2026:JHHC:20890-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI F.A. No.184 of 2025 ------ Abhishek Kerketta, aged about 44 years, son of Late Eliyas Kerketta, permanent residing at Bajra Kumba Toli, Near ITI Bus Stand, PO Hehal, PS Sukhdeonagar, District-Ranchi, presently residing at Gorabari, PO Jagadalla, PS-Bankura, Distt. Bankura, West Bengal. … … Appellant Versus Shobha Kujur, aged about 43 years, wife of Mr. Abhishek Kerketta, daughter of Mr. Vincent Kujur, R/o Pathalkudwa Church Lane, PS - Lower Bazar, PO-GPO, District-Ranchi. … … Respondent P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ….. For the Appellant : Mr. Arbind Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Ashok Kumar Jha, Advocate. ….. C.A.V. on 22.06.2026 Pronounced on 14/07/2026 Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. Prayer: 1. The instant appeal has been filed under section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 for challenging the legality and propriety of impugned judgment passed on 03.07.2025 and decree signed on 14.07.2025 by learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court-I, Ranchi whereby and whereunder the Original Suit No. 246 of 2022 filed by the appellant-husband under Section 10(ix) and (x) of the Divorce 2 Act, 1869 for a decree of dissolution of marriage on the ground of desertion and cruelty, has been dismissed. Factual Matrix 2. The brief facts of the case as narrated before the trial court by the appellant/petitioner husband is that the appellant-husband and respondent-wife are by caste Oraon, by faith Christian and their marriage was solemnized on 19.10.2015 according to Christian rites and rituals at N.W. GEL Church, Main Road, Ranchi and after marriage respondent-wife was brought to her matrimonial home at village Bajra, Kumbatoli, P.S. Sukhdeo Nagar, District Ranchi where the appellant-husband and the respondent-wife lived together as husband and wife only for a few days and the marriage has been consummated but after completion of the customaries, the respondent- wife, against the consent of her husband, went to her workplace at Chhattisgarh. 3. It has been stated that during the stay of respondent-wife in the house of appellant-husband, she caused a lot of intolerable mental pain and agony to the appellant, due to rude and ill behaviour of the wife towards the appellant as well towards other family members of the appellant. There is no child begotten out of their wedlock. 3 4. It has been stated that the appellant several times has requested the respondent-wife to come to him and discharge her matrimonial obligations, but every time the respondent showed her avoidable attitude on the context of her service. 5. It has been stated that appellant is an employee of Union Bank of India in the State of West Bengal on a respectable post having a good and handsome salary for maintenance of the respondent and his other family members hence, several times appellant advised the respondent to live with him and perform her matrimonial obligations but the respondent never paid any heed on it and always refused to obey the said advise of the appellant. 6. It has been stated that the appellant’s younger brother is fully dependent on the appellant but the respondent always raised objection to the appellant towards giving any support or help to his younger brother, which caused a mental agony to the appellant. 7. It has further been stated that the respondent always showed her hostile attitude, her rigidness to the appellant as well as towards other family members of the appellant and she was not interested to live with her in- laws at Ranchi. 4 8. It has been stated that during stay at matrimonial home the respondent never took care of family members of the appellant in any manner including health and food and she used to avoid even to cook food for the family members including the appellant and such action of the respondent always caused mental pain and agony to the appellant and his other family members because it was a cruelty against the appellant and his family members, which has been caused by the respondent-wife. The respondent was also making pressure upon the appellant to transfer his ancestral landed properties in the name of the respondent and on denial for the same, she used to quarrel with the appellant and his other family members causing mental pain and agony to them. 9. It has been stated that the respondent was also advancing threats to the appellant and his family members for their implication in false cases, this act of the respondent was nothing but a cruelty against the appellant and his family members and all the cruelties, caused by the respondent against the appellant and his family members, were tolerated in a hope that in future the respondent will amend her behaviour, but there was no progress in the behaviour of the respondent, who was not ready to leave her service and live in the matrimonial 5 home and discharge her matrimonial obligations and seeing the unwillingness of the respondent, the appellant many times requested her to stay with the appellant but always the respondent showed her unwillingness without any reason. 10. It has been stated that the respondent had no effect about the request of the appellant and his family members, she threatened to the appellant that if any objection will be made, she will lodge F.I.R. against the appellant and all other family members of her matrimonial home. 11. It has been stated that the respondent developed tendency of levelling false allegations upon the appellant and his family members and pick quarrel with them by passing fake remarks against the appellant and creation of scene in the house became the routine of the respondent. 12. It has further been stated that the appellant always tried to establish a better relation but the respondent never paid any heed on it and continued her acts and actions which was causing cruelty to the appellant. The respondent at her own desire and will, left the matrimonial home on 10.07.2018 with her all belongings and living separately for more than 03 (three) years and has completely deserted the appellant and even 6 after several requests not joined the company and society of the appellant. 13. It has been stated that the appellant made all possible efforts to keep the respondent with him and he also separately requested the respondent to not to leave him, but she refused and left the company and society of the appellant with her all belongings and has made the life of the appellant barren/desert causing mental pain and agony to the appellant. 14. It has been stated that with a view to cover her own guilt the respondent has filed case U/s 32 of the Divorce Act, 1969 vide Original (Matrimonial) Suit no.621/2021 in the court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi, against this appellant on wholly false and concocted grounds, wherein this appellant filed his detailed show cause and placed the entire matter before the court. The said suit is still pending for adjudication. 15. It has been stated that the respondent has knowingly, intentionally and willingly deserted the appellant without any rhyme or reason and due to said act of the respondent, the life of the appellant has become a hell. 16. It has been stated that the appellant and the respondent are living separately for more than 03 years 7 and as such there is no impediment to grant a decree of divorce under section 10(ix) of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869. 17. It has been stated that the respondent without any reasonable cause left the company and society of the appellant only to fulfill her lust and has caused several kinds of cruelty against the appellant and the appellant several times requested the respondent to live in the company of the appellant, but the respondent paid no any heed on it causing pain and agony to the appellant. 18. The appellant has left with no other alternative efficacious remedy than to file this suit for dissolution of marriage solemnized in between the appellant and the respondent on 19.10.2015. 19. The case was admitted for hearing and upon notice the respondent-wife appeared. 20. Thereafter, the respondent-wife filed her written statement in which it has been stated that the instant suit preferred by the appellant under Section 10 (ix) and (x) of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 for dissolution of marriage is not tenable either in law or in view of the facts and circumstances of this case and as such the same is liable to be dismissed. 21. It has been stated that the appellant has not come 8 up before the learned Court with clean hands and has filed the suit after suppressing material facts with a motive to mislead the learned Court. 22. It has been stated in the written statement that only after appearing before this learned Court in a proceeding preferred by the respondent under Section 32 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 for restitution of conjugal rights as O.S. No. 621/21, the appellant filed the suit alleging frivolous and manufactured charges against the respondent and hence, the suit is not tenable in the eye of law. 23. The statement regarding the marriage between the parties solemnized on 19.10.2015 at N.W.G.E.L. Church, Main Road, Ranchi in presence of the relatives, friends and respectable persons is not denied. Admittedly, after solemnization of marriage the respondent went to her matrimonial house along with the appellant and started living there along with the appellant and his younger brother. 24. It is stated that only after a week of marriage the appellant returned back to his work place to join his duty, while the respondent continued in her matrimonial house along with the younger brother of the appellant for about a month. 25. It has been stated that prior to the marriage, both 9 the parties have decided to get their transfer to Ranchi to lead peaceful conjugal life and according to the said decision, the respondent applied for her transfer to Ranchi sometimes in the month of August or September 2014 i.e. much before her marriage with the appellant on his assurance. 26. It is, however, stated that since the appellant- husband was posted at Kharagpur, it was not possible to transfer the respondent to Ranchi as per the transfer policy the Bank. Somehow or other, in the year 2018 she had been transferred to Ranchi under Patna Circle and got her posting in Tangarbansli Branch within Mandar Police Station. The appellant never requested or proposed the respondent to resign the service and live with him to perform matrimonial obligations. Contrary to it, the appellant insisted the respondent to continue in service and take proper care of his younger brother, who is sitting idle till date. It is true that his younger brother, who is mentally and physically sound, is still unemployed at the similar age group of this respondent and only due to his unemployment, he cannot be said to be a dependent of his employed elder brother. Moreover, it is stated and submitted that this respondent has spent much more time with her brother-in-law than her husband i.e. the appellant and she never create any 10 hindrance into their relationship. 27. It has been stated that the respondent always tried her best to fulfill all the demands of her younger brother-in- law. It can be said that the respondent has never behaved against the will and wish of the appellant or his younger brother, which cause mental agony to them. 28. It has been stated in the written statement that the respondent woke up early morning at 5.00 A.M. regularly to perform the daily house keepings like cleaning, washing and cooking and she used to conclude the cooking of breakfast, lunch and her tiffin everyday till 8.30 A.M. and thereafter she used to go to her work place which is about 35 kilometers away from their residence. Her duty hour was 10.00 Α.Μ. to 5,00 P.M. and therefore, she returned to her home at about 7.30 to 8.00 P.M. on usual working day. After coming to her home, she used to prepare dinner and after completing the entire responsibility, used to go to bed at about 11.00 P.M. 29. It has been stated that her brother-in-law never supported her even in marketing or to keep the home clean rather he used to stop the water supply when the respondent takes bath. He was well aware that the respondent will come back at about 7.30 to 8.00 P.M. to home but, he intentionally and willfully used to go outside 11 after locking the main door and return back to home at late night and under this situation the respondent has no option than to go to her neighbour for time pass. 30. It has been stated that the family of the appellant consist of himself, his younger brother and the respondent being his legally wedded wife and therefore, the allegations levelled against the respondent has no legs to stand. 31. It has been stated that the respondent has approached the maternal aunty of the appellant namely Jaiwanti Tigga, who is living with her family at Dhumsatoli near Bahubazar at Ranchi and requested her to make the appellant and his brother understand and direct them to co- operate with the respondent but she never paid any heed to it as she is supposed to be the only elderly guardian of the appellant and his brother. 32. So far the statement regarding making pressure to transfer the ancestral landed properties in favour of the respondent is concerned, the appellant must disclose the detail of such properties, which have been aimed by the respondent to be transferred in her favour. 33. It has been stated that the respondent has not filed any case either civil or criminal against the appellant save and except a suit for restitution of her conjugal rights under section 32 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 under compelling 12 circumstances, which is still pending before this learned Court as O.S. 621/21. 34. It has been stated that the respondent has already moved before this learned Court earlier for restitution of her conjugal rights and after appearing therein, in course of mediation process, the appellant has refused to restore his relationship with the respondent. The respondent was compelled to leave the matrimonial house due to the non- cooperation and rude behaviour of the appellant. 35. The matter of the parties of the present proceeding was referred to Mediation Centre, Ranchi to arrive any amicable settlement between them but the same failed. In view of it, the suit was taken up for its decision on merit. 36. It has been stated that the appellant-husband is not entitled to get any decree, u/s 10 of the Divorce Act as the suit is devoid of any merit either in law or on facts and same is liable to be dismissed. 37. The learned Family Judge has taken into consideration the pleading made by the parties in the plaint as well as in the written statement. 38. The case proceeded for evidence which the appellant-husband has produced and examined three witnesses including himself. 13 39. The respondent-wife has produced and examined altogether two witnesses including herself. 40. The learned Principal Judge, after hearing learned counsel for the parties, framed seven issues for adjudication of the lis, which are being referred as under: I. Whether the suit as framed is maintainable? II. Whether the appellant has valid cause of action for the suit? III. Whether the respondent wife has treated the appellant husband with cruelty? IV. Whether the respondent wife has deserted the appellant husband since 24.10.2015? V. Whether the appellant husband is taking advantage of his own wrong? VI. Whether the appellant is entitled to get the decree of divorce? VII. Whether the appellant is entitled to get any other relief or reliefs? 41. The aforesaid issues were decided against the appellant-husband and in favour of respondent-wife and the suit was dismissed on contest. 42. The appellant-husband, being aggrieved with the judgment passed on 03.07.2025 and decree signed on 14.07.2025 by learned Additional Principal Judge, 14 Additional Family Court-I, Ranchi approached this Court by filing the instant appeal. Submission made on behalf of the appellant-husband 43. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-husband has submitted that the impugned judgement passed by the learned court below is wholly wrong, illegal, against the weight of evidence and materials available on record and is, therefore, liable to be set aside. 44. It has been submitted that the learned court below has passed the impugned judgement without properly considering the materials available on record and as such the same is fit to be set aside. 45. The learned Family Court has failed to take into consideration that the appellant as well as other witnesses specifically stated that the respondent/opposite party used to pressurize the appellant/appellant to live separately from his younger brother and was quarrelling with the appellant and his younger brother for no reason which sufficiently proves cruelty on the part of the respondent/opposite party. 46. The learned Family Court has failed to take into consideration that the respondent/opposite party had suo moto left the house of appellant/petitioner-husband on 10.07.2018 without any rhymes and reason which itself amounts to desertion and cruelty. 15 47. The learned Family Court has failed to take into consideration that admittedly the appellant and respondent/opposite party are living separately since last more than seven years and there is no chance of reconciliation and in such circumstances, the marriage ought to have been dissolved in the interest of justice. 48. The learned Family Court has failed to take into consideration that alleging a false allegation on appellant are sufficient ground to prove cruelty. 49. The learned Family Court has failed to take into consideration that the respondent/opposite party has without any cogent reason, withdrawn herself from the society of the petitioner/appellant and is living separately since 2018 in her parental house. 50. The learned Family Court ought to have considered the ill-treatment and misbehavior of the respondent/opposite party which she has done with the appellant and his younger brother. 51. The learned Family Court ought to have considered the desertion by the respondent/opposite party towards the appellant/petitioner. 52. Further, it has been submitted that the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court while answering issue No.III (cruelty) are perverse and based on mere presumption, therefore, the same will not stand in the eye of law. 16 53. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant, on the basis of aforesaid grounds, has submitted that the judgment passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court-I, Ranchi requires interference. Submission made on behalf of respondent-wife 54. Learned counsel for the respondent-wife, defending the impugned order, has submitted that appellant and respondent are legally married couple and she has filed a suit for restitution of conjugal right but the appellant does not want to keep her and has deserted her without any rhyme and reason. 55. It has further been submitted that the respondent is still ready to reside with the appellant-petitioner and the allegation levelled against her by the appellant-husband are false and fabricated as she never subjected him with cruelty rather it is the appellant-husband who has deserted her. 56. It has been submitted that still she wants to live with appellant and prayed to dismiss the suit filed by appellant. 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 17 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 refer the testimonies of the witnesses, as available on record. 60. The appellant-husband, in support of his case, has adduced three witnesses including himself. The relevant portion of the testimonies of the witnesses are mentioned as under :- P.W.1, Jaywanti Tigga has supported the case of appellant in her examination-in-chief and she has stated that she knows the appellant-husband and the respondent-wife of this suit. The marriage of the appellant and the respondent was solemnized on 19.10.2015 at G.E.L. Church, Main Road, Ranchi according to Christian religion in the presence of their relatives, friends and well-wishers after which a relationship of husband and wife was formed between them and both of them started living together. After marriage, the appellant along with the respondent came to his residence at Mauja Bajra Kumbatoli, Near ITI Bus Stop, Ranchi, so that they could live peacefully and lead a married life but due to the cruel behaviour of the respondent, there was a rift in their married life. The appellant is the elder son of her younger sister and since the death of his parents, he has been taken care of under her 18 and her family's, due to which they keep visiting the appellant's house. She has stated that whenever she used to go to the appellant's house on Sundays, she used to meet the appellant but never met the respondent It was known that she goes to her mother's house in Pathalkudwa every Saturday. The appellant was working in Union Bank in Kharagpur (from 2013 to 2022) and he used to reach his home on Saturday morning on every second and fourth Saturday, i.e., bank holiday. She used to go to her mother's house, staying there on Sunday and going to office from there on Monday. This was her routine manner, but for some days she used to stay at her mother's house even when the appellant came to his house and on asking the respondent she used to say that her back cannot bend and she cannot work, then the appellant used to spend the entire day sweeping and mopping the whole house and cleaning it. But knowing her problem, he remained silent. She has stated that after few days the respondent started behaving inhumanly towards her brother-in-law which is unforgivable and now even when the appellant came on leave, the respondent used to go to her mother's house on Saturday even then she did not come home and this trend started increasing. 19 She has stated that despite her separation, the appellant was silent. In this way both of them started living separately, She has stated that once the respondent went to Kharagpur, the workplace of the appellant along with her parents without informing anyone and started inquiring about appellant by levelling allegation of having an immoral relationship with some woman, which the appellant's landlord said that it was baseless and after this incident the appellant's mind became completely detached from the respondent and he started feeling sad that the respondent was harassing him mentally without any reason. She has further stated that the respondent is not fulfilling her proper responsibilities in marital life, behaving inappropriately with her brother-in-law, not staying with the family and staying at her parental house, not giving proper place to her husband in her life, unnecessarily suspecting and blaming her husband, the respondent has aggravated the separation and divorce due to which it has become not only impossible but also impossible for the appellant to spend her marital life with her. The appellant and the respondent have no children from their marital life. This witness has stated that on 10th July, 2018, respondent left the house after quarreling with the appellant and since then it has been almost five years significant period 20 of their marital relationship has passed since its breakdown and now it is not possible for the appellant to continue her marital life with the respondent In her cross examination, she has stated that she is relative from the side of mother of appellant. She has retired. She did not get any chance to get reunion between appellant and respondent. She has not seen quarreling by the respondent. The respondent has threatened her. She has denied that she came to depose falsely in this case. P.W.2, Nishith Tigga @ Nishith Biswas has supported the case of appellant in his examination-in-chief and he has stated that he knows the appellant and the respondent of this suit. The appellant has filed this suit for divorce against the respondent. The marriage of the appellant and the respondent was solemnized on 19.10.2015 at G.E.L. Church, Main Road, Ranchi according to Christian religion in the presence of their relatives, friends and well-wishers. After that a husband-wife relationship was formed between them and both husband and wife started living together. Both the parties to this suit belong to the Oraon caste under the Scheduled Tribe and are followers of Christianity, therefore the appellant has filed this suit under the Indian Divorce Act. He has stated that after marriage, the appellant took the respondent at his residence at Mauja Bajra Kumbatoli, Near ITI Bus Stand, Ranchi so that they could live their marital life 21 peacefully. The appellant is his maternal cousin brother and his parents had died before their marriage and since the death of his parents he has been brought up and looked after under the care of his family due to which they keep visiting the appellant's house. He has stated that before marriage they were not aware that the appellant would not be able to maintain harmony with her family because whenever they used to go to the appellant's house, the OP. always did not behave well with them and would get irritated over small things and would be ready to quarrel and she was not able to maintain good relation with the appellant also. He has stated that before marriage, they had the impression that both husband and wife will live well with each other and will behave well with them and their family, friends etc. but after marriage, whenever they and their other relatives used to visit her place, she used to misbehave and insult everyone so that no one comes to her house and thus they stopped visiting the appellant's house due to the misbehaviour of the respondent and the appellant became very sad after knowing all this and used to explain to the respondent that whoever from side of appellant comes, she should behave well with them and live together but the respondent used to quarrel with the appellant regarding this matter and started threatening in various ways and 22 threatened the appellant to implicate him in false case. The appellant's parents died leaving appellant and his younger brother and since then the appellant alone has been taking care of and providing for his younger brother which the respondent always opposed and the respondent did not want the appellant's younger brother to live with them whereas the appellant is the eldest member of the family and being the head of the family, he wants to take everyone along with him. He has further stated that since the time of marriage, ideological differences arose between the parties which kept on increasing day by day and because of the said ideological differences it is not possible for both of them to spend married life together and till now there is no child even after married life. On 10th July, 2018 the respondent left the house after quarreling with the appellant and since then, about five years of the important period of marital life have passed but the respondent has never come to the appellant's house. He has stated that the respondent would go directly from her office to her maternal home and on weekends like Saturday and Sunday when the appellant was in Ranchi, the respondent would stay at her maternal home and would not come to the appellant's house. The appellant was working in Union Bank in Kharagpur (from 2013 to 2022) and used to reach his home on Saturday morning on every second and 23 fourth Saturday during bank holiday. Before marriage, they had no idea that the respondent could not adjust with his family and every Saturday after leaving her office in Pathalkudwa, where she works in State Bank, she used to go to her maternal home instead of coming home, staying there on Sunday and going to office from there on Monday. This was her routine and even when the appellant was at home, the respondent used to stay at her maternal home. In his cross examination he has stated that he is relative by side of mother of appellant. The marriage of appellant was arranged marriage. He does not remember when he last met with the respondent. The respondent did not like when he visited the house of appellant. No quarrel between this witness and respondent took place. He has no knowledge that when respondent came to house after duty then younger brother of appellant left the house after locking the door and due to fed up she started to go office from her maika. The respondent never threatened him. He has stated that except this case one another case OS 621/21 is pending in which they have given their evidence. He has no knowledge that respondent went to Kharagpur at workplace of appellant to save her marital life. PW-3 Abhishek Kerketta is appellant himself. He has stated in his examination-in-chief that he is appellant in this suit and he is fully aware of all the facts and circumstances 24 of this suit. He has filed this suit for a decree of divorce against the respondent who is his wife as the attitude of the respondent has always been indecent towards him and his other family members and she was very cruel towards him and has never followed her duties as a wife. He has stated that his marriage was solemnized with the respondent on 19.10.2015 at GEL Church, Main Road Ranchi according to Christian rites and religion in the presence of their relatives. friends and well-wishers and after marriage he took the respondent along with him to his residence at Mouza Bajra Kumbatoli, Near ITI Bus Stand, Ranchi so that he could live his married life peacefully but due to the cruel behaviour of the respondent there was a rift in their marital life. He has stated that after the death of his parents, he and his younger brother are under the care of his aunt Jaywanti Tigga and her family members, due to which they keep coming to his house, which the respondent never liked and whenever his aunt Jaywanti Tigga used to come to his house, after their departure, the respondent used to express her displeasure and quarrel with him. He has stated that he was working in Union Bank in Kharagpur (from 2013 to 2022) and he used to reach his home on Saturday morning on every second and fourth Saturday during bank holiday, he used to find that the 25 respondent was at her maternal home in Pathalkudwa. He went to Pathalkudwa many times and requested the respondent to come home with him but she did not come. He has stated that before marriage he had no idea that the respondent cannot adjust with his family and almost every Saturday she used to go to her in-law’s house at Pathalkudwa. She works in State Bank, instead of coming home after work, she used to stay at her mother’s house on Sunday and go to office from there on Monday. This was her routine and even knowing that he is at home and have come on leave, she used to stay at her parental house. He has stated that when he used to come home on Saturday, he used to find the whole house in a disorder and on asking the respondent, she used to say that she could not do any household work and helplessly he used to sweep, clean and cook on his holidays. He has stated that after a few days of marriage respondent started behaving inhumanly towards him and his younger brother, which is unforgivable. The respondent used to go to her maternal home from her workplace every Saturday, stayed at her maternal home on Sunday and went to work from her maternal home on Monday morning. He has stated that once the respondent went to his workplace at Kharagpur along with her parents without informing him and started investigating him by levelling false allegation on him 26 of having an immoral relationship with a woman, which his landlord said that it was baseless and due to this act of the respondent, his image has also been spoiled among his colleagues at Kharagpur. He has stated that after this incident his mind got completely detached from the respondent and he started feeling very sad that the respondent unnecessarily harasses him mentally. The respondent always pressurized him to leave his younger brother and take a separate house on rent and live with the respondent. They do not have any child from their marital life. He has stated that respondent never took proper responsibility in the marital life. The respondent used to behave inappropriately with her brother-in-law. She never respected his family members and she preferred to stay with her parents instead of living with him and she did not give him proper place in her life and by doubting and accusing him unnecessarily, the respondent has intensified the separation and divorce due to which, it has become not only impossible but also impossible for him to spend marital life with the respondent. He has stated that on 10th July, 2018, after a quarrel regarding share in the property the respondent left the house and since then almost five years of important period of their marital life have passed but the respondent has never come 27 to his house since 10th July, 2018 and now it is not possible for him to spend his marital life with the respondent. He has stated that the behaviour of the respondent has always been extremely harsh, cruel, inhuman and insensitive towards him and his family members due to which he has always been mentally distressed and prayed that a decree for dissolution of the marriage solemnized between them on 19.10.2015 should be passed. In his cross examination he has stated that his marriage was arranged one and, in his family, his younger brother who is physically and mentally fit resides with him. In the year 2018 he had gone to bring his wife back and after that he never tried to bring her back. He has not filed case of restitution of conjugal right with her own will. He has not filed any application before any court or police station with regard to allegation which he has alleged upon his wife. He used to come Ranchi on second and fourth Saturday. He has no knowledge that when his wife returned home after duty then his brother used to lock the door and went to his aunt's house. He has denied that his wife came to his work place at Kharagpur in the year 2019 and at that time he did not allow to enter in his house as a result she returned to Ranchi at night. He has stated that prior to his marriage he did not ask his wife to leave the job. 28 61. The respondent-wife has also adduced two witnesses in support of her case which are being dealt hereunder as :- D.W.1, Asha Bilung has supported the case of respondent in her examination-in-chief and she has stated that she knows both the parties of this proceeding and after marriage respondent also lived in the same house with the appellant and his younger brother. She has stated that the marriage of both the parties was solemnized on 19.10.2015 according to Christian rites and rituals at NW GEL, Church, Main Road, Ranchi and no child was begotten out of their wedlock. She has stated that at the time of marriage appellant was working in Union Bank and was posted in West Bengal, while the respondent was working in State Bank of India and was posted in Chhattisgarh and after marriage respondent was trying to get her transfer to Ranchi, after which in 2017 she was transferred to Ranchi and was posted in Tangarbansali branch. She has stated that after marriage respondent started living in her in-laws' house where the appellant's younger brother also used to live with her. The appellant's parents had died before their marriage, so in the appellant's absence, only her younger brother and the respondent used to live in that house. 29 She has stated that the respondent was transferred from Chhattisgarh to Ranchi and posted at Tangarbasli branch and she used to commute to duty from her in-laws' house every day and before going to work respondent used to do all the household chores and prepare food for her brother- in-law and prepare dinner after returning from work. She has stated that respondent's brother-in-law did not help the respondent in any household work, rather he used to harass her intentionally and used to make false complaints to the appellant due to which differences started arising between them. She has stated that she used to often enquire about the well-being of the respondent and try to make her understand. She has stated that apart from her many relatives of the parties and people from the society tried to convince both the parties many times but the appellant did not make any effort to improve his marital life and even after the separation once in the year 2019, the respondent went to meet the appellant in Kharagpur at his work place but the appellant did not even allow the respondent to enter in his house and she had to return at night. She has stated that she has never seen the respondent quarrelling with the appellant and his younger brother. The respondent used to do all the household chores herself and she had to do all the shopping as her brother-in-law did not 30 do any work. She has also seen many times that when the respondent returned from work, her brother-in-law deliberately locked the house and went somewhere and at that time the respondent used to come to her and wait for him to return and many times when it was quite late, the respondent had to eat with them. She has stated that respondent has never made any dispute or claim regarding the property. She has stated that after the differences arose between both the parties, the respondent left her in-laws' house but no effort was ever made by the appellant to bring her back to his house. In her cross examination she has stated that she does not remember the case number in which she came to depose. This divorce suit has been filed by Abhishek. She knows Shobha Kujur since 2015. She had attended in the marriage of Shobha Kujur. The marriage took place with consent of family members of both the parties. She knows the family of Abhishek since 2012 and parents of Abhishek have already died and Abhishek has two brothers. She has stated that Abhishek and Shobha both are doing job and at the time of marriage both were posted at different city. The brother of Abhishek still resides with Abhishek and his brother always used to harass Shobha. She has denied that in mediation centre Shobha Kujur demanded Rs. 80 lakhs from Abhishek. 31 DW-2 Shobha Kujur, respondent herself. She has stated in her examination-in-chief that her marriage was solemnized with the appellant on 19.10.2015 as per Christian rites and rituals in presence of members of both the families, friends and well-wishers at NW GEL Church, Main Road, Ranchi. She has stated that at present she is working in State Bank of India, Mandar Branch, Ranchi and at the time of marriage she was posted in Kunkuri Branch, Chhattisgarh, whereas the appellant is working in Union Bank and at the time of marriage he was posted in Kharagpur (West Bengal) and presently, after being transferred from West Bengal in the year 2022 he is posted in Doranda Branch, Ranchi. She has stated that after marriage she started living at her in-laws' house i.e. the appellant's house with appellant and his younger brother Anuj Kerketta, her mother-in-law and father-in-law had passed away before their marriage. After marriage she and her husband stayed together for about a week because after that the appellant went to contribute to his work whereas she had taken one month's leave from her work for her marriage and so after the appellant left, she stayed at her in-laws' house only for a month. She and her brother-in-law Anuj Kerketta were residing. Presently the appellant's younger brother is aged about 38 years and he is mentally and physically fit and is 32 unmarried and unemployed and stays at home. She used to come to her in-laws' house when she got leave from the bank and even in the absence of appellant, she used to take up all the responsibilities of the house, her brother-in-law did not help her in household chores rather he used to complain about her to his brother over petty matters, due to which differences between them arose which was causing a rift in their married life. She has stated that in this context she has requested the appellant many times that he himself should come and stay with them for a few days, then the whole truth will come out automatically, but he never listened to her and believed only the words of his younger brother and his aunt and aunt of the appellant and her family members were against their marriage from the very beginning and even now they are hellbent on ending their married life instead of resolving it. The differences between them grew due to petty domestic issues and no efforts were made by the appellant to resolve the same, which resulted in breakdown of their marital life. She has stated that before marriage both of them had decided that they would get themselves transferred to Ranchi and for this reason, before marriage she had sent a request letter to the headquarter of her bank for getting herself transferred to Ranchi. 33 She has stated that after about three years she was transferred to Ranchi and she is posted in Tangarbasli branch. She used to come to Tangarbasli for her work daily from her in-laws' place and presently she is posted in Mandar branch. She has stated that before going to her duty she used to do all the household chores and prepare breakfast and lunch for her brother-in-law and after returning from work, she used to prepare dinner and she used to take full care of her brother-in-law's likes and dislikes and used to prepare food of his choice, even after this, sometimes her brother-in-law used to lock the house and go somewhere when she returned from duty and used to return very late at night at such times she used to go to her tenant and later to her house. Apart from spending time at the house of neighbour Asha Bilung, who is respondent witness no.1 where she also used to eat food when it was late. She used to explain this to her brother-in-law as well, but never discussed this with anyone else. She has stated that her brother-in-law did not help her in any household work rather, he used to harass her deliberately and make false complaints against her to his brother. She took advise from her acquaintances many times on this matter and they also tried to resolve the matter but no meaningful result was achieved. 34 She has stated that even after several efforts when there was no improvement in their relations, she was forced to leave her in-laws' house in unbearable condition on 10th July 2018, carrying only her handbag and tiffin, and started living at her parental house and since then both are living separately. She has stated that in the month of October, 2019 when she went to Kharagpur to meet the appellant after about 1 years of separation with intention of reestablishing her marital relationship but appellant did not even allow her to enter in his house and she had to return in the night itself. She has stated that due to living separately their family members also came to know about the disputes in their married life and then this matter was told to the Panches and they were requested to resolve this dispute. Then some members of the Church and the neighbours went to convince the appellant but the appellant did not listen to them. She has stated that when she was left with no option to save her marital life, she decided to take legal advice and filed Original Matrimonial) Suit No. 621/2021 in the Family Court, Ranchi u/s 32 of the Divorce Act for restoration of her marital life, which is presently pending. She has stated that the appellant appeared in that suit after receiving the notice issued by the Court but no meaningful effort was made by him to restore his married life. 35 In the said suit after filing his written statement on 03.12.2021, on 28.03.2022 he filed this instant original (matrimonial) suit number 246/2022 u/s 10 (ix) and (x) of the Divorce Act on the basis of baseless, false and fabricated allegations for divorce which itself shows the intention of the appellant. She has stated that before filing the suit for divorce by the appellant, no complaint was ever made against her to the family members nor was any information given to any police station or court and even in the written statement filed by the appellant in the original (matrimonial) suit number 621/2021, he has not mentioned that she has harassed him mentally, physically or financially. The allegations levelled against her by the appellant are beyond the truth, false, misleading, baseless and fabricated. In her cross examination she has stated that her marriage was solemnized with appellant on 19.10.2015 with consent of both their family members and after marriage she went to her Sasural where she lived for one month. At the time of marriage she was posted at SBI Kurkuri Branch, Chhattisgarh while her husband was posted in West Bengal at Kharagpur Branch. After four days of marriage her husband went on his duty. She has stated that no child was begotten out of their wedlock. She has stated that younger brother of appellant 36 was residing in her Sasural as parents of appellant were already died and differences took place between she and younger brother of appellant on petty matter. On, 10th July, 2018 she left her Sasural and came to her parental house and since then she is living in parental house. She has stated that she has filed a suit against her husband for restitution of conjugal right which is now pending. There is no marital relation between them since 2018. She has stated that it is incorrect to say that she has demanded Rs. 80 lakhs from her husband in Mediation Centre due to which the mediation failed. She has denied that she put pressure upon her husband to transfer his property in her name. She has denied that she did not respect her husband. 62. Besides oral evidence, documentary evidences were also adduced, which were marked as exhibits. 63. 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. (iii) i.e. issue of cruelty are perverse, therefore, before addressing the aforesaid seminal issue it would be apt to discuss herein the appropriate meaning of word “perverse”. 64. This Court while appreciating the argument advanced on behalf of the appellant on the issue of perversity needs to 37 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. 65. 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 38 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. 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." 66. Thus, from the aforesaid it is evident that if any order made in conscious violation of pleading and law then it will 39 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. 67. It needs to refer herein that as per the Section 2 of the Divorce Act, 1869, empowers the Court to grant relief to the husband or wife, one of whom is a Christian. As per Section 2 of the Act, either the husband or a wife, one of whom is a Christian, is entitled to invoke the provisions contained under this Act for relief. This Act does not specify that it will only apply to a marriage solemnized in a particular form. If one of the parties to the lis is a Christian, irrespective of the form of marriage solemnised, the provisions contained under the Act will be applicable to them for resolution of matrimonial dispute. 68. Further it needs to refer herein that a Court of Law holds a superior position than the Cannon Law. Dissolution of a Christian marriage is covered under the Divorce Act, 1869. As per Section 2 of the Divorce Act, 1869, in order to seek relief under this Act one of the parties that is either the appellant or the respondent must be a Christian by religion. The Indian Divorce Act, 1869 governs dissolution of marriage, judicial separation, nullity, restitution of conjugal rights, alimony, and custody for Christians in India. It applies to all Christian denominations, including Catholics 40 and Protestants. 69. Section 10 of the Divorce Act, 1869 provides instances as to when a Christian marriage can be terminated. The first and the foremost ground is that of adultery. In addition to that, a wife may initiate divorce proceedings against her spouse who has committed cruelty on her or is accused of rape, sodomy, bestiality. If one of the spouses converts to another religion, then also marriage may be dissolved. In case of unsound mind, sexually transmitted diseases and desertion of the person by their spouse for a period equal to or more than two years a divorce can be sought on such grounds. 70. Admittedly the suit for dissolution of marriage has been preferred before the learned Family Court under Section 10 (ix) and (x) of the Indian Divorce Act, for ready reference the Section 10 (ix) and (x) of the said Act is being referred herein which reads as under: “10. Grounds for dissolution of marriage.—(1) Any marriage solemnized, whether before or after the commencement of the Indian Divorce (Amendment) Act, 2001 (51 of 2001), may, on a petition presented to the District Court either by the husband or the wife, be dissolved on the ground that since the solemnization of the marriage, the respondent— …. (ix) has deserted the appellant for at least two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition; or (x) has treated the appellant with such cruelty as to 41 cause a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the appellant that it would be harmful or injurious for the appellant to live with the respondent.” Issue of desertion 71. 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 appellant before Family Court which has also taken note in the impugned judgment, that the husband and wife are living separately. 72. Learned Additional Principal Judge, taking into consideration the fact that since even otherwise there is no desertion on the part of respondent-wife as she has filed original suit for restitution of conjugal rights. Thus, although the husband appellant had filed petition under Section 10 (ix) and (x) of the Indian Divorce Act but no cogent evidence was led in this respect, as such the same was discarded by the learned family court. 73. It needs to refer herein that the word ‘desertion’ has been given in Section 3 (9) of the Divorce Act wherein it has been stated that the expression “desertion”, implies an abandonment against the wish of the person charging it. 74. It is pertinent to note that the word ‘desertion’, as has been defined in Section 3 (9) of the Divorce Act, means abandonment against the wish of the person charging it and its grammatical variations and cognate expressions shall be construed accordingly. 42 75. Further, it requires to refer herein that the word ‘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. 76. 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.” 77. 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.” 78. Desertion is not the withdrawal from a place but from a state of things, for what the law seeks to enforce is the 43 recognition and discharge of the common obligations of the married state; the state of things may usually be termed, for short, ‘the home’. There can be desertion without previous cohabitation by the parties, or without the marriage having been consummated. The person who actually withdraws from cohabitation is not necessarily the deserting party. 79. 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. 80. 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. 81. 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 44 separation, and (2) the intention to bring cohabitation permanently to an end. 82. 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. 83. 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 the Hon’ble Apex Court. 84. 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 45 to leave the matrimonial home. 85. Applying the above proposition of law, under the factual aspect of this case, it appears that admittedly marriage between the parties was solemnized on 19.10.2015 according to Christian rites and rituals. It is also not in dispute that out of their wedlock no child was born. 86. So far as plea of desertion is concerned, admittedly it was the respondent-wife who moved an application for grant of decree of restitution of conjugal right in the court prior to filing divorce suit by the appellant and the appellant has admitted in his evidence that he chose not to file any application for restitution of conjugal right. 87. Further, the appellant has admitted in his cross- examination that after transfer from Chhattisgarh to Jharkhand the respondent started residing in her matrimonial home with her younger brother-in-law as appellant went to join his duty and it has come in evidence that the respondent used to attend her duties like cooking meal and doing household work like cleaning, washing etc. 88. It has been stated by the wife that she used to go to her work place which was about 35 kilometers away from her matrimonial home and her duty hours was 10.00 AM to 5.00 PM and therefore, she used to return at about 7.30 PM to 8.00 PM on usual working day and after coming to her home she used to prepare dinner and after completion the entire 46 responsibilities she used to go to bed at 11.00 PM and her younger brother-in-law never supported her either in marketing or in household work rather he used to stop the water supply when the respondent took bath and he was well aware that the respondent will return at about 7.30 PM to 8.00 PM to home but he intentionally and willfully used to go outside after locking the main door and returned back to home at late night and under this situation the respondent had no option then to go to her neighbours. 89. 89. The D.W.1 has also stated in para-12 of her examination-in-chief that the respondent used to do entire household work and her younger brother-in-law did not do any work and she used to go to shop with the respondent for purchasing household articles and in para-13 she has supported the allegation that younger brother-in-law of the respondent used to go outside after locking the main door at the time of returning of the respondent and used to return home at late night due to which many times respondent had to take food with them and during cross examination also she has stated in para-29 that the brother of appellant used to harass the respondent. 90. Admittedly, the respondent left her matrimonial home on 10.07.2018 and since then she is residing in her paternal home. However, from the material available on record it is apparent that the respondent was compelled to leave her 47 matrimonial home and prior to that she had taken all possible steps to resume her matrimonial relationship. 91. It has come in evidence that earlier the respondent was posted at Chhattisgarh and she got herself transferred to Ranchi. It has also come in the evidence of the respondent that she took leave of one month for marriage and in para- 28 she has stated that her husband went to Kharagpur to resume his duty just after four days. 92. Further, P.W.1 and P.W.2 in para-27 and 33 of their cross examination respectively have not denied rather shown their ignorance by deposing that they are not aware that Panches from Church and others came with the respondent to convince the appellant for keeping the respondent with him. 93. Further, P.W.3 who is appellant himself has also not denied rather deposed in para-34 and 35 of his cross examination respectively that he has no knowledge that when his wife used to return from Mandar after her duty his brother used to lock his house and used to return from late and under such circumstances respondent used to stay in the house of her tenant and dine with them whereas D.W.1 has supported these allegations that younger brother of appellant used to lock his house at the time of returning of the respondent due to which she had to live with them and dine with them. Further, the appellant himself has admitted 48 in para-31 of his cross examination that since her transfer the respondent lived in her matrimonial home and their mess was joint and record shows that admittedly she left her matrimonial home on 10.07.2018. 94. Thus it is apparent that the respondent lived in her matrimonial home for a considerable period and in spite mischief played by her brother-in-law she somehow managed and attempted to save her matrimonial relationship and involved members of Church and others also to save her matrimonial relationship and also filed a suit of restitution of conjugal right whereas the appellant did nothing to save his matrimonial relationship although he has stated in para-25 of his cross examination that he went to bring his wife from her maternal home in the year 2018 but learned counsel for the respondent has pointed out that in suit for restitution of conjugal right during cross examination the appellant has stated that he never went to bring back his wife and it appears that the appellant has admitted in para-27 that his wife has lodged a suit for restitution of conjugal right whereas in para-26 he has stated that he willingly did not file any case for restitution of conjugal right rather record shows that after filing of suit for restitution of conjugal right by his wife, the appellant has filed this divorce suit. 95. Thus, it is apparent that the appellant has failed to 49 prove that the respondent left her matrimonial home with intention to desert him rather evidence on record indicate that she was compelled to leave her matrimonial home. 96. Thus, upon scrutinizing the entire evidence, on this point it is apparent that on account of compelling circumstances the respondent was forced to leave her matrimonial home which by itself would not lead to inference that she went to her parental home with intention of deserting her husband and in the matter of desertion what is important is the intention of the parties. Merely because the respondent had gone to her parental home in the background of evidence brought on record, by itself, without anything more does not prove any intention on the part of respondent to desert the appellant. If at all the respondent had intention of deserting her husband and avoiding matrimonial obligation, she would not have filed suit for restitution of conjugal relation. 97. Thus, it is held that the appellant has failed to prove the plea of desertion against the respondent as required u/s 10(1)(ix) of the Divorce Act 1869. 98. 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 has tried to restore her 50 marital life by filing suit for restitution of conjugal rights. 99. 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. Issue of cruelty 100. The marriage journey of the appellant and the respondent shows that there was some discord in their matrimonial life, but neither party made any complaint anywhere. 101. Since ground of cruelty has been taken, 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 appellant, a reasonable apprehension that, it will be harmful or injurious for him to live with the respondent. 102. 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 51 “cruelty” can have no fixed definition. 103. 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.” 104. The Hon’ble Apex Court has further observed that while dealing with such complaints of cruelty that it is important for the Court to not search for a standard in life, since cruelty in one case may not be cruelty in another case. What must be considered include the kind of life the parties are used to, “their economic and social conditions”, and the “culture and human values to which they attach importance.” 105. 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. 106. In Vijay Kumar Ramchandra Bhate v. Neela Vijay 52 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. 107. 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”. 108. 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 53 respect of matrimonial duties and obligations. It is a course of conduct and one which is adversely affecting the other. 109. “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. 110. 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, 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. 111. 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. 54 Silence in some situations may also amount to cruelty reference be made to the case of Ravi Kumar v. Julmidevi, (2010) 4 SCC 476. 112. Further the word ‘cruelty’ is used 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. 113. 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 reasonable 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 of injurious to continue cohabitation with another spouse. Hence, it is not 55 necessary to establish physical violence. Continued ill- treatment, cessation of marital intercourse, studied neglect, indifference may lead to inference of cruelty. 114. The word “cruelty” as prescribed under 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. 115. Now reverting to the fact of the case since the ground of cruelty has been taken by the appellant, therefore, in order to corroborate his evidence on the point of quarrel and inhuman behaviour of respondent towards her brother-in- law, the most competent witness was younger brother of appellant as admittedly during relevant period most of the time appellant remained in West Bengal in connection with his duty and used to visit his home during holidays only. Further P.W.1 as well as P.W.2 are admittedly mere relatives 56 of the appellant, who are residing separately from the appellant in their own home. But surprisingly, in the present case, it is for the reason best known to the appellant he had chosen not to examine his younger brother in order to prove the alleged cruel conduct of respondent towards him. 116. So far alleged misconduct of respondent against other family members/relatives of appellant is concerned P.W.1 has admitted in para-24 of her cross examination that she herself had not seen any altercation between the appellant and the respondent and P.W.2 has admitted in para-23 that respondent never quarreled with him and he has stated that he was never threatened also by the respondent. The appellant has further Alleged that respondent never took care of food also, however in para-32 of his cross examination he has stated that after transfer of his wife she used to reside in her matrimonial home along with his younger brother and their mess was joint and in para-47 he has stated that he never kept any maid in his house to help his wife in her household work, therefore the allegation that respondent was not preparing meal for them also seems to be improbable as appellant has failed to bring any evidence on record that if not his wife then who cooked meal for them whereas evidence of D.W.1 on this point has stated that respondent used to cook meal for them. 117. Further allegation levelled by the appellant is that 57 respondent threatened to implicate them in false case and lodge FIR and levelled false allegation against him and his family members. On this point P.W.1 has admitted in para- 25 of her cross examination that respondent never threatened them to implicate in false case and as already mentioned herein above, P.W.2 has also admitted in para-28 that he was never threatened by the respondent and P.W.3 who is appellant himself has also admitted in para-29 that he never lodged any case or complaint against his wife regarding alleged threat extended to them in any police station or the court. 118. So far as the allegation levelled in para-10 of examination-in-chief of appellant that respondent without informing him came to his work place at Kharagpur along with her parents and imputed allegation of his immoral relation with some lady and his landlord told that allegation is baseless due to which his image was maligned amongst his co-workers is concerned, it appears that neither the landlord of appellant nor any co-worker of appellant were examined on behalf of appellant to prove this fact. 119. Further, appellant has failed to disclose any day, date, month or year of aforesaid incident either in his petition or in his evidence, therefore this allegation also seems to be highly vague and non-specific too. 120. So far as allegation levelled in para-14 of examination- 58 in-chief of appellant that on 10.07.2018 the respondent left home after altercating with him regarding share in property is concerned, during cross examination, the appellant has stated in para-28 that he could not remember those allegation levelled in para-14 of his affidavit and in para-50 he has stated that his wife has not filed any case relating to share of his property. 121. Besides aforesaid evidence it also appears that there is nothing on record to show that the respondent has ever lodged any FIR or complaint case either against the appellant or his family members save and except a suit for restitution of conjugal right. Therefore, the appellant has also failed to prove that he was being threatened by the respondent to implicate in false case. 122. The learned Principal Judge, from the statements of the witnesses so produced on behalf of the parties and after going through the documentary evidence, has come to the conclusion that the appellant-husband has not been able to prove the grounds of alleged cruelty pleaded by him in his petition. 123. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that the judgment and decree passed by the learned family court, dismissing the suit for decree of divorce on the ground of desertion and cruelty under Section 10(ix) and (x) of the Divorce Act, requires no interference. 59 124. Accordingly, the instant appeal fails and is dismissed. 125. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) I agree. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Date : 14/07/2026 Birendra /A.F.R. Uploaded on 15/07/2026