the Court to not search for a standard in life, since cruelty in one case may not be cruelty in another case. What must be considered include the kind of life the parties are used to, “their economic and social conditions”, and the “culture and human values to which they attach importance.” 54. 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. 55. 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 2025:JHHC:35988-DB 25 wife’s lawyer also levelled allegations of “lunacy” and “insanity” against the husband and his family while he was conducting cross-examination. The Hon‟ble Apex Court held these allegations against the husband to constitute “cruelty”. 56. 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. 57. 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. 2025:JHHC:35988-DB 26 58. This Court, based upon the aforesaid discussions on the issue of cruelty, has gone through the testimony of witnesses and found from the testimony of appellant-husband [PW 1] that he has alleged that he was married with the respondent in the year 1984 and out of their wedlock one daughter was begotten who has been married to well to do family and continuing her marital life happily. 59. Further, one male child was adopted with the consent of both the parties in the year 2004. It has been stated that up- to May 2015 the conjugal life of both continued peacefully. The friction started between the parties, when allegedly there was financial crisis due to which he was forced to cut short his normal day to day expenses to pace with the prevalent emergent situation but the respondent failed to cooperate rather started behaving rudely and even demanded to led lavish life style and she started remaining outside the house and on query she was adamant to quarrel and challenge to do as per her choice and for provoking started abusing in filthy languages regularly and humiliated, demoralized and pressurized him to fulfill her abrupt demand of lavish living and attending club and other activities without his consent. 60. It has further been deposed that she misbehaved, tortured and denied to provide food and any proper respect to him. She treated him with cruelty by causing mental and physical torture, disgrace, harassment by creating ugly scene and 2025:JHHC:35988-DB 27 taunting which resulted in disruption in his normal life and his life became hell and resulted into mental depression. It is further deposed that the respondent-wife lodged case U/s 498(A) of I.P.C case under the Domestic Violence Act and he was forced to quit his residential house. Such untoward incidents, arrogant behaviour, deliberate and malafide intention to defame the petitioner all the times by which petitioner has been deprived, illegally from his right to have conjugal happiness by the respondent due to cruelty meted out in multi-fold ways. 61. It has also been deposed that the respondent has also deserted the petitioner-appellant and not eager to join conjugal life with him, hence the petitioner is forced to lead miserable life due to immoral and cruel act of respondent. It has further been deposed that the cause of action arose on June 2015, when the petitioner-appellant was forced to quit his native house at C.H. Area Jamshedpur due to cruelty imposed against him and also deserted him. 62. While on the other hand, the respondent-wife has stated that she got married to the appellant on 20.01.1984 and out of her wedlock a daughter was begotten who got married to Aditya Jajodia on 05.12.2006. Thereafter, both of them consented to adopt a son namely Sahil Bhalotia. She admitted that her husband made partner in the company, 2025:JHHC:35988-DB 28 Bharat Safety Glass Company as per capital invested by her and she was made Director. 63. She has deposed that never fought with her husband whereas it is the appellant-husband who assaulted her after taking liquor. Her husband always kept illicit relation with other females, due to which people of the society of Mangalam Home lodged a case against her husband in Seraikella Civil Court. She whenever used to object him in doing such acts he used to abuse and assault her. Her husband fought with him with regard to a girl namely Shyama who was working in the Office of her husband and he used to say that he will keep that girl and will divorce her. She has further deposed that there was always love between her and her husband but due to property and bad habits of her husband there used to be fight. It has further been deposed that her husband has filed this case only to grab her property and has filed a Title Suit for her property. Her husband has filed false case against him for selling the vehicle although it was sold with their consent. She has stated that she does not want divorce from her husband. R.W.2 Priyanka Jajodia, who is the daughter of the parties, has also supported the case of the respondent. 64. From the discussions made hereinabove, it is evident that no cruelty has been meted out to the appellant-husband by the respondent-wife rather it is the appellant-husband who 2025:JHHC:35988-DB 29 tortured the respondent-wife and even there is allegation against him of having illicit relation with another lady. 65. On the basis of the discussion made hereinabove, this Court is of the considered view that the appellant/husband has failed to brought any cogent evidence on record in order to establish the alleged cruelty by the respondent/wife as such the behaviour of the respondent wife as alleged, does not amount to cruelty justifying dissolution of the marriage. 66. Now coming to the issue of desertion, which is also taken as a ground for decree of divorce. 67. The word „desertion’ has been given in Explanation to Section 13 (1) wherein it has been stated that “the expression desertion means the desertion of the petitioner by the other party to the marriage without reasonable cause and without the consent or against the wish of such party, and includes the wilfull neglect of the petitioner by the other party to the marriage, and its grammatical variations and cognate expressions shall be construed accordingly. 68. It is pertinent to note that the word „desertion‟, as has been defined in Explanation part of Section 13 of the Act, 1955, means the desertion of the petitioner by the other party to the marriage without reasonable cause and without the consent or against the wish of such party, and includes the wilful neglect of the petitioner by the other party to the 2025:JHHC:35988-DB 30 marriage, and its grammatical variations and cognate expressions shall be construed accordingly. 69. Rayden on Divorce ,which is a standard work on the subject at p. 128 (6th Edn.), has summarised the case-law on the subject in these terms: “Desertion is the separation of one spouse from the other, with an intention on the part of the deserting spouse of bringing cohabitation permanently to an end without reasonable cause and without the consent of the other spouse; but the physical act of departure by one spouse does not necessarily make that spouse the deserting party.” 70. The legal position has been admirably summarised in paras- 453 and 454 at pp. 241 to 243 of Halsbury's Laws of England (3rd Edn.), Vol. 12, in the following words: “In its essence desertion means the intentional permanent forsaking and abandonment of one spouse by the other without that other's consent, and without reasonable cause. It is a total repudiation of the obligations of marriage. In view of the large variety of circumstances and of modes of life involved, the Court has discouraged attempts at defining desertion, there being no general principle applicable to all cases. 71. Desertion is not the withdrawal from a place but from a state of things, for what the law seeks to enforce is the recognition and discharge of the common obligations of the married state; the state of things may usually be termed, for short, „the home‟. There can be desertion without previous cohabitation by the parties, or without the marriage having 2025:JHHC:35988-DB 31 been consummated. The person who actually withdraws from cohabitation is not necessarily the deserting party. 72. The offence of desertion is a course of conduct which exists independently of its duration, but as a ground for divorce it must exist for a period of at least two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition or, where the offence appears as a cross-charge, of the answer. 73. Desertion as a ground of divorce differs from the statutory grounds of adultery and cruelty in that the offence founding the cause of action of desertion is not complete, but is inchoate, until the suit is constituted, desertion is a continuing offence. 74. It is, thus, evident from the aforesaid reference of meaning of desertion that the quality of permanence is one of the essential elements which differentiate desertion from wilful separation. If a spouse abandons the other spouse in a state of temporary passion, for example, anger or disgust, without intending permanently to cease cohabitation, it will not amount to desertion. For the offence of desertion, so far as the deserting spouse is concerned, two essential conditions must be there, namely, (1) the factum of separation, and (2) the intention to bring cohabitation permanently to an end. 75. Similarly two elements are essential so far as the deserted spouse is concerned: (1) the absence of consent, and (2) absence of conduct giving reasonable cause to the spouse 2025:JHHC:35988-DB 32 leaving the matrimonial home to from the necessary intention aforesaid. 76. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Debananda Tamuli vs. Kakumoni Kataky, (2022) 5 SCC 459 has considered the definition of „desertion‟ on the basis of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Lachman Utamchand Kirpalani v. Meena, AIR 1964 SC 40 which has been consistently followed in several decisions of this Court. 77. The law consistently has been laid down that desertion means the intentional abandonment of one spouse by the other without the consent of the other and without a reasonable cause. The deserted spouse must prove that there is a factum of separation and there is an intention on the part of deserting spouse to bring the cohabitation to a permanent end. In other words, there should be animus deserendi on the part of the deserting spouse. There must be an absence of consent on the part of the deserted spouse and the conduct of the deserted spouse should not give a reasonable cause to the deserting spouse to leave the matrimonial home. 78. This Court, has again delved into the testimony of witnesses and found that the appellant-husband could not prove that it is the respondent-wife, who deserted her husband on her own wish rather the testimony of the parties and materials 2025:JHHC:35988-DB 33 available on record shows that it is the appellant-husband who chose not to stay with the respondent-wife. 79. 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, denying the decree of divorce passed to the appellant-husband on the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act and on the ground of desertion under Section 13(1)(ib), requires no interference by this Court. 80. This Court, based upon the aforesaid discussion, is of the view that the appellant/petitioner has also failed to establish the element of perversity in the impugned judgment as per the discussion made hereinabove, as such, this Court do not find any merit in the appeal. 81. Accordingly, the instant appeal fails and is dismissed. 82. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. I Agree (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Arun Kumar Rai, J.) (Arun Kumar Rai, J.) 2nd December, 2025 A.F.R. Alankar/ Uploaded on 02.12.2025