2026:JHHC:19300-DB 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI First Appeal No.114 of 2026 Nitu Pramanik, aged about 26 years, daughter of Arjun Pramanik and wife of Basuki Nath Pramanik @ Lal Parmanik, resident of Asanliya, P.O- Dumaria, P.S.- Nirsa, District-Dhanbad, State Jharkhand … … Petitioner/Appellant Versus 1.Basuki Nath Pramanik @ Lal Parmanik, aged about 32 years, son of Durga Charan Pramanik, resident of Karitand, P.O.-Putki, P.S.- Putki, (Ο.Ρ. Muniddih) District- Dhanbad, State Jharkhand. 2.State of Jharkhand through S.P. Dhanbad …Respondents/Respondents ------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ------- For the Appellant : Ms. Neeharika Mazumdar, Advocate For the Res. No.1 : None For the State : Mr.Vishnu Prabhakar Pathak, AC to SC V ------------------- C.A.V. on 12th June, 2026 Pronounced on 30/06/2026 Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. 1. The instant appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Court Act, 1984 is directed against the judgment and decree dated 19.12.2025, decree signed on 07.01.2026, passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhanbad in Original Suit No. 913 of 2024, whereby and whereunder, the suit filed by the appellant - wife for dissolution of marriage by decree of divorce u/s 13(1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 against respondent/husband, has been dismissed. 2. In brief, the appellant's case is that the marriage of the appellant-wife was solemnized with the defendant Basuki 2026:JHHC:19300-DB 2 Nath Pramanik @ Lal Parmanik on 04.06.2015 as per Hindu Custom and Rites. After marriage, she went to her Sasural and lived with her husband as wife and husband. From this wedlock a son was born. She has further stated that the defendant and his family members started quarreling with her without any cogent reason and demanded dowry from her Rs.-50,000/-, thereafter, she filed C.P. Case No.- 3892/2019. 3. It has further been stated that the defendant (respondent) and his family members don't want to continue relationship with her, because the defendant and his family members demanded dowry to her, which could not be fulfilled. 4. She has also filed a maintenance case being O.M. case no.- 784/2019 in which maintenance order has been passed in her favour, thereafter, she filed a Enforcement case being 784/2019, but the defendant has not complied the court's order, so, he was sent to judicial custody for two times. She took all efforts to continue the conjugal life, but all in vain due to misconduct of the defendant. 5. It has been stated that finding no other option, the appellant filed the suit being Original Suit No. 913 of 2024 u/s 13 (1) (i-a) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty. 2026:JHHC:19300-DB 3 6. On being noticed, the respondent-husband appeared and due to non-filing of his show-cause, he was debarred from filing show-cause vide order dated 25.03.2025. 7. However, the appellant-wife had led oral evidence in support of her case. 8. The learned family court, on the basis of pleadings and after hearing the appellant-wife and analyzing the evidence adduced on behalf of appellant-wife, held that the plaintiff- wife has not been able to prove the fact of cruelty against the respondent-husband and accordingly dismissed the suit, against which the present appeal has been filed. 9. After filing of the appeal, this Court has directed to issue notice upon the respondent-husband vide order dated 12.02.2026 both by Speed Post and ordinary process. 10. When the matter was taken up on 26th March, 2026, this Court took note of the fact that it is evident from the office note dated 24.03.2026 that the notice has been received by the brother of the respondent-husband and as per service report, the jointness of the family was also there, as such the notice was validly accepted. For ready reference, order dated 26th March, 2026 passed by this Court is quoted as under: “1.This Court has issued notice upon the respondent vide order dated 12th February, 2026. 2. It is evident from the office note dated 24.03.2026 that the notice has been received by the brother of the respondent, and 2026:JHHC:19300-DB 4 as per the Service Report which is kept at Flag-X, the jointness of family is also there. 3. Considering the aforesaid fact, the notice is accepted to be validly served. However, this Court, in order to give a chance to the respondent, is deferring the matter for two weeks awaiting the appearance of the respondent. 4. As such, list this case on 20th April, 2026. 5. In the meanwhile, let the Trial Court Record be called for.” 11. Thereafter, the matter was taken up on 20th April, 2026. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-wife appeared and submitted that before the learned trial court also the respondent-husband had not appeared, for the reason that the amount of maintenance which was directed to be paid by the learned Family Judge is not being paid by the respondent-husband and she has also filed an application for enforcement of the judgment passed in Maintenance Case No.784 of 2019 in which the respondent has been sent, twice, to judicial custody. 12. It has further been submitted that the appellant-wife is also having a male child aged about 10 years and, as such, both of them are facing acute hardship and due to that reason only, the husband is evading his appearance before this Court. 13. This Court considering the aforesaid fact thought it proper to again direct the learned counsel for the appellant to take steps for fresh service of notice through ordinary process to be sent through the S.P., Dhanbad who will ensure the service of notice upon the respondent through the 2026:JHHC:19300-DB 5 jurisdictional police station. For ready reference order dated 20th April, 2026 is quoted as under: 1.Notice was issued upon the respondent vide order dated 12.02.2026. 2. The notice has been accepted to be validly served as per the order dated 26.03.2026. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that before the learned trial court also the respondent- husband had not appeared. The reason is that the amount of maintenance has been directed to be paid by the learned Family Judge in exercise of power conferred under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. An application has also been filed for enforcement of the judgment passed in Maintenance Case No.784 of 2019 in which the respondent has been sent, twice, to judicial custody. 4. It has been submitted that the appellant-wife is also having a male child aged about 10 years and, as such, both of them are facing acute hardship and due to that reason only, the husband is evading his appearance before this Court. 5. This Court is of the view that when the notice issued by this Court has been received by the brother of the respondent and jointness of family has been reported in service report, then the same impliedly means that the respondent is having knowledge of the pending proceeding before this Court. 6. However, we are not going on the implied meaning of the same and, as such, thought it proper to again direct the learned counsel for the appellant to take steps for fresh service of notice through ordinary process to be sent through the S.P., Dhanbad who will ensure the service of notice upon the respondent through the jurisdictional police station, for which the requisites be filed within three days by the appellant. 7. The S.P., Dhanbad is further directed to ensure appearance of the respondent before this Court. 8. Mr. Kishore Kumar Singh, learned counsel, sitting in the Court, has been requested to waive notice for S.P., Dhanbad which he has willingly agreed. 2026:JHHC:19300-DB 6 9. Let the State of Jharkhand through S.P., Dhanbad be impleaded as party. 10. Let an affidavit be filed with respect to the service of notice to be filed by the Officer-in-Charge of the concerned Police Station. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant is directed to serve a copy of the Memo of appeal to Mr. Kishore Kumar Singh, learned S.C.-V by tomorrow. 12. List this matter on 05.05.2026. 13. Office is directed to provide the requisites to Mr. Kishore Kumar Singh, learned S.C.-V for compliance of the aforesaid direction. 14. Accordingly, notice was served to the respondent-husband and in support thereof, affidavit has been filed by the State. 15. Mr. Abhishek Sharan, learned counsel appeared on 5th May, 2026 and submitted that he has got Vakalatnama executed by the respondent-husband and as such sought for adjournment of the matter to file vakalatnama on behalf of respondent no. 1-husband. 16. Accordingly, the matter was adjourned to be listed on 14th May, 2026. In the meantime, the vakalatnama was filed by learned counsel M/s Rashmi Lal; Ashish Kumar Sinha, Anish Kumar Sinha and Abhishek Sharan. 17. Accordingly, the matter proceeded. 18. When the matter was taken up on 12th June, 2026 in the pre-lunch Session, the matter was called for and the learned counsel for the appellant-wife appeared but in spite of their names being reflected on the Digital Display Board and case being called out repeatedly none appeared on behalf of respondent-husband. Thereafter, the matter was called out 2026:JHHC:19300-DB 7 in post lunch session but again none appeared on behalf of respondent-husband. 19. It is evident that for the first instance on having been notice received by the brother of the respondent-husband, he choose not to appear. However, this Court granting one more opportunity, directed to serve notice through local police station, whereupon, though the respondent-husband appeared through his counsel but in spite of repeated call none appeared on behalf of respondent-husband. Therefore, this Court left with no option proceeded to hear the matter. Thereafter after conclusion of the argument the matter was reserved. 20. For ready reference, order dated 12.06.2026 is quoted as under: 06 / 12.06.2026 The case was heard in the pre-lunch session as per the seriatim. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant had appeared. But, there was no appearance on behalf of the respondent-husband even though the names of the counsels had been directed to be reflected in the display board based upon the vakalatnama filed on behalf of the respondent-husband. 3. The matter has been posted to be heard in the post lunch session. 4. Even in the post lunch session, although the learned counsel for the State is present who has been impleaded as party after effective service of notice upon the respondent-husband. 5. But again none is present to represent the respondent- husband. 6. This Court, in view thereof, has proceeded to hear the matter on merit. 2026:JHHC:19300-DB 8 7. Argument concluded. 8. Judgment is reserved. Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant-wife: 21. 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 appellant has not properly been considered and as such, the judgment impugned is perverse, hence, not sustainable in the eyes of law. 22. It has been submitted that the issue of cruelty has not been taken into consideration in the right perspective. 23. Further submission has been made that learned family court has failed to appreciate that there is no evidence on record on the basis of which the impugned judgment has been passed and has also failed to appreciate that in spite of the best effort from the side of the appellant, the respondent- husband was never willing to stay with the appellant-wife, which caused acute mental agony to the appellant-wife. 24. Further, the learned family court has brushed aside the evidence adduced by the appellant and has given no specific finding with respect to the evidences produced by the appellant. 25. Further, even the learned family court did not take into consideration the fact that respondent-husband has committed cruelty, both mentally and physically, towards 2026:JHHC:19300-DB 9 appellant-wife for demand of dowry as also refused to stay with her. 26. Admittedly, the parties are living separately for a long period of time and there is no chance of restoration of conjugal right, but this aspect of the matter has also not been taken into consideration while passing the impugned judgment. 27. Submission has been made that the relationship of husband and wife is on the thread of trust which itself has been broken and there is no chance of re-union. 28. 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. Analysis: 29. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the appellant and gone through the finding recorded by the learned Family Judge in the impugned judgment as also the trial court record. 30. Before entering into merit of the case it needs to refer herein the conduct of the respondent-husband in participation of the court proceeding before this Court as also before the learned family court. 31. Though, after issuance of notice, the respondent-husband appeared before the learned family court but did not file show cause or written statement, as such he was debarred 2026:JHHC:19300-DB 10 from filing show cause by the court vide order dated 25.03.2025, which even the defendant-respondent, the husband, did not chose to challenge. As such the matter before the learned family court proceeded. 32. So far appearance of the respondent-husband before this Court is concerned, this Court vide order dated 12.02.2026 issued notice upon the respondent-husband, both by Speed Post and ordinary process. It is evident from the office note dated 24.03.2026 that the notice was received by the brother of the respondent-husband and as per service report, the jointness of the family was also there, as such the notice was validly accepted. But, in spite of that the respondent- husband did not appear before this Court either in-person or through his counsel. 33. Thereafter, when the matter was taken up on 20th April, 2026, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-wife appeared and submitted that before the learned trial court also the respondent-husband had not appeared, for the reason that the amount of maintenance which was directed to be paid by the learned Family Judge is not being paid by the respondent-husband and she has also filed application for enforcement of the judgment passed in Maintenance Case No.784 of 2019 in which the respondent has been sent, twice, to judicial custody. It has further been submitted that the appellant-wife is also having a male child aged about 10 2026:JHHC:19300-DB 11 years and, as such, both of them are facing acute hardship and due to that reason only, the husband is evading his appearance before this Court. 34. This Court considering the aforesaid fact thought it proper to again direct the learned counsel for the appellant to take steps for fresh service of notice through ordinary process to be sent through the S.P., Dhanbad who will ensure the service of notice upon the respondent through the jurisdictional police station. 35. Accordingly, notice was served through local police station, whereupon the petitioner appeared through counsel but when on 12th June, 2026, the matter was called for in pre- lunch Session as also in post-lunch session none appeared on behalf of respondent-husband. 36. Now coming to the merit of the case, the admitted fact herein is that the suit for divorce has been filed before the learned Family Court on the ground of cruelty i.e., by filing an application under Section 13 (1) (i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and accordingly, evidence have been led and argument has been advanced by learned counsel for the appellant, however, the suit was decided against the appellant/wife. 37. This Court, in order to appreciate the testimony available on record, has gone through the testimonies of the witnesses, as available in the impugned order. 2026:JHHC:19300-DB 12 38. The P.W.-1 Nitu Pramanik (Plaintiff), in her chief- examination on affidavit, has stated that her marriage was solemnized with defendant on 04.06.2015 as per Hindu Customs and Rites. After some months of marriage, the defendant [respondent herein] and his family members started torturing mentally and physically for demand of Rs.- 50,000/- and one four wheeler vehicle. Due to this wedlock a son was born. 39. She has further deposed that she lodged a case against the defendant/respondent and his family members in Dhanbad Mahila P.S, in which, they executed a bond on 18.11.2019 and took away her. But their behaviour did not change. On 04.12.2019, her father brought her to her Maika and from that she is living in her Maika. She has lodged a C.P. Case no.-3892/2019 against the defendant/respondent and his family members for demand of dowry and torturing. She also lodged a maintenance case No.-784/2019 in which maintenance amount was awarded in her favour. But the defendant/respondent did not pay any maintenance amount, so, she lodged Enforcement case No. 784/2019 against the defendant. 40. In court query, she has stated that she brought this suit for divorce. She lived in her matrimonial house since year 2019. Her husband beat to her for demand of dowry. In this regard She lodged a criminal complaint case. The occurrence of 2026:JHHC:19300-DB 13 beating was taken place prior to the year 2019, but could not say its date. 41. The P.W.-2 is Arjun Pramanik, (Father of plaintiff) in his chief-examination on affidavit, has reiterated the pleading of the plaintiff. In court query, he has stated that plaintiff is his daughter. Her husband beat to her daughter, so she is living in her Maika. No occurrence was taken place before him. His son-in-law has not demanded dowry from him. Her daughter has told him about the demand of dowry. 42. The P.W.-3 is Jyotsna Devi, in her chief-examination on affidavit, has reiterated the pleading of the plaintiff. In court query, she has stated that she cannot say that from which date the plaintiff-wife, the appellant is living in her Maika. She has stated that no occurrence of beating was taken place before her. No demand of dowry was made before her. As per plaintiff she is deposing regarding beating and demand of dowry. 43. On the basis of the pleading of the parties, the learned Principal Family Judge after appreciating the oral evidence, dismissed the suit filed by the petitioner-appellant [wife] for dissolution of marriage by decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 against respondent/husband, , against which the present appeal has been preferred. 2026:JHHC:19300-DB 14 44. It requires to refer herein that since appellate jurisdiction has been invoked herein, therefore, before entering into merit of the case, at this juncture it would be purposeful to discuss the appellate jurisdiction of the High Court. 45. It needs to refer herein that under section 7 of the Family Courts Act, the Family Court shall have and exercise all the jurisdiction exercisable by any District Court or any Sub- ordinate Civil Court under any law for the time being in force in respect of suits and proceedings of the nature which are described in the explanation to section 7(1). 46. Sub-section (1) to section 19 of the Family Courts Act provides that an appeal shall lie from every judgment or order not being an interlocutory order of a Family Court to the High Court "both on facts and on law". Therefore, section 19 of the Family Courts Act is parallel to section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the scope of which has been dealt with by the Hon'ble Apex Court in series of judgments. 47. The law is well settled that the High Court in a First Appeal can examine every question of law and fact which arises in the facts of the case and has powers to affirm, reverse or modify the judgment under question. In "Jagdish Singh v. Madhuri Devi" (2008) 10 SCC 497 the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that it is lawful for the High Court acting as the First Appellate Court to enter into not only questions of law but questions of fact as well and the appellate Court 2026:JHHC:19300-DB 15 therefore can reappraise, reappreciate and review the entire evidence and can come to its own conclusion. For ready reference the relevant paragraph of the said judgment is being quoted as under: “It is no doubt true that the High Court was exercising power as the first appellate court and hence it was open to the Court to enter into not only questions of law but questions of fact as well. It is settled law that an appeal is a continuation of suit. An appeal thus is a rehearing of the main matter and the appellate court can reappraise, reappreciate and review the entire evidence--oral as well as documentary--and can come to its own conclusion.” 48. Herein, the learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the evidence of cruelty as also the demand of dowry has not properly been considered and as such, the judgment suffers from perversity, hence, not sustainable in the eyes of law. 49. From the pleadings available on record and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel, 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)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act requires interference?” 50. This Court, while appreciating the argument advanced on behalf of learned counsel on the issue of perversity, needs to refer herein the interpretation of the word “perverse” as has 2026:JHHC:19300-DB 16 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, 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 2026:JHHC:19300-DB 17 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. 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 EncyclopedicEdn.) 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.” 51. Herein, submission has been made on behalf of the appellant-wife that the respondent-husband committed mental and physical cruelty against the appellant-wife and further her husband refused to live with the plaintiff-wife. 2026:JHHC:19300-DB 18 Before the learned family court the respondent-husband appeared but did not file show cause. Before this Court also, after taking much effort though the respondent-husband appeared by filing vakalatnama but not appear to argue the matter. Therefore, this Court proceeded to hear the matter. 52. Herein, since the appellant has sought for a relief of dissolution of her marriage on the ground of cruelty. Therefore, this Court before proceeding further needs to discuss the term cruelty. 53. Herein, cruelty has been taken by the appellant as the main ground for dissolution of marriage. 54. 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. 55. 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. 2026:JHHC:19300-DB 19 56. 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.” 57. 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.” 58. 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. 59. 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 2026:JHHC:19300-DB 20 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”. 60. 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. 61. 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. 2026:JHHC:19300-DB 21 62. Cruelty” has an inseparable nexus with human conduct and is always dependent on social strata or milieu to which parties belong, their ways of life, relationship, temperaments and emotions that are conditioned by their social status, reference be made to the judgment rendered by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case Vishwanath Agrawal v. Sarla Vishwanath Agrawal, (2012) 7 SCC 288. 63. The Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa, (2013) 5 SCC 226 has observed that cruelty is evident where one spouse so treats other and manifests such feelings in other, so as to cause reasonable apprehension in mind of other that it would be harmful or injurious to reside with other spouse and cruelty may be physical or mental. It has further been observed that staying together under the same roof is not a precondition for mental cruelty. Spouse can cause mental cruelty by his or her conduct even while he or she is not staying under the same roof. 64. In matrimonial relationship cruelty mean absence of mutual respect and understanding between spouses which embitters relationship. Sometimes it may take form of violence, or at times may just be an attitude or approach. Silence in some situations may also amount to cruelty reference be made to the case of Ravi Kumar v. Julmidevi, (2010) 4 SCC 476. 2026:JHHC:19300-DB 22 65. For considering dissolution of marriage at instance of a spouse who alleges mental cruelty, result of such mental cruelty must be such that it is not possible to continue with matrimonial relationship reference may be taken from the judgment rendered by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Joydeep Majumdar v. Bharti Jaiswal Majumdar, (2021) 3 SCC 742. 66. Further the word „cruelty‟ is 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. The cruelty may be mental or physical, intentional or unintentional. There may be cases where the conduct complained of itself is bad enough and per se unlawful or illegal. Then the impact or the injurious effect on the other spouse need not be enquired into or considered. In such cases, the cruelty will be established if the conduct itself is proved or admitted, reference in this regard be made to the judgment rendered by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Vinita Saxena v. Pankaj Pandit, (2006) 3 SCC 778. 67. Further, in the case of Manish Tyagi v. Deepak Kumar, (2010) 4 SCC 339 the Hon‟ble Apex Court has categorically observed that to constitute „cruelty‟, it is enough that conduct of one of parties is so abnormal and below accepted norm that other spouse could not reasonably 2026:JHHC:19300-DB 23 be expected to put up with it. Conduct is no longer required to be so atrociously abominable which would cause reasonable apprehension that it would be harmful or injurious to continue cohabitation with another spouse. Hence, it is not necessary to establish physical violence. Continued ill-treatment, cessation of marital intercourse, studied neglect, indifference may lead to inference of cruelty. 68. The word “cruelty” under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Act has got no static connotation, and therefore, gives a very wide discretion to the Court to apply it liberally and contextually. What is cruelty in one case may not be the same for another and has to be applied from person to person while taking note of the attending circumstances. Harm or injury to health, reputation, the working-career or the like, would be important considerations in determining whether the conduct of the defending spouse amounts to cruelty. It has to be shown that the defending spouse has treated him with cruelty to cause reasonable apprehension in his/her mind that it will be harmful or injurious to live with the contesting spouse. 69. 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-wife [PW 1] that she has deposed that her marriage was solemnized with 2026:JHHC:19300-DB 24 defendant on 04.06.2015 as per Hindu Customs and Rites. After some months of marriage, the defendant [respondent herein] and his family members started torturing mentally and physically for demand of Rs.-50,000/- and one four wheeler vehicle. She has further deposed that she lodged a case against the defendant/respondent and his family members in Dhanbad Mahila P.S, in which, they executed bond on 18.11.2019 and took away her. But their behaviour did not change. On 04.12.2019, her father brought her to her Maika and from then she is living in her Maika. She lodged a C.P. Case no.-3892/2019 against the defendant/respondent and his family members for demand of dowry and torturing. She also lodged a maintenance case No.-784/2019 in which maintenance amount was awarded in her favour. But the defendant/respondent did not pay any maintenance amount, so, she lodged Enforcement case No. 784/2019 against the defendant. 70. The P.W.-2 is Arjun Pramanik, the father of appellant-wife, in his chief-examination on affidavit, has reiterated the pleading of the plaintiff. On court query, he has stated that her husband used to beat her daughter, so she is living in her Maika. However, he has specifically deposed that no occurrence was taken place before him. 71. This Court, upon consideration of the principles laid down by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court on the issue of “cruelty” 2026:JHHC:19300-DB 25 vis-à-vis matrimonial disputes, and upon appreciation of the evidence adduced by the appellant-wife, finds that the appellant-wife has specifically deposed that her husband used to assault her in connection with demands for dowry. She further stated that such acts of beating were disclosed by her to her father. The father, in his deposition, has corroborated this assertion by specifically stating that his daughter informed him that her husband used to beat her for fulfillment of dowry demands. 72. Ground has been taken that the conduct of the respondent- husband was that brutal that it is almost impossible for the appellant-wife to live with the respondent. Relationship of wife and husband is based on the trust and respect to have upon each other and if it is broken it is non-repairable as the trust is the foundation of marriage. Marriage is a relationship built on mutual trust, companionship and shared experiences. 73. Furthermore, from the pleadings available, it is nowhere averred that at any stage of time, either at personal level; societal level or through court of law by filing application for restitution of conjugal right, the respondent-husband ever tried to save the marriage, rather, his conduct shows that he intentionally delays the proceedings before the learned family court as also before this Court. 2026:JHHC:19300-DB 26 74. Learned counsel for the appellant-wife has drawn attention of the Court towards the conduct of the respondent-husband before the proceeding in the maintenance case where also even after passing of order he is evading his presence. 75. So far as the case laws upon which the learned family Court relied upon, i.e., the case of Samar Ghosh Vs. Jaya Ghosh [(2007) 4 SCC 511] has not been properly appreciated by learned family judge. For ready reference, the relevant paragraph 101 of the judgment is quoted as under: “101. No uniform standard can ever be laid down for guidance, yet we deem it appropriate to enumerate some instances of human behaviour which may be relevant in dealing with the cases of “mental cruelty”. The instances indicated in the succeeding paragraphs are only illustrative and not exhaustive: (i) On consideration of complete matrimonial life of the parties, acute mental pain, agony and suffering as would not make possible for the parties to live with each other could come within the broad parameters of mental cruelty. (ii) On comprehensive appraisal of the entire matrimonial life of the parties, it becomes abundantly clear that situation is such that the wronged party cannot reasonably be asked to put up with such conduct and continue to live with other party. (iii) Mere coldness or lack of affection cannot amount to cruelty, frequent rudeness of language, petulance of manner, indifference and neglect may reach such a degree that it makes the married life for the other spouse absolutely intolerable. (iv) Mental cruelty is a state of mind. The feeling of deep anguish, disappointment, frustration in one spouse caused by the conduct of other for a long time may lead to mental cruelty. 2026:JHHC:19300-DB 27 (v) A sustained course of abusive and humiliating treatment calculated to torture, discommode or render miserable life of the spouse. (vi) Sustained unjustifiable conduct and behaviour of one spouse actually affecting physical and mental health of the other spouse. The treatment complained of and the resultant danger or apprehension must be very grave, substantial and weighty. (vii) Sustained reprehensible conduct, studied neglect, indifference or total departure from the normal standard of conjugal kindness causing injury to mental health or deriving sadistic pleasure can also amount to mental cruelty. (viii) The conduct must be much more than jealousy, selfishness, possessiveness, which causes unhappiness and dissatisfaction and emotional upset may not be a ground for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty. (ix) Mere trivial irritations, quarrels, normal wear and tear of the married life which happens in day-to-day life would not be adequate for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty. (x) The married life should be reviewed as a whole and a few isolated instances over a period of years will not amount to cruelty. The ill conduct must be persistent for a fairly lengthy period, where the relationship has deteriorated to an extent that because of the acts and behaviour of a spouse, the wronged party finds it extremely difficult to live with the other party any longer, may amount to mental cruelty. (xi) If a husband submits himself for an operation of sterilisation without medical reasons and without the consent or knowledge of his wife and similarly, if the wife undergoes vasectomy or abortion without medical reason or without the consent or knowledge of her husband, such an act of the spouse may lead to mental cruelty. (xii) Unilateral decision of refusal to have intercourse for considerable period without there being any physical incapacity or valid reason may amount to mental cruelty. (xiii) Unilateral decision of either husband or wife after marriage not to have child from the marriage may amount to cruelty. 2026:JHHC:19300-DB 28 (xiv) Where there has been a long period of continuous separation, it may fairly be concluded that the matrimonial bond is beyond repair. The marriage becomes a fiction though supported by a legal tie. By refusing to sever that tie, the law in such cases, does not serve the sanctity of marriage; on the contrary, it shows scant regard for the feelings and emotions of the parties. In such like situations, it may lead to mental cruelty.” 76. Undoubtedly no uniform standard can be laid down while deciding the factum of cruelty, rather, it depends upon the facts of each and every case. In the case at hand, the appellant-wife has been forced to leave the matrimonial house with his son, which has caused acute mental pain, agony and it comes within the broad parameters of mental cruelty. Though herein long separation has not been taken as a ground but in the case at hand, the respondent though appeared before the learned family court as also before this court, after much persuasion but did not actively participate in the proceeding and adopting delaying tactics putting pressure upon the respondent-wife. 77. It has further come on record that, owing to the persistent demands of dowry made by the respondent-husband, the appellant-wife was constrained to institute C.P. Case No. 3892 of 2019. The appellant has categorically deposed that the defendant (respondent herein) and his family members were unwilling to continue the matrimonial relationship with her, as their insistence upon dowry remained unfulfilled. 2026:JHHC:19300-DB 29 78. In the maintenance case also, respondent husband is evading his presence for making payment of interim maintenance which is for sustenance of the appellant-wife and his son. However, it is not the issue herein but it required to mention herein showing conduct of the respondent-husband towards his appellant-wife and son who is living with wife causing suffering to them. 79. It has further been pleaded by the appellant-wife that she is not willing to reside with the respondent-husband and that there exists no possibility of reunion between them. From the record and the conduct of the husband, it is evident that he has made no sincere effort to preserve the matrimonial bond. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view, particularly taking into account the conduct of the respondent-husband as discussed hereinabove, that the appellant cannot be compelled to continue to live with her husband. 80. This Court, after discussing the aforesaid factual aspect along with the settled legal position as discussed and referred hereinabove in the preceding paragraphs and adverting to the consideration made by the learned Family Judge in the impugned judgment has found therefrom that the issue of element of cruelty by the appellant-wife has not been properly considered by the learned Family Judge. 2026:JHHC:19300-DB 30 81. Accordingly, the issue as framed by this Court is decided in favour of the appellant-wife. 82. This Court, on consideration of the aforesaid discussion, is of the view that the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned Family Judge is coming under the fold of perversity, since, the conscious consideration has not been made to the evidences available on record, as would be evident from the impugned judgment. 83. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands allowed and the impugned judgment dated 19.12.2025, decree signed on 07.01.2026, passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhanbad in Original Suit No. 913 of 2024, is hereby quashed and set aside. 84. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. I Agree (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Sanjay Prasad, J.) (Sanjay Prasad, J.) 30th June, 2026 A.F.R Alankar/-