JUDGMENT : SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, J. Prayer: 1. The instant appeal has been filed under Section 19(1) of the Family Court Act, 1984, challenging the legality and propriety of impugned judgment passed on 22.08.2022 and decree signed on 05.09.2022 by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Chaibasa whereby and whereunder the Original Suit No. 32 of 2018 filed by the petitioner-appellant-husband under Section 13(1), (ia), (ib) & 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for a decree of divorce has been dismissed. Factual Matrix 2. The brief facts of the case of the appellant-husband as narrated, is that the petitioner is working as Project Associate at IIT Delhi and the respondent is a house wife. The marriage between the petitioner and respondent was solemnized on 21.06.2010, according to Hindu customary rites and rituals, at Mahulpani, Itor, Chakradharpur and reception took place on 23.06.2010 at Lower Burdwan Compound, Ranchi. 3. After the marriage, the petitioner started living with his wife at Lower Burdwan Compound, P.S. Lalpur, Ranchi alongwith his old parents and last resided there as husband and wife and out of their wedlock one son was born on 23.11.2011 at Debuka Nursing Home, Ranchi, who is aged about 3 years 4 months. 4. After few months of the aforesaid marriage the respondent started giving undue pressure upon the petitioner to oust the old parents and his sister namely Munmun Paramanik and her son namely Soumen Paramanik. 5. To get her demand fulfilled the respondent started behaving in extremely rude and violent manner and regularly abused and insulted her in-laws in front of the petitioner. On the other hand, the parents of the petitioner treated the respondent as their child and daughter and did everything for her welfare including got her admitted in intermediate course at Bundu College, Bundu and did not ask her to perform domestic chores so that she can devote her time in studies but on the contrary she used to get annoyed and often abused them when they insisted her to study which she abhorred greatly. To avoid disturbance in her studies, the father-in-law of the respondent even performed menial domestic job like sweeping and wiping of floors of the house and on one such occasion on 18.10.2012 the respondent abused and kicked him and the tub of water while her father-in-law was wiping the floor of the room for asking her to go and study. 6. 6. Amongst other acts of cruelty, the respondent also regularly threatened the petitioner that she shall commit suicide and put him and his family members behind bars if the petitioner does not abandon his parents and other members of the family for her sake and start living separately. Without any information and without any rhyme and reason all of a sudden on 25.10.2012 at about 11 A.M. the father of the respondent namely Sri Sunil Paramanik, her own brother named Kartal Paramanik, her cousin brother namely Haripada Paramanik and her two other relatives came to the residence of the petitioner and within 10 minutes took away the respondent who was already ready to leave and left the house of the petitioner alongwith the son aged only 11 months only. She also took with her all her belongings, articles, ornaments and 'stridhan' inspite of repeated requests by the petitioner and his family members not to leave in this way more so because that day was Bijoy Dashmi, an auspicious day for Hindus but they refused to listen and left. 7. The petitioner pleaded with the respondent not to go alongwith the baby as only one dose of vaccination could be administered on the boy/child on 07.09.2012 and others are due in next few months which are very essential and necessary for the child's health and welfare and requested her and other members of her family who had come to take her but they refused to listen to such entireties of the petitioner and his parents. 8. Whenever, the petitioner showed his intention to go to her place and fetch her and the child then the respondent threatened the petitioner not to dare such an attempt or he and his family members will face dire consequences for which she will not be responsible. 9. In spite of said threats and warnings, the petitioner on 19.12.2012 alongwith his father, mother, his cousin brother Nirmal Pramanik and two maternal uncles namely Sri Sibeshwar Paramanik and Sri Subardhan Paramanik and son of eldest maternal uncle namely Nitish Paramanik and one family friend namely Shanti Mahto went to Itor, Chakradharpur to bring back the respondent and the baby. In spite of said threats and warnings, the petitioner on 19.12.2012 alongwith his father, mother, his cousin brother Nirmal Pramanik and two maternal uncles namely Sri Sibeshwar Paramanik and Sri Subardhan Paramanik and son of eldest maternal uncle namely Nitish Paramanik and one family friend namely Shanti Mahto went to Itor, Chakradharpur to bring back the respondent and the baby. The abovementioned persons reached respondent's house at Itor, Chakradharpur at about 11 a.m. But the family members from the very beginning were very aggressive and when they were requested to allow the respondent and the baby child to come alongwith them to Ranchi as they have come to fetch them, they flatly refused to let them go with the petitioner. 10. The petitioner and his family members who had gone there only to fetch the respondent and the baby son, the said intimidating misbehaviour was very shocking and apprehending any fowl play by the respondent and her family members and feeling threat to their lives decided to leave the place and while they were leaving they also found 6-7 persons had gathered around the house of the respondent who had come to the house on three motorcycles and were glaring at the petitioner and his family members. 11. The petitioner states and submits that not only his life is under threat but the innocent boy aged about 3 years 4 months only, his life, health and education is also at stake as he has not been properly inoculated due to lack of vaccination facility and child health care and want of proper education facility in the said remote place where respondent and the baby child are residing at present after deserting the petitioner with malafide intention to blackmail and succumb the petitioner to her illegitimate demands. 12. Due to sudden desertion of the respondent the important social functions such as "muhjhoota/annaprasanna" and "namkaran" ceremony of the baby boy could not be performed causing immense pain and suffering to the petitioner and his family. 13. For the greater interest and welfare of the baby child in respect of his health, life and proper education it is necessary to allow the petitioner the custody of the child forthwith. 14. 13. For the greater interest and welfare of the baby child in respect of his health, life and proper education it is necessary to allow the petitioner the custody of the child forthwith. 14. On 15.03.2015, the respondent alone without the baby child alongwith a couple came to the residence of the petitioner to collect some papers which she claims to be in the possession of the petitioner and when the petitioner and his parents inquired as to why she did not bring the baby child then she told them harshly that she has not come to co-habit with the petitioner but only to collect those papers and while she was leaving the respondent loudly told to everyone who were present in the neighborhood that the petitioner is of criminal mentality and had threatened her that he (Petitioner) shall get her (respondent) raped by other persons. In view of the aforesaid misbehaviour and cruel treatment by the respondent, the marriage between them has become irretrievable breakdown and the petitioner is suffering from severe psychological problems such as severe depression and frustration leading sometimes to suicidal tendencies. 15. The cause of action for the present suit arose on 21.06.2010 when both the parties were married, on 20.10.2012 when the parties resided lastly as husband and wife at Ranchi and the respondent deserted the petitioner, on several dates when the respondent threatened the petitioner that she will commit suicide and put the petitioner and his family members behind bar on 19.12.2012 when the petitioner and other family members went to Chakradharpur to bring back the respondent and baby son of the petitioner but she refused to come, on several dates when the respondent treated the petitioner with cruelty and finally on 15.03.2015 when respondent came to petitioner's residence at Ranchi without her child and abused and defamed the petitioner publicly. The petitioner has not condoned the act of cruelty and desertion by the respondent. 16. The petitioner has not condoned the act of cruelty and desertion by the respondent. 16. In the aforesaid circumstances as alleged by the appellant, an application under Sections 13(1)(i-a)(i-b) and 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 had been preferred by him before Family Court, Ranchi for a decree of divorce and the same was numbered as the Original Suit No. 142 of 2015, but in the light of order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand in Transfer petition (Civil) No.65/2016 dated 24.04.2018, the instant suit was transferred to the court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Chaibasa from the court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi. The case record was received on 01.06.2018 and it was numbered as Original Suit No.32/2018. 17. The case was admitted for hearing and upon notice the respondent wife appeared. 18. Thereafter, the respondent-wife filed her written statement and strongly denouncing the contentions of the appellant, as made in the plaint and refuted the allegations made against her. 19. By virtue of her written statement, the respondent- wife had inter alia stated that the respondent does not admit any of the statements made by the appellant/husband in his application for a decree for dissolution of marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the same is not maintainable in its present form and for the reliefs claimed. The suit filed by appellant/husband is barred under the principles of estoppel, waiver and acquiescence. 20. It has been contented that the present baseless suit has been filed by the appellant only with an ulterior purpose to harass the respondent. The appellant has no cogent and reliable grounds to file this matrimonial suit against the respondent since she is a woman of good character and has always provided respect and regards to the appellant and his entire family members, but it is the appellant himself, who has always neglected the respondent. 21. It has been stated that in fact respondent desires and wants to spend her entire life with the appellant and is still ready to live with the appellant to lead her conjugal life with him. 22. The learned Family Judge has taken into consideration the pleading made by the parties in the plaint as well as in the written statement. The case proceeded for evidence during which the appellant has produced and examined four witnesses including himself. 23. 22. The learned Family Judge has taken into consideration the pleading made by the parties in the plaint as well as in the written statement. The case proceeded for evidence during which the appellant has produced and examined four witnesses including himself. 23. The respondent-wife has produced and examined altogether three witnesses including herself. 24. The learned Principal Judge, after hearing learned counsel for the parties, framed five issues for adjudication of the lis, which are being referred as under: 1. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form? 2. Whether the plaintiff/petitioner has valid cause of action for filing the suit? 3. Whether the petitioner has been treated with cruelty by the respondent? 4. Whether the petitioner has been deserted by the respondent for a continuous period of not less than two years? 5. Whether the petitioner is entitled to get relief/reliefs as prayed for? 25. The aforesaid issues were decided against the appellant-husband and in favour of respondent-wife and the suit was decreed on contest in the following terms: “Considering the entire facts and circumstances emerging from case in hand and submission advanced by the learned amicus for both sides, it is evident that the petitioner failed to establish the allegation of cruelty and desertion raised by him against her wife/respondent. Therefore, the instant suit is not maintainable in its present form and also the petitioner failed to establish the allegations of cruelty and desertion on the basis of evidence led on behalf of petitioner, there is no cause of action for filing the suit, hence, it is, hereby, ORDERED that the suit be and the same is dismissed on contest but there is no order as to cost.” 26. The appellant-husband, being aggrieved with the judgment passed on 22.08.2022 and decree signed on 05.09.2022 by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Chaibasa approached this Court by filing the instant appeal. Submission made on behalf of the appellant-husband 27. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-husband has submitted that the Learned Family Court below has failed to appreciate that the petitioner /appellant has produced credible evidence which are sufficient to establish that the respondent-wife has subjected him to cruelty and on account of cruelty and desertion, the petitioner / appellant is entitled for grant of decree of divorce. 28. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-husband has submitted that the Learned Family Court below has failed to appreciate that the petitioner /appellant has produced credible evidence which are sufficient to establish that the respondent-wife has subjected him to cruelty and on account of cruelty and desertion, the petitioner / appellant is entitled for grant of decree of divorce. 28. Further, it has been submitted that the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court while answering issue no.3 (cruelty) are perverse and based on mere presumption, therefore, the same will not stand in the eye of law. 29. It has also been submitted that the learned court below has failed to appreciate that the respondent-wife used to threatened the appellant to implicate him and his entire family in a false criminal case which caused the appellant to suffer extreme mental cruelty, loss of mental and family peace and harmony, loss of family prestige and reputation in society. 30. It has lastly been submitted that the learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate the oral and documentary evidence produced on behalf of petitioner / appellant and, thus, came to wrong conclusion. 31. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant, on the basis of aforesaid grounds, has submitted that the judgment passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Chaibasa requires interference. Submission made on behalf of respondent-wife 32. Learned counsel for the respondent-wife, defending the impugned order, has submitted that the appellant has sought divorce but the learned Family Court, after taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence, has rightly dismissed the suit. 33. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that learned trial court has rightly held that the appellant is not entitled for the decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion because the appellant has miserably failed to prove the allegation of cruelty and desertion by her. 34. 33. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that learned trial court has rightly held that the appellant is not entitled for the decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion because the appellant has miserably failed to prove the allegation of cruelty and desertion by her. 34. Learned counsel for the respondent-wife has submitted that the appellant has taken desertion as a ground for divorce but this plea is not available to him since it is the appellant and their family members who demanded dowry from her parents and when her poor parents failed to fulfill the illegal dowry demands of the appellant and his family members, she was subjected to constant torture, harassment and cruelty by the appellant and her in-laws and thus, learned Family Court, taking into consideration the evidence led by the respondent-wife, has rightly rejected the prayer for divorce made by the appellant. 35. Submission has been made that the learned Principal Judge, Family Court on the backdrop of the evidence led by the parties has come to the conclusion that the appellant- husband has miserably failed to establish the grounds of cruelty and desertion by his wife. 36. Learned counsel for the respondent-wife on the aforesaid grounds has submitted that the impugned judgment requires no interference by this Court. Analysis 37. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant- husband as also learned counsel for the respondent-wife and perused the material available on record and the finding recorded in the impugned order. 38. 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. 39. The appellant, in support of his case, has adduced four witnesses including himself. The relevant portion of the testimonies of the witnesses are mentioned as under:- P.W.-1 Bhutnath Pramanik (father of the petitioner) deposed that the marriage of his son was solemnized on 21.06.2010 by Hindu rites and custom. Reception ceremony was performed on 23.06.2010 from his residence situated at Lower Burdwan Compound, Ranchi. The respondent came to her matrimonial home and she was blessed a son at Debuka Nursing Home on 23.11.2011. After some months of marriage, the respondent pressurized the petitioner to oust his parents and sister from the house. He resides with his wife, son, daughter-in-law and grand-son together at Ranchi. The respondent came to her matrimonial home and she was blessed a son at Debuka Nursing Home on 23.11.2011. After some months of marriage, the respondent pressurized the petitioner to oust his parents and sister from the house. He resides with his wife, son, daughter-in-law and grand-son together at Ranchi. The respondent started quarreling with petitioner and his in- laws and so many times defamed her in-laws in front of the petitioner. The witness further deposed that the admission of respondent was made in Bundu College so that she could study but the respondent was not interested to continue her study. The witness deposed that on 18 20.2012, he was effacing on ground and requested to respondent to continue her study as a result she kicked him as well as kicked bucket with her leg. The respondent threatened that if the petitioner will not reside with her separately then she will commit suicide and the entire family would be behind the bar. On 25.10.2012 at 11.00 a.m. all of sudden the father of respondent namely Sunil Pramanik, brother Kartal Pramanik, Cousin Haripadorai Mani and two others entered into his house and took his daughter-in-law and grand-son with them. The petitioner requested repeatedly to not take his son as there is vaccination on 07.09.2012 but the respondent and her father did not consider the same and proceeded for Chakradharpur. The petitioner so many times requested through telephone to lead conjugal life but the respondent replied that if the petitioner/husband wants to lead a peaceful life with her then he will have to oust his parents from the house. The witness further deposed that on 19.12.2012 he, his son, his wife, his niece Nirmal Pramanik and his both sala Shiveshwar Pramanik and Subardhan Pramanik went to the house of respondent to take respondent and her son but the respondent threatened that she would get the murder of petitioner and she would possess the entire property under her control. On 15.03.2015, the respondent arrived at Ranchi and collected some documents and return to her parental home. The witness further deposed that the respondent lodged FIR in Mahila Thana Chaibasa on 12.08.2015 bearing Mahila P.S. Case No.12/2015, G.R. No.476/2016 U/s 498A IPC and ¾ D.P. Act. The entire family was under pressure after filing a fake criminal case. On 15.03.2015, the respondent arrived at Ranchi and collected some documents and return to her parental home. The witness further deposed that the respondent lodged FIR in Mahila Thana Chaibasa on 12.08.2015 bearing Mahila P.S. Case No.12/2015, G.R. No.476/2016 U/s 498A IPC and ¾ D.P. Act. The entire family was under pressure after filing a fake criminal case. During his cross-examination, the witness deposed in para-19 that his son never kept the respondent with her and never took her to Delhi with him. The witness further deposed in para-20 that his son petitioner never filed any case for restitution of conjugal right. The witness deposed in para-29 that son came to his house once or twice in a year. The witness deposed in para-38 his son petitioner does not want to keep his wife. The witness deposed in para 55 that he did not file any case against the incident occurred on 19.12.2012. witness deposed in para-61 that he cannot adduce any neighbour as witness for the occurrence of 15.03.2015. The witness deposed in para-69 that he has no objection if his son leads conjugal life with his wife at Delhi. The witness deposed in para-70 that it is true that his son has filed the divorce case on the basis of false allegations. The witness deposed in para-72 that the behaviour of respondent was good till she resides with him and she has no complaint against her daughter-in-law respondent. P.W.-2 Nirmal Pramanik (cousin brother of the petitioner), deposed that the marriage of his brother was solemnized on 21.06.2010 by Hindu rites and custom. Reception ceremony was performed on 23.06.2010 from the residence of petitioner, situated at Lower Burdwan Compound Ranchi. The respondent came to her matrimonial home and she was blessed a son at Debuka Nursing Home on 23.11.2011. After some months of marriage, the respondent pressurized the petitioner to oust his parents and sister from the house. The father of petitioner resides with his wife, son, daughter-in-law and grand-son together at Ranchi. The respondent started quarreling with petitioner and his in-laws and so many times defamed her in-laws in front of the petitioner. The witness further deposed that the admission of respondent was made in Bundu College so that she could get study but the respondent was not interested to continue her study. The respondent started quarreling with petitioner and his in-laws and so many times defamed her in-laws in front of the petitioner. The witness further deposed that the admission of respondent was made in Bundu College so that she could get study but the respondent was not interested to continue her study. The witness deposed that on 18.10.2012, the father of petitioner was effacing on ground and requested to respondent to continue her study as a result she kicked him as well as kicked bucket with her leg. The respondent threatened that if the petitioner will not reside with her separately then she will commit suicide and the entire family would be behind the bar. On 25.10.2012 at 11.00 a.m. all of sudden the father of respondent namely Sunil Pramanik, brother Kartal Pramanik, Cousin Haripadorai Mani and two others entered into his house and took his daughter-in- law and grandson with them, family member of petitioner requested repeatedly to not take her son as there is vaccination on 07.09.2012 but the respondent and her father did not consider the same and proceeded for Chakradharpur. The witness further deposed that on 19.12.2012 he alongwith others went to the house of respondent to take respondent and her son but the respondent threatened that she would get the murder of petitioner and she would possess the entire property under her control. On 15.03.2015, the respondent arrived at Ranchi and collected some documents and return to her parental home. The witness further deposed that the respondent lodged FIR in Mahila Thana Chaibasa on 12.08.2015 bearing Mahila P.S. Case No. 12/2015, G.R. No.476/2016 U/s 498A IPC and ¾ D.P. Act. The entire family was under pressure after filing a fake criminal case and they were defamed in society. During his cross-examination, the witness clearly admitted that he has no personal knowledge about the facts mentioned in para-4, 6 & 7 of his examination-in-chief. The witness clearly deposed in para-17 that he never went to take the respondent with the petitioner Sandeep Pramanik. The witness admitted in same para that the respondent never told that she wants to live with petitioner at Chakradharpur leaving her in-laws at Ranchi. The witness further deposed in para-18 that the respondent Jyotsana Pramanik and her family members never threatened to anyone. The witness clearly deposed in Para-19 that he has no knowledge that what occurred in between Jyotsana and Sandeep. The witness further deposed in para-18 that the respondent Jyotsana Pramanik and her family members never threatened to anyone. The witness clearly deposed in Para-19 that he has no knowledge that what occurred in between Jyotsana and Sandeep. P.W.-3 Rajendra Pramanik (Bahnoi of the petitioner), deposed that the marriage of his son- in-law was solemnized on 21.06.2010 by Hindu rites and custom. Reception ceremony was performed on 23.06.2010 from the residence of petitioner, situated at Lower Burdwan Compound Ranchi. The respondent came to her matrimonial home and she was blessed a son at Debuka Nursing Home on 23.11.2011. After some months of marriage, the respondent pressurized the petitioner to oust his parents and sister from the house. The father of petitioner resides with his wife, son, daughter-in-law and grand-son together at Ranchi. The respondent started quarreling with petitioner and his in-laws and so many times defamed her in-laws in front of the petitioner. The witness further deposed that the admission of respondent was made in Bundu College so that she could get study but the respondent was not interested to continue her study. The witness deposed that on 18.10.2012, the father of petitioner was effacing on ground and requested to respondent to continue her study as a result she kicked him as well as kicked bucket with her leg. The respondent threatened that if the petitioner will not reside with her separately then she will commit suicide and the entire family would be behind the bar. On 25.10.2012 at 11.00 a.m. all of sudden the father of respondent namely Sunil Pramanik, brother Kartal Pramanik, Cousin Haripadorai Mani and two others entered into his house and took his daughter-in- law and grand-son with them. The family member of petitioner requested repeatedly to not take her son as there is vaccination on 07.09.2012 but the respondent and her father did not consider the same and proceeded for Chakradharpur. The witness further deposed that the respondent lodged FIR in Mahila Thana Chaibasa on 12.08.2015 bearing Mahila P.S. Case No. 12/2015, G.R. No.476/2016 U/s 498A IPC and ¾ D.P. Act. The entire family was under pressure after filing a fake criminal case and they were defamed in society. During his cross-examination, the witness deposed in para-18 that Sandeep does not want to keep his wife at Delhi as his parents will be isolate in Ranchi. The entire family was under pressure after filing a fake criminal case and they were defamed in society. During his cross-examination, the witness deposed in para-18 that Sandeep does not want to keep his wife at Delhi as his parents will be isolate in Ranchi. The witness deposed in para-21 that Sandeep did not take the respondent with him at Delhi as the respondent is less educated. If she got educated then he might be taken to her at Delhi. The witness deposed in para-35 that no occurrence took place in his presence about the threatening caused by respondent against her husband- petitioner and his in-laws’ family. The witness deposed in para-37 that if respondent is willing to stay with her husband, then it is not a wrong fact. P.W.-4 Sandeep Pramanik (petitioner), deposed that his marriage was solemnized on 21.06.2010 by Hindu rites and custom. Reception ceremony was performed on 23.06.2010 from his residence situated at Lower Burdwan Compound Ranchi. The respondent came to her matrimonial home and she was blessed a son at Debuka Nursing Home on 23.11.2011. After some months of marriage, the respondent pressurized the petitioner to oust his parents and sister Hom/the house. He resides with his parents at Ranchi. The respondent started quarreling with petitioner and his in- laws and so many times defamed her in-laws in front of the petitioner. The witness further deposed that the admission of respondent was made in Bundu College so that she could study but the respondent was not interested to continue her study as a result she was declared fail in intermediate. The witness deposed that on 18.10.2012, his father was effacing on ground and requested to respondent to continue her study as a result she kicked his father as well as kicked bucket with her leg. The respondent threatened that if the petitioner will not reside with her separately then she will commit suicide and the entire family would be behind the bar. On 25.10.2012 at 11.00 A.M. all of sudden the father of respondent namely Sunil Pramanik, brother Kartal Pramanik, Cousin Haripadorai Mani and two others entered into his house and took his daughter-in-law and grandson with them. The petitioner requested repeatedly to not take his son as there is vaccination on 07.09.2012 but the respondent and her father did not consider the same and proceeded for Chakradharpur. The petitioner requested repeatedly to not take his son as there is vaccination on 07.09.2012 but the respondent and her father did not consider the same and proceeded for Chakradharpur. The petitioner so many times requested through telephone to lead conjugal life but the respondent replied that if the petitioner/husband wants to lead a peaceful life with her then he will have to oust his parents from the house. The witness further deposed that on 19.12.2012 he, his parents, his cousin Nirmal Pramanik and his both maternal uncle Shiveshwar Pramanik and Subardhan Pramanik went to the house of respondent to take respondent and her son but the respondent threatened that she would get the murder of petitioner and she would possess the entire property under her control. On 15.03.2015, the respondent arrived at Ranchi and collected some documents and return to her parental home and she was screaming that the petitioner is the man of bad character. The witness further deposed that the respondent lodged FIR in Mahila Thana Chaibasa on 12.08.2015 bearing Mahila P.S. Case No.12/2015, G.R. No.476/2016 U/s 498A IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act. The entire family was under pressure after filing a fake criminal case. The petitioner requested to court to grant decree of divorce as well as the protection to his son for proper education. During examination in chief the witness identified the birth certificate of his son issued by Debuka Nursing Home on 23.11.2011 which has been marked as Ext.1. The witness further identified the mark sheet of respondent which has been marked as Ext.2. The witness also identified the vaccination card and vaccination record issued from Debuka Nursing Home which has been marked as Ext.3. The witness has filed the certified copy of judgment dated 05.09.2020 passed in Criminal Appeal No.04/2020, whereby and whereunder the petitioner and his parents have been acquitted, which has been marked as Ext.4. The witness also identified the original copy of informatory petition filed by his father before the court of Id. CJM, Ranchi which has been marked as Ext.5. During his cross-examination, the witness deposed in para-26 that he does not want to keep his wife as she has lost her faith. The witness deposed in para-29 that the person who gets salary of Rs.54,000/- is capable to keep his family with him. CJM, Ranchi which has been marked as Ext.5. During his cross-examination, the witness deposed in para-26 that he does not want to keep his wife as she has lost her faith. The witness deposed in para-29 that the person who gets salary of Rs.54,000/- is capable to keep his family with him. The witness deposed in para-34 that his wife respondent never told that she wants to live with him at Delhi. The witness deposed in para-46 that it is wrong to say that he does not want to take his wife at Delhi as she is not educated. The witness denied in para-63 that he has filed the suit after lodging FIR by the respondent against him. 40. The respondent-wife has also adduced three witnesses in support of her case which are being dealt hereunder as: - R.W.-1 Natraj Pradhan (villager of respondent), deposed that the marriage of respondent with petitioner was solemnized on 21.06.2010 and reception ceremonies was performed on 23.06.2010. The respondent was blessed a son on 23.11.2011 at Debuka Nursing Home, Ranchi who is presently aged about 11 years. The petitioner is posted as Project Associates in IIT Delhi but never kept his wife with him and left his wife with his parents at Ranchi. The petitioner and his family members committed subjected to physical and mental cruelty as a result the respondent left her matrimonial home and residing at her parental home. The respondent is still ready to live with her husband. During his cross-examination, the witness deposed in para-14 that no cruelty was committed in his presence. R.W.-2 Kartal Singh (brother of Respondent), deposed that the marriage of his sister was solemnized on 21.06.2010. Her sister was blessed a son on 23.11.2011 at Debuka Nursing Home, Ranchi. The petitioner is posted as Project Associates in IIT Delhi but he never took his sister with him. After three years of marriage the petitioner and his in-laws started subjected to physical and mental cruelty to his sister and snatched her educational certificate and her 'stridhan'. Her sister respondent lodged a criminal case on 20.05.2015 against her husband and his family members in Chaibasa and the parties were called for mediation before police station, where the petitioner refused to keep his sister with him. Then the officer-in-charge lodged FIR on 12.08.2015 which was later on registered as G.R. Case No.476 of 2015. Her sister respondent lodged a criminal case on 20.05.2015 against her husband and his family members in Chaibasa and the parties were called for mediation before police station, where the petitioner refused to keep his sister with him. Then the officer-in-charge lodged FIR on 12.08.2015 which was later on registered as G.R. Case No.476 of 2015. The court found guilty to petitioner and his family members and convicted them. Being aggrieved with the judgment the petitioner and his family members referred Cri. Appeal No.04/2020 in which the appeal was allowed and appellant were acquitted. His sister has preferred appeal against acquittal before the Hon'ble High Court which has been pending now. His sister is presently residing at her parental home. The respondent is still Steady to live with her husband. During his cross-examination, the witness deposed in para-14 that no physical and mental cruelty was committed in his presence. The witness deposed para-18 that it is wrong to say that his sister kicked her father-in- law while he was effacing the floor. The witness also denied that the respondent committed subjected to cruelty against her husband and in- laws. The witness deposed in para-26 that his sister and petitioner Sandeep Pramanik are residing separately since 2014. R.W.-3 Jyotsana Pramanik (Respondent), deposed that her marriage was solemnized with petitioner on 21.06.2010 and reception ceremony was performed on 23.06.2010. She was blessed a son on 23.11.2011 at Debuka Nursing Home, Ranchi. Her husband is posted as Project Associates IIT Delhi but he never took her with him. After three years of marriage petitioner and his parents started hurling filthy languages and deprived her from food. At the time of marriage, Rs.2,00,000/- and household articles were gifted. Her husband and in- laws started cruelty against her. The in-law’s family started demanding Rs.5,00,000/- cash and threatened her that if the demand is not fulfilled then, the petitioner would solemnize second marriage. She was ousted from matrimonial home and her in-laws and family members were snatched by them. Her husband and his family members arrived at Chakradharpur and forced her to put her signature on blank paper but she raised alarm so they fled away. Her husband filed divorce case before the court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi for disturbing her family. On 20.05.2015, she filed criminal case against her husband and in-laws’ family. Her husband and his family members arrived at Chakradharpur and forced her to put her signature on blank paper but she raised alarm so they fled away. Her husband filed divorce case before the court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi for disturbing her family. On 20.05.2015, she filed criminal case against her husband and in-laws’ family. Both parties were called but her husband refused to keep her. So, the FIR was instituted on 12.08.2015 which was later on instituted on G.R.No.476/2015. The husband in-laws were convicted by trial court but they were acquitted by appellate court and presently the criminal appeal is pending before the Hon'ble Court. The witness deposed that she wants to live with her husband. During her cross-examination, the witness deposed in para-27 that she is residing at her parental home since 01.12.2014 and on that day she came alone from her matrimonial home. The witness denied that she subjected to cruelty against her husband and in-laws family. The witness also denied that she kicked her father-in-law while he was effacing the floor. The witness deposed that her husband does not deserve divorce. 41. Besides oral evidence, documentary evidences were also adduced, which were marked as exhibits. 42. From the testimony, as referred hereinabove, it is evident that the appellant-husband has been examined as PW-4 before the Family Court, who in his deposition has mainly taken the ground of petitioner has filed the instant suit on the basis of cruelty and desertion caused by the respondent against the petitioner. The petitioner has alleged that his wife just after few months of the marriage started giving undue pressure upon the petitioner to oust his parents and his sister from her matrimonial home and started living separately in some other place in Ranchi. The petitioner further alleged that on 18.10.2012, the respondent abused and kicked his father while his father was effacing the floor of the house and the respondent regularly threatened the petitioner that she shall commit suicide if her demand is not considered. The petitioner further alleged that on 25.10.2012 at about 11.A.M., the father of the respondent namely Sunil Pramanik, her Kartal Pramanik her cousin brother namely Haripadorai Mani and two others arrived at Ranchi and took the respondent with them alongwith her all belongings. The petitioner further alleged that on 25.10.2012 at about 11.A.M., the father of the respondent namely Sunil Pramanik, her Kartal Pramanik her cousin brother namely Haripadorai Mani and two others arrived at Ranchi and took the respondent with them alongwith her all belongings. The petitioner also alleged that on 19.12.2012, the petitioner his father, mother, cousin brother Nirmal Pramanik and two maternal uncle Shiveshwar Pramanik and Subardan Pramanikand one family friend Shanti Mahto went to Chakradharpur to bring back the respondent and her son but the family members of respondent were aggressive and misbehaved with them. The petitioner also alleged that on 15.03.2015, the respondent alone arrived at the resident of the petitioner at Ranchi and collects some papers and without consulting with petitioner returned to her house and she told that she has not come to cohabit with the petitioner and loudly screamed that the petitioner is of criminal mentality and had threatened her that the respondent (petitioner) shall get her (respondent) raped by the others. Therefore. on the basis of above grounds, he claimed divorce from the respondent. 43. In cross-examination, he has deposed that even if his wife desires to live and stay with him with good behaviour and attitude then also he would not keep his wife with him because he has no faith and confidence upon her. 44. From the aforesaid testimony of the appellant-husband it is evident that though cruelty and desertion have been pleaded by him in his petition, but no cogent evidence has been produced by him to prove these allegations. 45. The brother of the respondent-wife who has been examined as RW-2 has fully supported the version of Respondent/wife. 46. The respondent-wife has deposed that she was ousted from matrimonial home. She further stated that her husband filed divorce case before the Family Court, for disturbing her family. On 20.05.2015, she filed criminal case against her husband and in-laws’ family. Both parties were called but her husband refused to keep her. So, the FIR was instituted on 12.08.2015 which was later on instituted on G.R.No.476/2015. The husband in-laws were convicted by trial court but they were acquitted by appellate court and presently the criminal appeal is pending before the Hon'ble Court. The witness deposed that she wants to live with her husband. 47. So, the FIR was instituted on 12.08.2015 which was later on instituted on G.R.No.476/2015. The husband in-laws were convicted by trial court but they were acquitted by appellate court and presently the criminal appeal is pending before the Hon'ble Court. The witness deposed that she wants to live with her husband. 47. The learned Family Judge has gone into the interpretation of the word “cruelty” and “desertion” and assessing the same from the evidences led on behalf of the parties as also the submission made in the pleading, i.e., plaint and written statement, has found that the element of cruelty and desertion could not have been established. 48. In the context of the aforesaid factual aspect only seminal issue has to be decide herein that “Whether the petitioner/husband is entitled to get divorce dissolving the marriage of the petitioner/appellant with OP/wife on the ground of mental cruelty and desertion U/s 13(1) (i-a) (1-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955? 49. The learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner has argued that the evidence of cruelty and desertion has not properly been considered and as such, the judgment suffers from perversity, hence, not sustainable in the eyes of law. 50. While on the other hand, argument has been advanced on behalf of the respondent has submitted that the judgment is well considered one. 51. This Court while appreciating the argument advanced on behalf of the parties on the issue of perversity needs to refer herein the interpretation of the word “perverse” as has been interpreted by the Hon'ble Apex Court which means that there is no evidence or erroneous consideration of the evidence. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Arulvelu and Anr. vs. State [Represented by the Public Prosecutor] and Anr., (2009) 10 SCC 206 while elaborately discussing the word perverse has held that it is, no doubt, true that if a finding of fact is arrived at by ignoring or excluding relevant material or by taking into consideration irrelevant material or if the finding so outrageously defies logic as to suffer from the vice of irrationality incurring the blame of being perverse, then, 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. Relevant paragraphs, i.e., paras-24, 25, 26 and 27 of the said judgment reads as under: “24. The expression “perverse” has been dealt with in a number of cases. In Gaya Din v. Hanuman Prasad [ (2001) 1 SCC 501 ] this Court observed that the expression “perverse” means that the findings of the subordinate authority are not supported by the evidence brought on record or they are against the law or suffer from the vice of procedural irregularity. 25. In Parry's (Calcutta) Employees' Union v. Parry & Co. Ltd. [ AIR 1966 Cal 31 ] the Court observed that “perverse finding” means a finding which is not only against the weight of evidence but is altogether against the evidence itself. In Triveni Rubber & Plastics v. CCE [1994 Supp (3) SCC 665 : AIR 1994 SC 1341 ] the Court observed that this is not a case where it can be said that the findings of the authorities are based on no evidence or that they are so perverse that no reasonable person would have arrived at those findings. 26. In M.S. Narayanagouda v. Girijamma [AIR 1977 Kant 58] the Court observed that any order made in conscious violation of pleading and law is a perverse order. In Moffett v. Gough [(1878) 1 LR 1r 331] the Court observed that a “perverse verdict” may probably be defined as one that is not only against the weight of evidence but is altogether against the evidence. In Godfrey v. Godfrey [106 NW 814] the Court defined “perverse” as turned the wrong way, not right; distorted from the right; turned away or deviating from what is right, proper, correct, etc. 27. The expression “perverse” has been defined by various dictionaries in the following manner: 1. Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary of Current English, 6th Edn. “Perverse.—Showing deliberate determination to behave in a way that most people think is wrong, unacceptable or unreasonable.” 2. Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, International Edn. 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. 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.” 52. Thus, from the aforesaid it is evident that if any order made in conscious violation of pleading and law then it will come under the purview of perverse order. Further “perverse verdict" may probably be defined as one that is not only against the weight of evidence but is altogether against the evidence. Issue of cruelty 53. Now this Court is adverting to the issue of Cruelty. It requires to refer herein the definition of ‘cruelty’ as has been defined by Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgment rendered in Dr. N.G. Dastane Vs. S. Dastane , (1975) 2 SCC 326 , wherein it has been held that the Court is to enquire as to whether the charge as cruelty, is of such a character, as to cause in the mind of the petitioner, a reasonable apprehension that, it will be harmful or injurious for him to live with the respondent. 54. The cruelty has also been defined in the case of Shobha Rani Vs. Madhukar Reddi , (1988) 1 SCC 105 , wherein the wife alleged that the husband and his parents demanded dowry. The Hon’ble Apex Court emphasized that “cruelty” can have no fixed definition. 55. 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.” 56. 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.” 56. 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.” 57. 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. 58. In V. Bhagat vs. D. Bhagat , (1994) 1 SCC 337 , the wife alleged in her written statement that her husband was suffering from “mental problems and paranoid disorder”. The wife’s lawyer also levelled allegations of “lunacy” and “insanity” against the husband and his family while he was conducting cross- examination. The Hon'ble Apex Court held these allegations against the husband to constitute “cruelty”. 59. In Vijay Kumar Ramchandra Bhate v. Neela Vijay Kumar Bhate , (2003) 6 SCC 334 the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed by taking into consideration the allegations levelled by the husband in his written statement that his wife was “unchaste” and had indecent familiarity with a person outside wedlock and that his wife was having an extramarital affair. These allegations, given the context of an educated Indian woman, were held to constitute “cruelty” itself. 60. 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 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. 61. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vidhya Viswanathan v. Kartik Balakrishnan , (2014) 15 SCC 21 has specifically held that cruelty is to be determined on whole facts of the case and the matrimonial relations between the spouses and the word ‘cruelty’ has not been defined and it has been used in relation to human conduct or human behaviour. It is the conduct in relation to or in respect of matrimonial duties and obligations. It is a course of conduct and one which is adversely affecting the other. 62. In the backdrop of the settled position of law as well as factual aspect and testimony of witnesses available on record that the respondent committed subjected to cruelty against the Bhuthnath Pramanik while he was effacing the floor but the father of the petitioner himself deposed in para-72 that it is right to say that his daughter-in-law (respondent) during stay at her matrimonial home, did the entire domestic work and he has no complained against his daughter-in-law. Further it has come on record that father of the petitioner himself deposed in para-70 that it is true that his son (petitioner) has filed the suit for divorce on the basis of false allegations. It has been stated by the petitioner that the occurrence of 18.10.2012 took place in his presence but it was not supported by P.W.1 in para-30 wherein he had stated that his son (petitioner) did not come to Ranchi after birth of his grandson till 25.10.2012, therefore, the presence of the petitioner at Ranchi on 18.10.2012 is doubtful. 63. P.W.2 has also deposed in para-18 that Jyotsana (respondent) and her family members never threatened to petitioner or family members in his presence. Therefore, the allegations raised by the petitioner regarding occurrence of 28.10.2012 has not been substantiated by the petitioner witnesses. 64. 63. P.W.2 has also deposed in para-18 that Jyotsana (respondent) and her family members never threatened to petitioner or family members in his presence. Therefore, the allegations raised by the petitioner regarding occurrence of 28.10.2012 has not been substantiated by the petitioner witnesses. 64. Further, the learned Family Court has categorically observed that this court is of the finding that no occurrence took place on 19.12.2012 and it is totally fake and false allegation against the respondent and the father of the petitioner himself deposed in para-70 that it is true that his son (petitioner) has filed the suit for divorce on the basis of false allegations. 65. This Court, based upon the aforesaid discussions on the issue of cruelty, is of considered view that the issue of cruelty as has been alleged by the appellant-husband against his wife could not be proved because no concrete evidence to that effect has been produced by the appellant. 66. Thus, as per the discussions made hereinabove and law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court which has also been referred herein above this Court has no reason to take different view that has been taken by the learned Family Court proving the ground of cruelty. Issue of desertion 67. Now coming to the issue of desertion, which is also taken as a ground for decree of divorce. It is evident from the from the plaint of the petitioner before Family Court which has also taken note in the impugned order, that the wife was ousted from matrimonial home and the respondent wife never deserted to petitioner. 68. Learned Principal Judge, taking into consideration the fact that since even otherwise there is no desertion on the part of respondent-wife as she in her evidence also has deposed that she is very keen and desirous to live and stay with her husband all through her life and perform her wifely duties. Thus, although the husband appellant had filed petition under sub-section (ib) of Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 but no evidence was led in this respect, as such the same was discarded by the learned family court. 69. Thus, although the husband appellant had filed petition under sub-section (ib) of Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 but no evidence was led in this respect, as such the same was discarded by the learned family court. 69. It needs to refer herein that the word ‘desertion’ has been given in Explanation to Section 13 (1) wherein it has been stated that “the expression desertion means the desertion of the petitioner by the other party to the marriage without reasonable cause and without the consent or against the wish of such party, and includes the wilful neglect of the petitioner by the other party to the marriage, and its grammatical variations and cognate expressions shall be construed accordingly.” 70. 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 wishes 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. 71. 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.” 72. 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.” 73. 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.” 73. 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. 74. 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. 75. 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. 76. It is, thus, evident from the aforesaid reference of meaning of desertion that the quality of permanence is one of the essential elements which differentiate desertion from wilful separation. If a spouse abandons the other spouse in a state of temporary passion, for example, anger or disgust, without intending permanently to cease cohabitation, it will not amount to desertion. For the offence of desertion, so far as the deserting spouse is concerned, two essential conditions must be there, namely, (1) the factum of separation, and (2) the intention to bring cohabitation permanently to an end. 77. 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. 78. 77. 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. 78. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Debananda Tamuli vs. Kakumoni Kataky , (2022) 5 SCC 459 has considered the definition of ‘desertion’ on the basis of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Lachman Utamchand Kirpalani v. Meena , AIR 1964 SC 40 which has been consistently followed in several decisions of this Court. 79. The law consistently has been laid down by the Court that desertion means the intentional abandonment of one spouse by the other without the consent of the other and without a reasonable cause. The deserted spouse must prove that there is a factum of separation and there is an intention on the part of deserting spouse to bring the cohabitation to a permanent end. In other words, there should be animus deserendi on the part of the deserting spouse. There must be an absence of consent on the part of the deserted spouse and the conduct of the deserted spouse should not give a reasonable cause to the deserting spouse to leave the matrimonial home. 80. From impugned order it is evident that desertion has not been proved before the Family Court through concrete and tangible evidence and further it has come on the record that even otherwise there is no desertion on the part of respondent-wife as she in her evidence also has deposed that she is still ready to live with her husband and perform her wifely duties. Moreover, the father of the appellant husband (PW-1) has deposed before the Family Court in para 70 that his son (i.e appellant) has filed the suit for divorce on the basis of false allegations. 81. 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. 82. 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. 82. This Court, on the basis of discussions made hereinabove, is of the view that the judgment passed on 22.08.2022 and decree signed on 05.09.2022 by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Chaibasa, whereby and whereunder the Original Suit No. 32 of 2018 filed by the petitioner-appellant-husband under Section 13(1), (i-a), (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for a decree of divorce has been dismissed, requires no interference by this Court. 83. Accordingly, the instant appeal fails and is dismissed. I agree - Arun Kumar Rai, J.