JUDGMENT : SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, J. 1. The instant appeal under section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 is directed against the judgment dated 07.05.2024 and the decree dated 16.05.2024 passed in Original (Matrimonial) Suit No.295 of 2017 by the learned Addl. Principal Judge, Addl. Family Court-I, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur (herein referred as Family Judge) whereby and whereunder the petition filed under section 13(1) (i-a) 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: (i) The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 22.02.2016 at Hotel Alcor Bistupur, Jamshedpur according to Hindu Rites and Custom. (ii) Thereafter, the respondent remained in her matrimonial home for two days only and did not allow the petitioner/appellant to consummate the marriage by cohabitation on the ground that she was one of the disciples of Satsang and prior permission was required for the consummation of marriage and unless she was permitted by her Satsang Philanthropy, Deoghar, she could not consummate the marriage. (iii) After two days, she went to her parent's house at Joda, Dist. Keonjhar, Odissa on 25.02.2016. (iv) It has been stated that before the marriage, on, parents of both the parties met at Dhanbad where the respondent was interviewed by the petitioner and his parents in presence of her parents and they all repeated that she is qualified as MBA from BHU and she is serving as Manager in Citi Bank at Mumbai. Further, the respondent and her parents submitted that after the marriage she will get her transferred to CITI Bank, Singapore where the petitioner is working. (v) It is the case of the petitioner that at the time of marriage, the facts of her being a disciple of the Satsang Philanthropy, Deoghar was concealed by her brother Lal Mani Singh as well as the middle man, namely, Bablu Singh and they intentionally settled the marriage by concealing such facts from the petitioner and his family members. (v) It is the case of the petitioner that at the time of marriage, the facts of her being a disciple of the Satsang Philanthropy, Deoghar was concealed by her brother Lal Mani Singh as well as the middle man, namely, Bablu Singh and they intentionally settled the marriage by concealing such facts from the petitioner and his family members. (vi) When the respondent returned back to her matrimonial house in the month of July, 2016, respondent took all her ornaments which were presented at the time of marriage by petitioner and relatives and started insisting that the petitioner/appellant should also become member of Satsang by taking Diksha, otherwise she would not allow him to perform sexual intercourse with her. The petitioner refused to accept the demand of respondent because he had no knowledge about such religious order in which she was involved for so many years. (vii) The respondent again made demand to the petitioner for living separately from his old aged parents, but he was not in a position to accept such demand because he was the eldest son of his family and had responsibility of maintaining and supporting his parent's need. It has been asserted that on his refusal to accept the demand of the respondent, she refused to cooperate and perform her matrimonial obligation and also refused to have sexual relation with the petitioner. (viii) The respondent barely stayed for 14-15 days in her matrimonial home with the petitioner and again went to her parent's house and from there, she again started repeating her earlier demands of joining Satsang and living separately from petitioner's parents, which was denied by the petitioner. On his refusal to fulfil such demands of respondent, it is alleged that the respondent refused to come back to her matrimonial home. (ix) It is stated that respondent was so dedicated and influenced by religious activity and Satsang that during the short stay, the petitioner observed abnormalities in her behaviour on many occasions. (x) The respondent used to donate a sum of Rs. 500/- per month to Satsang Samity, which was impossible for the petitioner to arrange Rs.500/- per month for such donations because of his limited earnings and existing financial commitments. (x) The respondent used to donate a sum of Rs. 500/- per month to Satsang Samity, which was impossible for the petitioner to arrange Rs.500/- per month for such donations because of his limited earnings and existing financial commitments. The petitioner concluded that it was not possible for the petitioner to lead peaceful conjugal life with the respondent and he apprehended that the respondent would make attempts to implicate him and his family members in any false case. 3. On the aforesaid ground of cruelty, the appellant-husband has prayed for a decree of dissolution of the marriage between him and the respondent-wife. 4. On getting notice the respondent-wife appeared and filed her written statement. Thereafter, the Court initiated reconciliation proceeding to take endeavour to bring about reconciliation between the parties and also referred their dispute to Mediation Center, Jamshedpur for exploring the possibility of amicable settlement. However, the reconciliation and the mediation attempts yielded no positive result and both the parties expressed their desire to contest the suit on merit. 5. The respondent thereafter filed her written statement admitting the fact that her marriage was solemnized with the petitioner. It has been pleaded by the respondent that before the marriage ceremony a meeting was held between the parties and the petitioner and the respondent were get to know each other along with parents and after, ascertaining all required facts, marriage between the parties was fixed and as per the demand of the petitioner and his family members, all demands were fulfilled in " Tilokotsav". 6. The petitioner and his family have received more than Rs. Ten Lakhs as dowry and to pressurize the respondent and her family members to fulfill their further demand of dowry as envisaged from the letter of the brother of the respondent Lal Muni Singh dated 15.05.2017 and letter for respondent dated 06.06.2017, the petition for divorce has been filed. 7. The respondent had gone to her parent's house at Joda after two days of marriage and again came to her matrimonial house with consent of the petitioner as well as all his family members and that during the first stay of two days, conjugation was made between the petitioner and respondent. 7. The respondent had gone to her parent's house at Joda after two days of marriage and again came to her matrimonial house with consent of the petitioner as well as all his family members and that during the first stay of two days, conjugation was made between the petitioner and respondent. She has also denied the allegation of her being engaged in any Satsang or disciple of any Guru and pleaded since she herself was not involved with any Satsang, there was no question of forcing the petitioner to be Satsangi. She further pleaded that she always obeyed the petitioner during their conjugal relationship and as such petitioner has made a false statement before the Court. The respondent is always ready to live with the petitioner in her matrimonial house and for this family members of the respondent and respondent herself contacted the petitioner as well as his family members time to time but there was very cold response from their side. 8. It has been averred that respondent is vegetarian, which fact was well known to the petitioner and his family members and being a vegetarian is not a bad thing in any manner. The respondent never asked the petitioner to be vegetarian and she never concealed any facts from the petitioner at any stage. The respondent has not taken away any ornament and the same is still in possession of the mother of the petitioner. 9. It has further been stated that the petitioner had himself sent the respondent to her parent's house on 03.08.2016 assuring her that he would come to bring her back to her matrimonial home very shortly. Thereafter again and again respondent and her family members had requested the petitioner and his family members to allow the respondent to come to Jamshedpur and in this regard, contacts were made physically as well as through mobile, but she was not allowed to return to her matrimonial house. 10. It has also been pleaded that the respondent had never objected to conjugal relation between her and the petitioner. The respondent has never objected to live with petitioner in his father's house. She has also never objected the petitioner for conjugal life and for sexual intercourse in any manner. She is always willing to stay and live with the petitioner in the petitioner's father house. The respondent has never objected to live with petitioner in his father's house. She has also never objected the petitioner for conjugal life and for sexual intercourse in any manner. She is always willing to stay and live with the petitioner in the petitioner's father house. The petitioner forced her to go to her mother house at Joda. On the basis of above submission, it has been prayed to reject the prayer of the petitioner. 11. Learned Family Judge, after institution of the said case, taking into consideration of the pleading of the appellant and the respondent has formulated the issues and has decided the lis by refusing to grant divorce to the petitioner/appellant. 12. 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: 13. Ms. Ashwini Priya, 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) The element of cruelty has been found to be there if the evidences adduced on behalf of the appellant-husband will be taken into consideration 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 suffer from an error. (iii) It has been contended that the appellant has been meted out with the cruelty as also the respondent is living separately and, as such, both the grounds are available as would be evident from the evidence adduced on behalf of the appellant-husband, but the same has not been taken into consideration. (iv) It has been contended that the learned Family Judge 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 treated the appellant with cruelty by her cruel behaviour and act and even did not allow him to consummate the marriage, but this fact has not been considered by the learned Family Judge. 14. The learned counsel, based upon the aforesaid ground, has submitted that the impugned judgment and decree, therefore, needs interference said to be perverse. 14. The learned counsel, based upon the aforesaid ground, has submitted that the impugned judgment and decree, therefore, needs interference said to be perverse. Submission of behalf of the respondent-wife: 15. On the other hand, in support of their contention, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-wife has raised 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, the same may not be interfered with. (ii) The appellant has sought divorce on the ground that the behaviour of the respondent-wife is cruel to the extent that it is impossible for the husband to lead happy conjugal life, but the learned Family Court, after taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence, has held that the entire allegations levelled in 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. 16. Learned counsel, based upon the aforesaid grounds, has submitted that if on that pretext, the factum of cruelty has not been found to be established, hence, the impugned judgment cannot be said to suffer from an error. Analysis: 17. It needs to mention herein that vide orders dated 09.12.2024 and 25.08.2025 notices were issued to the respondent-wife by this Court upon which the respondent-wife appeared in the present proceeding and while calling for the Trial Court Records the instant appeal was admitted vide order dated 16.10.2025. 18. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, gone through the Trial Court Records, the impugned judgment, as also the testimonies of the witnesses and the documents exhibited therein. 19. The learned Family Judge has formulated altogether five issues, for ready reference the same are being quoted hereinbelow: i) Is the suit as framed maintainable? ii) Whether the applicant has valid cause of action? iii)Whether the respondent has meted out cruelty on the applicant/petitioner? 19. The learned Family Judge has formulated altogether five issues, for ready reference the same are being quoted hereinbelow: i) Is the suit as framed maintainable? ii) Whether the applicant has valid cause of action? iii)Whether the respondent has meted out cruelty on the applicant/petitioner? iv)Whether the applicant/petitioner is entitled to a decree for dissolution of marriage under section13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act? v) To what other relief or reliefs the applicant/petitioner is entitled? 20. The issue pertaining to ground for divorce is by formulating a specific issue whether the respondent has meted out cruelty on the applicant/petitioner as issue no.(iii). 21. The learned Family Judge has considered the evidence adduced on behalf of the parties for proper adjudication of the lis. 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 has been shown by the plaintiff-husband as also the evidence adduced on behalf of the respondent-wife wherein the allegation of cruelty at the hands of the respondent has been denied. 23. During the trial, three witnesses have been examined on behalf of the appellant-husband who himself has been examined PW1 whereas the respondent-wife has examined three witnesses in support of her case including herself as R.W1. 24. On behalf of the petitioner-husband, the following documents have been produced which have been exhibited during trial: Ext.1 - Deposit Slip for Rs.500/-. Ext.2 - Original bio-data of Sunita Kumari Singh. Ext.3 - Letter written by Lalmani Singh. Ext.3/1 - Letter written by Sunita Singh. Ext.4 - Original Marriage Certificate. Ext.5 - A book written in Odiya. 25. As P.W1, the petitioner has admitted that his marriage was solemnized with the respondent on 22.02.2016 as per mutual agreement of both the parties at Hotel Alcore, Jamshedpur. He has deposed that after the marriage, the respondent came to her matrimonial house at Jamshedpur where she remained only for two days and did not allow the petitioner to consummate the marriage on the pretext that she is one of the disciples of Satsang Philanthropy, Deoghar and for consummation of marriage, she is required to get permission from that Satsang. Thereafter, she went to her parents’ house at Joda, Keonjhar. 26. Thereafter, she went to her parents’ house at Joda, Keonjhar. 26. The petitioner has further stated that at the time of marriage, the facts of her being a disciple of the Satsang Philanthropy, Deoghar was concealed by the family members of the respondent-wife. He has further deposed that in mid of July, 2016 the respondent came back to her matrimonial house and started insisting the petitioner that he would also become a member/disciple of the aforesaid Satsang by taking Diksha otherwise she would not allow him to consummate the marriage to which the petitioner has refused to do so. He has further deposed that the respondent-wife insisted the petitioner to live separately from his old aged parents and on refusal, she refused to cooperate or to perform her matrimonial obligation in any manner and even denied to consummate the marriage. 27. The petitioner has deposed that on refusal, the respondent-wife went back to her matrimonial house at Joda and repeated her earlier demand of living separately and to become a member/disciple of the aforesaid Satsang by taking Diksha and when the petitioner denied she refused to come back to her matrimonial house and, thus, he was meted out with cruelty at the hands of the respondent. During cross-examination, at para-30 the petitioner has admitted that before the marriage both the parties were acquainted with each other, but again stated that many things were concealed at the time of marriage about the respondent. At para-31 he has deposed that before marriage it was informed by the respondent’s side that she is a graduate but after marriage, he came to know that she has not completed graduation course and on inquiry, he came to know that she appeared in the graduation examination, but could not succeed. At para-32, he has stated that at Ring Ceremony, there was no talk between the respondent and him. At para-37, he has stated that after marriage the respondent lived with him for about 2-3 days. At para-40, he has stated that he found the deposit slip of Rs.500/- per month to be deposited in Satsang from the Almirah of his wife. At para-43, he has stated that in the month of February, 2016, the parents of the respondent took her to her parents’ house on the assurance that after ten days she would come back to her matrimonial house but they refused to send her. At para-43, he has stated that in the month of February, 2016, the parents of the respondent took her to her parents’ house on the assurance that after ten days she would come back to her matrimonial house but they refused to send her. Thereafter, on pressure, they agreed to send her back and he went to take back her. At para-45, P.W1 has admitted that it is true that when the parents of the petitioner refused to take back the respondent to their house, then the brother and brother-in-law of the respondent came to his house to make a request to keep the respondent with the petitioner. At para-46, he admitted that when the petitioner and his parents refused to keep the respondent with them, then her brother and brother-in-law gave a letter to the petitioner. At para-47, he admitted that when the respondent wrote a letter to him thereafter, he has filed the divorce suit. 28. P.W2-Lal Mohan Kumar is brother-in-law of the petitioner and a distant relative of the respondent and, as such, he knows both the parties. He has corroborated the factum of marriage of the parties and has stated that at the time of marriage the fact of the respondent being a disciple of the Satsang Philanthropy, Deoghar was concealed by her parents and family members. He has deposed that the respondent insisted the petitioner to become a disciple of the aforesaid Satsang and when he denied, she has refused to consummate the marriage. He has deposed that after refusal by the petitioner to fulfill her demand, the respondent refused to come back to her matrimonial home. During cross-examination, at para-8, this witness has stated that after reception ceremony there was some dispute between the parties thereafter, he went there and the reason was that the respondent is a disciple of Satsang at Deoghar and she demanded separate bathroom, bed etc. for living there. At para-11, he has stated that the respondent told him that she cannot sleep with her husband because she had taken diksha from Anukul Thakur of Deoghar. 29. PW3-Rekha Devi is the mother of the petitioner. She has corroborated the fact of marriage between the petitioner and the respondent and stated that the respondent is a disciple of the Satsang Philanthropy, Deoghar. 29. PW3-Rekha Devi is the mother of the petitioner. She has corroborated the fact of marriage between the petitioner and the respondent and stated that the respondent is a disciple of the Satsang Philanthropy, Deoghar. She has further stated that this fact was concealed by the parents of the respondent at the time of marriage. She has further deposed that the respondent demanded separate accommodation, household things and even separate washroom and bed for herself since the day of reception of marriage. This witness has deposed that the respondent started insisted that the petitioner also to become a member of Satsang by taking Diksha and on refusal by the petitioner, she went to her parents’ house and denied to come back to her matrimonial house. She has stated about the demand of respondent to live separately from her inlaws and when the petitioner refused to do so, she has denied to come back to her matrimonial home. During cross-examination, at para-10, P.W3 has stated that the respondent started demanding a separate accommodation for herself since the day of reception of marriage as she is vegetarian and when she asked the respondent about the same, she has stated that she cannot adjust in her matrimonial house as they are non-vegetarian. At para-17, P.W3 has admitted that the respondent’s brother and brother-in-law had come to her house with request to take her back to her matrimonial house but she refused to permit her to return to her matrimonial house as her son was not ready to adjust with the respondent. This witness has also admitted to have received request letters from the respondent and her brother for taking the respondent back to her matrimonial home and that only after receiving said letters, her son (the petitioner/appellant) filed the case for divorce against the respondent. 30. On the other hand, the respondent herself as R.W1 has stated that her marriage with the petitioner was solemnized on 22.02.2016 at Hotel Alcor, Jamshedpur according to Hindu rites and custom. She has stated that at the time of marriage a sum of Rs.25 lakhs was spent by her parents for dowry, clothes, jewellery, household utensils and in the shape of cash. After the marriage, he went to her parents’ house with her husband where he stayed there for about one week and thereafter returned to Jamshedpur. She has stated that at the time of marriage a sum of Rs.25 lakhs was spent by her parents for dowry, clothes, jewellery, household utensils and in the shape of cash. After the marriage, he went to her parents’ house with her husband where he stayed there for about one week and thereafter returned to Jamshedpur. She has deposed that the petitioner never came back to take her back and when her brother requested him, the petitioner assured that he would take back the respondent with him but he never did so. She has further stated that the petitioner neglected to keep her with him and when she made telephonic call, the petitioner used to disconnect the call. On being compelled, she wrote letter to the petitioner to keep her with him thereafter the petitioner has filed the suit for divorce. 31. At para- 10, she has stated that neither she participated in any Satsang nor she took Diksha from any religious guru. At para-12, R.W1 has stated that she is vegetarian but her brother and sister are non- vegetarian and she never hated being a non-vegetarian. At para-14, this witness has stated that since her marriage was solemnized with the mediation of family members who acquainted both the parties and, as such, at the time of marriage everything was informed to the petitioner and his parents and nothing was concealed from them. 32. At para-18 and 19, she has stated that she wanted to live with her husband and inlaws in future. At para-20 she has stated that she does not want to take divorce from the petitioner. During cross-examination, she has stated that she is vegetarian and her husband has not pressurized her to cook or eat non-vegetarian food. She has denied that she ever took Diksha from any religious guru. At para- 27, RW1 has admitted that Shailesh Singh is her brother whose name was mentioned at the receipt of donation which has been exhibited as Ext.1. At para-35 R.W1 has denied that at the time of marriage her brother and her family members got her married by keeping her husband and in-laws in the dark about her education. At para-59, she has denied that there was concealment of fact about her religious and spiritual interests as well as her education being a graduate. 33. RW2-Ashok Kumar Singh is the elder brother-in-law of the respondent. At para-59, she has denied that there was concealment of fact about her religious and spiritual interests as well as her education being a graduate. 33. RW2-Ashok Kumar Singh is the elder brother-in-law of the respondent. He is acquainted with both the parties as he is maternal uncle of the petitioner’s brother-in-law. At para-13, this witness has stated that on the repeated requests made by him and his brother-in-law, the petitioner has refused to keep the respondent with him. Thereafter, his brother-in- law wrote a letter making request to the petitioner to take back the respondent with him. At para-4, RW2 has stated that the respondent desires to live with the petitioner as his wife. During cross-examination, at para-27, R.W2 has stated that in his in-laws' house, except his mother-in-law and father-in-law, no other member had taken Guru Mantra. At para-30, this witness has stated that at the time of negotiation of marriage, he informed the in laws of the respondent that she completed graduation but crossed in one subject. 34. RW.3-Lalmuni Singh is the elder brother of the respondent. She has corroborated the factum of marriage and has stated that at the time of negotiation of marriage, everything about the education of the respondent was told by him to her in- laws. He has stated that the petitioner’s family was told that if they wished, the respondent could pursue further studies. At para-17, this witness has stated that after the marriage, the petitioner left Sunita Devi (respondent) to her maike at Joda after saying that he would take her back soon but he never came there. 35. After awaiting a long period, when the petitioner and his parents did not allow the respondent to come back her matrimonial house, he went to petitioner’s house at Jamshedpur with a request to keep the respondent but they did not heed. Thereafter, he wrote a letter making request to keep the respondent with them and thereafter, the petitioner filed the divorce suit. At para-24, RW3 has stated that after the marriage his mother took care of the respondent and the petitioner did not pay any penny for her maintenance. At para-27, he denied the fact that the respondent took any Diksha from any religious guru. At para-28, he has stated that the respondent has no income of her own and he never saw that she had made any donation for any Satsang. At para-27, he denied the fact that the respondent took any Diksha from any religious guru. At para-28, he has stated that the respondent has no income of her own and he never saw that she had made any donation for any Satsang. At para-31, R.W3 has stated that the respondent wants to live with the petitioner. During cross-examination, at para-51 RW3 has stated that except his mother and father, no one from his family had taken guru mantra. At para- 59, this witness has admitted that there was no talk between the petitioner and the respondent for compromise. At para-61, he has denied that before marriage he deliberately did not produce the educational certificate of the respondent before the petitioner or his family members. 36. The learned Family Judge has appreciated the entire facts and evidence and has come to the conclusion that the appellant-husband has failed to make the ground of cruelty and, as such, has dismissed the suit which is under challenge in the instant appeal. 37. The fact about filing of suit on the ground of cruelty is admitted one as per the evidences adduced on behalf of the appellant and the appellant-husband has tried to establish the element of cruelty upon him at the hands of the respondent-wife. 38. The appellant-husband all along has alleged the issue of cruelty 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. 39. This Court while appreciating the argument advanced on behalf of the appellant on the issue of perversity needs to refer herein the interpretation of the word “perverse” as has been interpreted by the Hon'ble Apex Court which means that there is no evidence or erroneous consideration of the evidence. 40. 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. 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.” 41. Thus, a perverse verdict may probably be defined as one that is not only against the weight of evidence but is altogether against the evidence. 42. It needs to refer herein that in the instant case, the ground for divorce has been taken on the ground of cruelty. 43. The “cruelty” has been interpreted by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dr. N.G. Dastane vs. 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 of the petitioner, a reasonable apprehension that, it will be harmful or injurious for him to live with the respondent. 44. 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. 45. 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.” 46. 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.” 46. The Hon’ble Apex Court has further observed therein that while dealing with such complaints of cruelty 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.” 47. 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. 48. 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 a cross-examination. The Hon’ble Apex Court held these allegations against the husband to constitute “cruelty”. 49. 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. 50. It needs to refer herein that it is settled position that a proceeding under Hindu Marriage act is not criminal proceeding where proof beyond reasonable doubt is required rather preponderance of probability" is enough. However, the character of spouse affects his/her reputation in the society. Therefore, it is established proposition of law, that not only the pleading in respect of charge of adultery should be specific, it should also be established in all probabilities. However, the character of spouse affects his/her reputation in the society. Therefore, it is established proposition of law, that not only the pleading in respect of charge of adultery should be specific, it should also be established in all probabilities. The accepted rule, therefore, is that circumstantial evidence is all that can normally be expected in proof of charge; However, the circumstances must be such as to lead to fair inference, as a necessary conclusion. In other words, proof required to prove adultery need not necessarily be what is at times said to be proof beyond a shadow of doubt, "It need not reach certainty but must carry a high degree of probability”. 51. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Joydeep Majumdar v. Bharti Jaiswal Majumdar, (2021) 3 SCC 742 , has been pleased to observe that while judging whether the conduct is cruel or not, what has to be seen is whether that conduct, which is sustained over a period of time, renders the life of the spouse so miserable as to make it unreasonable to make one live with the other. The conduct may take the form of abusive or humiliating treatment, causing mental pain and anguish, torturing the spouse, etc. The conduct complained of must be “grave” and “weighty” and trivial irritations and normal wear and tear of marriage would not constitute mental cruelty as a ground for divorce. 52. Further, in the case of Vishwanath Agrawal v. Sarla Vishwanath Agrawal, (2012) 7 SCC 288 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as follows: “22. The expression “cruelty” has an inseparable nexus with human conduct or human behaviour. It is always dependent upon the social strata or the milieu to which the parties belong, their ways of life, relationship, temperaments and emotions that have been conditioned by their social status. 25. After so stating, this Court observed in Shobha Rani case about the marked change in life in modern times and the sea change in matrimonial duties and responsibilities. It has been observed that : (SCC p. 108, para 5) “5. … when a spouse makes a complaint about the treatment of cruelty by the partner in life or relations, the court should not search for standard in life. A set of facts stigmatised as cruelty in one case may not be so in another case. It has been observed that : (SCC p. 108, para 5) “5. … when a spouse makes a complaint about the treatment of cruelty by the partner in life or relations, the court should not search for standard in life. A set of facts stigmatised as cruelty in one case may not be so in another case. The cruelty alleged may largely depend upon the type of life the parties are accustomed to or their economic and social conditions. It may also depend upon their culture and human values to which they attach importance.” 26. Their Lordships in Shobha Rani case referred to the observations made in Sheldon v. Sheldon wherein Lord Denning stated, “the categories of cruelty are not closed”. Thereafter, the Bench proceeded to state thus: (Shobha Rani case, SCC p. 109, paras 5-6) “5. … Each case may be different. We deal with the conduct of human beings who are not generally similar. Among the human beings there is no limit to the kind of conduct which may constitute cruelty. New type of cruelty may crop up in any case depending upon the human behaviour, capacity or incapability to tolerate the conduct complained of. Such is the wonderful (sic) realm of cruelty. 1. These preliminary observations are intended to emphasise that the court in matrimonial cases is not concerned with ideals in family life. The court has only to understand the spouses concerned as nature made them, and consider their particular grievance. As Lord Reid Gollins v. Gollins : (All ER p. 972 G-H) observed in „… In matrimonial affairs we are not dealing with objective standards, it is not a matrimonial offence to fall below the standard of the reasonable man (or the reasonable woman). We are dealing with this man or this woman.?” 53. In the case of Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh, (2007) 4 SCC 511 it has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court as follows: — 99. Human mind is extremely complex and human behaviour is equally complicated. Similarly human ingenuity has no bound, therefore, to assimilate the entire human behaviour in one definition is almost impossible. What is cruelty in one case may not amount to cruelty in other case. Human mind is extremely complex and human behaviour is equally complicated. Similarly human ingenuity has no bound, therefore, to assimilate the entire human behaviour in one definition is almost impossible. What is cruelty in one case may not amount to cruelty in other case. The concept of cruelty differs from person to person depending upon his upbringing, level of sensitivity, educational, family and cultural background, financial position, social status, customs, traditions, religious beliefs, human values and their value system. 100. Apart from this, the concept of mental cruelty cannot remain static; it is bound to change with the passage of time, impact of modern culture through print and electronic media and value system, etc. What may be mental cruelty now may not remain a mental cruelty after a passage of time or vice versa. There can never be any straitjacket formula or fixed parameters for determining mental cruelty in matrimonial matters. The prudent and appropriate way to adjudicate the case would be to evaluate it on its peculiar facts and circumstances while taking aforementioned factors in consideration. 54. Thus, from the aforesaid settled position of law it is evident that “Cruelty” under matrimonial law consists of conduct so grave and weighty as to lead one to the conclusion that one of the spouses cannot reasonably be expected to live with the other spouse. It must be more serious than the ordinary wear and tear of married life. 55. Cruelty must be of such a type which will satisfy the conscience of the Court that the relationship between the parties has deteriorated to such an extent that it has become impossible for them to live together without mental agony. The cruelty practiced may be in many forms and it must be productive of an apprehension in the mind of the other spouse that it is dangerous to live with the erring party. Simple trivialities which can truly be described as a reasonable wear and tear of married life cannot amount to cruelty. In many marriages each party can, if it so wills, discover many a cause for complaint but such grievances arise mostly from temperamental disharmony. Such disharmony or incompatibility is not cruelty and will not furnish a cause for the dissolution of marriage. 56. In many marriages each party can, if it so wills, discover many a cause for complaint but such grievances arise mostly from temperamental disharmony. Such disharmony or incompatibility is not cruelty and will not furnish a cause for the dissolution of marriage. 56. Now re-adverting to the factual aspect, it is evident from the impugned order that the allegations specific to the ground of alleged cruelty has been made by petitioner/plaintiff-Husband vide paras- 5, 8, 9, 10,11, and 12 of his petition/plaint. Starting with paras-5 of the petition/plaint, the plaintiff-husband has alleged that OP/his wife while staying for two days with him, did not allow the petitioner to consummate the marriage by cohabitation on the ground that she is one of the disciples of aforesaid Satsang and permission is required before consummation the marriage and unless she is permitted by her Satsang Philanthropy, Degohar, she cannot consummate the marriage. 57. It is further alleged that the respondent started insisting that the petitioner also to become member of Satsang by taking Diksha otherwise she would not allow him to consummate the marriage. In Para-9, his specific allegation is that the respondent made unreasonable demand to the petitioner for living separately away from his aged parents which was unacceptable for the petitioner because being the eldest son of his family, he has to maintain and support his parents’ need. At para-10, it is alleged that after refusal of demand of the respondent, she refused to co-operate to perform her matrimonial obligation in any manner and on repeated requests made by the petitioner, she refused to co-operate with the petitioner and denied to consummate the marriage. At para-12 of the plaint, it is alleged that after refusal by the petitioner to fulfill her demand, the respondent/Opposite Party refused to come back to her matrimonial home. 58. The aforesaid pleading has been taken care of by the learned Family Judge and it has been observed that “though it is strongly alleged that the respondent-wife had caused mental cruelty by depriving the petitioner-husband to establish sexual intercourse with his wife for a considerable period of time but such an allegation has not been proved. On the other hand, there is material to suggest that the respondent-wife took all possible efforts to restore her marital life with the petitioner, but she was not allowed to do so”. 59. On the other hand, there is material to suggest that the respondent-wife took all possible efforts to restore her marital life with the petitioner, but she was not allowed to do so”. 59. The learned Family Judge further observed that the mother of the petitioner as P.W3 has admitted during cross-examination that on call, when brother and brother-in-law of the respondents came to their house and requested to keep the respondent with them, she refused to keep her as her son was not ready to adjust with her. This shows that the respondent and her family members wanted to live with the petitioner and his family but they refused to keep her with them. 60. 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 at the hands of the respondent- wife rather it was the petitioner-husband who himself has acted cruelty upon the respondent by refusing to keep her with him as wife. 61. At para-12 of the impugned judgment, the learned Family Judge after going through the evidence on record has explained in detail about the non-proving of the allegation of cruelty against the respondent-wife which reads as under: “12. The learned counsel representing the petitioner sought dissolution of marriage on the ground that the matrimonial ties between the parties had irretrievably broken down. It was, therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that this Court would be justified in annulling the marriage between the parties, especially when the parties have lived apart for almost 8 years. It was, therefore, sought to be suggested that there was no likelihood of the parties ever living together as husband and wife. It was accordingly submitted that this Court should consider the annulment of the matrimonial ties between the parties on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage. In the case on hand, though it is strongly alleged that the respondent/wife had caused mental cruelty by depriving the petitioner/husband to establish sexual intercourse with his wife for a considerable period of time but such an allegation has not been proved by the petitioner/husband. In the case on hand, though it is strongly alleged that the respondent/wife had caused mental cruelty by depriving the petitioner/husband to establish sexual intercourse with his wife for a considerable period of time but such an allegation has not been proved by the petitioner/husband. On the other hand, there is material to suggest that the respondent/wife took all possible efforts to restore her marital life with the petitioner, but she was not allowed to do so for the reasons as stated by petitioner's mother PW3 Rekha Devi that even she turned down the request of the respondent to return to her matrimonial house to lead conjugal life with the petitioner because her son (Petitioner) was not ready to adjust with the respondent. The respondent in her written statement as also during her evidence has given statement that the marriage was consummated within two days of marriage. There is evidence to the effect that the respondent had always been inclined to lead conjugal life with the petitioner but it was the petitioner himself who was quite averse to continue his marital life with the respondent. In such facts and circumstances, this court finds that the petitioner himself is taking advantage of his own wrong to seek relief of decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and thus his case for the relief sought because of his own conduct come within the meaning of "wrong" as occurring in section 23(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act. So far as the contention of irretrievable breakdown of marriage is concerned, on a bare reading of Section 13 of the Act, it is crystal clear that no such ground of irretrievable breakdown of the marriage is provided by the legislature for granting a decree of divorce. Apart from this, here in this case, the petitioner himself is responsible for such long period of separation as he himself did not cooperate the respondent to return to her matrimonial house to lead conjugal life and thus he can not be permitted to take advantage of his wrong to plead irretrievable breakdown of marriage to seek relief. Apart from this, here in this case, the petitioner himself is responsible for such long period of separation as he himself did not cooperate the respondent to return to her matrimonial house to lead conjugal life and thus he can not be permitted to take advantage of his wrong to plead irretrievable breakdown of marriage to seek relief. Hence, considering the whole facts and circumstances of this case together with the established law and evidence discussed above, this court has come to the conclusion that the petitioner has failed to discharge the burden of proving that he was subjected to cruelty of such a nature which has now made impossible for him to continue his marital tie with the respondent. Accordingly, Both these issues are decided against the petitioner.” 62. Now, again coming on the issue of cruelty, it requires to refer herein that the Hon’ble Apex Court in Joydeep Majumdar v. Bharti Jaiswal Majumdar (supra) 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. 63. It needs to refer herein that the foundation of a sound marriage is acceptance, adjustment and respecting one another. Tolerance to each other's fault to a certain bearable extent has to be inherent in every marriage. Petty quibbles, trifling differences should not be inflated to abolish what is said to have been made in heaven. All quarrels must be weighed from that point of view in determining what constitutes cruelty in each particular case and as noted above, always keeping in view the physical and mental conditions of the parties, their character and social status. A too technical and hyper-sensitive approach would be counter- productive to the institution of marriage. The Courts do not have to deal with ideal husbands and ideal wives. It has to deal with particular man and woman before it. The ideal couple or a mere ideal one will probably have no occasion to go to Matrimonial Court. 64. The Hon’ble Supreme Court consistently held that the petitioner must show a consistent pattern of behavior by the respondent to prove cruelty, and occasional outbursts of anger or quarrels do not necessarily amount to cruelty. 65. The ideal couple or a mere ideal one will probably have no occasion to go to Matrimonial Court. 64. The Hon’ble Supreme Court consistently held that the petitioner must show a consistent pattern of behavior by the respondent to prove cruelty, and occasional outbursts of anger or quarrels do not necessarily amount to cruelty. 65. In the instant case, it is evident from the evidence of the petitioner-husband as P.W1 who has admitted at para-45 of his cross- examination that the family members of the respondent has requested them to keep the respondent with him. Thereafter, on call the brother and brother-in-law of the respondent came to his house to make a request to keep the respondent with him. At para-46, he has admitted that it is true that when the petitioner and his family members refused to keep the respondent with him, then her brother-Lal Muni Singh and brother-in-law, Babloo Singh had written a letter to him. At para-47, he has admitted that it is true that after refusal by them to keep the respondent with him, the respondent also wrote a letter to him in her own handwriting and thereafter he has filed the suit for divorce. Thus, it is evident from the aforesaid admission that it is the petitioner who has meted out cruelty upon the respondent by not agreeing to keep her. 66. This Court, on the premise of the interpretation of the word “cruelty” has considered the evidences of the witnesses as has been incorporated by the learned Court in the impugned judgment. 67. It is evident from the interpretation of the word cruelty that the same is to be considered on different parameters depending upon the material, if available on record as discussed hereinabove in the preceding paragraphs. 68. Herein, 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 as discussed hereinabove. 69. 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 has well been considered by the learned Family Judge. 70. 69. 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 has well been considered by the learned Family Judge. 70. 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 against the respondent-wife, rather it is the appellant-husband, who himself has committed cruelty upon the respondent by making allegation of being a disciple of particular religious order and by not allowing to live with him and, thus, deserted her. 71. It needs to refer herein that a spouse converting to another religion (non-Hindu,) is a valid ground for divorce as per section 13(1) (ii) of the Act 1955 however, merely becoming a disciple or following a specific sect within Hinduism does not constitute legal conversion, making it an insufficient ground for divorce. 72. Thus, it is considered view of this Court that adherence of respondent wife to a specific guru or religious philosophy within the fold of Hinduism does not automatically qualify the appellant/husband for dissolution of marriage, but if the disciple-ship constitutes complete detachment from worldly life and marital obligation and if the wife’s devotion to the religion causes extreme mental cruelty, such as abandoning household responsibilities or causing harm to the marital relationship, it may be pursued under the ground of cruelty but in the instant case the appellant/husband has failed to prove the element of cruelty against the respondent-wife. 73. 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. 74. This Court, therefore, is of the view that the judgment dated 07.05.2024 and the decree dated 16.05.2024 passed in Original (Matrimonial) Suit No.295 of 2017 by the learned Family Judge need no interference and, accordingly, the instant appeal stands dismissed. 75. Pending I.As, if any, stands disposed of. I agree - Arun Kumar Rai, J.