Jharkhand High Court
Ritu Gupta Age 26 Years Old D/O Dipak … vs Anupam Bipul S/O Bhairo Lal Gupta on 12 March, 2026
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
2026:JHHC:6760-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
F.A. No. 63 of 2025
------------
1. Ritu Gupta age 26 years old D/O Dipak Kumar Gupta resident of Gulli
Bhatta, P.O. & P.S Sahebganj, District-Sahibganj
... ... Appellant/Defendant
Versus
Anupam Bipul S/O Bhairo Lal Gupta, resident of Gulab Bagh
Purandaha, P.O. & P.S. Deoghar, District Deoghar
... ... Respondent/Plaintiff
-------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI
-------
For the Appellant : Mr. Sabyasanchi, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. P.S. Dayal, Advocate
Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate
----------------------------
CAV on 18th February, 2026 Pronounced on 12/03/2026
Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
Prayer
1. The instant appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984
is directed against the Judgment dated 30.08.2024 passed by the learned
Principal Judge, Family Court, Sahibganj in Original Suit No.69 of 2022,
whereby and whereunder, the learned Family Judge has allowed the suit
filed by the plaintiff-husband (respondent herein), under Section 13 of the
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 dissolving the marriage and further directed the
plaintiff-husband to pay Rs.5 lacs as permanent alimony to the defendant-
wife (appellant herein).
Factual Matrix
2. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleading made by the plaintiff
required to be referred, as under:
1
2026:JHHC:6760-DB
3. It is the case that marriage of the plaintiff (respondent herein) was
solemnized with the defendant (appellant herein) on 17.02.2021 as per
Hindu customs and rites at Deoghar and family members of the defendant
has spent Rs. 5,55,000/- only and entire marriage expenditure including
hotel charges, reception charges and fair was done by the plaintiff’s
family. It is further pleaded that in the starting days of marriage of the
plaintiff there was happy conjugal life in between them but after some
days the family members of the defendant started making excessive
interference in the family matter of the plaintiff then bitterness started in
their marital relation. During the whole stay of the defendant at her
matrimonial home, she was never assaulted and ill-treated by the plaintiff.
4. When the plaintiff is fit in all respects including in the matter of sex
then the question of examination by a medical practitioner does not arise.
During the pendency of the bail matter of the plaintiff, mediation started
and in that mediation the family members of the defendant asserted that
both parties will live together as husband and wife and they did not insist
the plaintiff for getting the medical examination of the plaintiff done and
even during the maintenance proceeding it has been deposed by the
defendant’s side that without any condition the defendant will live with the
plaintiff, from which it appears that false allegations of impotency of the
plaintiff has been alleged by the defendant. It is further pleaded that
imposing false allegations of demand of dowry or impotency of the
plaintiff by the defendant amounts to cruelty because of prestige of the
plaintiff and his family members have been damaged and undermined in
the society and their family circle and still the defendant and his family
members are not ready to accept their fault and to apologize to the family
2
2026:JHHC:6760-DB
members of the plaintiff for their mental, physical harassment and agony.
This Court has been pleased to impose Rupees Seven Lakhs in the order
of Anticipatory Bail petition and it was further ordered that the said
amount will be adjusted as one time settlement or in the maintenance
amount. The defendant’s family took ornaments of Rs. five Lakhs on
08.03.2021, which had been given by the plaintiff’s family at the time of
marriage of the parties. The conjugal relation lastly resumed at Deoghar
on 07.03.2021. The plaintiff was completely hale and hearty youth and he
was unnecessarily made a scapegoat by the family members of the
defendant to shut their scheme.
5. It has further been stated that relation of both the parties has been
damaged that there is no chance or worth for continuing their relations and
two cases are pending between both the parties, first under Section 498A
of the I.P.C and 2nd under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.
6. On these grounds a relief had been sought by the plaintiff/husband by
filing a suit to grant decree of divorce against the defendant/wife
(appellant herein).
7. The said suit was filed by the plaintiff/husband on 25.03.2022 and the
same had been admitted on 29.03.2022 and thereafter, the plaintiff was
directed to file necessary requisites for issuance of summons against the
defendant and in pursuance of notice issued against the defendant/wife,
the defendant appeared on 31.05.2022 and thereafter matter was referred
to mediation centre but the same could not succeed then the defendant was
directed to file her written statement.
3
2026:JHHC:6760-DB
8. The defendant has filed her written statement on 19.12.2022 and as
per her written statement the defendant’s plea, in brief, is that the suit was
filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for taking divorce without any
cogent reason and excuse. The plaintiff has filed the said suit with false,
baseless and mislead facts and with such type of pleading, the plaintiff is
trying to take decree of divorce wrongly. The plaintiff having ulterior
motive or view to pressurize her for minimize earlier criminal case i.e.
Sahebganj (T) P.S. Case No. 103/2021, which has been lodged by the
defendant u/s 406/420/498 A/504/506/34 of the I.P.C and 3/4 of the D.P.
Act and at present the same is pending before the court of learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Sahebganj at the stage of framing of charge.
9. It had further been stated that the marriage of the defendant was
solemnized with the plaintiff on 17.02.2021 as per Hindu customs and
rites and several household articles, ornaments and cash were taken by the
plaintiff and his family members and the defendant was brought by the
plaintiff to his house and on the very next day family members of the
plaintiff started quarreling and abusing the defendant and as per order of
her Bhaisur four syringe blood was taken by the plaintiff and his parents
and on being protest raised by the defendant, the plaintiff and his parents
told her that her blood test will be done by the doctor. The ornaments of
the defendant were forcibly taken by the plaintiff and his mother and they
also tried to snatch her mobile and on being protest raised by the
defendant her hand was cut by her mother-in-law by knife and her mother-
in-law made pressure upon the defendant to cut her hair also. The plaintiff
did not establish any marital relation with her and, she was abused and
assaulted by the plaintiff and thereafter the defendant informed her mother
4
2026:JHHC:6760-DB
about this fact and on 06.03.2022 her parents tried to convince the
plaintiff’s parents for testing this fact through mobile but plaintiff and his
family members tortured and ill-treated her and her parents and they
demanded one golden Nath and Rs. five Lakhs cash as dowry and they
further told that the defendant is ill.
10. On 07.03.2021 at about 11.00 A.M. the defendant was assaulted and
threatened to kill by her in-laws and they also tried to snatch her Mobile,
in which she sustained head injury. On 08.03.2021, she informed her
mother through mobile and thereafter her parents along with her elder
sister and brother-in-law went there but the plaintiff did not allow them to
meet with the defendant. It is further pleaded that the defendant’s mother
told the parents of the plaintiff regarding the plaintiff’s illness because
their relation is not good and she told them that there is need of testing of
the plaintiff then the plaintiff’s mother abused and refused to give her
bedai. The defendant lodged a complaint against her in-laws which was
later on registered in Sahebganj (Town) P.S. and in that case the plaintiff
has been allowed bail by the Hon’ble High Court subject to condition of
depositing demand draft of Rs. 7 Lakhs in favour of the defendant as the
plaintiff was not ready to take bidai of his wife before the Hon’ble Court
also. The plaintiff is totally dancing on wrong direction of his parents and
on their instruction and instigation he has filed the wrong and false
divorce case on mislead facts without having reasonable cause and excuse
despite of fact that the defendant made several approach for joint marital
life with the plaintiff but the plaintiff and his parents were adamant for
divorce.
5
2026:JHHC:6760-DB
11. In original maintenance case, the plaintiff has vehemently refused to
take bedai of the defendant and it has been falsely alleged by him that his
social image got tarnished, rather, the defendant’s life and future became
very dark due to ill-treatment by the plaintiff and she herself felt
humiliation in society. It has further been stated that the plaintiff and his
family members tortured the defendant and her parents in various ways
during her stay at her matrimonial home and there was no reason to
damage the image of the plaintiff in society rather social image of the
defendant has been damaged in her society. The entire grievance of the
plaintiff is not genuine so the same was not tenable in the eyes of law and
the plaintiff has no valid cause of action for the suit.
12. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were
framed by the learned Family Judge, which are as follows: –
(i) Is the suit as framed maintainable?
(ii) Has the plaintiff cause of action for the suit?
(iii) Has after the solemnization of the marriage, the
defendant treated the plaintiff with cruelty?
(iv) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of divorce?
13. In order to substantiate the fact referred in the plaint, the plaintiff has
altogether produced and examined five witnesses as follows:-
List of Plaintiff’s witnesses
Rank Name of witnesses Nature of witnesses
6
2026:JHHC:6760-DBPW.1 Ajit Kumar Cousin of plaintiff
PW-2 Udai Kumar Cousin (Fufera brother)
of the plaintiff.
PW.3 Bhairo Lal Gupta Father of the plaintiff
PW.4 Anupam Bipul Plaintiff of this suit.
PW.5 Padma Gupta Mother of the plaintiff.
14. Besides oral evidence, following documents have been exhibited in
favour of the plaintiff:-
List of Plaintiff’s Exhibits
Sr. No Exhibits Description
1 Ext.1 Certified copy of order sheet dated
20.01.2022, passed by Ld. CJM
Sahebganj in Sahebganj (T) P.S. Case
No.103/2021 (State Vs. Anupam Bipul &
others)2 Ext.2 Certified copy of F.I.R. of Sahebganj (T)
P.S. Case No.103/2021
15. In order to substantiate the facts mentioned in her written statement,
the defendant has although not produced any documentary evidence but
she has produced and examined altogether three witnesses, as follows:-
List of Defendant’s witnesses
Rank Name of witnesses Nature of witnesses
D.W.1 Deepak Kumar Gupta Father of the defendant
D.W.2 Manita Devi Mother of the defendant
D.W.3 Ritu Gupta Defendant of this suit.
7
2026:JHHC:6760-DB
16. The evidences have been made on behalf of both the parties.
Thereafter, the judgment has been passed allowing the suit filed under
Sections 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act dissolving the marriage, which is
the subject matter of the present appeal.
Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant-wife:
17. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that the factual aspect
which was available before the learned Family Judge supported by the
evidences adduced on behalf of the appellant-wife has not properly been
considered and as such, the judgment impugned is perverse, hence, not
sustainable in the eyes of law.
18. It has further been submitted that the appellant-wife was solemnized
marriage with the plaintiff as per Hindu customs and rites and several
household articles, ornaments and cash were taken by the plaintiff and his
family members. The ornaments of the defendant were forcibly taken by
the plaintiff and his mother they also tried to snatch her mobile phone and
on being protest raised by the defendant, her hand was cut by her mother-
in-law by knife and her mother-in-law made pressure upon the defendant
to cut her hair also.
19. It has been contended that the appellant-wife is still ready to lead her
conjugal life with her husband. The appellant-wife has been subjected to
cruelty by her husband.
20. It has further been contended that the respondent-husband has totally
failed to establish the fact by producing the evidence before the Family
Court that the appellant-wife has treated him with cruelty.
8
2026:JHHC:6760-DB
21. Learned counsel for the appellant-wife, based upon the aforesaid
grounds, has submitted that the judgment impugned suffers from
perversity, as such, not sustainable in the eyes of law.
Submission of the learned counsel for the respondent-husband
22. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-husband, while
defending the impugned judgment, has submitted that there is no error in
the impugned judgement. The learned Family Judge has considered all the
aspects of the matter and came to the conclusion that the appellant-wife
has caused mental cruelty to her husband/respondent by way of making
such false allegations and hence, allowed the suit filed by the plaintiff-
husband, respondent herein.
23. It has been contended that after some days of marriage, the family
members of the appellant-wife started making excessive interference in
the family matter of the respondent-husband. The appellant-wife was
never assaulted and ill-treated by the respondent-husband.
24. It has also been submitted that during the pendency of the bail matter
of the respondent-husband (plaintiff), mediation started and in that
mediation, the family members of the appellant-wife (defendant) asserted
that both the parties will live together as husband and wife and they did
not insist the respondent for getting medical examination of the
respondent-husband done and even during the maintenance proceeding, it
has been deposed by the appellant’s side that without any condition, the
appellant-wife will live with the respondent-husband, from which, it
appears that false allegations of impotency of the respondent-husband has
been alleged by the appellant-wife.
9
2026:JHHC:6760-DB
25. It has been contended that imposing false allegations of demand of
dowry or impotency of the respondent-husband by the appellant-wife
amounts to cruelty.
26. It has been further contended that the appellant’s family took
ornaments of Rs. Five lacs on 08.03.2021, which had been given by the
respondent’s (plaintiff) family at the time of marriage of the parties.
27. Learned counsel, based upon the aforesaid grounds, has submitted that
the learned Family Court while taking into consideration the aforesaid
factual aspect has rightly allowed the suit filed under Section 13 of the
Hindu Marriage Act, therefore, the impugned judgment cannot be said to
suffer from an error.
Analysis:
28. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone
through the findings recorded by the learned Family Judge in the
impugned judgment.
29. The case has been heard at length. The admitted fact herein is that the
suit for decree of divorce against the appellant-wife has been filed under
Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act and accordingly, issues have been
framed.
30. The evidence has been led on behalf of both the parties. For ready
reference, the evidences led on behalf of the parties are being referred as
under:
31. The plaintiff, the respondent herein has examined the five witnesses in
support of his claim, which are as follows: –
10
2026:JHHC:6760-DB
P.W.1-Ajit Kumar (Cousin of plaintiff), P.W.2-Udai Kumar
(Cousin of the plaintiff), P.W.3-Bhairo Lal Gupta (Father of the plaintiff),
P.W.4-Anupam Bipul (plaintiff himself) and P.W.5-Padma Gupta (Mother
of the plaintiff), for ready reference, the deposition of these witnesses are
being referred hereinbelow:-
PW.1. Ajit Kumar is the cousin of the plaintiff and he has
deposed in his examination-in-chief that he is acquainted with both sides.
He has further deposed in para-2 that ornaments had been given by the
family members of Ritu Gupta at the time of her marriage but all the
ornaments were returned to her at the time of her bedai from Deoghar. He
has further deposed in para-3 that both couples lived happily at the time of
their initial stage of marriage but later on the family members of the
defendant Ritu Guta started intervening in their conjugal life due to which
some bitterness developed in between both the couples. He has further
deposed in para-4 that the defendant Ritu Gupta was not being subjected
to cruelty or she was not being ill-treated while she was living in her
matrimonial home by anyone. He has further deposed in para-5 that
Anupam Bipul is fully healthy in sex matter as such question of his
medical examination does not arise. He has further deposed in para-6 that
due to serious allegation imposed by the parents of the defendant against
the plaintiff, the reputation of plaintiff and his entire family has been
tarnished in the eyes of his relatives as well as in the eyes of society,
which cannot be compensated. He has further deposed in para-7 that
during the mediation of 498A case or in maintenance case the defendant
told the plaintiff to lead conjugal life together but since the reputation of
plaintiff Anupam Bipul has been deteriorated in the society and he has
11
2026:JHHC:6760-DBsuffered from physical and mental agony, he is not ready to keep the
defendant with him as his wife. He has further deposed in para 8 that
imposing false allegation against the brother and Bhabhi of the plaintiff
also comes under the category of cruelty which is also ground of divorce.
He has further deposed in para-9 that Rs. 7 Lakhs has already been paid to
the defendant in the light of order of the Hon’ble Court during the hearing
of bail petition. During cross examination, he has further deposed in para-
10 that Anupam Bipul is his own cousin brother. He has further deposed
in para-11 that at present the plaintiff resides at Purandaha Deoghar with
his parents.
He has further deposed in para-12 to 14 that there was no
mediator in their marriage and both had seen each other before their
marriage. He has come to know about their marriage at the time of
engagement. He has further deposed in para-15 that he is only acquainted
with mother of Ritu Gupta but he does not recognize her father. He did not
talk with the defendant and their parents about their marriage. He has
further deposed in para-16 that whenever, the family members of the
plaintiff come to Sahebganj they usually stay at his home. He has further
deposed in para-17 that his uncle i.e. father of plaintiff Anupam Bipul has
retired from bank and he gets pension also and the plaintiff is a You-tuber.
He has further deposed in para-19 that Ritu Gupta lived in her
matrimonial home till 10-12 days. He has further deposed in para-20 that
after marriage, the plaintiff has never visited his sasural.
He has further deposed in para-21 that he did not try to pacify
the matter when dispute arose in between them. He has further deposed in
12
2026:JHHC:6760-DB
para-23 that it is not true that Ritu Gupta was tortured for dowry, while
she was residing at her sasural. He has further deposed in para-24 that
troubles started in their married life from the very first day and the said
fact came to his knowledge from the family members of the plaintiff and
defendant was convinced by the family members of the plaintiff but she
did not ready for the same. He has further deposed in para-25 that earlier
he has come to depose his evidence in court in another case pending in
between both of them.
He has further deposed in para-26 that Anupam Bipul will
solemnize another marriage after getting free from defendant as now he is
fully frustrated with his marriage.
He has further deposed in para-28 and 29 that Ritu had not
been subjected to cruelty by her in-laws and Ritu has lodged dowry case
and maintenance case against her husband and her in-laws. He has further
deposed in para-31 and 33 that now the plaintiff does not want to keep his
wife with him due to unnecessarily interference of the parents of the
defendant. He has further deposed in para-36 that he wants to get his
cousin rid of the defendant.
PW-2 Udai Kumar Sah is Fufera brother (Cousin) of the
plaintiff and he has deposed at para-1 of his examination-in-chief that he
is acquainted with both sides of this suit. He has further deposed in para-2
that that all the costs of marriage of the plaintiff were paid by the family
members of the plaintiff. He has further deposed in para 3 that ornaments
had been given by the family members of Ritu Gupta at the time of her
marriage but all the ornaments were returned to her at the time of her
13
2026:JHHC:6760-DB
bedai from Deoghar. He has further deposed in para-4 that both couples
lived happy at the time of their initial stage of marriage but later on the
family members of the defendant Ritu Guta started intervening in their
conjugal life due to which some bitterness developed in between both the
couples.
He has further deposed in para-5 that the defendant Ritu Gupta
was not being subjected to cruelty or she was not being ill-treated while
she was living in her matrimonial home by anyone.
He has further deposed in para-6 that Anupam Bipul is fully
healthy in sex matter as such question of his medical examination does not
arise. He has further deposed in para-6 that due to serious allegation
imposed by the parents of the defendant against the plaintiff, the
reputation of plaintiff and his entire family has been tarnished in the eyes
of his relatives as well as in the eyes of society, which cannot be
compensated. He has further deposed in para-8 that during the mediation
of 498A case or in maintenance case the defendant told the plaintiff to
lead conjugal life together but since the reputation of plaintiff Anupam
Bipul has been deteriorated in the society and he has suffered from
physical and mental agony, he is not ready to keep the defendant with him
as his wife. He has further deposed in para 9 that imposing false allegation
against the brother and Bhabhi of the plaintiff also comes under the
category of cruelty which is also ground of divorce. He has further
deposed in para-9 that Rs. 7 Lakhs has already been paid to the defendant
in the light of order of the Hon’ble Court during the hearing of bail
petition. He has further deposed in para-10 that while he was called by the
14
2026:JHHC:6760-DB
mother of the defendant at Sahebganj then he asked the defendant that it
has been alleged by her that her hand has been cut by in-laws then it was
told by the defendant that she does not have cut injury rather she had
pasted Mehandi on her hands.
He has further deposed in para-11 that Rs. 7 Lakhs has already
been paid to the defendant in the light of order of the Hon’ble Court during
the hearing of bail matters. During cross-examination, he has further
deposed that in para-12 that plaintiff is his own maternal brother and he
has no relation with the defendant. He has further deposed in para-13 that
he had given contact number of the family members of the plaintiff to
defendant for negotiation of marriage in between them.
He has further deposed in para-14 that he had gone to the house
of the plaintiff once after his marriage. He was informed by mother of
Ritu Gupta that the defendant has come to Sahebganj.
He has further deposed in para-15 to 17 that he has not visited
Deoghar while the plaintiff and defendant resided there but his maternal
brother frequently comes to his house at Sahebganj. He has further
deposed that he has no conversation with the plaintiff and defendant while
they were living together. He has further deposed in para-18 that he
cannot say that the plaintiff and his family members used to assault Ritu
Gupta after marriage for dowry.
He has further deposed in para-19 that there is a pucca house of
his maternal uncle at Deoghar where the plaintiff lives with his parents
and another brother lives separately from them. He has further deposed in
para-20 that the plaintiff Anupam Bipul is a You-tuber. He has further
15
2026:JHHC:6760-DB
deposed in para-21 that he has no relation with the mother of the
defendant. He has further deposed in para-22 that once mother of the
defendant had told him for Bedai of her daughter then he advised her to
talk with father of the plaintiff. He has further deposed in para-23 that he
has no knowledge that his maternal uncle and his family members used to
visit in Sahebganj or not. He has further deposed in para-24 that the
defendant wants to go to her matrimonial home but the plaintiff and his
family members do not want to keep her with them. He has further
deposed in para-26 to 28 that he is deposing evidence on the direction of
his maternal uncle and his advocate. He has further deposed in para-29
that as per his knowledge a case is pending in between both the parties for
altercation took place in between them. He has further deposed in para-30
& 31 that he has no knowledge that the plaintiff wants to solemnize
another marriage after giving divorce to his wife and it is not true that he
is giving false evidence in favour of his maternal brother.
PW-3 Bhairo Lal Gupta is father of the plaintiff and he has
deposed in para-3 of his examination-in-chief that in the beginning of
married life the defendant Ritu Gupta lived happily at her matrimonial
house with his son Anupam Bipul but later on due to excessive
interference of the family members of the defendant in their married life,
tense relation started in their marital life and the family members of the
defendant Ritu Gupta started making baseless demands for unnecessarily
medical examination of his son Anupam Bipul. He has further deposed in
para-4 that in the initial days when both the husband and wife used to
spend nights together, the defendant Ritu Gupta never made any
complaint to them against her husband.
16
2026:JHHC:6760-DB
He has further deposed in para-5 that the family members of
the defendant got the Bedai of the defendant Ritu Gupta taken with their
ornaments and thereafter the defendant lodged a false case u/s 498A of the
I.P.C against his both sons, his wife and wife of his elder son in Saheganj
but during investigation, the police did not find any evidence against his
elder son and his wife and the police submitted final form. He has further
deposed in para-6 that the entire acts have been done by Ritu Gupta under
the influence of her family members and now when she has realized her
mistake after spreading so much bitterness and rumours in the society and
proving his son to be an eunuch in the entire society, she wants to spend
her married life with his son again, which is not acceptable to his son
under any circumstances.
He has further deposed in para-7 that the reputation of his entire
family has been tarnished in the eyes of entire society which cannot be
compensated. He has further deposed in para-8 & 9 that false & concocted
story has been created by the defendant against him and his family
members in the case of 498A of the I.P.C and maintenance case which
comes under the category of cruelty as his son is suffering from mental
and physical agony due to that allegation and now he is not ready to lead
his conjugal life with the defendant in any situation which is ground for
divorce.
During cross-examination, he has further deposed in para-10
that he lives in Deoghar since 1992 and his elder brother lives in
Sahebganj and he occasionally used to visit Sahebganj at the house of his
elder brother. He has further deposed in para-12 to 14 that he has two sons
17
2026:JHHC:6760-DB
out of whom his elder son is a medical officer. He has further deposed that
the plaintiff is a You-tuber since the time of his marriage. He has two
storied building in Deoghar, in which his both sons also live. He has
further deposed in para-15 that the marriage of Anupam Bipul was
solemnized with Ritu Gupta on 17.02.2021 and there was no mediator in
their marriage but marriage was solemnized after understanding
everything. He has further deposed in para-16 that Rs five Lakhs fifty-five
thousand was given by the family members of Ritu Gupta in his account at
the time of marriage of his son and they had given Rs 5,000/- cash for
purchasing of clothes etc. He has further deposed in para-17 that Ritu
Gupta has not been residing with his son at his house since 07.03.2021.
He had further deposed in para-18 &19 that there is no conversation with
Ritu Gupta or her parents since 07.03.2021 when Ritu went to her maike
rather he had told her mother on phone for her bedai but he had not sent
legal notice or any case was lodged by him against her.
He has further deposed in para-20 that family members of Ritu
Gupta did not come to his house for making any request for getting bedai
of Ritu Gupta done.
He has further deposed in para-21 that after marriage Ritu lived
with his son Anupam Bipul for some days only but there is no offspring
out of their conjugal relation. He has further deposed in para-22 & 23 that
it is not true that when he refused to take bedai of Ritu Gupta then the
family members of the defendant lodged a dowry case, rather, he was
ready to take bedai of defendant before lodging the said case. He has
further deposed in para-24 that a case u/s 498A of the I.P.C. is still
18
2026:JHHC:6760-DB
pending against them. He has further deposed in para-25 that his son
Anupam Bipul does not take self-decisions against his will which is
generally happens in every family but some decisions is taken by his son
himself also.
He has further deposed in para 27 that he has knowledge that
an order of maintenance allowance has been passed against his son which
had been filed by Ritu Gupta. He has further deposed in para-29 that his
son is not impotent and they do not ready to take the defendant Ritu Gupta
with them due to their bad reputation in entire society. He has further
deposed in para-30 that since they have visiting term at Sahebganj so this
case has been filed by them here.
He has further deposed in para-31 & 32 that it is also not true
to say that Ritu Gupta was assaulted by them when she was residing there.
It is also not true to say that just after 2 to 3 days of their marriage they
did not want to keep the defendant with them as they did not like her. He
has further deposed in para-33 that it is also not true to say that marriage
of his son has been fixed at another place. He has further deposed in para-
34 that it is also not true to say that they subjected the defendant to cruelty
and when they did not ready to bring her back then the defendant lodged a
dowry case and maintenance case against them. He has further deposed in
para-37 that it is also not true to say that their family has not been exposed
in the society by the family of Ritu Gupta and their reputation has not
been tarnished in their society.
He has further deposed in para-38 that he is deposing his
evidence in divorce case and his son has got all the facts of this case
19
2026:JHHC:6760-DB
written and at that time he was also present there. He has further deposed
in para-39 that it is not true to say that he got the instant false case lodged
through his son and he wants to get another marriage of his son done after
realizing huge amount and today he has given false evidence in support of
his son.
PW-5 Padma Gupta is mother of the plaintiff and she has
almost reiterated the same version in her examination-in-chief as deposed
by her husband Bhairo Lal Gupta (PW-3) in his examination-in-chief and
as such, to avoid repetition only relevant portion of her cross-examination
is being discussed here.
During cross-examination, she has further deposed in para-10
that Anupam Bipul is her younger son and Abhinav Atul is her elder son,
who lives outside. She has further deposed that the date of marriage of her
son Anupam Bipul is not in her memory. She has further deposed that the
marriage of Anupam Bipul was solemnized with Ritu Gupta with the
consent of her entire family members. She has further deposed that
Anupam Bipul lives with her in her house. She has further deposed that
after marriage Ritu Gupta lived at her house only 15 to 17 days and no
altercation took place between her son and daughter-in-law in her
presence but she has no knowledge as to what has happened between
them. She has further deposed that her son works in You-tube and earlier
he was doing job in Bengaluru but after Corona he is doing his job from
home. She has further deposed that defendant Ritu Gupta came back two
and half years ago and thereafter they tried to get her back but she did not
come. She has further deposed that her son had not gone to take bedai of
20
2026:JHHC:6760-DB
his wife. She has further deposed that there is no issue from wedlock of
her son and her daughter in law.
She has further deposed in para-11 that it is not true to say that
they used to demand of Rs. 5 Lakhs as dowry from her daughter-in-law
due to which her daughter-in-law has lodged a case against them. She has
further deposed in para-12 that she cannot say as to whether marital
relation was established in between her son and her daughter in law or not.
She has further deposed in para-13 that it is not true to say that she wants
to get another marriage of her son solemnized. She has further deposed in
para-14 that now they do not want to keep Ritu Gupta with them. She has
filed a medical report of her son after getting medical examination of her
son done on demand of her family members. She has further deposed that
her son pay respect to her but he is free to take independent decisions and
she has no objection if her son is ready to keep his wife with him. She has
further deposed in para-15 that it is not true to say that they did not like
Ritu Gupta since after her marriage.
32. The defendant, appellant herein has also examined the following
witnesses in support of her claim, which are as follows:-
D.W.1-Deepak Kumar Gupta (father of the defendant), D.W.2-
Manita Devi (mother of the defendant) and D.W.3-Ritu Gupta (defendant
of the suit).
DW-3 Ritu Gupta has deposed in para-1 of her examination-
in-chief that the plaintiff is her husband and her marriage was solemnized
with him on 17.02.2021 as per Hindu customs and rites and Rs. seven
Lakhs and Fifty-five thousand cash, ornaments and domestic articles were
21
2026:JHHC:6760-DBgiven by her family members to them at the time of her marriage and after
marriage she went to her matrimonial home where the plaintiff and his
family members started subjecting her physical and mental cruelty for
golden ornaments (Nath) and even proper meal was not being provided to
her. She has further deposed in para-2 that 4 Syringe blood was taken by
the plaintiff and his family members forcibly from her body on the pretext
of getting her blood test done and they used to keep the plaintiff away
with her and her mother-in-law inflected cut injury in her hand by knife
during snatching her mobile and the plaintiff and his parents used to put
pressure upon her to keep Hippi chul and even her mother-in-law tried to
cut her hair also and when she raised protest then her husband broke all
his relation with her and even after living with her he did not make marital
relationship with her.
She has further deposed in para-3 that she became suspicious
and started telling everything to her maternal family, then her parents used
to talk to her husband and his parents regarding the same then her
husband’s parents used to make excuse by saying that they will get their
son medically examined. She has further deposed that after some days her
family members came to her matrimonial home for taking her bedai but
they were ill-treated by her in-laws and they demanded Rs five lakhs from
her parents and they did not give her bedai and assaulted her brutally. She
has further deposed in para-4 that after getting information again her
parents came there but they were not permitted to meet her and they again
gave false assurance of getting the medical examination of her husband
done and thereafter her parents brought her to Sahebganj. She has further
deposed that her parents requested her husband and his parents for taking
22
2026:JHHC:6760-DBher bedai but they avoided on one pretext or other by getting the medical
examination of her husband done. She has further deposed that mediator
of her marriage namely Uday Kumar several times came to her house and
whenever she and her family members requested them for getting her
bedai done, it was being told by them that they will take her bedai only on
payment of Rs 5 lacs more and when despite of several requests the
plaintiff did not take her bedai then she lodged a case against her husband
and her in laws. She has further deposed that even in that case the plaintiff
did not file his medical report.
She has further deposed that several times matter were referred
to mediation, in which initially her husband became ready for taking her
bedai but later on in collusion with his parents he refused to take her bedai
due to not providing him more money. She has further deposed in para-6
that the plaintiff works as You-tubers and during that business he came in
contact with several girls to whom he wants to solemnize his marriage.
She has further deposed in para-7 that her parental family have
never interfered in her conjugal life rather the plaintiff’s mother used to
interfere in their marriage life and parents of her husband, due to greed of
dowry, have wrong intention of not keeping her and getting a divorce
from her husband.
She has further deposed in para-8 that the plaintiff and his
parents are responsible for not making physical relation with her. She has
further deposed that the plaintiff’s parent themselves wanted to get the
medical checkup of her husband done. She has further deposed that she
does not want to give divorce to her husband. She has further deposed in
23
2026:JHHC:6760-DBpara-9 that the plaintiff and his family members left her in her parental
home since the year 2022 due to not providing more dowry to them and
because she is not a model girl, whereas she and her parents have always
paid respect to her husband and her parents and she has never hurt their
feeling.
She has further deposed that her action and behaviour did not
cause any social or mental harm to her husband rather she has herself
made victim for leaving her in parental home and not taking her bedai.
She has further deposed in para-10 that the plaintiff’s parents have
wrongly spread rumor of impotency of her husband and on this pretext,
they have filed false divorce case against her and the entire claims of her
husband is false and baseless.
During cross-examination, in para-12, she has deposed that it is
true that Rs five Lakhs fifty-five thousand had been transferred to the
plaintiff through bank and rest amount was given in cash and some
articles were also given to them. She has further deposed in para-14 that it
is not true that before this suit she had lodged a case against her husband,
father-in-law, mother-in-law and Jethani accusing them of getting her
marriage solemnized with an impotent boy but in para-15 it has been
accepted by her that the said case is pending before the court of Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Sahebganj. She has further deposed in para-16 & 17
that it is true that it has been alleged by her in that case that she has been
subjected to cruelty by not getting proper food and suffering from illness
and it is also true that her bedai was given from her sasural with her
ornaments. She has further deposed in para-18 that it has been alleged that
24
2026:JHHC:6760-DBby her in that case that her husband Anupam Bipul got acquainted with
many model girls while working in You-tube due to which he wanted to
solemnize his marriage with a model girl. She has further deposed in para-
19 that she has also got it written in that case that her hand was cut by her
mother-in-law with a knife while snatching her mobile but she did not get
her treatment done.
She has further deposed in para-20 that she has also got it
written in her 498A case that parents of her husband have deliberately
lodged a false case after believing the rumor of impotency of her husband.
She has further deposed in para -21 that it is not true that she has made
allegation in her 498A case that her husband is incapable in establishing
marital relations.
She has further deposed in para-22 that her husband himself
told her that he is an impotent then she told her mother-in-law about this
then the question of medical examination of her husband was raised but
the family members of her husband did not get the medical examination of
her husband done. She has further deposed that she has not stated in 498A
case that Udai Kumar, who was mediator of her marriage, deliberately got
her marriage done with an impotent boy.
She has further deposed in para-24 that it is not true that due to
imposing false allegation of impotency of her husband by her, the
reputation of her husband and his family members have been tarnished in
the society. She has further deposed in para-26 that it is true that she is
still ready to go to her matrimonial home despite of being harassed by her
25
2026:JHHC:6760-DB
in-laws for demand of dowry and subjecting her to physical and mental
cruelty by them.
She has further deposed in para-27 that it is true to say that the
police have submitted final form against her jeth, jethani and Udai Kumar
after completion of investigation as no evidence was found against them.
She has further deposed in para-29 that it is not true that under the
influence of her family members she imposed false allegation of
impotency of her husband and now she is ready to go to her matrimonial
home on the insistence of her family members. It is not true that there is
no possibility of their marital relation ahead. She has further deposed in
para-30 that it is not true that it is no longer possible to continue the
marital relationship between her and her husband.
DW-1 Deepak Kumar Gupta is father of the defendant and he
has almost reiterated the same facts in his examination-in-chief as deposed
by his daughter (DW-3) in her examination-in-chief and thus to avoid
repetition only relevant portion of his cross examination is being
discussed here. During cross examination, he has deposed in para-12 that
his daughter is still ready to live with her husband despite of taking four
syringe blood from her body, not keeping physical relation with her and
demanding of Rs 5 Lakhs as dowry.
He has further deposed in para-13 that his daughter has filed a
case against the plaintiff, his brother, bhabhi and her father-in-law and
mother-in-law but it is not true that in that dowry case her daughter has
imposed allegation against her husband that he is an impotent and despite
of her repeated request her husband did not get his medical test done. He
26
2026:JHHC:6760-DB
has further deposed in para-14 that he has not knowledge as to what has
been mentioned by his daughter in dowry case. He has further deposed in
para-15 that Rs 8,000/-per month maintenance allowance is being paid to
her daughter.
He has further deposed in para-16 that he took bedai of his
daughter from her matrimonial home with the consent of her in laws with
some ornaments and prior to filing of this case, a panchayati was
convened in presence of five people of the plaintiff’s sides, in which it was
decided that he should take Bedai of his daughter done and as such he
brought his daughter on 08.03.2021 and in the month of June, 2021 case
was lodged in the court and thereafter no panchayati was convened in
village society.
He has further deposed in para-17 that it is not true to say that
during mediation it was told by the plaintiff that his reputation has been
tarnished in the society and as such he will not take bedai of his wife.
He has further deposed that now this thought has gone from the
mind of his daughter that her husband is impotent. He has further deposed
in para-18 that he is not true that he wants to realize more money from the
family members of the plaintiff due to which he resists this divorce suit
and now he has no love and affection with the plaintiff’s side.
DW-2 Manita Devi is mother of the defendant and she has also
almost reiterated the same facts in her examination-in-chief as deposed by
DW-1 & D.W.3 in their examination-in-chief and thus to avoid repetition
only relevant portion of her cross examination is being discussed here.
During cross examination, she has deposed in para-12 that earlier to this
27
2026:JHHC:6760-DB
case her daughter has filed a dowry case against Anupam Bipul and his
family members and she has read the contents of that application. She has
further deposed that it has falsely been typed in her affidavit that mother-
in-law of her daughter inflected cut injury in the hand of her daughter with
knife during snatching ornaments rather cut injury was done during
snatching of mobile. She has further deposed that she had also written in
dowry case that her son in law (Anupam Bipul) was ready to take bedai of
Ritu Gupta but later on he refused to take bedai of his wife due to non-
fulfillment of demand of dowry under the influence of his parents. She has
further deposed in para-13 that it is not true that she has also stated in
dowry case that her son in law was reluctant to get medical examination of
his manliness done which was the main cause of dispute. She has further
deposed in para-14 that she has no doubt in manliness of her son-in-law
rather he and his parents have deliberately made the excuse of impotence
and filed a false case against her daughter for taking divorce. She has
further deposed in para-15 that it is true that she has stated in dowry case
that her son in law wants to marry another modern girl. She has further
deposed that she cannot say as to whether it is disrespectful to any
husband or her family if his wife put question mark on the potency of her
husband. She has further deposed in para-16 that no any panchayati has
been convened as yet for bedai of her daughter. She has further deposed
that her daughter has filed a maintenance case, in which she gets
maintenance of Rs.8,000/- per month and her daughter has received Rs.
seven Lakhs from her husband in the light of direction of the Hon’ble
High Court at the time of hearing of anticipatory bail of her son-in-law.
She has further deposed in para-17 that her daughter has filed a dowry
28
2026:JHHC:6760-DB
case against her Bhaisur, Jeth and his family members and one Udai
Kumar but police did not find any evidence against them. She has further
deposed that family members of the plaintiff had come to her house after
taking bedai of her daughter and negotiation was done in between them in
mediation centre. She has further deposed in para-18 that it is not true that
they have themselves ruined the life of her daughter in the hurry of filing
case. She has further deposed in para-20 that it is the influence of his
parents. She has further deposed in para-13 that it is not true that she has
also stated in dowry case that her son in law was reluctant to get medical
examination of his manliness done which was the main cause of dispute.
She has further deposed in para-14 that she has no doubt in
manliness of her son-in-law rather he and his parents have deliberately
made the excuse of impotence and filed a false case against her daughter
for taking divorce. She has further deposed in para-15 that it is true that
she has stated in dowry case that her son in law wants to marry with
another marriage modern girl. She has further deposed that she cannot say
as to whether it is disrespectful to any husband or her family if his wife
put question mark on the potency of her husband.
She has further deposed in para-16 that no any panchayati has
been convened as yet for bedai of her daughter. She has further deposed
that her daughter has filed a maintenance case, in which she gets
maintenance of Rs.8,000/- per month and her daughter has received Rs.
seven Lakhs from her husband in the light of direction of the Hon’ble
High Court at the time of hearing of anticipatory bail of her son-in-law.
She has further deposed in para-17 that her daughter has filed a dowry
29
2026:JHHC:6760-DB
case against her Bhaisur, Jeth and his family members and one Udai
Kumar but police did not find any evidence against them. She has further
deposed that family members of the plaintiff had come to her house after
taking bedai of her daughter and negotiation was done between them in
mediation centre. She has further deposed in para-18 that it is not true that
they have themselves ruined the life of her daughter in the hurry of filing
case. She has further deposed in para-20 that it is not true that they have
spread a false rumour in the society of her son-in-law that he is impotent.
33. Now coming to the contention of the learned counsel for the parties
wherein the learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the
evidences have not properly been appreciated and considered by the
learned family Court and as such, the impugned judgment suffers from
perversity, hence, not sustainable in the eyes of law.
34. While on the other hand, argument has been advanced on behalf of the
respondent that the judgment has well been considered as such,
order/judgment impugned requires no interference.
35. 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 finding of a fact is arrived at by ignoring or excluding
relevant material or by taking into consideration the irrelevant material or
30
2026:JHHC:6760-DB
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.
31
2026:JHHC:6760-DB
Perverse.–Deliberately departing from what is normal and
reasonable.
3. The New Oxford Dictionary of English, 1998 Edn.
Perverse.–Law (of a verdict) against the weight of evidence or the
direction of the judge on a point of law.
4. The New Lexicon Webster’s Dictionary of the English
Language (Deluxe Encyclopedic Edn.)
Perverse.–Purposely deviating from accepted or expected
behavior or opinion; wicked or wayward; stubborn; cross or petulant.
5. Stroud’s Judicial Dictionary of Words & Phrases, 4th Edn.
“Perverse.–A perverse verdict may probably be defined as one that is
not only against the weight of evidence but is altogether against the
evidence.”
36. 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.
Further “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.
37. Herein it has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant/wife
that it has falsely been stated by the respondent/husband either in his
pleading or in his testimony that the reputation of his family members has
been tarnished in entire societies from the version of appellant/wife about
the non-fulfillment of marital obligation by the
respondent/plaintiff/husband. Moreover, the said statement does not come
under the category of cruelty in the light of provision contained u/s 13 (1)
(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955.
38. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff/husband has
contended that the false allegation of impotency of respondent/husband
32
2026:JHHC:6760-DB
by his own wife (appellant herein) before his family members and
relatives as well as alleging the said fact by the defendant/appellant in
recital of FIR of Sahebganj (T) P.S. Case No.103/2021 also comes under
the category of mental cruelty as reputation of
respondent/husband/plaintiff and his family members have been tarnished
in the entire society which cannot be compensated and thereby the
appellant/wife has spread false rumour in society about the impotency of
her husband (respondent herein) and later on when she realized that her
remaining marital life is going to be ruined then she herself reverted from
her own statement about the impotency of her husband and now she is
ready to lead her conjugal life with her husband but in this situation, the
respondent/plaintiff/ husband does not want to lead his conjugal life with
his wife .
39. It is evident from the factual aspect that before the learned Family Court
the plaintiff/husband (respondent herein) has brought the suit with a
relief to grant a decree of divorce against his legally wedded wife namely
Ritu Gupta (appellant herein) on the ground of cruelty as his wife has
alleged against him that he is not able to fulfill the marital obligation due
to his impotency and accordingly issues have been framed and the
learned Family Court has gone into the interpretation of the word
“cruelty” and assessing the same from the material available on record as
also the submission made in the pleading, i.e., plaint, has found that the
element of cruelty has been established and accordingly the learned
family judge has passed the order of dissolution of marriage. The said
finding of the learned Family Court has been assailed herein by the
defendant/wife (appellant herein) by way of filing the instant appeal.
33
2026:JHHC:6760-DB
40. It needs to refer herein the settled position of law that the High Court in a
First Appeal can examine every question of law and fact which arises in
the facts of the case and has powers to affirm, reverse or modify the
judgment under question. In “Jagdish Singh v. Madhuri Devi” (2008) 10
SCC 497 the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that it is lawful for the
High Court acting as the First Appellate Court to enter into not only
questions of law but questions of fact as well and the appellate Court
therefore can reappraise, reappreciate and review the entire evidence and
can come to its own conclusion. For ready reference the relevant
paragraph of the said judgment is being quoted as under:
“It is no doubt true that the High Court was exercising power as the
first appellate court and hence it was open to the Court to enter into
not only questions of law but questions of fact as well. It is settled law
that an appeal is a continuation of suit. An appeal thus is a rehearing
of the main matter and the appellate court can reappraise,
reappreciate and review the entire evidence–oral as well as
documentary–and can come to its own conclusion.
41. Further, it requires to refer herein that under section 3 of the Indian
Evidence Act a fact is said to be proved when the Court either believes it
to exist or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man under the
circumstances would proceed on the supposition that such fact really
exists. Therefore, the normal rule of preponderance of probability is
the rule which governs the civil proceedings but herein since grave
allegation of extra-marital affair has been alleged therefore cogent
evidence is required to be laid by the plaintiff/appellant.
42. The expression “preponderance of probability” is not capable of exact
definition nor can there be any strait-jacket formula or a weighing
machine to find out which side the balance is tilted. The preponderance of
34
2026:JHHC:6760-DB
probability would imply a positive element about possibility of existence
of a fact. This means a higher degree of probability of happening of
something and existence of a fact.
43. In “A. Jayachandra v. Aneel Kaur” (2005) 2 SCC 22 the Hon’ble Apex
Court has observed that the concept, a proof beyond the shadow of doubt,
is to be applied to criminal trials and not to civil matters and certainly not
to matters of such delicate personal relationship as those of husband and
wife. Therefore, the Court has to see what are the probabilities in the case
and legal cruelty has to be found out, not merely as a matter of fact, but as
the effect on the mind of the complainant spouse caused by the acts or
omissions of the other.
44. Since this Court are exercising the power of appeal as referred
hereinabove and as per the settled position of law which require the
consideration of the appellate Court is that the order/judgment passed by
the appropriate Forum, if suffers from perversity, the same is to be taken
as a ground for its reversal.
45. Further it is evident from order dated 05.12.2025, this Court in the ends
of justice and also taking into consideration the fact that as has been
admitted on behalf of the respondent-husband that some medical
certificate disproving the allegation of impotency had been produced
before the Mediator has observed that if such medical certificate is
available, the same is to be perused by this Court, for ready reference the
relevant paragraph of the aforesaid order is being quoted as under:
Order No.09/dated 05.12.2025
35
2026:JHHC:6760-DBWe have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length. But in
course of argument, this Court has thought it proper to consider the
main issue of allegation as has been alleged to be levelled by the wife-
appellant against the husband i.e. her husband is impotent. What we
have gathered from the impugned Judgment that only on the basis of
oral evidence the fact about impotency has been accepted to be denied.
2. Mr. Bajaj, learned Counsel appearing for the respondenthusband
has relied upon the evidence of D.W.1 where reference of the
mediation report wherein some medical certificate has been said to be
submitted before the Mediator. The said medical certificate is not
brought on record in course of the trial.
3. This Court in the ends of justice and also taking into consideration
the fact that as has been admitted on behalf of the respondent-husband
that some medical certificate disproving the allegation of impotency
had been produced before the Mediator is of the view that if such
medical certificate is available, the same is to be perused by this Court.
4. Learned Counsel for the respondent has sought for two weeks’ time
to bring the aforesaid medical certificate, if any, within two weeks.
5. It is made clear that there may not be any manipulation in obtaining
the medical certificate. If that endeavour will be taken, the Court will
take strict view of the matter.
6. List after two weeks i.e. on 22.12.2025.
46. In compliance of the aforesaid order the respondent/husband by way of
filing affidavit has placed the relevant medical record (Annexure-2 series).
It has been stated in the said affidavit that the finding of the Medical
Report goes on to demonstrate and clarify that any allegation of sexual
impotency of respondent/husband are baseless, false and without any
merit. For ready reference the relevant paragraph is being quoted as under:
5. That from a bare perusal of the medical records (Annexure-2
series) it would be evident that during the pendency of the criminal
case i.e. on 11.08.2021, the respondent-husband approached one Dr.
Gauri Shankar, M.B.B.S at Deoghar who gave a preliminary
impression of the respondent being “Healthy adult male.”
However, on account of continued harassment by the appellant and
36
2026:JHHC:6760-DB
her family, the respondent eventually decided to bring a quietus to the
issue of false allegations of sexual impotency and hence, the said Dr.
Gauri Sharma referred to respondent-Husband to Dr. Reddy’s
Medicare where a comprehensive test was conducted on 12.08.2021.
That, as is clear from the results of report dated 12.08.2021,
especially at internal page 4 and 5 of the test report that the
respondent-husband’s sperm count is within normal range.
That, further, it is pertinent to indicate that complete semen analysis
and motility of the respondent-husband was assessed and no issues
whatsoever on point of low sperm count or lesser than normal value
on various aspects analyzed were flagged in the report dated
12.08.2021.
47. It is evident from record that although before the learned Family Court, it
has not been mentioned by the plaintiff/respondent/husband in his plaint
specifically that in which sub-section of Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage
Act he has filed the suit. However, on perusal of record, it appears that in
the plaint it has been averred that the allegation of impotency was alleged
by the defendant/wife (appellant herein) against the plaintiff/husband
(respondent herein). From aforesaid it is apparent that the
plaintiff/husband (respondent herein) has brought the divorce suit against
his wife on the ground that he has been falsely alleged by his wife as
impotent, thus this Court has to decide as to whether imposing false
allegation of impotency by the wife against her husband can be treated as
cruelty as one of the ground of divorce as provided in section 13 (1) (i-a)
of the Hindu Marriage Act or not.
48. Since, the main issue is the cruelty herein therefore, before adverting to
the merit of the case this Court would like to discuss the core of cruelty as
stipulated in the Act 1955, for proper adjudication of the lis.
37
2026:JHHC:6760-DB
49. It needs to refer herein that the “cruelty” has been interpreted by the
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dr. N.G. Dastane vs. Mrs. S. Dastana,
(1975) 2 SCC 326 wherein it has been laid down that the Court has to
enquire, as to whether, the conduct charge as cruelty, is of such a
character, as to cause in the mind of the petitioner, a reasonable
apprehension that, it will be harmful or injurious for him to live with the
respondent.
50. 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
husband and his parents demanded dowry. The Hon’ble Apex Court
emphasized that “cruelty” can have no fixed definition.
51. 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.”
52. 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
38
2026:JHHC:6760-DB
are used to, “their economic and social conditions”, and the “culture and
human values to which they attach importance.”
53. 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.
54. In V. Bhagat vs. D. Bhagat (Mrs.), (1994)1 SCC 337, the wife alleged in
her written statement that her husband was suffering from “mental
problems and paranoid disorder”. The wife’s lawyer also levelled
allegations of “lunacy” and “insanity” against the husband and his family
while he was conducting a cross-examination. The Hon’ble Apex
Court held these allegations against the husband to constitute “cruelty”.
55. 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.
56. 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
39
2026:JHHC:6760-DB
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.
57. 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. 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.40
2026:JHHC:6760-DB
The court has only to understand the spouses concerned as nature
made them, and consider their particular grievance. As
Lord Reid observed in Gollins v. Gollins : (All ER p. 972 G-
H)
‘… 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.'”
58. 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. 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.
59. 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.
60. Thus, Cruelty must be of such a type which will satisfy the conscience of
41
2026:JHHC:6760-DB
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.
61. In the instant case, it is evident that in the starting day of marriage there
was happy conjugal life in between the parties but after some days
bitterness started.
62. It has been pleaded by the plaintiff/respondent/husband that the family
members of the appellant/wife went to the house of the
plaintiff/respondent/husband and they brought the appellant/wife to their
home with her entire ornaments and after, the plaintiff/husband and his
family members tried to take bedai of the defendant/wife but the
defendant/wife (appellant herein) lodged a false case U/s 498A of the IPC
against the entire family members of the plaintiff/husband, in which it was
alleged by the appellant/wife that her husband is an impotent person and
later on she turned back from that allegation and thus due to said act of the
defendant/wife reputation of plaintiff/husband and his family was
damaged in the eyes of the society.
63. It is evident from impugned judgment that with respect to aforesaid
argument of the plaintiff husband the learned Family Court has perused
the Ext-2, which is certified copy of FIR of Sahibganj (1) P.S. Case No.
103/2021 dated 13.09.2021 and having gone through that document,
wherefrom learned Family Court found that the defendant Ritu Gupta
(appellant herein) had lodged a case against the plaintiff/husband and his
42
2026:JHHC:6760-DB
family members u/s 323, 420, 498A, 504, 506/34 of the I.P.C and section
3/4 of D.P. Act.
64. Since the main crux of the suit is based on the allegation made by the
defendant (appellant herein) in her complaint petition, which is basis of
FIR of Sahibganj (T) P.S.Case No. 103/2021, the learned Family Court
has gone through paragraph nos. 1, 4, 5, 6 & 7 of recital of FIR, wherein
it has been alleged by the defendant/wife(appellant herein) in her
complaint petition that her husband is an impotent person and as per
defendant/wife when her mother (D.W.2) asked one Uday Kumar as to
why you made the life of her daughter hell by getting her daughter
married to a sick and impotent boy then it was told by him that he wanted
to trap their daughter by getting her married with Anupan
Bipul(respondent herein), so he did it and thus it appears from the recital
of FIR lodged by the defendant that no physical relationship was
established in between her and respondent/husband after her marriage.
65. It reveals from the contents of FIR which has also been quoted in the
impugned judgment that the plaintiff/respondent/husband used to visit in
the room of defendant/wife during her stay at her matrimonial home but
he did not have any kind of contact with her nor did he keep marital
relationship with her and when the defendant/wife(appellant herein) came
to depose her evidence as D.W.3, she has again reiterated same fact in
para 2 of her affidavited examination-in-chief by deposing that her
husband broke all his relation with her and even after living with her he
did not make marital relationship with her but the
plaintiff/respondent/husband has totally denied the allegation made by his
43
2026:JHHC:6760-DB
wife either in her FIR or in her testimony by pleading in his plaint that
false allegation has been imposed by his wife against him about his
impotency and on this score alone the plaintiff/husband has filed a suit for
passing a decree of divorce against his wife/appellant.
66. The respondent/husband has been examined as PW-4 and he has deposed
in his examination-in-chief at para-4 that he is fit in all respects including
in the matter of sex and after marriage he has established physical relation
with his wife also while she was living with him and thereby the plaintiff
has tried to establish the fact before the learned Family Court that he is
able to establish marital relationship with his wife and he is not impotent
and when the plaintiff/husband was put to cross examination by the
defendant/wife, he has again reiterated the same fact in para-16 of his
deposition that the defendant/wife lived in his house till 15 days after her
marriage and during that period physical relation was established by him
with her thrice.
67. As discussed above, it is evident that the appellant wife has stated about
the impotency of her husband/plaintiff in her FIR but the plaintiff deposed
in his examination in chief that he is capable in sex and even he had
established marital relationship with his wife during her stay at his home
68. On scrutinizing the testimony of the defendant(appellant/wife), it is
evident that during trial of the suit she has herself turned back from her
earlier version, which has been written by her in her FIR, as it reflects
from her cross examination, in which it has been stated by her that it is
true to say she is still ready to go to her matrimonial home despite of
demanding more dowry and subjecting her to mental and physical cruelty
44
2026:JHHC:6760-DB
and it has further been deposed by her that it is not true to say that she has
imposed false allegation of impotency of her husband under the influence
of her parental family members and now she is ready to go to her
matrimonial home as per their advice.
69. But from the Ext-2 it is evident that appellant/wife started making
allegations against her husband (respondent herein) that he is incompetent
to discharge his matrimonial obligations, he is an unfit person to be a
husband and the allegation of impotency was disclosed.
70. It is considered view of this Court that the allegation of impotency against
the husband would necessarily affect the reputation of the husband and the
complaining of incapacity of the husband to bear children, without any
proof creates an intense mental agony and anguish of the husband and
such conduct amounts to mental cruelty.
71. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vijaykumar Ramchandra Bhate v.
Neela Vijaykumar Bhate, [AIR 2003 SC 2462], has observed that “a
conscious and deliberate statement levelled with pungency and that too
placed on record, through the written statement, cannot be so lightly
ignored or brushed Side.”
72. In the instant case wife (appellant herein) made serious allegation of
impotency against her husband, which has not been corroborated from the
medical opinion which has been placed before this Court in compliance of
the order dated 05.12.2025. Moreover, launching criminal prosecution on
false statement by either spouse, amounts to mental cruelty, therefore this
Court is of the considered view that the learned Family Court has rightly
derived his inferences that the conduct of defendant/appellant amount to
45
2026:JHHC:6760-DB
cruelty against her respondent husband as she brought criminal
prosecution against him on basis of loose statement.
73. It is evident from the impugned judgment that the learned Family Court
while appreciating the issue of cruelty has considered all the evidences
available on record at length and thereafter has given its finding that the
statement of the defendant/appellant against her husband that he is
impotent comes under the purview of cruelty. For ready reference the
relevant paragraph of the impugned judgment is being quoted as under:
In the present case, the allegations made by the wife to the
extent that the husband in not discharging his matrimonial vows
and that creates a doubt in the mind of wife that he is impotent,
which has affected the reputation of husband. The wife has
failed to discharge the burden to prove that the husband is
impotent as the husband is willing to undergo medical
examination as stated in his affidavit. Having not proved the
allegation, the unproved/unsubstantiated false allegations about
impotency has led to mental disturbance of the husband
causing disharmony between the husband and wife, which
makes the husband unable to stay with the wife.
Though Section 13 of the Act does not consider the impotency
as the ground for divorce, the false allegation of impotency
being made by the wife would definitely cause mental
disharmony and this would amount to mental cruelty within the
meaning of Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act, and enables the
husband to seek divorce on the ground of cruelty. As no
evidence having been specifically adduced by the wife to prove
that the husband is actually impotent, the allegation would
remain only an allegation and has the effect of lowering the
dignity of the husband, which amounts to cruelty.—-22- Considering the facts and circumstances of this suit,
discussed herein above and having paid proper attention
towards the argument advanced by Ld counsels of both sides
and the legal principle laid down by the Hon’ble Courts, I find
and hold that the principles laid down in the above judgments
are squarely applicable to the facts of this case. In the instant46
2026:JHHC:6760-DBcase also, the defendant has made allegation assassinating the
character of her husband by stating that he had an illegal
intimacy with the model girls, which she has failed to establish.
Therefore, it is opinion of this court that the defendant has
caused mental cruelty to her husband by way of making such
false allegations in her testimony. It is further held that the
defendant -wife made serious allegation of impotency against
the plaintiff- husband that would certainly cause mental pain to
him if the allegation is not true and in the instant suit the
defendant has not been able to prove the fact that her husband
is impotent. It is view of this court that impotency is a physical or
mental condition of any person, which can only be proved by
medical expert but during the whole trial the defendant did not
make any effort to have her husband’s impotency examined by
a medical expert and thus it is held that false allegation has
been imposed by the defendant against her husband that he is
incapable to perform sexual intercourse or impotent, which is a
valid a ground to grant decree of divorce under Section
13(1)(ia) of the Hindu 1955.—
74. Thus, on the basis of the discussion made hereinabove, this Court is of the
view that the appellant has failed to establish the element of perversity in
the impugned judgment, as such, the instant appeal deserves to be
dismissed.
75. Accordingly, the instant appeal fails and is, dismissed.
76. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
I Agree.
(Arun Kumar Rai, J.)
(Arun Kumar Rai, J.)
12/03/2026
/
Rohit A.F.R.
Uploaded on 13.03.2026
47