2025:JHHC:35991-DB 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI F.A. No.40 of 2023 ----- - Abhishek Kumar Singh, aged about 30 years, Son of Mahatma Prasad Singh, resident of Mohalla Nandan Pahar, Ward No. 14, P.O. & P.S.-Subdivision, District - Deoghar, Jharkhand, permanent resident of village Gulni Kusha, P.O.& P.S. Sambhuganj, District- Banka, State-Bihar. … … Appellant/Petitioner Versus Annu Kumari, aged about 26 years, wife of Abhishek Kumar Singh, daughter of Satyendra Kumar Singh, resident of village Koriyandha, P.O. & P.S. Subdivision, District - Banka State-Bihar. … … Respondent/Opposite Party P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI ….. For the Appellant : Mr. P.S. Dayal, Advocate : Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Parambir Singh Bajaj, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Satyanshu Shubham, Advocate ….. C.A.V. on 19.11.2025 Pronounced on 02/12/2025 Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. Prayer: 1. The instant appeal has been filed challenging the legality and propriety of impugned judgment passed on 28.01.2023 and decree signed on 10.02.2023 by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Deoghar whereby and whereunder the Original Suit No.389 of 2019 filed by the appellant-husband under Section 13(1)(i-a) (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for a decree of divorce has been dismissed. Factual Matrix 2. The brief facts of the case of the appellant-husband 2025:JHHC:35991-DB 2 as narrated in the plaint, is that the marriage of appellant was solemnized with the respondent on 30.04.2017 as per Hindu Rituals and Rites. But the said marriage was solemnized by the parents of respondent by concealing the material facts of about the behavior and ailment of respondent/wife. After Gauna, the respondent came to her sasural and remained in her matrimonial home with her husband for about three months only whereupon the behavior and ailment of respondent could be known. 3. The respondent used to quarrel with her husband and in-laws frequently and go out of the house without telling about it to her husband. Whenever, the appellant tried to stop the respondent, she used to be aggressive. 4. In course of time, the appellant learnt that the respondent is suffering from mental illness due to which her parents were frequently coming to his house and providing medicine to the respondent in her matrimonial home. The mental condition of respondent was further deteriorated whereupon her parents came to her matrimonial home and took her back with them on 28.02.2018 5. Subsequently, after 2-3 months petitioner went Orissa for earning his livelihood and the respondent was brought back to her matrimonial home on 29.07.2018. But just on the next date of her arrival in her matrimonial home, her mental sickness was again aggravated and she went to 2025:JHHC:35991-DB 3 her home on 02.08.2018. 6. Further, it has been stated that during her entire period of stay in her matrimonial home, the respondent/O.P used to abuse the appellant and his family members and subjecting them with cruelty and threatening them to commit suicide. 7. Sometimes she used to dash her in-laws also. The mental condition of respondent was not good in her matrimonial home and she regularly threatening to commit suicide due to which the parents of appellant were living in fear. 8. The respondent used to write suicidal note and she was frequently threatening to jump from roof and thereby commit suicide and implicate the appellant and his family members in false case. 9. The appellant's parents were always trying to keep the respondent/O.P with love and affection and they persuaded her too much but they did not pay any heed to anyone. The parents of respondent/O.P were well aware about her mental sickness and they were getting her treatment also but they knowingly concealed about the mental condition of respondent and its treatment. 10. On 13.06.2019 the mother and father of respondent/O.P came to Deoghar and requested the parents 2025:JHHC:35991-DB 4 of the appellant to allow the respondent to live in her matrimonial home and accordingly a compromise was executed between the parties on 13.06.2019 on a stamp paper wherein it was mentioned that the respondent will not repeat such type of act in future. 11. Thereafter, on 17.06.2019 the appellant, along with his maternal grandfather and cousin brought back the respondent/0.P to his house but even thereafter, there was no change in her behavior. 12. On 23.08.2019, the physical and mental condition of respondent became serious due to which she was taken to Doctor Birendra Prasad Singh who diagnosed the disease of respondent as steep Mental Disturbance and abnormal behavior and advised to consult with Psychiatrist. Thereafter, on 24.08.2019, the respondent was taken to Bhagalpur and shown to Dr. A.K. Bhagat who identified the disease of respondent as Genetic disease schizophrenia. 13. It has been further said that the respondent's mental condition had deteriorated and became uncontrolled hence the respondent was again admitted in clinic of doctor from 26.8.2019 to the 02.09.2019 and her parents were also attending said clinic during the said period. 14. Subsequently, after returning from there, the parents of respondent/O.P took her back with them and they are frequently threatening the appellant to implicate 2025:JHHC:35991-DB 5 him in a false case. 15. On 02.09.2019, the respondent had come from Bhagalpur to her matrimonial home at Nandan Pahar, Deoghar and thereafter in the morning of 03.09.2019 at about 08 O'clock morning the respondent went to her father's house along with her father by taking her all articles and hence the cause of action for this suit arose on 03.09.2019. 16. The mental condition of respondent/O.P is being deteriorated day by day and she has no love and affection for her family members and her marriage was solemnized by her parents by concealing her mental ailment. 17. The appellant tried to make physical relation with the respondent for several times but the respondent did not allow the appellant for doing so. 18. The respondent/O.P is a lady of furious nature and she used to keep knife always with her and threaten her in- laws to kill them due to which the atmosphere of appellant's family remains painful and fearful. 19. On the aforesaid grounds, the appellant-husband had filed a suit for dissolution of his marriage before the learned Family Judge and prayed to pass a decree of divorce. 20. After service of summon, the respondent-wife has 2025:JHHC:35991-DB 6 appeared and filed her written statement on 19.06.2021 stating therein that all the allegations made by the appellant-husband in his petition regarding the mental condition of respondent-wife are false, bogus, concocted and misconceived. 21. It has further been stated that the respondent is a well-educated lady and she has passed her secondary examination in the year of 2009 with second division and Intermediate examination also in the year of 2012 with second division. The respondent is bachelor of Arts and she has obtained 58% marks in her examination. Further, she has obtained a certificate from the Government of India, Ministry of Skill Development and Entrepreneurship on 28.09.2016 and she was physically and mentally healthy and strong before her marriage. But after marriage, the petitioner, his parents and other relatives were regularly subjecting the respondent/O.P to cruelty both mentally and physically for fulfillment of their illegal demand of dowry to the tune of Rs. 11,00,000/- in cash and a four wheeler car due to which the respondent became seriously ill for 2-3 times and her physical condition became very feeble. 22. After 'Bidagri' of respondent/O.P., the petitioner and his family members were hatching a conspiracy to prove the respondent as mental patient and they were torturing her in various ways. The petitioner had never attended the 2025:JHHC:35991-DB 7 respondent with harmony rather he was always adopting an escaping attitude towards his wife in discharging his conjugal obligation. 23. After marriage the parents of respondent had managed a honeymoon trip for their daughter and son-in- law but the petitioner escaped from going there by canceling the trip and he sent his wife at 'Tirthyatra' with his parents. The petitioner never visited his native village or the house situated at Deoghar town whenever the respondent was residing there nor he had taken the respondent to the place of his work even for a single day. 24. The respondent's parents never expressed or asked the petitioner to take away their daughter with them nor they ever denied to keep their daughter in her matrimonial home. 25. The respondent/O.P is an educated lady and she never thought about committing suicide nor she ever wrote any note and if there is any such suicidal note, the same has been created by the petitioner for the purpose of this case. 26. It has been further said that the parents of petitioner got 'Bidagri' of respondent/O.P in the first week of August 2019. after hatching a plan and in order to safeguard their son(appellant) but subsequently they stopped to supply proper food and other things of daily use 2025:JHHC:35991-DB 8 to the respondent/O.P and they tortured her which resulted in her serious illness and the petitioner's parents got treatment of respondent in different clinics. But after receiving the message of her illness, the parents of respondent/O.P came there and they got her treatment by physician and her life could be saved. 27. It has been stated that the petitioner has no love and affection with his wife and he has some illicit relation with a paramour and the instant suit has been filed by the petitioner only to fulfill his oblique and illegal purpose and desire of divorce. 28. Further, it has been stated that the petitioner has no valid cause of action for filing this suit and he is not entitled to get any relief as claimed by him. The instant suit is not maintainable and is devoid of any merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. 29. On the aforesaid grounds, the respondent has prayed to dismiss this suit with costs. 30. The case proceeded for evidence during which the petitioner/appellant has produced and examined three witnesses including himself. 31. The respondent-wife has produced and examined altogether three witnesses including herself. 32. The learned Principal Judge, after hearing learned 2025:JHHC:35991-DB 9 counsel for the parties, framed six issues for adjudication of the lis, which are as follows :- (i) Whether the suit as framed, is maintainable for the reliefs claimed? (ii) Whether petitioner has a valid cause of action for this suit? (iii) Whether the respondent/O.P is suffering from steep mental disturbance and schizophrenia to such an extent that the petitioner cannot be reasonably expected to live with the respondent/O.P? (iv) Whether the respondent has subjected the petitioner to cruelty? (v) Whether the respondent has deserted the petitioner for a continuous period of not less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition? (vi) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get the reliefs claimed or any other relief? 33. 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 : “Therefore, on the basis of aforesaid discussion this Court finds that the petitioner has been completely failed in establishing any mental disorder of the respondent/OP and further the petitioner has been failed to bring any such 2025:JHHC:35991-DB 10 conduct of respondent/O.P on record which endangers the living of petitioner with respondent. The alleged incidents are nothing more than daily wear and tear of a marital life and the same can't be made basis for divorce. Further the respondent has not deserted the petitioner rather it is the petitioner himself who is not ready to live with the respondent inspite of expressing desire by the respondent to live with the petitioner. The instant suit filed by the petitioner for a decree of divorce on the ground of mental unsoundness of respondent and further on the allegation of cruelty and desertion on the part of respondent/O.P is not maintainable and the petitioner has no valid cause of action for bringing this suit and accordingly the petitioner is not entitled to get the relief claimed or any other reliefs and the instant suit is liable to be dismissed. Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that the instant suit is being dismissed on contest and with cost.” 34. The appellant-husband, being aggrieved with the judgment passed on 28.01.2023, has approached this Court by filing the present appeal. Submission made on behalf of the appellant-husband 35. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-husband has submitted that the Learned Family Court below has failed to appreciate that the petitioner /appellant has produced credible evidence which are sufficient to establish that the respondent-wife has subjected him to cruelty and on account of cruelty and desertion, the petitioner / appellant is entitled for grant of decree of divorce. 2025:JHHC:35991-DB 11 36. Further, it has been submitted that the findings recorded by the learned Family Court while answering issue no. (iv) (cruelty) are perverse and based on mere presumption, therefore, the same will not stand in the eye of law. 37. It has been argued on behalf of appellant that altogether three witnesses have been examined in this case including appellant and all have consistently supported that behaviour of respondent was very rude towards appellant and his family members and she used to quarrel and abuse them. 38. It has been submitted that the learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate the oral and documentary evidence produced on behalf of plaintiff / appellant regarding the mental disturbance and abnormal behaviour which was diagnosed as schizophrenia and, thus, came to wrong conclusion. 39. It has also been submitted that the learned court below has failed to appreciate that the respondent-wife used to threatened the appellant to implicate him and his entire family in a false criminal case which caused the appellant to suffer extreme mental cruelty, loss of mental and family peace and harmony, loss of family prestige and reputation in society. 40. Learned counsel has further submitted that the learned court has failed to take into consideration that 2025:JHHC:35991-DB 12 respondent wife has mental sickness and the mental condition of the respondent wife was not good before the marriage well. This factum suppressed was at as the time of marriage and fraud has been committed since the inception of relationship by the respondent. 41. It has been submitted that the learned court has failed to take into consideration that respondent/wife has never performed family affairs/duties and refused to resume conjugal life with the appellant/husband at Deoghar. 42. The learned court below has also failed to take into consideration that admittedly the parties are living separately since long and the conduct of the respondent shows that the respondent does not want to join the appellant and hence there is no chance of restoration of their matrimonial life. 43. It has been further argued that the conjugal relation between appellant and respondent has not established as respondent never supported the sexual right and respondent also left her matrimonial house. 44. It has further been argued that from the evidence it is evident there is no possibility of reunion as wife and husband between appellant and respondent and it is not possible to continue their matrimonial relationship without mental agony, torture and distress hence, the impugned judgment passed by the learned Family Court needs interference. 2025:JHHC:35991-DB 13 45. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant, on the basis of aforesaid grounds, has submitted that the judgment passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Deoghar requires interference. Submission made on behalf of respondent-wife 46. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that learned trial court has rightly held that the appellant is not entitled for the decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion because the appellant has failed to prove the allegation of cruelty and desertion against her. 47. Learned counsel for the respondent-wife, defending the impugned order, has submitted that the appellant has sought divorce on the ground that the respondent-wife is of unsound mind or has been suffering continuously or intermittently for mental disorder and the appellant cannot reasonably be expected to live with the respondent but the learned Family Court, after taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence, has held that the entire allegations levelled in are not correct and has rightly dismissed the suit. 48. It has been argued on behalf of respondent that she never treated the appellant with cruelty rather evidences on record depict that it is the respondent who is sufferer and being tortured mentally and physically by the appellant and his family members for demand of dowry. 2025:JHHC:35991-DB 14 49. It has further been submitted that the respondent is a well-educated lady and she has passed bachelor of Arts. Further, she has obtained a certificate from the Government of India, Ministry of Skill Development and Entrepreneurship and she was physically and mentally healthy and strong before her marriage. But after marriage, the appellant-husband, his parents and other relatives were regularly subjecting the respondent-wife to cruelty both mentally and physically for fulfillment of their illegal demand of dowry to the tune of Rs. 11,00,000/- in cash and a four-wheeler car due to which the respondent became seriously ill for 2-3 times and her physical condition became very feeble. 50. It has also been submitted that the appellant- husband and his family members, to get rid of her, hatched a conspiracy to prove the respondent as mental patient and they were torturing her in various ways. 51. It has been submitted that the appellant-husband never tried to create a bonding with his wife as he never visited his native village or the house situated at Deoghar town whenever the respondent was residing there nor he had taken the respondent to the place of his work even for a single day. 52. The respondent-wife is an educated lady and she never thought about committing suicide nor she ever wrote 2025:JHHC:35991-DB 15 any note and if there is any such suicidal note, the same has been created by the appellant-husband for the purpose of this case. 53. The appellant-husband has no love and affection with his wife and he has some illicit relation with a paramour and the instant suit has been filed by the appellant-husband only to fulfill his oblique and illegal purpose and desire of divorce. 54. The appellant-husband has no valid cause of action and he is not entitled to get any relief as claimed by him. 55. Learned counsel for the respondent has further submitted that learned Family court has rightly held that the appellant is not entitled for the decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion because the appellant has failed to prove the allegation of cruelty and desertion against her. 56. Submission has been made that the learned Principal Judge, Family Court on the backdrop of the evidence led by the parties has come to the conclusion that the appellant- husband has not been able to bring any such act of respondent-wife on record which can be termed as cruelty on the part of respondent and whatever allegations have been made by the appellant against the respondent, seems nothing more than the ordinary wear and tear of a family life which cannot be made basis for divorce. 2025:JHHC:35991-DB 16 57. Learned counsel for the respondent-wife on the aforesaid grounds has submitted that the impugned judgment requires no interference by this Court. Analysis 58. 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. 59. 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. 60. The appellant, in support of his case, has adduced three witnesses including himself. The relevant portion of the testimonies of the witnesses are mentioned as under :- PW-1 Mahatma Prasad Singh, the father of the appellant-husband, has stated that his son Abhishek Kumar Singh was married with the opposite party on 30.04.2017. After marriage, his daughter-in-law did not come with his son to her sasural at that time. After, much persuasion and holding panchayat, the opposite party came to his house after six months of marriage and started to live with his son as wife. After her 'Bidai', his daughter-in-law Annu Kumari lived in his house along with her husband hardly for about three months and during the said period she used to quarrel and abuse his wife frequently. She used to frequently go on 2025:JHHC:35991-DB 17 Nandan Pahar and she was remaining always in anger. She used to act in such a way that she would kill us. She used to cry suddenly and write suicidal note. He had further stated that his son had shown the respondent to doctor who diagnosed the O.P./wife suffering with incurable mental disease. Further, in his cross-examination this witness has stated that he has two sons. Abhishek(appellant) is his elder son whereas Animesh is his younger son. His elder son is Mechanical Engineer in Shyam steel. He does not get any pension. He had got the respondent examined by a doctor but the name of the doctor is not remembered to him. He does not remember the name of medicine but the medicine was being given to the opposite party by him. He had further stated that he did not try to get treatment of his daughter-in- law in Orissa because she was not in condition of going there. P.W. 2 Abhishek Kumar Singh, the appellant herein, has stated that he was married, with the opposite party Annu Kumari on 30.04.2017. After 06 months of marriage, his wife came to his house situated at Nandan Pahar Road, Deoghar and she lived with him for about three months only. She used to frequently quarrel and abuse his mother, father and him also, during the said period. She used to leave the house silently and return in evening and on being asked she used to be ready for quarrel. He had further stated that the O.P. 2025:JHHC:35991-DB 18 wife Annu Kumari used to remain always in anger and she was behaving in such a way as she will kill them. She used to threaten her in-laws by taking knife in her hand and saying to kill them. She used to throw utensils of kitchen and cry without any reason. The parents of respondent used to visit his house and provide her some medicines silently. Subsequently, it was learnt that the girl is mischievous. He had tried to get treatment of his wife by doctor but his wife and her parents did not co-operate and doctor told that the disease of his wife is incurable and she will remain always aggressive. Further, in his cross-examination this witness has said that his Gauna was performed after six months of marriage. He had not taken his wife to any doctor for getting her treatment and she was taken to doctor by his mother and father. His father had taken his wife on tour of Haridwar and they had lived out of station for about one week. He had realised from the date of marriage itself that the mental condition of his wife is not well. He had lived with his wife for about 4-5 months. His wife has not lodged any case against him till date. His wife does not want to divorce him and she intends to live with him in Orissa but she is not in condition of living there. His marriage was solemnized in 2017 but this case was filed in the year of 2019. He does not know that from which place the treatment of his wife was done properly. 2025:JHHC:35991-DB 19 The P.W. 3 Manoj Yadav has stated in his examination- in-chief that the wife of Abhishek Kumar Singh did not come to her matrimonial home at the time of her marriage and she had come to her matrimonial home after about 6-7 months. The respondent/opposite party did not live in her matrimonial home peacefully even for a single day and she was always quarreling and abusing her husband and in-laws. She used to raise hulla frequently and damage the house hold articles also. She used to leave the house of petitioner frequently without disclosing about it to anyone. She is an aggressive woman and she used to raise hulla every day and gather the people of location. Further, in his cross-examination this witness has said that he does not identify any person of the parental house of Annu Kumari. He had further stated that he cannot say the educational qualification of Abhishek and he does not know the name of the father-in-law and brother-in-law of Abhishek Kumar(appellant). 61. The respondent-wife has also adduced three witnesses, including herself, in support of her case which are being dealt hereunder as :- The D.W. 1 Satyendra Kumar Singh, the father of the respondent, has stated in his examination-in-chief that the family of Abhishek Kumar Singh was familiar with his family since prior to the marriage because the house of his maternal grandmother is situated at a distance of about 1 Km from his 2025:JHHC:35991-DB 20 village. The father of appellant, namely Mahatma Prasad Singh as well as the maternal grandfather and maternal grandmother of appellant had come to his house and talked with his daughter on several occasions even before the marriage also. His daughter Annu Kumari is an educated girl and she had obtained degree of graduation prior to her marriage and she has been given a certificate under the scheme of Prime Minister Skill Development Project also. His daughter is a well-behaved house wife and talented student. He had further stated that the appellant and his father had given wrong medicine to his daughter in connivance with the doctor and thereafter they had left her in his house in the month of September 2019 due to which her condition became serious and she had fallen seriously ill but presently she is well. His daughter is a modest and intelligent girl and she is not suffering from any ailment and she is quite well. The appellant has filed forged documents. Further, in his cross-examination this witness has deposed that his daughter does not consume any medicine of mental disease nor she had got her treatment from any Psychiatrist before or after her marriage. His daughter is a graduate. His samdhi had not shown any video regarding the mental illness of my daughter and he was never told about her any mental sickness. He had seen the medicine which was given to his daughter by his samdhi and he had given wrong medicine to his daughter. The mental condition of his 2025:JHHC:35991-DB 21 daughter was well all along and she was made to write a suicidal note by pressurizing her. He had not gone ever for persuading his daughter in her matrimonial home and it is wrong to say that his daughter is violent and mad. DW-2 Rajat Kumar Anand is the brother of respondent. He has stated in his examination-in-chief that he and his sister had studied together and his sister had passed her B.A. examination in the year of 2016. He has further stated that his sister is a talented girl and she has obtained training under the project of skill India and she has obtained its certificate also. His sister had come to his house on Shrawan Purnima of the year 2019 on the occasion of Rakhi and she had told him by weeping that her husband and in-laws have made a plan to kill her. His sister possesses a good physical health and she is not suffering from any ailment. He has further stated that his brother-in-law (Bahnoi) Abhishek Kumar Singh was demanding money repeatedly from his father which was paid to him. Further, in his cross-examination this witness has stated that his sister is residing in his house since after the year of 2019. His sister does not get any treatment of any mental disease nor she takes any medicine of mental disease. He has further stated that she is not aggressive and she does not quarrel with her in-laws in her matrimonial home. It is wrong to say that his sister was behaving like a mad and he had sent her video to my Bahnoi. Further, he has denied the 2025:JHHC:35991-DB 22 suggestion that his sister behaves like a mad and it is impossible for her to live in her matrimonial home D.W. 3 Annu Kumari, respondent herein, has said in her examination-in-chief that this case has been filed by her husband Abhishek Kumar Singh on the basis of false allegation for divorce. She has further stated that the members of her matrimonial home were pressurizing her to bring Rs.11,00,000/- in cash and a four-wheeler vehicle from her father and they were not providing her food, cloths etc. and other articles of daily use due to which she was remaining ill. They were compelling her to work in cowshed and her husband had no affection for her. She was always taking care of her husband and his entire family members and paying respect to them but in-spite of that they were always torturing her mentally and physically. She was always trying to lead her life pleasantly and with sound mind but her husband and in-laws were always torturing her. She has also stated that she is always ready to live with her husband and she is mentally fit and fine. She has further stated that she has obtained certificate under the programme of Skill India and she does not want divorce from her husband. Further, in her cross-examination this witness has said that she had lived with her husband in her matrimonial home for about two and half months. She has no mental disease. She had passed her Graduate Examination in the year of 2016. She has stated in her cross-examination that 2025:JHHC:35991-DB 23 she does not write diary and she was made to write it. Further, she has denied from the suggestion that she had tried to commit suicide in her matrimonial home on several occasions. She denied of knowing Preetam. She has deposed that she is a house wife and has obtained training under skill India. Further, she has denied from the suggestion that she gets treatment of mental disease regularly and she used to become aggressive in her matrimonial home. 62. From the testimony, as referred hereinabove, it is evident that the appellant-husband has been examined as P.W.2 before the Family Court, who in his deposition has mainly taken the ground of mental illness and bad behaviour of his wife toward him and his family members. He has deposed that his wife used to threaten her in-laws by taking knife in her hand and saying to kill them. 63. From the aforesaid testimony of the appellant-husband it is evident that though cruelty has been pleaded by him in his petition, but no cogent evidence has been produced by him to prove the allegations. 64. The respondent-wife has been examined as DW-3 who has stated that the members of her matrimonial home were pressurizing her to bring Rs.11,00,000/- in cash and a four- wheeler vehicle from her father and they were not providing her food, cloths etc. and other articles of daily use due to which she was remaining ill. They were compelling her to work in cowshed and her husband had no affection for her. 2025:JHHC:35991-DB 24 She has stated that the case has been filed by her husband against her is not true and her husband made false and concocted allegations against her. She has further stated that she was always taking care of her husband and his entire family members and paying respect to them but in-spite of that they were always torturing her mentally and physically. She has stated that the members of her matrimonial home were pressurizing her to bring Rs.11,00,000/- in cash and a four-wheeler vehicle from her father and they were not providing her food, cloths etc. and other articles of daily use due to which she was remaining ill. She has stated that the allegation levelled against her in the petition is false, concocted and are baseless. 65. The learned Principal Judge, from the statements of the witnesses so produced on behalf of the parties, has come to the conclusion that appellant has failed to prove the grounds of alleged cruelty and mental illness pleaded by him in his petition. 66. From the testimony so recorded of the appellant- husband, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court has come to the conclusion that in the instant case, the petitioner/appellant has completely failed in proving the alleged mental disorder of respondent. 67. In the context of the aforesaid factual aspect only seminal issue has to be decide herein that “Whether the 2025:JHHC:35991-DB 25 plaintiff is entitled to get divorce dissolving the marriage of the petitioner/appellant with OP/wife on ground of mental illness or on the ground of mental cruelty and desertion U/s 13(1) (i-a) (1-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955? 68. 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. (iv) (cruelty) are perverse, therefore, before addressing the aforesaid seminal issue it would be apt to discuss herein the appropriate meaning of word “perverse”. 69. 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. 70. 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 2025:JHHC:31726-DB 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 2025:JHHC:35991-DB 26 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. Perverse.--Deliberately departing from what is normal and reasonable. 3. The New Oxford Dictionary of English, 1998 Edn. 2025:JHHC:35991-DB 27 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." 71. 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 72. 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 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. 73. The cruelty has also been defined in the case of Shobha Rani Vs. Madhukar Reddi [(1988) 1 SCC 105], 2025:JHHC:35991-DB 28 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. 74. 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.” 75. 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.” 76. 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. 2025:JHHC:35991-DB 29 77. In V. Bhagat vs. D. Bhagat (Mrs.), (1994)1 SCC 337, the wife alleged in her written statement that her husband was suffering from “mental problems and paranoid disorder”. The wife’s lawyer also levelled allegations of “lunacy” and “insanity” against the husband and his family while he was conducting cross-examination. The Hon’ble Apex Court held these allegations against the husband to constitute “cruelty”. 78. 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. 79. 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:35991-DB 30 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. 80. 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. 81. Now reverting to the fact of the case it has been stated by the appellant/husband that the respondent/wife used to quarrel and even she did not allow him to have sexual right over. It has been further alleged that during entire period of stay in her matrimonial home, the respondent/O.P used to abuse the appellant and his family members and subjecting them with cruelty and threatening them to commit suicide. Sometimes she used to dash her in-laws also. 82. Per contra the respondent/wife had stated in her testimony before the learned Family Court that the members of her matrimonial home were pressurizing her to bring Rs.11,00,000/- in cash and a four-wheeler vehicle from her father and they were not providing her food, cloths etc. and other articles of daily use due to which she was remaining 2025:JHHC:35991-DB 31 ill. They were compelling her to work in cowshed and her husband had no affection for her. She was always taking care of her husband and his entire family members and paying respect to them but in-spite of that they were always torturing her mentally and physically. 83. Admittedly, the plea of cruelty has been raised by the appellant husband thus onus is upon him to prove the fact of cruelty caused upon him by the respondent/wife. It is evident from the oral evidence of petitioner that the petitioner has himself said in his evidence as P.W. 2 that after marriage, he has not taken the respondent/wife with him anywhere and the respondent was taken to Haridwar by his parents where she lived with the parents of petitioner for about one week. He has self-confessed in para 34 of his cross-examination that his wife does not want divorce from him and she wants to live with him in Orissa. 84. The aforesaid statement of appellant/petitioner clearly indicates that whatever the allegation has been made by the appellant/petitioner regarding the alleged cruelty on behalf of respondent/wife are nothing more than daily abrasion of a marital life. 85. Further the respondent/wife has said that her husband/appellant was never loving towards her and the said statement of respondent is being fully corroborated from this fact also that after marriage the appellant/ petitioner had neither taken the respondent/wife on any trip 2025:JHHC:35991-DB 32 nor he was ready to take her with him at the place of his work. 86. Further it is evident from the impugned judgment that the appellant/petitioner has himself filed a certified copy of an informatory petition given by his father Mahatma prasad Singh before the Court of learned CJ.M Deoghar vide Mis. Or application no. 2910/19 which has been marked as Ext-2 in this case. But the petitioner's/appellant father has not even whispered about the tendency of committing suicide or writing suicidal note by the respondent/wife in this petition. 87. Thus, from the aforesaid it is evident that the appellant husband has not produced any cogent evidence in regard to the cruelty which has been subjected to him by the respondent/wife and he had categorically stated that he had not lodged any complainant regarding the alleged occurrence. 88. Further, the learned Family Court after due appreciation of the evidences has categorically observed that “thus, if all these things are taken together, it clearly goes to show that the story of attempt for committing suicide by the respondent has not been proved by the petitioner by adducing cogent evidence and merely on the basis of Ext-3 it cannot be said that the respondent was trying to commit suicide.” 89. The learned Family Court has finally observed that “therefore, on the basis of aforesaid discussion this Court 2025:JHHC:35991-DB 33 finds that the petitioner has not been able to establish any such cruelty on the part of respondent which can be said as a sufficient ground for divorce. Accordingly, this issue is being decided negatively against the petitioner.” 90. This Court, based upon the aforesaid discussions on the issue of cruelty, is of considered view that the issue of cruelty as has been alleged by the appellant-husband against his wife could not be proved because no cogent evidence to that effect has been produced by the appellant and further since, the learned Principal Family Judge after appreciating the entire evidence had recorded its finding, therefore, it is considered view of this Court that the appellant/petitioner has failed to establish the element of perversity in the aforesaid finding of the learned Family Court. 91. This Court, based upon the aforesaid discussions on the issue of cruelty, is of considered view that the issue of cruelty as has been alleged by the appellant-husband against his wife could not be proved because no concrete evidence to that effect has been produced by the appellant. 92. Thus, as per the discussions made hereinabove and law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court which has also been referred herein above this Court has no reason to take different view that has been taken by the learned Family Court proving the ground of cruelty. 2025:JHHC:35991-DB 34 Issue of desertion 93. Now coming to the issue of desertion, which is also taken as a ground for decree of divorce. It is evident from the from the plaint of the petitioner before Family Court which has also taken note in the impugned judgment, that the husband and wife are living separately. 94. Learned Principal Judge, taking into consideration the fact that since even otherwise there is no desertion on the part of respondent-wife as she in her evidence also has deposed that she is very keen and desirous to live and stay with her husband all through her life and perform her wifely duties. Thus, although the husband appellant had filed petition under sub-section (i-b) of Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 but no cogent evidence was led in this respect, as such the same was discarded by the learned family court. 95. It needs to refer herein that 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 willful neglect of the petitioner by the other party to the marriage, and its grammatical variations and cognate expressions shall be construed accordingly.” 96. It is pertinent to note that the word ‘desertion’, as has 2025:JHHC:35991-DB 35 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 wishes of such party, and includes the willful neglect of the petitioner by the other party to the marriage, and its grammatical variations and cognate expressions shall be construed accordingly. 97. 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.” 98. 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.” 99. 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 2025:JHHC:35991-DB 36 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 been consummated. The person who actually withdraws from cohabitation is not necessarily the deserting party. 100. 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. 101. 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. 102. 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. 2025:JHHC:35991-DB 37 103. 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 leaving the matrimonial home to from the necessary intention aforesaid. 104. 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. 105. The law consistently has been laid down by the Court 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. 106. Herein from the statement of the appellant it is evident that according to petitioner, the respondent was taken by 2025:JHHC:35991-DB 38 her father to his house on 03.09.2019 and since then the respondent/wife has deserted the petitioner without any reason. The petitioner has shown cause of action for this suit on 03.09.2019 and from the record it is evident that the suit of his dissolution of his marriage has been filed by him on 18.12.2019. Thus, as per own pleading of petitioner, made in para 6 of this petition, it is apparent that the said suit has been filed within two years form the alleged incident of going of respondent with her parent from matrimonial home on 03.09.2019. 107. Further from impugned order it is evident that desertion has not been proved before the Family Court through concrete and tangible evidence and further it has come on the record that even otherwise there is no desertion on the part of respondent-wife as she in her evidence also has deposed that she is very keen and desirous to live and stay with her husband all through her life. 108. This Court, on the basis of discussions made hereinabove, is of the view that the appellant husband has not been able to prove the ground of desertion for one of the grounds for divorce before the learned Family Court. As such, we have no reason to take a different view that has been taken by the learned Family Court. 2025:JHHC:35991-DB 39 Issue of Mental illness 109. So far as the issue of mental illness is concerned it is evident from the impugned order that since the learned Family Court has not found any cogent documentary evidence as has been adduced by the plaintiff/husband in order to prove the mental illness of OP- wife and therefore the Family Court has also decided this issue against the appellant/husband. 110. In the aforesaid context, it needs to refer herein Section 13(1) (iii) of the Act 1955 which reads as under: 13. Divorce. — (1) Any marriage solemnized, whether before or after the commencement of the Act, may, on a petition presented by either the husband or the wife, be dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground that the other party— ------------- (iii) has been incurably of unsound mind, or has suffering continuously or intermittently from mental disorder of such a kind and to such an extent that the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with the respondent. Explanation- In this clause— (a) the expression “mental disorder” means mental illness, arrested or incomplete development of mind, psychopathic disorder or any other disorder or disability of mind and include schizophrenia; (b) the expression “psychopathic disorder” means a persistent disorder or disability of mind (whether or not including subnormality of intelligence) which results in abnormally aggressive or seriously irresponsible conduct on the part of the other party and whether or not it requires or is susceptible to medical treatment; or………” 111. The aforesaid provision shows that there are two separate grounds in the provision viz. (a) incurable unsound mind; and, (b) respondent spouse has been suffering 2025:JHHC:35991-DB 40 continuously or intermittently from mental disorder and the disorder is of such kind and of such extent that the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with the respondent. 112. From the wording of the aforesaid provision, it can be said that the mental condition like incurable unsound mind mentioned in the first part or the mental disorder mentioned in the second part needs to be proved by expert evidence and that evidence needs to satisfy the Court that such mental condition exists. From the wording of the provision, it can be said that the second part of the provision has wide scope. For this part, it is not necessary that mental disorder is incurable. However, the mental disorder must be of such kind and extent that the Court needs to be satisfied that it is not advisable to ask the petitioner to live with the respondent. The scope shows that there is no limit to the kind of mental disorder as no specific kind is mentioned. However, the term “has been suffering” shows that the period of illness must not be too short or the petition should not be based on one or two instances showing such mental disorder. The term “intermittently” cannot be misread in this provision to infer that the mental illness returns after the treatment within few days. The term “extent” is also important and on that also the Court needs to be satisfied to come to the conclusion that the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with the husband. 2025:JHHC:35991-DB 41 113. Thus, it is evident that the relief is discretionary and while using discretion, the Court is expected to keep in mind the aforesaid things as mentioned above. Further, the burden to prove mental disorder mentioned as second part of the aforesaid provision or the burden to prove incurable unsound mind lies on the party who seeks to use the ground. In the instant from perusal of record as well as impugned order it is evident that no concrete evidence like psychiatrist opinion or prescription of continuous treatment has been led by the appellant husband in this regard. 114. It needs to refer herein that Psychiatrist is an expert but in view of provision of section 45 of the Evidence Act, it is up to the Court to either rely on the opinion or to refuse to do so. Further, he being a witness, his credibility can be impeached like the credibility of any other witnesses and his veracity can be tested as provided in section 146 and other provisions of Evidence Act. As psychiatrist is expected to give evidence on the basis of the examination of the patient done by him, the symptoms noted by him, the treatment and the follow up treatment given by him and the record created by him needs to be considered both for corroboration and contradiction purpose. In such a case the evidence of other witnesses or the circumstances which relates to the behaviour of the respondent can be considered by the Court as that can help strengthening the opinion or create probability that the opinion has no justification and it 2025:JHHC:35991-DB 42 is weak. 115. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kollam Chandra Sekhar v. Kollam Padma Latha, (2014) 1 SCC 225 has categorically observed that the ideas of unsoundness of ‘mind’ and ‘mental disorder’ occur in the section as grounds for dissolution of a marriage, require the assessment of the degree of the ‘mental disorder’. Its degree must be such that the spouse seeking relief cannot reasonably be expected to live with the other. All mental abnormalities are not recognised as grounds for grant of decree. If the mere existence of any degree of mental abnormality could justify dissolution of a marriage few marriages would, indeed, survive in law. For ready reference the relevant paragraph of the aforesaid judgment is being quoted as under: 22. The relevant portions with regard to “unsoundness of mind” and “mental disorder” from the case referred to supra are extracted hereunder: (Ram Narain Gupta case [(1988) 4 SCC 247] , SCC pp. 254-56, paras 20-24) “20. The context in which the ideas of unsoundness of ‘mind’ and ‘mental disorder’ occur in the section as grounds for dissolution of a marriage, require the assessment of the degree of the ‘mental disorder’. Its degree must be such that the spouse seeking relief cannot reasonably be expected to live with the other. All mental abnormalities are not recognised as grounds for grant of decree. If the mere existence of any degree of mental abnormality could justify dissolution of a marriage few marriages would, indeed, survive in law. 21. The answer to the apparently simple—and perhaps misleading—question as to ‘who is normal?’ runs 2025:JHHC:35991-DB 43 inevitably into philosophical thickets of the concept of mental normalcy and as involved therein, of the ‘mind’ itself. These concepts of ‘mind’, ‘mental phenomena’, etc. are more known than understood and the theories of ‘mind’ and ‘mentation’ do not indicate any internal consistency, let alone validity, of their basic ideas. Theories of ‘mind’ with cognate ideas of ‘perception’ and ‘consciousness’ encompass a wide range of thoughts, more ontological than epistemological. Theories of mental phenomena are diverse and include the dualist concept—shared by Descartes and Sigmund Freud—of the separateness of the existence of the physical or the material world as distinguished from the non-material mental world with its existence only spatially and not temporally. There is, again, the theory which stresses the neurological basis of the ‘mental phenomenon’ by asserting the functional correlation of the neuronal arrangements of the brain with mental phenomena. The ‘behaviourist’ tradition, on the other hand, interprets all reference to mind as ‘constructs’ out of behaviour. ‘Functionalism’, however, seems to assert that mind is the logical or functional state of physical systems. But all theories seem to recognise, in varying degrees, that the psychometric control over the mind operates at a level not yet fully taught to science. When a person is oppressed by intense and seemingly insoluble moral dilemmas, or when grief of loss of dear ones etch away all the bright colours of life, or where a broken marriage brings with it the loss of emotional security, what standards of normalcy of behaviour could be formulated and applied? The arcane infallibility of science has not fully pervaded the study of the non-material dimensions of ‘being’. 22. Speaking of the indisposition of science towards this study, a learned author says: ‘… we have inherited cultural resistance to treating the conscious mind as a biological phenomenon like any other. This goes back to Descartes in the seventeenth 2025:JHHC:35991-DB 44 century. Descartes divided the world into two kinds of substances: mental substances and physical substances. Physical substances were the proper domain of science and mental substances were the property of religion. Something of an acceptance of this division exists even to the present day. So, for example, consciousness and subjectivity are often regarded as unsuitable topics for science. And this reluctance to deal with consciousness and subjectivity is part of a persistent objectifying tendency. People think science must be about objectively observable phenomena. On occasions when I have lectured to audiences of biologists and neurophysiologists, I have found many of them very reluctant to treat the mind in general and consciousness in particular as a proper domain of scientific investigation. … the use of the noun ‘mind’ is dangerously inhabited by the ghosts of old philosophical theories. It is very difficult to resist the idea that the mind is a kind of a thing, or at least an arena, or at least some kind of black box in which all of these mental processes occur.’ [ John R. Searle, Minds, Brains and Science- Reith Lectures (Harvard University Press, 1984), pp. 10 and 11.] 23. Lord Wilberforce, referring to the psychological basis of physical illness said that the area of ignorance of the body-mind relation seems to expand with that of knowledge. In McLoughlin v. O'Brian [(1983) 1 AC 410 : (1982) 2 WLR 982 : (1982) 2 All ER 298 (HL)] , the learned Lord said, though in a different context: (AC p. 418 B : All ER p. 301) ‘… Whatever is unknown about the mind-body relationship (and the area of ignorance seems to expand with that of knowledge), it is now accepted by medical science that recognisable and severe physical damage to the human body and system may be caused by the impact, through the senses, of external events on the mind. There may thus be produced what is as identifiable an illness as any that may be caused by 2025:JHHC:35991-DB 45 direct physical impact. It is safe to say that this, in general terms, is understood by the ordinary man or woman who is hypothesised by the courts….’ 24. But the illnesses that are called ‘mental’ are kept distinguished from those that ail the ‘body’ in a fundamental way. In Philosophy and Medicine, Vol. 5 at p. X the learned editor refers to what distinguishes the two qualitatively: ‘Undoubtedly, mental illness is so disvalued because it strikes at the very roots of our personhood. It visits us with uncontrollable fears, obsessions, compulsions and anxieties…. … This is captured in part by the language we use in describing the mentally ill. One is an hysteric, is a neurotic, is an obsessive, is a schizophrenic, is a manic-depressive. On the other hand, one has heart disease, has cancer, has the flu, has malaria, has smallpox….’” (emphasis in original) The principle laid down by this Court in the aforesaid case with all fours is applicable to the fact situation on hand wherein this Court has rightly referred to Section 13(1)(iii) of the Act and Explanation to the said clause and made certain pertinent observations regarding “unsound mind” or “mental disorder” and the application of the same as grounds for dissolution of marriage. This Court cautioned that Section 13(1)(iii) of the Act does not make a mere existence of a mental disorder of any degree sufficient in law to justify the dissolution of marriage. 35. In the English case of Whysall v. Whysall [1960 P 52 : (1959) 3 WLR 592 : (1959) 3 All ER 389] , it was held that a spouse is “incurably of unsound mind” if he or she is of such mental incapacity as to make normal married life impossible and there is no prospect of any improvement in mental health, which would make this possible in future. The High Court of Judicature of Calcutta, in Pramatha Kumar Maity v. Ashima Maity [AIR 2025:JHHC:35991-DB 46 1991 Cal 123] has held that mental disorder of the wife, even if proved, cannot, by itself, warrant a decree of divorce and it must be further proved that it is of such a nature as the husband could not be expected to live with the wife. 38. We are of the view that the High Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction has rightly come to a different conclusion that the respondent is not suffering from the ailment of schizophrenia or incurable unsoundness of mind. Further, the High Court has rightly rejected the finding of the trial court which is based on Ext. B-10 and other documentary and oral evidence by applying the ratio laid down by this Court in Ram Narain Gupta v. Rameshwari Gupta [(1988) 4 SCC 247] referred to supra. A pertinent point to be taken into consideration is that the respondent had not only completed MBBS but also did a postgraduate diploma in Medicine and was continuously working as a Government Medical Officer and had she been suffering from any serious kind of mental disorder, particularly, acute type of schizophrenia, it would have been impossible for her to work in the said post. The appellant husband cannot simply abandon his wife because she is suffering from sickness. Therefore, the High Court allowed both the CMAs and dismissed OP No. 203 of 2000 filed by the appellant for divorce and allowed OP No. 1 of 1999 filed by the respondent for restitution of conjugal rights wherein the High Court granted decree of restitution of conjugal rights in favour of the respondent. 42. Marriage is highly revered in India and we are a nation that prides itself on the strong foundation of our marriages, come hell or high water, rain or sunshine. Life is made up of good times and bad, and the bad times can bring with it terrible illnesses and extreme hardships. The partners in a marriage must weather these storms and embrace the sunshine with equanimity. Any person may have bad health, this is not their fault and most times, it is not within their control, as in the present case, the respondent was 2025:JHHC:35991-DB 47 unwell and was taking treatment for the same. The illness had its fair share of problems. Can this be a reason for the appellant to abandon her and seek dissolution of marriage---- .” 116. Thus, the Hon’ble Apex Court cautioned that Act 1955 does not make a mere existence of a mental disorder of any degree sufficient in law to justify the dissolution of marriage. 117. The testimonies of the witnesses including the appellant as referred hereinabove in the preceding paragraph and on analyzing the aforesaid oral testimony of the witnesses in entirety it appears that the appellant has said that on 23.08.2019 and 24.08.2019, the respondent was shown to a doctor who diagnosed her disease as schizophrenia and described it as an incurable genetic disorder but from the impugned judgment it is evident that no doctor has been examined to substantiate the said claim on behalf of the appellant rather the appellant had filed some photo copies of medial prescription allegedly issued by one Dr. Birendra Prasad Singh and Dr. Smit. Sobhna Bhagat but neither the original medical prescriptions have been produced nor the said doctor have been examined before the learned Family Court in order to prove their descriptions. 118. Further the P.W. 1 Mahatma Singh father of the appellant has stated in para 12 of his examination-in-chief 2025:JHHC:35991-DB 48 that the respondent was shown to doctor by his son (the appellant) whereupon the doctors diagnosed her ailment as incurable, unsoundness of mind and they further told that the treatment of respondent is impossible and she will remain always aggressive and she can do anything. But when P.W. 1 has been cross-examined on this point, he has been unable to even disclose the name of doctor to whom the respondent was allegedly shown. 119. On the other hand, the appellant who had been examined as P.W. 2 has said in para 12 of his cross- examination that he had tried to get treatment of respondent by showing her to doctor whereupon the doctor diagnosed the disease of respondent as incurable mental disorder and they further told that the respondent will remain always aggressive but when this witness has been cross-examined he has admitted in para 23 of his cross-examination that he did not take his wife to any doctor to show her and his parents themselves used to go to the doctor for consultations. 120. This statement of the appellant is just contrary to the statement made by his father Mahatma Prasad Singh (P.W. 1)in para 12 of his examination-in-chief wherein he has said that his son had shown his wife to doctor and tried to get her treatment. This contradiction in the statement of P.W. 1 Mahatma Prasad Singh and the appellant (P.W. 2) makes 2025:JHHC:35991-DB 49 their entire claim suspicious. 121. Thus, on basis of discussion made hereinabove, it appears that the aforesaid ground of mental illness has been raised by the appellant husband on the flimsy ground and taking in to consideration the aforesaid factual aspect the learned Family Court has rightly decided the said issue against the plaintiff husband as such requires no interference by this Court. 122. Accordingly, seminal issue as framed by this Court is decided against the appellant-husband, therefore it is considered view of this Court that the learned Family Court had rightly not granted the decree of divorce in favour of the appellant husband on the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act or on the ground of desertion under Section 13(1)(ib) or even on the ground of mental illness, as such same is requires no interference by this Court. 123. This Court, on the basis of discussions made hereinabove, is of the view that the judgment dated 28.01.2023 and decree signed on 10.02.2023 by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Deoghar whereby and whereunder the Original Suit No.389 of 2019 filed by the petitioner-appellant-husband under Section 13(1), (i-a), (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for a decree of divorce has been dismissed, requires no interference by this Court. 2025:JHHC:35991-DB 50 124. Accordingly, the instant appeal fails and is dismissed. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) I agree. (Arun Kumar Rai, J.) (Arun Kuma Rai, J.) Date : 02/12/2025 Birendra /A.F.R. Uploaded on 02.12.2025