Jharkhand High Court
Rajhans vs Sarita Kumari Singh on 14 July, 2026
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
2026:JHHC:20908-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
First Appeal No.121 of 2022
-----
Rajhans, aged about 40 years, Son of late Suraj Deo Singh, presently
residing at Community Health Centre, Kathikund (CHC) residing in the
house of Rajendra Prasad at Dhawatanr, Kathikund, PO, PS Kathikund &
District-Dumka and permanent resident of Village +PO-Billour, P.S-Barh,
District-Patna (Bihar) & PIN-803213 .......... Plaintiff/Appellant
Versus
Sarita Kumari Singh, aged about 46 years, Wife of Rajhans, Daughter of
Sri Laxman Singh, currently residing at Chuha Bagan, Near ICICI Bank,
PO, PS & District-Dumka and permanent resident of Village JP. Nagar,
Mihijam Road, P.O, P.S & District-Jamtara.
Present Address-Quarter No. B1/2C.S, Campus, Dumka, PO-Dumka
Town, District-Dumka, Jharkhand, PIN-814101, Father's House of
Village-J.P Nagar, Mihijam Road, P.O, P.S & District-Jamtara.
Permanent Address-Matrimonial House at Village-Billour, PO-Billour,
P.S-Barh, District-Patna (Bihar) & PIN-803213
.... ... Defendant/ Respondent
-------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
-------
For the Appellant : Mr. Chanchal Jain, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Nitya Nand Prasad Choudhary, Advocate
------
C.A.V on 23.06.2026 Pronounced on14/07/2026
Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
The instant appeal under section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act,
1984 is directed against the judgment dated 08.09.2022 and the decree
signed on 20.09.2022 passed in Original Suit No.161 of 2018 by the
learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dumka (in short, Family Judge)
whereby and whereunder the petition filed under section 13(1) (i-a), (i-b)
of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 by the appellant-husband against the
respondent-wife has been dismissed.
2. The brief facts of the case as pleaded in the plaint having been
recorded by the learned Family Judge, needs to be referred herein as:
2026:JHHC:20908-DB
(i) The case of the petitioner/appellant is that he was married in
accordance with Hindu rites and customs with
defendant/respondent on 22.11.2005 at her parental house situated
at Pal Bagan, Jamtara.
(ii) Out of the wedlock, the spouse was blessed with a female child aged
about 11 years, namely, Pragya Sanskriti and a male child, aged
about, 9 years, namely, Sushant Prakhar @ Kriti Narayan Singh.
(iii) Soon after the marriage, the defendant-respondent went to her
matrimonial house at Patna and stayed there for about one week.
Thereafter she went to Dumka where the petitioner-husband used
to work at Sadar Hospital, Dumka and resided with him for a
fortnight.
(iv) It is alleged that the respondent-wife used to reside at Dumka for
one or two days in a month and for the rest time, she used to reside
in her parental house (maike) for the reason best known to her.
(v) The defendant/respondent and her father pressurized the petitioner
to live in their house as gharjamai and on refusal by the petitioner,
dispute arose between the parties.
(vi) It is pleaded that the petitioner being an elder brother has
solemnized marriage of his sister in the year 2009 after taking loan
due to which the defendant/respondent became angry and she did
not participate in the marriage and went to her maike and lived there
for one year.
(vii) The petitioner tried his best several times to bring back the
respondent but she and her parents refused to make bidai of the
defendant with him.
2
2026:JHHC:20908-DB
(viii) Due to dispute cropped between the petitioner and the
defendant/respondent, she lodged a case under section 498-A IPC
against the petitioner in which he was arrested and remanded to jail
custody and the defendant went to her maike to reside there with her
children and since then she is residing in her maike.
(ix) On 08.11.2011 the defendant/respondent lodged a case being Crl.
Misc. Case No.40/2011 in which an amount of Rs.5000/- each was
awarded in favour of the defendant/respondent and her two children
in which he was paying a total sum of Rs.15000/- per month
towards the maintenance of the respondent and her children.
(x) It is pleaded that the defendant has again filed a case being
Complaint Case (D.V) No.545/2017 under the Domestic Violence
Act against the petitioner and vide order dated 22.09.2017 the
respondent was allowed to live in Government quarter of petitioner.
(xi) Thereafter, the respondent came to the Government quarter situated
at Dumka but instead of living there peacefully, she quarreled with
the plaintiff/petitioner which compelled him to leave the said
quarter and reside in a rented house of Rajendra Prasad at
Dhawatanr and he is still residing in the said house.
(xii) The well-wishers and relatives of their family tried their level best
to reconcile the matter but failed and both the parties started living
separately from each other since 24.10.2011 and since then, there is
no relation of husband and wife between them.
(xiii) It is pleaded that against the award of maintenance the plaintiff has
preferred an appeal being Criminal Appeal No.40 of 2013 and the
defendant has filed an appeal being Criminal Appeal No.68 of 2014
3
2026:JHHC:20908-DB
and the plaintiff used to pay maintenance of Rs.15000/- per month
for maintenance of the defendant and his children.
(xiv) Thus, the respondent-defendant treated the plaintiff-petitioner with
cruelty and deserted him for a continuous period of six years till
filing of the Original Suit No.161 of 2018.
3. On the aforesaid ground of cruelty and desertion, the appellant-
husband has prayed for a decree of dissolution of the marriage between
him and the respondent-wife.
4. It needs to mention herein that in Original Suit No. 161 of 2018, upon
issuance of the notices, the respondent-wife has appeared and filed a
written statement denying all the allegations levelled against her by the
appellant-husband.
5. In the written statement, the respondent-wife admitted about her
marriage with the petitioner/appellant but has denied the other allegations
contained in the plaint and stated that it is wrong to say that the defendant
went Jamtara after stay of a fortnight, rather she resided continuously with
the plaintiff and in that period, she visited her maike at Jamtara for few
days along with the plaintiff (her husband). The defendant/respondent has
denied in her written statement that it is wrong to say that she and her
parents wanted the plaintiff to live there as gharjamai as she is having her
own brother. The respondent/defendant has alleged that the plaintiff and
his family members demanded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from her to bring
the same from her maike and when she refused to fulfill the same, the
plaintiff assaulted brutally her and even did not allow her to participate in
the marriage of his sister (Nanad).
4
2026:JHHC:20908-DB
6. It is also alleged by the defendant in her written statement that when
she became pregnant, she was compelled to reside with her father at
Jamatara and she was kicked out by the plaintiff from his house on
18.02.2009 and the plaintiff never tried to bring the defendant from
Jamtara to Dumka. The defendant had herself came Dumka to stay with
the plaintiff but he used to keep her for a day or two and after making
physical relation used to turned out her from the house and the plaintiff
also used to told that his family members did not want that the plaintiff
should reside with this defendant. It is further alleged that the plaintiff
after taking wine used to assault her brutally. The defendant endured the
cruelty meted out to her with a hope that in future things will get normal.
7. It is stated that on 14.07.2011 a compromise was held between the
parties and both the parties started residing together but again after few
days, the plaintiff-husband started to assault her and even stopped to
provide her food and things of daily need. Thereafter, the defendant-wife
had informed to Dumka (T) P.S. and a case was instituted against the
plaintiff.
8. It is further stated that the defendant and her children were granted
maintenance by the Court of the learned C.J.M, Jamtara a total sum of Rs.
9000/- per month for the defendant and her minor children. But against
the said order the plaintiff had preferred an appeal before the Sessions
Judge, Jamtara, where the earlier awarded amount was enhanced from Rs.
9000/- per month to Rs.15,000/- per month. The plaintiff had also
preferred Crl. Revision No. 211/2015 before Hon’ble High Court and the
Hon’ble High Court had confirmed the enhancement amount of the learned
Sessions Judge, Jamtara. It is also submitted that the plaintiff does not
5
2026:JHHC:20908-DB
used to make payment of the maintenance amount regularly and the same
are due.
9. It is further submitted that the plaintiff was keeping the defendant in
Government Quarter at Dumka by the order of the Court of the learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamtara from 10.10.2017. The Plaintiff was
residing with the defendant and was leading a life of husband and wife and
also used to cohabited with the defendant. Thereafter again plaintiff
started to assault the defendant and fled away to his new posting at
Kathikund P.H.C. on 26.11.2017 and the defendant is also residing with
the plaintiff, when plaintiff fled away to Kathikund because the defendant
was compelled to vacate the Government Quarter at Dumka.
10. It is further stated that it is wrong to say that the plaintiff is
residing separately since 24.10.2011 as the defendant had never deserted
the plaintiff rather the plaintiff had ignored the defendant. The defendant
does not want to give divorce to the plaintiff. The minor children are with
her and both require father and mother and she never treated the plaintiff
with cruelty rather the defendant had tried to continue her marital life and
also tried that the minor children could get the affection of father.
11. It is stated in the written statement that the present suit is not
maintainable because the plaintiff had never been resided separately and
still the plaintiff used to make physical relation with the defendant. The
plaintiff is not entitled for any relief or reliefs as sought for; hence, the suit
is required to be dismissed.
12. After appearance of both the parties, the learned Family Judge
has referred the matter for reconciliation before the learned Mediator but
the same was failed.
6
2026:JHHC:20908-DB
13. Learned Family Judge, after institution of the said case, taking
into consideration of the pleadings of the plaintiff/appellant and the
respondent/defendant has formulated the issues and has decided the lis by
refusing to grant divorce to the plaintiff/appellant.
14. The aforesaid judgment by which divorce has not been granted
is under challenge by filing the instant appeal.
Submission of behalf of the appellant-husband:
15. Mr. Chanchal Jain, the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant-husband has taken the following grounds:
(i) There is an error in the impugned judgment, since, each and
every aspect of the matter has not been taken into consideration
based upon the documentary evidences as well as ocular
evidences.
(ii) It has been contended that the element of cruelty has been
found to be there as acquittal of the appellant-husband in the
criminal case being G.R. Case No. 1361/2011, T.R. Case
No.385/2018 arising out of Dumka (T) P.S Case No.172/2011 in
which he has been acquitted from the charges levelled against him
under section 498A I.P.C. Therefore, the ground has been taken
that once the criminal case has failed, then the element of cruelty
will be said to be by the respondent-wife and not by the appellant-
husband, but without appreciating the same properly, the learned
Family Judge has come to the finding by holding that no element
of cruelty is there and, as such, the impugned judgment and decree
suffers from an error.
7
2026:JHHC:20908-DB
(iii) It has been contended that the appellant has been meted out
with cruelty at the hands of the respondent-wife due to her
abnormal and cruel behaviour as would be evident from the
evidence adduced on behalf of the appellant-husband, but the
same has not been taken into consideration by the learned Family
Judge.
(iv) It has been contended that though the learned Family Judge
has proceeded the matter and dismissed the original suit, but he
has failed to appreciate the evidences adduced on behalf of the
appellant as in the trial, the evidence has come that it was the
respondent-wife who has committed cruelty upon him by her
cruel behaviour and act, deserted the petitioner and leading an
adulterous life by leaving her matrimonial house.
16. The learned counsel, based upon the aforesaid ground, has
submitted that the impugned judgment and decree, therefore, needs
interference on the ground of perversity.
Submission of behalf of the respondent-wife:
17. On the contrary, the learned counsel appearing for the
respondent-wife has taken the following grounds:
(i) There is no error in the impugned judgement. The learned
Family Judge has considered the entire issue and on the
basis of evidence as led by the parties and has passed the
order impugned as such same may not be interfered with.
(ii) The appellant has sought divorce on the ground that the
behaviour of the respondent-wife is cruel and she has
deserted the appellant without any valid ground but the
8
2026:JHHC:20908-DBlearned Family Court, after taking into consideration the
oral and documentary evidence, has held that the entire
allegations levelled in the plaint for divorce suit are
absolutely illegal, uncalled for and has rightly dismissed
the suit.
(iii) It has also been submitted that the learned Family Court
after taking into consideration the material available on
record has found that the conduct of the appellant-husband
has never been towards salvaging the institution of
marriage as it is he who has come for the dissolution of the
marriage, therefore, on the pretext of the aforesaid
categorical finding of the Family Court, the impugned
order requires no interference.
(iv) It has been contended that even the appellant-husband has
been acquitted in the criminal case lodged under section
498A I.P.C but one vital aspect of the matter which has
been taken into consideration to come to the conclusion of
not proving the element of cruelty or desertion is the
appellant is having illicit relation with one lady, namely,
Usha Kumari, who has been made nominee in the bank
account of the appellant-husband which has been taken into
consideration by learned family judge in paragraph no.-28
of the impugned judgment.
(v) It has been contended that the document upon which the
reliance has been placed which is the endorsement given by
the concerned branch of the bank while investigating the
9
2026:JHHC:20908-DBmatter being Dumka Mahila P.S. Case No. 05/2022
wherein it was stated by the bank authorities that in S.B
Account no. 11726578861, IFSC-SBIN0003645, one Usha
Kumari has been made nominee showing the relationship
of wife.
(vi) It has been contended that the fact about living with another
lady is sufficient evident to prove the element of cruelty,
which is being on the part of the appellant-husband towards
the wife. It has further been contended that the aforesaid
document has been made part of the record without any
objection and, as such, it proves that the appellant-husband
has illicit relationship with said Usha Kumari.
18. Learned counsel, based upon the aforesaid grounds, has
submitted that if on that pretext, the factum of cruelty and desertion has
not been found to be established, hence, the impugned judgment cannot
be said to suffer from an error.
Analysis:
19. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties,
gone through the impugned judgment as well as the Trial Court Records,
as also the testimonies of the witnesses and the documents exhibited
therein.
20. The learned Family Judge has formulated altogether seven
issues, for ready reference the same are being quoted hereinbelow:
(I) Is the suit maintainable in its present form?
(II) Has the petitioner got valid cause of action for the suit for
dissolution of marriage?
10
2026:JHHC:20908-DB
(III) Whether the respondent did not allow to consummate the
marriage and thereby caused mental cruelty upon the
petitioner?
(IV)Whether the respondent after solemnization of marriage
treated the petitioner with cruelty by fling criminal cases
against the petitioner and by not consummating the marriage
since 24.10.2011?
AND
Has the petitioner taken step for restoration of his
matrimonial relationship with respondent?
(V) Whether the respondent after solemnization of marriage
deserted the petitioner for a continuous period of not less than
two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition
for dissolution of marriage?
(VI) Whether the petitioner is entitled for decree of divorce?
(VII) Whether the petitioner is entitled for any other relief or
reliefs?
21. The learned Family Judge has considered the evidence adduced
on behalf of the parties for deciding the issues involved in Original Suit
No.161 of 2018 as they are interconnected.
22. This Court in order to appreciate the aforesaid rival submission
before entering into the legality and propriety of the impugned judgment
needs to discuss herein the relevant part of the evidences adduced on
behalf of the parties wherein the element of cruelty and desertion has been
shown by the petitioner-husband.
23. During the trial, four witnesses have been examined on behalf of
the appellant-husband who himself has been examined as PW4 and
exhibited some documents.
11
2026:JHHC:20908-DB
24. The plaintiff has filed the Certified copy of judgment dated
15.12.2018 passed in G.R. Case No.1361/2011, T.R Case No.385 of 2018
which has been marked as Ext.1.
25. The respondent-wife has also examined five witnesses including
herself as DW2 and in support of her contention, she has also exhibited
following documents:
(i) Certified copy of formal F.I.R. Dumka Mahila P.S. Case no.
05/2022 – Ext.A (with objection),
(ii) Photo copy of certified copy of deposition of Rajhans given in Crl.
Misc. (D.V.) no. 40/2011 at Jamtara Ext. B (with objection),
(iii) Photo copy of certified copy of deposition of Rajhans given in Crl.
Misc. (D.V.) no. 40/2011 at Jamtara Ext. C (with objection),
(iv) Certified copy of order dated 22.09.2017 passed in Compliant case
(D.V.) 535/2017-Ext. D,
(v) Certified copy of order dated 12.10.2017 passed in Compliant case
(D.V.) 535/2017-Ext. E,
(vi) Certified copy of petition dated 12.10.2017 of Compliant case
(D.V.) 535/2017 for sending the order to the S.P. Dumka for
compliance – Ext. F, and
(vii) Personal bond signed by Sarita Kumari Singhand Rajhans – Ext.G
(with objection).
26. In his examination on oath as PW4, Rajhans-the appellant-
husband has narrated entire things as pleaded in the plaint about his
marriage with the respondent. He has deposed that his marriage was
solemnized with the defendant Sarita Kumari Singh on 22.11.2005 at Pal
Bagan, Jamtara and birth of two children, namely, Pragya Sanskriti female
child aged about 12 years and another male child aged about 10 years,
namely, Sushant Prakhar @ Kriti Narayan Singh. He has further deposed
that after marriage his wife Sarita Singh went to her matrimonial home at
Patna which was a rented house and resided there for one week, thereafter
she came to Dumka where he used to work at Sadar Hospital, Dumka. He
has deposed that the respondent resided with him for a fortnight and she
12
2026:JHHC:20908-DB
used to reside at Dumka with him for one or two days in a month and for
rest days used to reside at Jamtara for the reasons best known to her.
27. He has further deposed that the defendant and her father asked
him to live as gharjamai and on refusal by the plaintiff the dispute cropped
up in between the plaintiff and the defendant with her parents and
relations. Further deposed that he being the elder brother by taking loan
got the marriage of his sister Pallavi Kumari performed in the year 2000
from Patna which caused grudge to the defendant and the defendant has
not participated in the said marriage and went to Jamtara at her parents’
house and lived there for one year and he tried his best to take back the
defendant from her parents’ house but the defendant and her parents
refused to make bidai of the defendant with him. The defendant lodged a
case u/s 498 A I.P.C, with incorrect, imaginary and invented allegations
against him bearing no. G.R. Case no. 1361/2011 being Dumka Town P.S.
Case no. 172/2011 dt. 24.10.2011 and he was arrested and remanded to
jail custody and the defendant went to her parents’ house along with the
children and since then residing separately. On 8.11.2011 the defendant
lodged a case against him under Domestic Violence bearing no. Crl.Misc.
Case No. 40/2011 and vide order dt. 02.02.2012 maintenance amount of
Rs. 5000/- each in favour of the defendant and two minor children have
been allowed by the learned C.J.M., Jamtara while he was in custody in
498 A case instituted by the defendant.
28. He has further deposed that he used to make payment of
Rs. 5000/- each, i.e., Rs. 15,000/- to the defendant for herself and two
minor children. The defendant filed another compliant case under
Domestic Violence against him which was registered as Complaint Case
13
2026:JHHC:20908-DB
(D.V.) No. 545/2017 and by an order dated 22.09.2017 defendant was
allowed to live in Government quarter at Dumka. The defendant came to
Government quarter at Dumka and started quarreling with him then he left
the Government quarter and informed the Police station, went to his place
of posting at Community Health Centre, Kathikund (CHC) and used to
reside in the house of Rajendra Prasad at Dhawatanr and still residing in
the said house. He and defendant since 24.10.2011 used to reside
separately and there is no relationship of husband and wife in between
them since 24.10.2011 nor there is any cohabitation in between them
which has come to an end. He and his relatives tried to restore the
matrimonial relationship in between them but in vain. In Para-30 of his
cross examination, he has stated that he has left the relationship with his
wife and children since 2011 because his wife has lodged a case with all
the articles of the house and he has no relationship with his wife as
husband and wife after 23.11.2011.
In para-35 of his cross examination, he has stated that he was acquitted
in the case u/s 498 A I.P.C. filed by his wife and his wife has filed an
appeal against the order which was pending in Sessions Court. In para- 37
he has stated that in para-14 of his affidavit he has mentioned that his wife
has illicit relationship with Pushpendra Kumar Singh which was not
mentioned in the original petition but he had seen his wife to come out
from the quarter of Pushpendra Kumar Singh at 11 P.M. In para-38 of his
cross examination, he has stated that he has not been made party
Pushpendra Kumar Singh in this case and has denied the suggestions in
his cross examination.
14
2026:JHHC:20908-DB
29. P.W.1 Navin Kumar Himmatsinghka @ Navin Kamat has
also deposed in same and similar line as deposed by P.W.4. In his cross
examination in para-24 he has stated that he has heard from Rajhans that
Mira Devi has filed a case against Rajhans u/s 107 Cr.P.C. Further in para-
25 he has stated that he has no knowledge that Mira Devi has filed a case
against Rajhans because her daughter is working at Jama, Medical
department and Rajhans has developed a relationship with her daughter
on the assurance of marriage.
30. P.W.2 Dinesh Prasad is a government servant at Sadar Hospital,
Dumka and Rajhans is also posted in Dumka Sadar hospital and this
witness has also deposed in same and similar line as deposed by P.W.4.
In his cross examination in para-17 he has stated that on 24.10.2017 when
police came in the office to arrest the plaintiff Rajhans then he came to
know about the case lodged against the plaintiff by the defendant and at
that time he was posted at eye department. He has denied the rest
suggestions in his cross examination.
31. P.W. 3 Shashi Kant Pd. Singh, the uncle of the plaintiff has also
corroborated the statement of P.W.4 in same and similar style including
his marriage with the defendant and birth of two children and proposal of
the defendant and her father to become gharjamai and several attempts of
bidai of the defendant by the plaintiff.
32. On the other hand, the defendant-wife (Sarita Kumari Singh)
has deposed herself as DW2. She has deposed that she was married with
the defendant on 23.11.2005 and after marriage she went in the house of
the uncle of the plaintiff at Patna and she resided there since 24.11.2005
to 29.11.2005 and thereafter brought her at Dumka and stayed at Mohalla
15
2026:JHHC:20908-DB
New Bagampara in a rented house. She was resided continuously with her
husband and in that period, she had visited her father’s house at Jamtara
for few days along with her husband. Further, she deposed that she has
got her brother, so that there was no question for keeping the plaintiff as
gharjamai and her husband had demanded Rs. 1,00,000/- from her and
had compelled to ask from her parents but she refused to ask from her
father then her husband brutally assaulted her and did not allow her to
come with him to attend the marriage of her Nanad. Again, she deposed
that when she was pregnant, she was compelled to reside with her father
at Jamatara and she was turned out by her husband from the house on
18.02.2009 and her husband never tried to bring her from Jamtara to
Dumka. She had herself came Dumka to stay with her husband but he
used to keep her for a day or two and after making physical relation used
to turned out her from the house and her husband Rajhans also used to
told that his family members did not want that he should reside with his
wife Sarita Singh and her husband used to assault her after taking wine.
Further deposed that on 14.07.2011 a compromise was held between them
and both started to reside together but again after few days her husband
started to assault her after taking wine and stopped to provide fooding and
articles and thereafter, she had informed Dumka (T) P.S. and thereafter
case was instituted against her husband. Further deposed that she along
with her children were granted maintenance by the Court of the C.J.M
Jamtara total Rs. 9000/- per month for her and her minor children and
against the said order her husband had preferred an appeal before the
Sessions Judge, Jamtara, who has enhanced the maintenance amount
Rs.15,000/- from Rs. 9000/-. She has also referred Crl. Revision No.
16
2026:JHHC:20908-DB
211/2015 before Hon’ble High Court, Jharkhand and the Hon’ble High
Court had confirmed the enhancement amount of the learned Sessions
Judge, Jamtara but her husband does not used to make payment regularly
still there are dues of maintenance amount for six months. Her husband
was keeping her in Government quarter at Dumka by the order of the
Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamtara from 10.10.2017.
Her husband was residing with her and was leading a life of husband and
wife and also used to cohabit with her. Thereafter, again her husband
Rajhans started to assault her and fled away to his new posting at
Kathikund P.H.C. She had never deserted her husband rather he had
ignored her. She does not want to give divorce to her husband because
both the minor children are with her and both require father and mother.
Last 6-7 months she is residing at Chuha Bagan and her children were
reading at Holy Child School, Dumka, at present her son is reading at Don
Bosco School, Dumka. Further, deposed that she had no relationship with
Pushpendra Kumar Singh and still after filing of this case she had physical
relationship with her husband.
In her cross examination she had stated that on 24.10.2011 when
Rajhans was arrested by police in case no.172/2011 she became afraid and
went to her maike at Jamtara.
33. D.W.5 Rakesh Kumar Singh, the brother of the defendant
Sarita Kumari Singh has deposed that his sister Sarita Kumari Singh was
married with Rajhans, the plaintiff of this case on 23.11.2005 and after
marriage his sister went to her matrimonial home and after few days, they
returned to Dumka because the plaintiff is working at Sadar Hospital,
Dumka and has opened a clinic in the capacity of eye doctor. After
17
2026:JHHC:20908-DB
marriage plaintiff started to demand more dowry and due to non-
fulfillment of said demand his sister was tortured physically and mentally.
Plaintiff did not want to bring his sister from Jamtara to Dumka but his
sister always used to come Dumka and lived with her husband and they
have two children aged about 15 years and 13 years and were reading in
school. In the light of order of Jamtara Court the plaintiff in the year 2017
brought his sister and children at Dumka and kept at Government quarter
and they lived peacefully for some time and thereafter scuffle started in
between them and plaintiff wants to take divorce from his sister because
the plaintiff was married with another lady and was living with her. The
plaintiff gets Rs. 1,00,000/- as salary per month and has ancestral landed
property.
During his cross-examination, he has stated that he is posted at Railway
Department at Fatuha, Bihar. He further stated that Rajhans was remanded
to jail in a criminal case filed by his sister (respondent herein) and denied
the rest suggestion in his cross examination.
34. The fact about filing of suit by taking plea of cruelty and
desertion is admitted one as per the evidences adduced on behalf of the
appellant-husband.
35. The appellant-husband all along has alleged the issue of cruelty,
and desertion which he was subjecting to by his wife and in order to
establish the same the evidences has been laid as has been referred
hereinabove.
36. This Court while appreciating the argument advanced on behalf
of the appellant-husband on the issue of perversity needs to refer herein
the interpretation of the word “perverse” as has been interpreted by the
18
2026:JHHC:20908-DB
Hon’ble Apex Court which means that there is no evidence or erroneous
consideration of the evidence.
37. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Arulvelu and Anr. vs. State
[Represented by the Public Prosecutor] and Anr., (2009) 10 SCC 206
while elaborately discussing the word perverse has held that it is, no doubt,
true that if a finding of fact is arrived at by ignoring or excluding relevant
material or by taking into consideration irrelevant material or if the finding
so outrageously defies logic as to suffer from the vice of irrationality
incurring the blame of being perverse, then, the finding is rendered infirm
in law. Relevant paragraphs, i.e., paras-24, 25, 26 and 27 of the said
judgment reads as under:
“24. The expression “perverse” has been dealt with in a
number of cases. In Gaya Din v. Hanuman Prasad [(2001) 1
SCC 501] this Court observed that the expression
“perverse” means that the findings of the subordinate
authority are not supported by the evidence brought on
record or they are against the law or suffer from the vice of
procedural irregularity.
25. In Parry’s (Calcutta) Employees’ Union v. Parry & Co.
Ltd. [AIR 1966 Cal 31] the Court observed that “perverse
finding” means a finding which is not only against the weight
of evidence but is altogether against the evidence itself.
In Triveni Rubber & Plastics v. CCE [1994 Supp (3) SCC
665 : AIR 1994 SC 1341] the Court observed that this is not
a case where it can be said that the findings of the authorities
are based on no evidence or that they are so perverse that no
reasonable person would have arrived at those findings.
26. In M.S. Narayanagouda v. Girijamma [AIR 1977 Kant
58] the Court observed that any order made in conscious
violation of pleading and law is a perverse order.
In Moffett v. Gough [(1878) 1 LR 1r 331] the Court observed
that a “perverse verdict” may probably be defined as one
that is not only against the weight of evidence but is
altogether against the evidence.
19
2026:JHHC:20908-DB
In Godfrey v. Godfrey [106 NW 814] the Court defined
“perverse” as turned the wrong way, not right; distorted
from the right; turned away or deviating from what is right,
proper, correct, etc.
27. The expression “perverse” has been defined by various
dictionaries in the following manner:
1. Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current
English, 6th Edn.
“Perverse.–Showing deliberate determination to behave
in a way that most people think is wrong, unacceptable or
unreasonable.”
2. Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English,
International Edn.
Perverse.–Deliberately departing from what is normal
and reasonable.
3. The New Oxford Dictionary of English, 1998 Edn.
Perverse.–Law (of a verdict) against the weight of
evidence or the direction of the judge on a point of law.
4. The New Lexicon Webster’s Dictionary of the English
Language (Deluxe Encyclopedic Edn.)
Perverse.–Purposely deviating from accepted or
expected behavior or opinion; wicked or wayward; stubborn;
cross or petulant.
5. Stroud’s Judicial Dictionary of Words & Phrases, 4th
Edn.
“Perverse. –A perverse verdict may probably be defined as
one that is not only against the weight of evidence but is
altogether against the evidence.”
38. Herein, submission has been made on behalf of the appellant-
husband that the respondent-wife committed mental cruelty against him.
39. The “cruelty” has been interpreted by the Hon’ble Apex Court in
the case of Dr. N.G. Dastane vs. Mrs. S. Dastana, (1975) 2 SCC 326
wherein it has been laid down that the Court has to enquire, as to whether,
the conduct charge as cruelty, is of such a character, as to cause in the mind
20
2026:JHHC:20908-DB
of the petitioner, a reasonable apprehension that, it will be harmful or
injurious for him to live with the respondent.
40. This Court deems it fit and proper to take into consideration the
meaning of ‘cruelty’ as has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in
Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi, (1988)1 SCC 105 wherein the wife
alleged that the appellant-husband and his parents demanded dowry. The
Hon’ble Apex Court emphasized that “cruelty” can have no fixed
definition.
41. According to the Hon’ble Apex Court, “cruelty” is the “conduct
in relation to or in respect of matrimonial conduct in respect of matrimonial
obligations”. It is the conduct which adversely affects the spouse. Such
cruelty can be either “mental” or “physical”, intentional or unintentional.
For example, unintentionally waking your spouse up in the middle of the
night may be mental cruelty; intention is not an essential element of cruelty
but it may be present. Physical cruelty is less ambiguous and more “a
question of fact and degree.”
42. The Hon’ble Apex Court has further observed therein that while
dealing with such complaints of cruelty that it is important for the Court
to not search for a standard in life, since cruelty in one case may not be
cruelty in another case. What must be considered include the kind of life
the parties are used to, “their economic and social conditions”, and the
“culture and human values to which they attach importance.”
43. The nature of allegations need not only be illegal conduct such
as asking for dowry. Making allegations against the spouse in the written
statement filed before the court in judicial proceedings may also be held to
constitute cruelty.
21
2026:JHHC:20908-DB
44. In V. Bhagat vs. D. Bhagat (Mrs.), (1994)1 SCC 337, the wife
alleged in her written statement that her husband was suffering from
“mental problems and paranoid disorder”. The wife’s lawyer also levelled
allegations of “lunacy” and “insanity” against the husband and his family
while he was conducting a cross-examination. The Hon’ble Apex Court
held these allegations against the husband to constitute “cruelty”.
45. In Vijaykumar Ramchandra Bhate v. Neela Vijay Kumar
Bhate, (2003)6 SCC 334 the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed by taking
into consideration the allegations levelled by the husband in his written
statement that his wife was “unchaste” and had indecent familiarity with a
person outside wedlock and that his wife was having an extramarital affair.
These allegations, given the context of an educated Indian woman, were
held to constitute “cruelty” itself.
46. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Joydeep Majumdar v. Bharti
Jaiswal Majumdar, (2021) 3 SCC 742, has observed that while judging
whether the conduct is cruel or not, what has to be seen is whether that
conduct, which is sustained over a period of time, renders the life of the
spouse so miserable as to make it unreasonable to make one live with the
other. The conduct may take the form of abusive or humiliating treatment,
causing mental pain and anguish, torturing the spouse, etc. The conduct
complained of must be “grave” and “weighty” and trivial irritations and
normal wear and tear of marriage would not constitute mental cruelty as a
ground for divorce.
47. “Cruelty” has an inseparable nexus with human conduct and is
always dependent on social strata or milieu to which parties belong, their
ways of life, relationship, temperaments and emotions that are
22
2026:JHHC:20908-DB
conditioned by their social status, reference be made to the judgment
rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case Vishwanath
Agrawal v. Sarla Vishwanath Agrawal, (2012) 7 SCC 288.
48. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A.
Deepa, (2013) 5 SCC 226 has observed that cruelty is evident where one
spouse so treats other and manifests such feelings in other, as to cause
reasonable apprehension in mind of other that it would be harmful or
injurious to reside with other spouse and cruelty may be physical or
mental. It has further been observed that staying together under the same
roof is not a precondition for mental cruelty. Spouse can cause mental
cruelty by his or her conduct even while he or she is not staying under the
same roof.
49. In matrimonial relationship cruelty mean absence of mutual
respect and understanding between spouses which embitters relationship.
Sometimes it may take form of violence, or at times may just be an attitude
or approach. Silence in some situations may also amount to cruelty
reference be made to the case of Ravi Kumar v. Julmidevi, (2010) 4 SCC
476.
50. For considering dissolution of marriage at instance of a spouse
who alleges mental cruelty, result of such mental cruelty must be such that
it is not possible to continue with matrimonial relationship reference may
be taken from the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the
case of Joydeep Majumdar v. Bharti Jaiswal Majumdar, (2021) 3 SCC
742.
51. Further, the word ‘cruelty’ is used relation to human conduct or
human behaviour. It is the conduct in relation to or in respect of
23
2026:JHHC:20908-DB
matrimonial duties and obligations. It is a course of conduct and one
which is adversely affecting the other. The cruelty may be mental or
physical, intentional or unintentional. There may be cases where the
conduct complained of itself is bad enough and per se unlawful or illegal.
Then the impact or the injurious effect on the other spouse need not be
enquired into or considered. In such cases, the cruelty will be established
if the conduct itself is proved or admitted, reference in this regard be made
to the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vinita
Saxena v. Pankaj Pandit, (2006) 3 SCC 778.
52. Further, in the case of Manish Tyagi v. Deepak Kumar, (2010)
4 SCC 339 the Hon’ble Apex Court has categorically observed that to
constitute ‘cruelty’, it is enough that conduct of one of parties is so
abnormal and below accepted norm that other spouse could not reasonable
be expected to put up with it. Conduct is no longer required to be so
atrociously abominable which would cause reasonable apprehension that
it would be harmful of injurious to continue cohabitation with another
spouse. Hence, it is not necessary to establish physical violence.
Continued ill-treatment, cessation of marital intercourse, studied neglect,
indifference may lead to inference of cruelty.
53. The word “cruelty” under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Act has got
no static connotation, and therefore, gives a very wide discretion to the
Court to apply it liberally and contextually. What is cruelty in one case
may not be the same for another and has to be applied from person to
person while taking note of the attending circumstances. Harm or injury
to health, reputation, the working-career or the like, would be important
considerations in determining whether the conduct of the defending
24
2026:JHHC:20908-DB
spouse amounts to cruelty. It has to be shown that the defending spouse
has treated him with cruelty to cause reasonable apprehension in his/her
mind that it will be harmful or injurious to live with the contesting spouse.
54. At this juncture, it would be apt to refer the definition of desertion
as defined under explanation part of Section 13 which means the desertion
of the petitioner by the other party to the marriage without reasonable
cause and without the consent or against the wish of such party, and
includes the willful neglect of the petitioner by the other party to the
marriage.
55. Further, it requires to refer herein that the word ‘desertion’ has
been given in Explanation to Section 13 (1) wherein it has been stated that
“the expression desertion means the desertion of the petitioner by the other
party to the marriage without reasonable cause and without the consent or
against the wish of such party, and includes the willful neglect of the
petitioner by the other party to the marriage, and its grammatical
variations and cognate expressions shall be construed accordingly.
56. It is pertinent to note that the word ‘desertion’, as has been
defined in Explanation part of Section 13 of the Act, 1955, means the
desertion of the petitioner by the other party to the marriage without
reasonable cause and without the consent or against the wish of such party,
and includes the willful neglect of the petitioner by the other party to the
marriage, and its grammatical variations and cognate expressions shall be
construed accordingly.
57. Rayden on Divorce which is a standard work on the subject at p.
128 (6th Edn.) has summarised the case-law on the subject in these terms:
“Desertion is the separation of one spouse from the other,
with an intention on the part of the deserting spouse of bringing25
2026:JHHC:20908-DBcohabitation permanently to an end without reasonable cause
and without the consent of the other spouse; but the physical act
of departure by one spouse does not necessarily make that spouse
the deserting party.”
58. The legal position has been admirably summarised in paras-453
and 454 at pp. 241 to 243 of Halsbury’s Laws of England (3rd Edn.), Vol.
12, in the following words:
“In its essence desertion means the intentional permanent
forsaking and abandonment of one spouse by the other without
that other’s consent, and without reasonable cause. It is a total
repudiation of the obligations of marriage. In view of the large
variety of circumstances and of modes of life involved, the Court
has discouraged attempts at defining desertion, there being no
general principle applicable to all cases.
59. Desertion is not the withdrawal from a place but from a state of
things, for what the law seeks to enforce is the recognition and discharge
of the common obligations of the married state; the state of things may
usually be termed, for short, ‘the home’. There can be desertion without
previous cohabitation by the parties, or without the marriage having been
consummated. The person who actually withdraws from cohabitation is
not necessarily the deserting party. The fact that a husband makes an
allowance to a wife whom he has abandoned is no answer to a charge of
desertion.
60. The offence of desertion is a course of conduct which exists
independently of its duration, but as a ground for divorce it must exist for
a period of at least two years immediately preceding the presentation of
the petition or, where the offence appears as a cross-charge, of the answer.
Desertion as a ground of divorce differs from the statutory grounds of
adultery and cruelty in that the offence founding the cause of action of
26
2026:JHHC:20908-DB
desertion is not complete, but is inchoate, until the suit is constituted.
desertion is a continuing offence.
61. It is, thus, evident from the aforesaid reference of meaning of
desertion that the quality of permanence is one of the essential elements
which differentiates desertion from wilful separation. If a spouse abandons
the other spouse in a state of temporary passion, for example, anger or
disgust, without intending permanently to cease cohabitation, it will not
amount to desertion. For the offence of desertion, so far as the deserting
spouse is concerned, two essential conditions must be there, namely, (1)
the factum of separation, and (2) the intention to bring cohabitation
permanently to an end.
62. Similarly, two elements are essential so far as the deserted spouse
is concerned: (1) the absence of consent, and (2) absence of conduct giving
reasonable cause to the spouse leaving the matrimonial home to form the
necessary intention aforesaid. In such a situation, the party who is filing
for divorce will have the burden of proving those elements.
63. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Debananda Tamuli vs. Kakumoni
Kataky, (2022) 5 SCC 459 has considered the definition of ‘desertion’ on
the basis of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Lachman
Utamchand Kirpalani v. Meena, AIR 1964 SC 40 .
64. It has been observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court that ‘desertion’
means the intentional abandonment of one spouse by the other without the
consent of the other and without a reasonable cause. The deserted spouse
must prove that there is a factum of separation and there is an intention on
the part of deserting spouse to bring the cohabitation to a permanent end.
In other words, there should be animus deserendi on the part of the
27
2026:JHHC:20908-DB
deserting spouse. There must be an absence of consent on the part of the
deserted spouse and the conduct of the deserted spouse should not give a
reasonable cause to the deserting spouse to leave the matrimonial home.
The view taken by the Hon’ble Apex Court has been incorporated in the
Explanation added to sub-section (1) of Section 13 by Act 68 of 1976. The
said Explanation reads thus:
“13. Divorce.–(1) …
Explanation.–In this sub-section, the expression “desertion”
means the desertion of the petitioner by the other party to the
marriage without reasonable cause and without the consent or
against the wish of such party, and includes the wilful neglect of the
petitioner by the other party to the marriage, and its grammatical
variations and cognate expressions shall be construed
accordingly.”
65. Now adverting to the factual aspect, it is evident from the
impugned order that the allegations specific to the ground of alleged
cruelty and desertion has been made by petitioner/plaintiff-husband.
66. In the instant case as per pleadings of both the parties the
marriage between them as per Hindu rites is admitted fact. Further the birth
of two children out of the wed lock of the couple female child aged about
11 years and male child aged about 09 years is also admitted fact.
67. Further, the petition has been filed by the plaintiff/appellant
before learned Family Court for a decree of divorce on the ground of
cruelty and desertion wherein he made allegation against the
defendant/wife that he has been subjected to cruelty at the hands of the
defendant. In Para 30 of his cross examination, plaintiff/appellant has
stated that he has left the relationship with his wife and children since 2011
because his wife has lodged a case u/s 498 A I.P.C. against him and he has
28
2026:JHHC:20908-DB
no relationship with his wife as husband and wife after 23.11.2011. In
para- 35 of his cross examination, he has stated that he was acquitted in
the case u/s 498 A I.P.C. filed by his wife. It has been stated that the
defendant/wife on 08.11.2011 lodged case against the plaintiff/
husband/appellant under Domestic Violence Case no. 40/2011 in the Court
of C.J.M. Jamtara and she filed Criminal Appeal No. 68/2014 against the
plaintiff before the Court of Sessions Judge, Jamtara.
68. The allegation levelled by the plaintiff in the plaint that the
defendant used to live very few days with him and she was regularly living
at Dumka as because he was posted at Sadar hospital, Dumka and the
defendant used to come and stay for one or two days in a month and
defendant used to reside at Jamtara for the reason best known to her. It is
also alleged that father of the defendant asked the plaintiff to be gharjamai.
On refusal by the plaintiff the dispute cropped up in between both the
parties and thereafter bitterness of matrimonial relationship of husband and
wife started deteriorating severely by the litigating attitude. The defendant
used to lodging one after another criminal cases on false grounds only to
humiliate her husband and she lodged a false case u/s 498 A 1.P.C. and
other sections of I.P.C. and got the petitioner arrested in that very case
being registered as G.R. Case no. 1361/2011 Dumka (T) P.S. Case no.
172/2011 dated 24.11.2011 and thereafter she went to her parent’s house
along with her children and since then residing separately.
69. The Defendant Sarita Kumari in para-25, 26 and 32 of her cross
examination admitted that she filed another case of Domestic violence
against the plaintiff registered as Complaint Case (D.V.) Case o. 545/2017
and vide order dated 22.09.2017 the defendant/wife was allowed to share
29
2026:JHHC:20908-DB
house. It has been stated by the defendant that the plaintiff left Government
quarter with bag and baggage and defendant vide her application dt.
08.12.2017 informed the Civil Surgeon Dumka that the plaintiff left the
Government quarter with bag and baggage.
70. Further the defendant has filed Photo copy of certified copy of
deposition of plaintiff/husband given in Crl. Misc. (D.V.) no. 40/2011 at
Jamtara Ext. B which is a legal document, i.e., deposition on affidavit
being shown and filed by plaintiff Rajhans in a case lodged by his wife in
Crl. Case bearing D.V. case no. 40/2011 and the photo copy of the
certificate is exhibited from the side of plaintiff which is Ext.B and this
affidavit was filed on 28.01. 2019 by plaintiff Rajhans and in Para 6 of his
examination-in-chief he has stated that ” in D.V. case no. 535/17 में पारित
आदे श ददनाां क 22.09.2017 के आदे श के आलोक में मेिी पत्नी मेिे सिकािी क्वार्ट ि
में ददनाां क 25.09.2017 से बच्ोां के साथ िह िही है ।”
71. Thus, upon consideration of the written statement filed by the
defendant/wife, it is evident that she has admitted the factum of marriage
but disputed certain particulars.
72. In para-3 of her written statement, the defendant/wife has averred
that after marriage she went to her uncle’s house at Patna and resided there
from 24.11.2005 to 29.11.2005. Thereafter, she was brought by the
plaintiff to Dumka, where they stayed in a rented house at Mohalla New
Bandh Para. Subsequently, she accompanied the plaintiff to her father’s
house at Jamtara for a few days. The defendant has strongly objected to
the statement of the plaintiff in paragraph 2(11) of the plaint that she “used
to reside at Jamtara to the reason best known to her.” She has categorically
30
2026:JHHC:20908-DB
denied that her father ever desired to keep the plaintiff as a gharjamai,
asserting that she has her own brother and, hence, no such question arises.
73. She has specifically alleged that the plaintiff demanded a sum of
Rs. 1,00,000/- from her and compelled her to ask for the same from her
parents. Upon her refusal, the plaintiff brutally assaulted her and prevented
her from accompanying him to attend the marriage of her nanad. She has
further stated that on 18.02.2009 the plaintiff turned her out of his house
and thereafter never attempted to bring her back from Jamtara to Dumka.
On occasions when she herself came to Dumka, the plaintiff kept her only
for a day or two, established physical relations, and then expelled her
again. She has alleged that the plaintiff informed her that his family
members did not want her to reside with him and that he frequently
assaulted her after consuming liquor.
74. The defendant has further submitted that pursuant to the order of
the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamtara, she was kept in a Government
Quarter at Dumka from 10.10.2017, where the plaintiff resided with her
and cohabited as husband and wife. However, the plaintiff again assaulted
her and absconded to his new posting at Kathikund PHC on 26.11.2017,
compelling her to vacate the Government Quarter. She has denied the
allegation that the plaintiff has been residing separately since 24.10.2011,
asserting instead that she never deserted him. She has maintained that they
lived together at Dumka as husband and wife, sharing the bed every night,
though the plaintiff frequently assaulted her and neglected maintenance
obligations.
75. The defendant has categorically stated that she does not desire
divorce, as the minor children are with her and require the affection of both
31
2026:JHHC:20908-DB
parents. She has denied ever treating the plaintiff with cruelty, asserting
that she has consistently endeavoured to continue her marital life. She has
alleged that the plaintiff has exerted pressure upon her to vacate the
Government Quarter and that she was compelled to lodge three or four
criminal cases against him solely due to his conduct. She has further stated
that she resided with the plaintiff at Kathikund, where physical relations
were established, and therefore it is false to allege that they have lived
separately without cohabitation since 24.10.2011. She has denied
instituting false criminal cases, asserting that such cases were necessitated
by the plaintiff’s behaviour.
76. The learned Family Court has considered the entire factual aspect
as well as settled position of law and after going through the evidence on
record has explained in detail about absence of element of cruelty and
desertion. For ready reference, the relevant paragraph thereof is being
quoted as under:
23. After having discussed respective pleadings of both the parties on
record which have get very much important to bring out the real facts,
involved to crop up the norms of the case and framing of issues involved
in the case, I find that present case has been instituted for getting a relief
of dissolution of marriage in between petitioner/husband and
defendant/wife on the twin ground of cruelty and desertion. The present
suit is not maintainable because the plaintiff had never been resided
separately still the plaintiff used to make physical relation with the
defendant. The plaintiff is not entitled for any relief or reliefs as sought
for, hence the suit is required to be dismissed.”
26. Ext.B- In his examination in chief the plaintiff Rajhans admitted that
D.V. case no. 535/17 में पारित आदे श ददनाांक 22.09.2017 के आदे श के
आलोक में मेिी पत्नी मेिे सिकािी क्वार्ट ि में ददनाांक 25.09.2017 से बच्ोां के साथ
िह िही है।
This is the affidavit filed by the O.P. of that case Rajhans and petitioner
of present case and it was fixed on 28.01.209 in the Court of CJ.M.,
Jamtara on Crl.Misc. Case no 40/20 (D.V.) in which the respondent of
32
2026:JHHC:20908-DB
this case was petitioner complainant. So it is admission on the part of
petitioner that since 25.08.2017 the respondent of this case with children
living with petitioner continuously.”
“28. There are one twists in this case which has brought on record by
way of exhibiting the F.I. R. along with it’s all particulars including the
letter of the Officer-in-charge of Mahila P.S. dated 06.07.2022 addressed
to the Branch Manager S.B.I. Kathikund to know the details of account
of Rajhans who is plaintiff of this case, the name of nominee and relations
of the nominee with Rajhans with his signature and seal relating to retail
of the Bank Account. Th name of nominee is Usha Kumari and the
relation with Rajhans is shown wife.
29. Ext.A is also F.I.R. of Mahila P.S. Case no. 05/2023 registered under
section 498 A, 494, 420, 495, and 506/34 of the IPC lodged on the basis
of written information filed on behalf of Sarita Kumari Singh, the
defendant of the present case against his husband namely Rajhans, the
plaintiff of this case and others in which it is alleged that without getting
divorce his husband Rajhans has developed illicit relation with one Usha
Kumari and leads adulterous life with that lady Usha Kumari which is
corroborated in Ext.B and in Ext. 1. Hence the plaintiff’s suit comes
under the purview of Ext. 1 and D and also Ext. D which goes against
him Le not the defendant who is subjected to cruelty by him, rather, it is
the plaintiff/ husband who all the time subjected the defendant to mental
and physical cruelty.”
77. Thus, from the aforesaid it is evident that the learned Family
Judge has considered the fact that the appellant-husband has miserably
failed to establish the allegation of cruelty against the respondent-wife,
rather it has come on record that the plaintiff-husband has relationship with
another woman, namely, Usha Kumar to whom he made nominee in his
bank account.
78. After discussing in detail on the point of cruelty and desertion, in
view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the learned Family Judge
at para-37, 38, 39, 40 and 41 has held as under:
“37. Therefore, the evidence of this witness is again apparently
contradictory, false and not believable, Thus, she has fully proved her
case of torture and disproved the case of desertion by her to the
petitioner since 24.10.2011 when the plaintiff was arrested and send to
33
2026:JHHC:20908-DBjail. In this way, I find that the respondent has fully proved her case
whereas and petitioner failed to get anything from her evidence. She has
proved that she has been living along with her children with her
husband. Thus she supported the respondent’s case. Hence issue no. III,
IV and V are decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant.
38. Issue No. I and II
(I) Is the suit maintainable in its present form?
(ii) Has the plaintiff got valid cause of action for the suit?
Both issues are related to maintainability of the petition and cause of
action for the suit. In this case, I have discussed above that the petitioner
has miserably failed to prove his case of adultery, desertion and cruelty
against the respondent and as such failed to prove his case of divorce
and hence I find that the suit filed by the plaintiff is neither maintainable
nor has valid cause for the same. Therefore, both these issues also goes
against the plaintiff. Considering the entire facts of the case, pleadings
of the parties, statement of the witnesses and also documentary evidence
led on behalf of both the parties as well as the case law discussed above,
I am of the opinion that the plaintiff has failed to prove his case of
desertion and cruelty against the defendant/wife, hence not entitled to
get decree of divorce u/s 13(1), (-a) and (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act,
1955. Thus these issues are also decided against plaintiff and in favour
of defendant.
39. Issue No.VI and VII-
(VI) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of divorce?
(VII) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for any other relief or reliefs?
In view of my aforesaid findings, I find that the plaintiff is not entitled
for decree of divorce and also any relief as claimed. Thus, these issues
are also decided against plaintiff and in favour of defendant.
40. Considering the entire facts of the case, pleadings of the parties,
statement of the witnesses and also documentary evidence led on behalf
of both the parties as well as the case law discussed above, I am of the
opinion that the plaintiff bas failed to prove his case of desertion and
cruelty against the defendant/wife, hence not entitled to get a decree of
divorce u/s 13 (1), (1-a) and (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
41. Accordingly, it is, therefore,
ORDERED
The original suit filed by the plaintiff (Husband) Rajhans against his
defendant (wife) Sarita Kumari Singh for dissolution of marriage by
passing a decree of divorce U/S 13(1) (i-a) (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955 is hereby dismissed on contest but without cost.
Let a decree be prepared accordingly.”
79. The appellant-husband although has taken the ground of cruelty
meted to him by his wife but, in course of trial he has failed to establish
the element of cruelty meted out to him at the hands of the respondent-
wife.
80. The desertion while, on the other hand, has been defined that if
either of the parties on its own has left the house without any compulsion
34
2026:JHHC:20908-DB
or coercion, then only such type of separation will come under the fold of
desertion. But what we have seen from the evidence of the appellant and
the witnesses adduced on his behalf during the trial that the appellant has
himself left the company of respondent/wife and further it has been
categorically stated by the defendant/wife that she does not desire divorce,
as the minor children are with her and require the affection of both parents.
She has denied ever treating the plaintiff with cruelty, asserting that she
has consistently endeavoured to continue her marital life. She has alleged
that the plaintiff has exerted pressure upon her to vacate the Government
Quarter and she has further stated that she resided with the plaintiff at
Kathikund, where physical relations were established and, therefore, it is
false to allege that they have been living separately without cohabitation
since 24.10.2011.
81. Thus, from the aforesaid, it is evident that factum of desertion
has not been proved cogently by the appellant/husband, rather it has come
on record that plaintiff/husband has exerted pressure upon respondent/
wife to vacate the Government Quarter and he eventually left the quarter.
82. This Court after discussing the aforesaid factual aspect along
with the legal position and adverting to the consideration made by the
learned Family Judge in the impugned judgment has found therefrom that
the issue of element of cruelty and desertion has well been considered by
the learned Family Judge.
83. On consideration of the evidence, the learned Family Judge has
come to conclusion that the appellant-husband has miserably failed to
establish the ground of cruelty and desertion against the respondent-wife.
35
2026:JHHC:20908-DB
84. The aforesaid reason has led the learned Family Judge to dismiss
the suit.
85. This Court, on consideration of the finding arrived at by the
learned Family Judge and based upon the aforesaid discussion, is of the
view that the judgment and decree passed by the learned Family Judge is
not coming under the fold of the perversity, since, the conscious
consideration has been made of the evidences, both ocular and
documentary, as would be evident from the impugned judgment.
86. This Court, therefore, is of the view that the judgment dated
08.09.2022 and the decree signed on 20.09.2022 passed in Original Suit
No.161 of 2018 by the learned Family Judge needs no interference and,
accordingly, the instant appeal stands dismissed.
87. Pending I.As, if any, stands disposed of.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
I Agree.
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Sudhir
Dated:14/07/2026
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
AFR
Uploaded on 15/07/2026.
36
