2026:JHHC:20908-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI First Appeal No.121 of 2022 ----- Rajhans, aged about 40 years, Son of late Suraj Deo Singh, presently residing at Community Health Centre, Kathikund (CHC) residing in the house of Rajendra Prasad at Dhawatanr, Kathikund, PO, PS Kathikund & District-Dumka and permanent resident of Village +PO-Billour, P.S-Barh, District-Patna (Bihar) & PIN-803213 .......… Plaintiff/Appellant Versus Sarita Kumari Singh, aged about 46 years, Wife of Rajhans, Daughter of Sri Laxman Singh, currently residing at Chuha Bagan, Near ICICI Bank, PO, PS & District-Dumka and permanent resident of Village JP. Nagar, Mihijam Road, P.O, P.S & District-Jamtara. Present Address-Quarter No. B1/2C.S, Campus, Dumka, PO-Dumka Town, District-Dumka, Jharkhand, PIN-814101, Father’s House of Village-J.P Nagar, Mihijam Road, P.O, P.S & District-Jamtara. Permanent Address-Matrimonial House at Village-Billour, PO-Billour, P.S-Barh, District-Patna (Bihar) & PIN-803213 …. ... Defendant/ Respondent ------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ------- For the Appellant : Mr. Chanchal Jain, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Nitya Nand Prasad Choudhary, Advocate ------ C.A.V on 23.06.2026 Pronounced on14/07/2026 Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. The instant appeal under section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 is directed against the judgment dated 08.09.2022 and the decree signed on 20.09.2022 passed in Original Suit No.161 of 2018 by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dumka (in short, Family Judge) whereby and whereunder the petition filed under section 13(1) (i-a), (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 by the appellant-husband against the respondent-wife has been dismissed. 2. The brief facts of the case as pleaded in the plaint having been recorded by the learned Family Judge, needs to be referred herein as: 2026:JHHC:20908-DB 2 (i) The case of the petitioner/appellant is that he was married in accordance with Hindu rites and customs with defendant/respondent on 22.11.2005 at her parental house situated at Pal Bagan, Jamtara. (ii) Out of the wedlock, the spouse was blessed with a female child aged about 11 years, namely, Pragya Sanskriti and a male child, aged about, 9 years, namely, Sushant Prakhar @ Kriti Narayan Singh. (iii) Soon after the marriage, the defendant-respondent went to her matrimonial house at Patna and stayed there for about one week. Thereafter she went to Dumka where the petitioner-husband used to work at Sadar Hospital, Dumka and resided with him for a fortnight. (iv) It is alleged that the respondent-wife used to reside at Dumka for one or two days in a month and for the rest time, she used to reside in her parental house (maike) for the reason best known to her. (v) The defendant/respondent and her father pressurized the petitioner to live in their house as gharjamai and on refusal by the petitioner, dispute arose between the parties. (vi) It is pleaded that the petitioner being an elder brother has solemnized marriage of his sister in the year 2009 after taking loan due to which the defendant/respondent became angry and she did not participate in the marriage and went to her maike and lived there for one year. (vii) The petitioner tried his best several times to bring back the respondent but she and her parents refused to make bidai of the defendant with him. 2026:JHHC:20908-DB 3 (viii) Due to dispute cropped between the petitioner and the defendant/respondent, she lodged a case under section 498-A IPC against the petitioner in which he was arrested and remanded to jail custody and the defendant went to her maike to reside there with her children and since then she is residing in her maike. (ix) On 08.11.2011 the defendant/respondent lodged a case being Crl. Misc. Case No.40/2011 in which an amount of Rs.5000/- each was awarded in favour of the defendant/respondent and her two children in which he was paying a total sum of Rs.15000/- per month towards the maintenance of the respondent and her children. (x) It is pleaded that the defendant has again filed a case being Complaint Case (D.V) No.545/2017 under the Domestic Violence Act against the petitioner and vide order dated 22.09.2017 the respondent was allowed to live in Government quarter of petitioner. (xi) Thereafter, the respondent came to the Government quarter situated at Dumka but instead of living there peacefully, she quarreled with the plaintiff/petitioner which compelled him to leave the said quarter and reside in a rented house of Rajendra Prasad at Dhawatanr and he is still residing in the said house. (xii) The well-wishers and relatives of their family tried their level best to reconcile the matter but failed and both the parties started living separately from each other since 24.10.2011 and since then, there is no relation of husband and wife between them. (xiii) It is pleaded that against the award of maintenance the plaintiff has preferred an appeal being Criminal Appeal No.40 of 2013 and the defendant has filed an appeal being Criminal Appeal No.68 of 2014 2026:JHHC:20908-DB 4 and the plaintiff used to pay maintenance of Rs.15000/- per month for maintenance of the defendant and his children. (xiv) Thus, the respondent-defendant treated the plaintiff-petitioner with cruelty and deserted him for a continuous period of six years till filing of the Original Suit No.161 of 2018. 3. On the aforesaid ground of cruelty and desertion, the appellant- husband has prayed for a decree of dissolution of the marriage between him and the respondent-wife. 4. It needs to mention herein that in Original Suit No. 161 of 2018, upon issuance of the notices, the respondent-wife has appeared and filed a written statement denying all the allegations levelled against her by the appellant-husband. 5. In the written statement, the respondent-wife admitted about her marriage with the petitioner/appellant but has denied the other allegations contained in the plaint and stated that it is wrong to say that the defendant went Jamtara after stay of a fortnight, rather she resided continuously with the plaintiff and in that period, she visited her maike at Jamtara for few days along with the plaintiff (her husband). The defendant/respondent has denied in her written statement that it is wrong to say that she and her parents wanted the plaintiff to live there as gharjamai as she is having her own brother. The respondent/defendant has alleged that the plaintiff and his family members demanded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from her to bring the same from her maike and when she refused to fulfill the same, the plaintiff assaulted brutally her and even did not allow her to participate in the marriage of his sister (Nanad). 2026:JHHC:20908-DB 5 6. It is also alleged by the defendant in her written statement that when she became pregnant, she was compelled to reside with her father at Jamatara and she was kicked out by the plaintiff from his house on 18.02.2009 and the plaintiff never tried to bring the defendant from Jamtara to Dumka. The defendant had herself came Dumka to stay with the plaintiff but he used to keep her for a day or two and after making physical relation used to turned out her from the house and the plaintiff also used to told that his family members did not want that the plaintiff should reside with this defendant. It is further alleged that the plaintiff after taking wine used to assault her brutally. The defendant endured the cruelty meted out to her with a hope that in future things will get normal. 7. It is stated that on 14.07.2011 a compromise was held between the parties and both the parties started residing together but again after few days, the plaintiff-husband started to assault her and even stopped to provide her food and things of daily need. Thereafter, the defendant-wife had informed to Dumka (T) P.S. and a case was instituted against the plaintiff. 8. It is further stated that the defendant and her children were granted maintenance by the Court of the learned C.J.M, Jamtara a total sum of Rs. 9000/- per month for the defendant and her minor children. But against the said order the plaintiff had preferred an appeal before the Sessions Judge, Jamtara, where the earlier awarded amount was enhanced from Rs. 9000/- per month to Rs.15,000/- per month. The plaintiff had also preferred Crl. Revision No. 211/2015 before Hon'ble High Court and the Hon'ble High Court had confirmed the enhancement amount of the learned Sessions Judge, Jamtara. It is also submitted that the plaintiff does not 2026:JHHC:20908-DB 6 used to make payment of the maintenance amount regularly and the same are due. 9. It is further submitted that the plaintiff was keeping the defendant in Government Quarter at Dumka by the order of the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamtara from 10.10.2017. The Plaintiff was residing with the defendant and was leading a life of husband and wife and also used to cohabited with the defendant. Thereafter again plaintiff started to assault the defendant and fled away to his new posting at Kathikund P.H.C. on 26.11.2017 and the defendant is also residing with the plaintiff, when plaintiff fled away to Kathikund because the defendant was compelled to vacate the Government Quarter at Dumka. 10. It is further stated that it is wrong to say that the plaintiff is residing separately since 24.10.2011 as the defendant had never deserted the plaintiff rather the plaintiff had ignored the defendant. The defendant does not want to give divorce to the plaintiff. The minor children are with her and both require father and mother and she never treated the plaintiff with cruelty rather the defendant had tried to continue her marital life and also tried that the minor children could get the affection of father. 11. It is stated in the written statement that the present suit is not maintainable because the plaintiff had never been resided separately and still the plaintiff used to make physical relation with the defendant. The plaintiff is not entitled for any relief or reliefs as sought for; hence, the suit is required to be dismissed. 12. After appearance of both the parties, the learned Family Judge has referred the matter for reconciliation before the learned Mediator but the same was failed. 2026:JHHC:20908-DB 7 13. Learned Family Judge, after institution of the said case, taking into consideration of the pleadings of the plaintiff/appellant and the respondent/defendant has formulated the issues and has decided the lis by refusing to grant divorce to the plaintiff/appellant. 14. The aforesaid judgment by which divorce has not been granted is under challenge by filing the instant appeal. Submission of behalf of the appellant-husband: 15. Mr. Chanchal Jain, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-husband has taken the following grounds: (i) There is an error in the impugned judgment, since, each and every aspect of the matter has not been taken into consideration based upon the documentary evidences as well as ocular evidences. (ii) It has been contended that the element of cruelty has been found to be there as acquittal of the appellant-husband in the criminal case being G.R. Case No. 1361/2011, T.R. Case No.385/2018 arising out of Dumka (T) P.S Case No.172/2011 in which he has been acquitted from the charges levelled against him under section 498A I.P.C. Therefore, the ground has been taken that once the criminal case has failed, then the element of cruelty will be said to be by the respondent-wife and not by the appellant- husband, but without appreciating the same properly, the learned Family Judge has come to the finding by holding that no element of cruelty is there and, as such, the impugned judgment and decree suffers from an error. 2026:JHHC:20908-DB 8 (iii) It has been contended that the appellant has been meted out with cruelty at the hands of the respondent-wife due to her abnormal and cruel behaviour as would be evident from the evidence adduced on behalf of the appellant-husband, but the same has not been taken into consideration by the learned Family Judge. (iv) It has been contended that though the learned Family Judge has proceeded the matter and dismissed the original suit, but he has failed to appreciate the evidences adduced on behalf of the appellant as in the trial, the evidence has come that it was the respondent-wife who has committed cruelty upon him by her cruel behaviour and act, deserted the petitioner and leading an adulterous life by leaving her matrimonial house. 16. The learned counsel, based upon the aforesaid ground, has submitted that the impugned judgment and decree, therefore, needs interference on the ground of perversity. Submission of behalf of the respondent-wife: 17. On the contrary, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-wife has taken the following grounds: (i) There is no error in the impugned judgement. The learned Family Judge has considered the entire issue and on the basis of evidence as led by the parties and has passed the order impugned as such same may not be interfered with. (ii) The appellant has sought divorce on the ground that the behaviour of the respondent-wife is cruel and she has deserted the appellant without any valid ground but the 2026:JHHC:20908-DB 9 learned Family Court, after taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence, has held that the entire allegations levelled in the plaint for divorce suit are absolutely illegal, uncalled for and has rightly dismissed the suit. (iii) It has also been submitted that the learned Family Court after taking into consideration the material available on record has found that the conduct of the appellant-husband has never been towards salvaging the institution of marriage as it is he who has come for the dissolution of the marriage, therefore, on the pretext of the aforesaid categorical finding of the Family Court, the impugned order requires no interference. (iv) It has been contended that even the appellant-husband has been acquitted in the criminal case lodged under section 498A I.P.C but one vital aspect of the matter which has been taken into consideration to come to the conclusion of not proving the element of cruelty or desertion is the appellant is having illicit relation with one lady, namely, Usha Kumari, who has been made nominee in the bank account of the appellant-husband which has been taken into consideration by learned family judge in paragraph no.-28 of the impugned judgment. (v) It has been contended that the document upon which the reliance has been placed which is the endorsement given by the concerned branch of the bank while investigating the 2026:JHHC:20908-DB 10 matter being Dumka Mahila P.S. Case No. 05/2022 wherein it was stated by the bank authorities that in S.B Account no. 11726578861, IFSC-SBIN0003645, one Usha Kumari has been made nominee showing the relationship of wife. (vi) It has been contended that the fact about living with another lady is sufficient evident to prove the element of cruelty, which is being on the part of the appellant-husband towards the wife. It has further been contended that the aforesaid document has been made part of the record without any objection and, as such, it proves that the appellant-husband has illicit relationship with said Usha Kumari. 18. Learned counsel, based upon the aforesaid grounds, has submitted that if on that pretext, the factum of cruelty and desertion has not been found to be established, hence, the impugned judgment cannot be said to suffer from an error. Analysis: 19. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, gone through the impugned judgment as well as the Trial Court Records, as also the testimonies of the witnesses and the documents exhibited therein. 20. The learned Family Judge has formulated altogether seven issues, for ready reference the same are being quoted hereinbelow: (I) Is the suit maintainable in its present form? (II) Has the petitioner got valid cause of action for the suit for dissolution of marriage? 2026:JHHC:20908-DB 11 (III) Whether the respondent did not allow to consummate the marriage and thereby caused mental cruelty upon the petitioner? (IV)Whether the respondent after solemnization of marriage treated the petitioner with cruelty by fling criminal cases against the petitioner and by not consummating the marriage since 24.10.2011? AND Has the petitioner taken step for restoration of his matrimonial relationship with respondent? (V) Whether the respondent after solemnization of marriage deserted the petitioner for a continuous period of not less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition for dissolution of marriage? (VI) Whether the petitioner is entitled for decree of divorce? (VII) Whether the petitioner is entitled for any other relief or reliefs? 21. The learned Family Judge has considered the evidence adduced on behalf of the parties for deciding the issues involved in Original Suit No.161 of 2018 as they are interconnected. 22. This Court in order to appreciate the aforesaid rival submission before entering into the legality and propriety of the impugned judgment needs to discuss herein the relevant part of the evidences adduced on behalf of the parties wherein the element of cruelty and desertion has been shown by the petitioner-husband. 23. During the trial, four witnesses have been examined on behalf of the appellant-husband who himself has been examined as PW4 and exhibited some documents. 2026:JHHC:20908-DB 12 24. The plaintiff has filed the Certified copy of judgment dated 15.12.2018 passed in G.R. Case No.1361/2011, T.R Case No.385 of 2018 which has been marked as Ext.1. 25. The respondent-wife has also examined five witnesses including herself as DW2 and in support of her contention, she has also exhibited following documents: (i) Certified copy of formal F.I.R. Dumka Mahila P.S. Case no. 05/2022 - Ext.A (with objection), (ii) Photo copy of certified copy of deposition of Rajhans given in Crl. Misc. (D.V.) no. 40/2011 at Jamtara Ext. B (with objection), (iii) Photo copy of certified copy of deposition of Rajhans given in Crl. Misc. (D.V.) no. 40/2011 at Jamtara Ext. C (with objection), (iv) Certified copy of order dated 22.09.2017 passed in Compliant case (D.V.) 535/2017-Ext. D, (v) Certified copy of order dated 12.10.2017 passed in Compliant case (D.V.) 535/2017-Ext. E, (vi) Certified copy of petition dated 12.10.2017 of Compliant case (D.V.) 535/2017 for sending the order to the S.P. Dumka for compliance - Ext. F, and (vii) Personal bond signed by Sarita Kumari Singhand Rajhans - Ext.G (with objection). 26. In his examination on oath as PW4, Rajhans-the appellant- husband has narrated entire things as pleaded in the plaint about his marriage with the respondent. He has deposed that his marriage was solemnized with the defendant Sarita Kumari Singh on 22.11.2005 at Pal Bagan, Jamtara and birth of two children, namely, Pragya Sanskriti female child aged about 12 years and another male child aged about 10 years, namely, Sushant Prakhar @ Kriti Narayan Singh. He has further deposed that after marriage his wife Sarita Singh went to her matrimonial home at Patna which was a rented house and resided there for one week, thereafter she came to Dumka where he used to work at Sadar Hospital, Dumka. He has deposed that the respondent resided with him for a fortnight and she 2026:JHHC:20908-DB 13 used to reside at Dumka with him for one or two days in a month and for rest days used to reside at Jamtara for the reasons best known to her. 27. He has further deposed that the defendant and her father asked him to live as gharjamai and on refusal by the plaintiff the dispute cropped up in between the plaintiff and the defendant with her parents and relations. Further deposed that he being the elder brother by taking loan got the marriage of his sister Pallavi Kumari performed in the year 2000 from Patna which caused grudge to the defendant and the defendant has not participated in the said marriage and went to Jamtara at her parents’ house and lived there for one year and he tried his best to take back the defendant from her parents’ house but the defendant and her parents refused to make bidai of the defendant with him. The defendant lodged a case u/s 498 A I.P.C, with incorrect, imaginary and invented allegations against him bearing no. G.R. Case no. 1361/2011 being Dumka Town P.S. Case no. 172/2011 dt. 24.10.2011 and he was arrested and remanded to jail custody and the defendant went to her parents’ house along with the children and since then residing separately. On 8.11.2011 the defendant lodged a case against him under Domestic Violence bearing no. Crl.Misc. Case No. 40/2011 and vide order dt. 02.02.2012 maintenance amount of Rs. 5000/- each in favour of the defendant and two minor children have been allowed by the learned C.J.M., Jamtara while he was in custody in 498 A case instituted by the defendant. 28. He has further deposed that he used to make payment of Rs. 5000/- each, i.e., Rs. 15,000/- to the defendant for herself and two minor children. The defendant filed another compliant case under Domestic Violence against him which was registered as Complaint Case 2026:JHHC:20908-DB 14 (D.V.) No. 545/2017 and by an order dated 22.09.2017 defendant was allowed to live in Government quarter at Dumka. The defendant came to Government quarter at Dumka and started quarreling with him then he left the Government quarter and informed the Police station, went to his place of posting at Community Health Centre, Kathikund (CHC) and used to reside in the house of Rajendra Prasad at Dhawatanr and still residing in the said house. He and defendant since 24.10.2011 used to reside separately and there is no relationship of husband and wife in between them since 24.10.2011 nor there is any cohabitation in between them which has come to an end. He and his relatives tried to restore the matrimonial relationship in between them but in vain. In Para-30 of his cross examination, he has stated that he has left the relationship with his wife and children since 2011 because his wife has lodged a case with all the articles of the house and he has no relationship with his wife as husband and wife after 23.11.2011. In para-35 of his cross examination, he has stated that he was acquitted in the case u/s 498 A I.P.C. filed by his wife and his wife has filed an appeal against the order which was pending in Sessions Court. In para- 37 he has stated that in para-14 of his affidavit he has mentioned that his wife has illicit relationship with Pushpendra Kumar Singh which was not mentioned in the original petition but he had seen his wife to come out from the quarter of Pushpendra Kumar Singh at 11 P.M. In para-38 of his cross examination, he has stated that he has not been made party Pushpendra Kumar Singh in this case and has denied the suggestions in his cross examination. 2026:JHHC:20908-DB 15 29. P.W.1 Navin Kumar Himmatsinghka @ Navin Kamat has also deposed in same and similar line as deposed by P.W.4. In his cross examination in para-24 he has stated that he has heard from Rajhans that Mira Devi has filed a case against Rajhans u/s 107 Cr.P.C. Further in para- 25 he has stated that he has no knowledge that Mira Devi has filed a case against Rajhans because her daughter is working at Jama, Medical department and Rajhans has developed a relationship with her daughter on the assurance of marriage. 30. P.W.2 Dinesh Prasad is a government servant at Sadar Hospital, Dumka and Rajhans is also posted in Dumka Sadar hospital and this witness has also deposed in same and similar line as deposed by P.W.4. In his cross examination in para-17 he has stated that on 24.10.2017 when police came in the office to arrest the plaintiff Rajhans then he came to know about the case lodged against the plaintiff by the defendant and at that time he was posted at eye department. He has denied the rest suggestions in his cross examination. 31. P.W. 3 Shashi Kant Pd. Singh, the uncle of the plaintiff has also corroborated the statement of P.W.4 in same and similar style including his marriage with the defendant and birth of two children and proposal of the defendant and her father to become gharjamai and several attempts of bidai of the defendant by the plaintiff. 32. On the other hand, the defendant-wife (Sarita Kumari Singh) has deposed herself as DW2. She has deposed that she was married with the defendant on 23.11.2005 and after marriage she went in the house of the uncle of the plaintiff at Patna and she resided there since 24.11.2005 to 29.11.2005 and thereafter brought her at Dumka and stayed at Mohalla 2026:JHHC:20908-DB 16 New Bagampara in a rented house. She was resided continuously with her husband and in that period, she had visited her father's house at Jamtara for few days along with her husband. Further, she deposed that she has got her brother, so that there was no question for keeping the plaintiff as gharjamai and her husband had demanded Rs. 1,00,000/- from her and had compelled to ask from her parents but she refused to ask from her father then her husband brutally assaulted her and did not allow her to come with him to attend the marriage of her Nanad. Again, she deposed that when she was pregnant, she was compelled to reside with her father at Jamatara and she was turned out by her husband from the house on 18.02.2009 and her husband never tried to bring her from Jamtara to Dumka. She had herself came Dumka to stay with her husband but he used to keep her for a day or two and after making physical relation used to turned out her from the house and her husband Rajhans also used to told that his family members did not want that he should reside with his wife Sarita Singh and her husband used to assault her after taking wine. Further deposed that on 14.07.2011 a compromise was held between them and both started to reside together but again after few days her husband started to assault her after taking wine and stopped to provide fooding and articles and thereafter, she had informed Dumka (T) P.S. and thereafter case was instituted against her husband. Further deposed that she along with her children were granted maintenance by the Court of the C.J.M Jamtara total Rs. 9000/- per month for her and her minor children and against the said order her husband had preferred an appeal before the Sessions Judge, Jamtara, who has enhanced the maintenance amount Rs.15,000/- from Rs. 9000/-. She has also referred Crl. Revision No. 2026:JHHC:20908-DB 17 211/2015 before Hon'ble High Court, Jharkhand and the Hon'ble High Court had confirmed the enhancement amount of the learned Sessions Judge, Jamtara but her husband does not used to make payment regularly still there are dues of maintenance amount for six months. Her husband was keeping her in Government quarter at Dumka by the order of the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamtara from 10.10.2017. Her husband was residing with her and was leading a life of husband and wife and also used to cohabit with her. Thereafter, again her husband Rajhans started to assault her and fled away to his new posting at Kathikund P.H.C. She had never deserted her husband rather he had ignored her. She does not want to give divorce to her husband because both the minor children are with her and both require father and mother. Last 6-7 months she is residing at Chuha Bagan and her children were reading at Holy Child School, Dumka, at present her son is reading at Don Bosco School, Dumka. Further, deposed that she had no relationship with Pushpendra Kumar Singh and still after filing of this case she had physical relationship with her husband. In her cross examination she had stated that on 24.10.2011 when Rajhans was arrested by police in case no.172/2011 she became afraid and went to her maike at Jamtara. 33. D.W.5 Rakesh Kumar Singh, the brother of the defendant Sarita Kumari Singh has deposed that his sister Sarita Kumari Singh was married with Rajhans, the plaintiff of this case on 23.11.2005 and after marriage his sister went to her matrimonial home and after few days, they returned to Dumka because the plaintiff is working at Sadar Hospital, Dumka and has opened a clinic in the capacity of eye doctor. After 2026:JHHC:20908-DB 18 marriage plaintiff started to demand more dowry and due to non- fulfillment of said demand his sister was tortured physically and mentally. Plaintiff did not want to bring his sister from Jamtara to Dumka but his sister always used to come Dumka and lived with her husband and they have two children aged about 15 years and 13 years and were reading in school. In the light of order of Jamtara Court the plaintiff in the year 2017 brought his sister and children at Dumka and kept at Government quarter and they lived peacefully for some time and thereafter scuffle started in between them and plaintiff wants to take divorce from his sister because the plaintiff was married with another lady and was living with her. The plaintiff gets Rs. 1,00,000/- as salary per month and has ancestral landed property. During his cross-examination, he has stated that he is posted at Railway Department at Fatuha, Bihar. He further stated that Rajhans was remanded to jail in a criminal case filed by his sister (respondent herein) and denied the rest suggestion in his cross examination. 34. The fact about filing of suit by taking plea of cruelty and desertion is admitted one as per the evidences adduced on behalf of the appellant-husband. 35. The appellant-husband all along has alleged the issue of cruelty, and desertion which he was subjecting to by his wife and in order to establish the same the evidences has been laid as has been referred hereinabove. 36. This Court while appreciating the argument advanced on behalf of the appellant-husband on the issue of perversity needs to refer herein the interpretation of the word “perverse” as has been interpreted by the 2026:JHHC:20908-DB 19 Hon'ble Apex Court which means that there is no evidence or erroneous consideration of the evidence. 37. 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 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. 2026:JHHC:20908-DB 20 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.” 38. Herein, submission has been made on behalf of the appellant- husband that the respondent-wife committed mental cruelty against him. 39. The “cruelty” has been interpreted by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dr. N.G. Dastane vs. Mrs. S. Dastana, (1975) 2 SCC 326 wherein it has been laid down that the Court has to enquire, as to whether, the conduct charge as cruelty, is of such a character, as to cause in the mind 2026:JHHC:20908-DB 21 of the petitioner, a reasonable apprehension that, it will be harmful or injurious for him to live with the respondent. 40. This Court deems it fit and proper to take into consideration the meaning of ‘cruelty’ as has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi, (1988)1 SCC 105 wherein the wife alleged that the appellant-husband and his parents demanded dowry. The Hon’ble Apex Court emphasized that “cruelty” can have no fixed definition. 41. According to the Hon’ble Apex Court, “cruelty” is the “conduct in relation to or in respect of matrimonial conduct in respect of matrimonial 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.” 42. 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.” 43. 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. 2026:JHHC:20908-DB 22 44. In V. Bhagat vs. D. Bhagat (Mrs.), (1994)1 SCC 337, the wife alleged in her written statement that her husband was suffering from “mental problems and paranoid disorder”. The wife’s lawyer also levelled allegations of “lunacy” and “insanity” against the husband and his family while he was conducting a cross-examination. The Hon’ble Apex Court held these allegations against the husband to constitute “cruelty”. 45. In Vijaykumar 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. 46. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Joydeep Majumdar v. Bharti Jaiswal Majumdar, (2021) 3 SCC 742, has observed 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. 47. “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 2026:JHHC:20908-DB 23 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. 48. 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. 49. 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. 50. 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. 51. Further, the word ‘cruelty’ is used relation to human conduct or human behaviour. It is the conduct in relation to or in respect of 2026:JHHC:20908-DB 24 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. 52. 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 necessary to establish physical violence. Continued ill-treatment, cessation of marital intercourse, studied neglect, indifference may lead to inference of cruelty. 53. 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 2026:JHHC:20908-DB 25 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. 54. At this juncture, it would be apt to refer the definition of desertion as defined under explanation part of Section 13 which 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. 55. Further, it requires to refer herein that the word ‘desertion’ has been given in Explanation to Section 13 (1) wherein it has been stated that “the expression desertion means the desertion of the petitioner by the other party to the marriage without reasonable cause and without the consent or against the wish of such party, and includes the willful neglect of the petitioner by the other party to the marriage, and its grammatical variations and cognate expressions shall be construed accordingly. 56. It is pertinent to note that the word ‘desertion’, as has been defined in Explanation part of Section 13 of the Act, 1955, means the desertion of the petitioner by the other party to the marriage without reasonable cause and without the consent or against the wish of such party, and includes the willful neglect of the petitioner by the other party to the marriage, and its grammatical variations and cognate expressions shall be construed accordingly. 57. 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 2026:JHHC:20908-DB 26 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.” 58. 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. 59. Desertion is not the withdrawal from a place but from a state of things, for what the law seeks to enforce is the recognition and discharge of the common obligations of the married state; the state of things may usually be termed, for short, ‘the home’. There can be desertion without previous cohabitation by the parties, or without the marriage having been consummated. The person who actually withdraws from cohabitation is not necessarily the deserting party. The fact that a husband makes an allowance to a wife whom he has abandoned is no answer to a charge of desertion. 60. 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. 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 2026:JHHC:20908-DB 27 desertion is not complete, but is inchoate, until the suit is constituted. desertion is a continuing offence. 61. It is, thus, evident from the aforesaid reference of meaning of desertion that the quality of permanence is one of the essential elements which differentiates desertion from wilful separation. If a spouse abandons the other spouse in a state of temporary passion, for example, anger or disgust, without intending permanently to cease cohabitation, it will not amount to desertion. For the offence of desertion, so far as the deserting spouse is concerned, two essential conditions must be there, namely, (1) the factum of separation, and (2) the intention to bring cohabitation permanently to an end. 62. 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 form the necessary intention aforesaid. In such a situation, the party who is filing for divorce will have the burden of proving those elements. 63. 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 . 64. It has been observed by the Hon’ble Apex 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 2026:JHHC:20908-DB 28 deserting spouse. There must be an absence of consent on the part of the deserted spouse and the conduct of the deserted spouse should not give a reasonable cause to the deserting spouse to leave the matrimonial home. The view taken by the Hon'ble Apex Court has been incorporated in the Explanation added to sub-section (1) of Section 13 by Act 68 of 1976. The said Explanation reads thus: “13. Divorce.—(1) … Explanation.—In this sub-section, the expression “desertion” means the desertion of the petitioner by the other party to the marriage without reasonable cause and without the consent or against the wish of such party, and includes the wilful neglect of the petitioner by the other party to the marriage, and its grammatical variations and cognate expressions shall be construed accordingly.” 65. Now adverting to the factual aspect, it is evident from the impugned order that the allegations specific to the ground of alleged cruelty and desertion has been made by petitioner/plaintiff-husband. 66. In the instant case as per pleadings of both the parties the marriage between them as per Hindu rites is admitted fact. Further the birth of two children out of the wed lock of the couple female child aged about 11 years and male child aged about 09 years is also admitted fact. 67. Further, the petition has been filed by the plaintiff/appellant before learned Family Court for a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion wherein he made allegation against the defendant/wife that he has been subjected to cruelty at the hands of the defendant. In Para 30 of his cross examination, plaintiff/appellant has stated that he has left the relationship with his wife and children since 2011 because his wife has lodged a case u/s 498 A I.P.C. against him and he has 2026:JHHC:20908-DB 29 no relationship with his wife as husband and wife after 23.11.2011. In para- 35 of his cross examination, he has stated that he was acquitted in the case u/s 498 A I.P.C. filed by his wife. It has been stated that the defendant/wife on 08.11.2011 lodged case against the plaintiff/ husband/appellant under Domestic Violence Case no. 40/2011 in the Court of C.J.M. Jamtara and she filed Criminal Appeal No. 68/2014 against the plaintiff before the Court of Sessions Judge, Jamtara. 68. The allegation levelled by the plaintiff in the plaint that the defendant used to live very few days with him and she was regularly living at Dumka as because he was posted at Sadar hospital, Dumka and the defendant used to come and stay for one or two days in a month and defendant used to reside at Jamtara for the reason best known to her. It is also alleged that father of the defendant asked the plaintiff to be gharjamai. On refusal by the plaintiff the dispute cropped up in between both the parties and thereafter bitterness of matrimonial relationship of husband and wife started deteriorating severely by the litigating attitude. The defendant used to lodging one after another criminal cases on false grounds only to humiliate her husband and she lodged a false case u/s 498 A 1.P.C. and other sections of I.P.C. and got the petitioner arrested in that very case being registered as G.R. Case no. 1361/2011 Dumka (T) P.S. Case no. 172/2011 dated 24.11.2011 and thereafter she went to her parent's house along with her children and since then residing separately. 69. The Defendant Sarita Kumari in para-25, 26 and 32 of her cross examination admitted that she filed another case of Domestic violence against the plaintiff registered as Complaint Case (D.V.) Case o. 545/2017 and vide order dated 22.09.2017 the defendant/wife was allowed to share 2026:JHHC:20908-DB 30 house. It has been stated by the defendant that the plaintiff left Government quarter with bag and baggage and defendant vide her application dt. 08.12.2017 informed the Civil Surgeon Dumka that the plaintiff left the Government quarter with bag and baggage. 70. Further the defendant has filed Photo copy of certified copy of deposition of plaintiff/husband given in Crl. Misc. (D.V.) no. 40/2011 at Jamtara Ext. B which is a legal document, i.e., deposition on affidavit being shown and filed by plaintiff Rajhans in a case lodged by his wife in Crl. Case bearing D.V. case no. 40/2011 and the photo copy of the certificate is exhibited from the side of plaintiff which is Ext.B and this affidavit was filed on 28.01. 2019 by plaintiff Rajhans and in Para 6 of his examination-in-chief he has stated that “ in D.V. case no. 535/17 में पारित आदेश ददनाांक 22.09.2017 के आदेश के आलोक में मेिी पत्नी मेिे सिकािी क्वार्टि में ददनाांक 25.09.2017 से बच्ोां के साथ िह िही है।“ 71. Thus, upon consideration of the written statement filed by the defendant/wife, it is evident that she has admitted the factum of marriage but disputed certain particulars. 72. In para-3 of her written statement, the defendant/wife has averred that after marriage she went to her uncle’s house at Patna and resided there from 24.11.2005 to 29.11.2005. Thereafter, she was brought by the plaintiff to Dumka, where they stayed in a rented house at Mohalla New Bandh Para. Subsequently, she accompanied the plaintiff to her father’s house at Jamtara for a few days. The defendant has strongly objected to the statement of the plaintiff in paragraph 2(11) of the plaint that she “used to reside at Jamtara to the reason best known to her.” She has categorically 2026:JHHC:20908-DB 31 denied that her father ever desired to keep the plaintiff as a gharjamai, asserting that she has her own brother and, hence, no such question arises. 73. She has specifically alleged that the plaintiff demanded a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- from her and compelled her to ask for the same from her parents. Upon her refusal, the plaintiff brutally assaulted her and prevented her from accompanying him to attend the marriage of her nanad. She has further stated that on 18.02.2009 the plaintiff turned her out of his house and thereafter never attempted to bring her back from Jamtara to Dumka. On occasions when she herself came to Dumka, the plaintiff kept her only for a day or two, established physical relations, and then expelled her again. She has alleged that the plaintiff informed her that his family members did not want her to reside with him and that he frequently assaulted her after consuming liquor. 74. The defendant has further submitted that pursuant to the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamtara, she was kept in a Government Quarter at Dumka from 10.10.2017, where the plaintiff resided with her and cohabited as husband and wife. However, the plaintiff again assaulted her and absconded to his new posting at Kathikund PHC on 26.11.2017, compelling her to vacate the Government Quarter. She has denied the allegation that the plaintiff has been residing separately since 24.10.2011, asserting instead that she never deserted him. She has maintained that they lived together at Dumka as husband and wife, sharing the bed every night, though the plaintiff frequently assaulted her and neglected maintenance obligations. 75. The defendant has categorically stated that she does not desire divorce, as the minor children are with her and require the affection of both 2026:JHHC:20908-DB 32 parents. She has denied ever treating the plaintiff with cruelty, asserting that she has consistently endeavoured to continue her marital life. She has alleged that the plaintiff has exerted pressure upon her to vacate the Government Quarter and that she was compelled to lodge three or four criminal cases against him solely due to his conduct. She has further stated that she resided with the plaintiff at Kathikund, where physical relations were established, and therefore it is false to allege that they have lived separately without cohabitation since 24.10.2011. She has denied instituting false criminal cases, asserting that such cases were necessitated by the plaintiff’s behaviour. 76. The learned Family Court has considered the entire factual aspect as well as settled position of law and after going through the evidence on record has explained in detail about absence of element of cruelty and desertion. For ready reference, the relevant paragraph thereof is being quoted as under: 23. After having discussed respective pleadings of both the parties on record which have get very much important to bring out the real facts, involved to crop up the norms of the case and framing of issues involved in the case, I find that present case has been instituted for getting a relief of dissolution of marriage in between petitioner/husband and defendant/wife on the twin ground of cruelty and desertion. The present suit is not maintainable because the plaintiff had never been resided separately still the plaintiff used to make physical relation with the defendant. The plaintiff is not entitled for any relief or reliefs as sought for, hence the suit is required to be dismissed.” 26. Ext.B- In his examination in chief the plaintiff Rajhans admitted that D.V. case no. 535/17 में पारित आदेश ददनाांक 22.09.2017 के आदेश के आलोक में मेिी पत्नी मेिे सिकािी क्वार्टि में ददनाांक 25.09.2017 से बच्ोां के साथ िह िही है। This is the affidavit filed by the O.P. of that case Rajhans and petitioner of present case and it was fixed on 28.01.209 in the Court of CJ.M., Jamtara on Crl.Misc. Case no 40/20 (D.V.) in which the respondent of 2026:JHHC:20908-DB 33 this case was petitioner complainant. So it is admission on the part of petitioner that since 25.08.2017 the respondent of this case with children living with petitioner continuously.” “28. There are one twists in this case which has brought on record by way of exhibiting the F.I. R. along with it's all particulars including the letter of the Officer-in-charge of Mahila P.S. dated 06.07.2022 addressed to the Branch Manager S.B.I. Kathikund to know the details of account of Rajhans who is plaintiff of this case, the name of nominee and relations of the nominee with Rajhans with his signature and seal relating to retail of the Bank Account. Th name of nominee is Usha Kumari and the relation with Rajhans is shown wife. 29. Ext.A is also F.I.R. of Mahila P.S. Case no. 05/2023 registered under section 498 A, 494, 420, 495, and 506/34 of the IPC lodged on the basis of written information filed on behalf of Sarita Kumari Singh, the defendant of the present case against his husband namely Rajhans, the plaintiff of this case and others in which it is alleged that without getting divorce his husband Rajhans has developed illicit relation with one Usha Kumari and leads adulterous life with that lady Usha Kumari which is corroborated in Ext.B and in Ext. 1. Hence the plaintiff's suit comes under the purview of Ext. 1 and D and also Ext. D which goes against him Le not the defendant who is subjected to cruelty by him, rather, it is the plaintiff/ husband who all the time subjected the defendant to mental and physical cruelty.” 77. Thus, from the aforesaid it is evident that the learned Family Judge has considered the fact that the appellant-husband has miserably failed to establish the allegation of cruelty against the respondent-wife, rather it has come on record that the plaintiff-husband has relationship with another woman, namely, Usha Kumar to whom he made nominee in his bank account. 78. After discussing in detail on the point of cruelty and desertion, in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the learned Family Judge at para-37, 38, 39, 40 and 41 has held as under: “37. Therefore, the evidence of this witness is again apparently contradictory, false and not believable, Thus, she has fully proved her case of torture and disproved the case of desertion by her to the petitioner since 24.10.2011 when the plaintiff was arrested and send to 2026:JHHC:20908-DB 34 jail. In this way, I find that the respondent has fully proved her case whereas and petitioner failed to get anything from her evidence. She has proved that she has been living along with her children with her husband. Thus she supported the respondent's case. Hence issue no. III, IV and V are decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant. 38. Issue No. I and II (I) Is the suit maintainable in its present form? (ii) Has the plaintiff got valid cause of action for the suit? Both issues are related to maintainability of the petition and cause of action for the suit. In this case, I have discussed above that the petitioner has miserably failed to prove his case of adultery, desertion and cruelty against the respondent and as such failed to prove his case of divorce and hence I find that the suit filed by the plaintiff is neither maintainable nor has valid cause for the same. Therefore, both these issues also goes against the plaintiff. Considering the entire facts of the case, pleadings of the parties, statement of the witnesses and also documentary evidence led on behalf of both the parties as well as the case law discussed above, I am of the opinion that the plaintiff has failed to prove his case of desertion and cruelty against the defendant/wife, hence not entitled to get decree of divorce u/s 13(1), (-a) and (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Thus these issues are also decided against plaintiff and in favour of defendant. 39. Issue No.VI and VII- (VI) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of divorce? (VII) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for any other relief or reliefs? In view of my aforesaid findings, I find that the plaintiff is not entitled for decree of divorce and also any relief as claimed. Thus, these issues are also decided against plaintiff and in favour of defendant. 40. Considering the entire facts of the case, pleadings of the parties, statement of the witnesses and also documentary evidence led on behalf of both the parties as well as the case law discussed above, I am of the opinion that the plaintiff bas failed to prove his case of desertion and cruelty against the defendant/wife, hence not entitled to get a decree of divorce u/s 13 (1), (1-a) and (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 41. Accordingly, it is, therefore, ORDERED The original suit filed by the plaintiff (Husband) Rajhans against his defendant (wife) Sarita Kumari Singh for dissolution of marriage by passing a decree of divorce U/S 13(1) (i-a) (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is hereby dismissed on contest but without cost. Let a decree be prepared accordingly.” 79. The appellant-husband although has taken the ground of cruelty meted to him by his wife but, in course of trial he has failed to establish the element of cruelty meted out to him at the hands of the respondent- wife. 80. The desertion while, on the other hand, has been defined that if either of the parties on its own has left the house without any compulsion 2026:JHHC:20908-DB 35 or coercion, then only such type of separation will come under the fold of desertion. But what we have seen from the evidence of the appellant and the witnesses adduced on his behalf during the trial that the appellant has himself left the company of respondent/wife and further it has been categorically stated by the defendant/wife that she does not desire divorce, as the minor children are with her and require the affection of both parents. She has denied ever treating the plaintiff with cruelty, asserting that she has consistently endeavoured to continue her marital life. She has alleged that the plaintiff has exerted pressure upon her to vacate the Government Quarter and she has further stated that she resided with the plaintiff at Kathikund, where physical relations were established and, therefore, it is false to allege that they have been living separately without cohabitation since 24.10.2011. 81. Thus, from the aforesaid, it is evident that factum of desertion has not been proved cogently by the appellant/husband, rather it has come on record that plaintiff/husband has exerted pressure upon respondent/ wife to vacate the Government Quarter and he eventually left the quarter. 82. This Court after discussing the aforesaid factual aspect along with the legal position 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 and desertion has well been considered by the learned Family Judge. 83. On consideration of the evidence, the learned Family Judge has come to conclusion that the appellant-husband has miserably failed to establish the ground of cruelty and desertion against the respondent-wife. 2026:JHHC:20908-DB 36 84. The aforesaid reason has led the learned Family Judge to dismiss the suit. 85. This Court, on consideration of the finding arrived at by the learned Family Judge and based upon the aforesaid discussion, is of the view that the judgment and decree passed by the learned Family Judge is not coming under the fold of the perversity, since, the conscious consideration has been made of the evidences, both ocular and documentary, as would be evident from the impugned judgment. 86. This Court, therefore, is of the view that the judgment dated 08.09.2022 and the decree signed on 20.09.2022 passed in Original Suit No.161 of 2018 by the learned Family Judge needs no interference and, accordingly, the instant appeal stands dismissed. 87. Pending I.As, if any, stands disposed of. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) I Agree. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Sudhir Dated:14/07/2026 Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi AFR Uploaded on 15/07/2026.