Jharkhand High Court
Abhishek Kerketta vs Shobha Kujur on 14 July, 2026
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
2026:JHHC:20890-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
F.A. No.184 of 2025
------
Abhishek Kerketta, aged about 44 years, son of Late Eliyas
Kerketta, permanent residing at Bajra Kumba Toli, Near ITI
Bus Stand, PO Hehal, PS Sukhdeonagar, District-Ranchi,
presently residing at Gorabari, PO Jagadalla, PS-Bankura,
Distt. Bankura, West Bengal. ... ... Appellant
Versus
Shobha Kujur, aged about 43 years, wife of Mr. Abhishek
Kerketta, daughter of Mr. Vincent Kujur, R/o Pathalkudwa
Church Lane, PS - Lower Bazar, PO-GPO, District-Ranchi.
... ... Respondent
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
.....
For the Appellant : Mr. Arbind Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Ashok Kumar Jha, Advocate.
.....
C.A.V. on 22.06.2026 Pronounced on 14/07/2026
Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
Prayer:
1. The instant appeal has been filed under section 19(1) of
the Family Courts Act, 1984 for challenging the legality and
propriety of impugned judgment passed on 03.07.2025 and
decree signed on 14.07.2025 by learned Additional Principal
Judge, Additional Family Court-I, Ranchi whereby and
whereunder the Original Suit No. 246 of 2022 filed by the
appellant-husband under Section 10(ix) and (x) of the Divorce
Act, 1869 for a decree of dissolution of marriage on theground of desertion and cruelty, has been dismissed.
Factual Matrix
2. The brief facts of the case as narrated before the
trial court by the appellant/petitioner husband is that the
appellant-husband and respondent-wife are by caste
Oraon, by faith Christian and their marriage was
solemnized on 19.10.2015 according to Christian rites and
rituals at N.W. GEL Church, Main Road, Ranchi and after
marriage respondent-wife was brought to her matrimonial
home at village Bajra, Kumbatoli, P.S. Sukhdeo Nagar,
District Ranchi where the appellant-husband and the
respondent-wife lived together as husband and wife only
for a few days and the marriage has been consummated
but after completion of the customaries, the respondent-
wife, against the consent of her husband, went to her
workplace at Chhattisgarh.
3. It has been stated that during the stay of
respondent-wife in the house of appellant-husband, she
caused a lot of intolerable mental pain and agony to the
appellant, due to rude and ill behaviour of the wife
towards the appellant as well towards other family
members of the appellant. There is no child begotten out of
their wedlock.
2
4. It has been stated that the appellant several times
has requested the respondent-wife to come to him and
discharge her matrimonial obligations, but every time the
respondent showed her avoidable attitude on the context
of her service.
5. It has been stated that appellant is an employee of
Union Bank of India in the State of West Bengal on a
respectable post having a good and handsome salary for
maintenance of the respondent and his other family
members hence, several times appellant advised the
respondent to live with him and perform her matrimonial
obligations but the respondent never paid any heed on it
and always refused to obey the said advise of the
appellant.
6. It has been stated that the appellant’s younger
brother is fully dependent on the appellant but the
respondent always raised objection to the appellant
towards giving any support or help to his younger brother,
which caused a mental agony to the appellant.
7. It has further been stated that the respondent
always showed her hostile attitude, her rigidness to the
appellant as well as towards other family members of the
appellant and she was not interested to live with her in-
laws at Ranchi.
3
8. It has been stated that during stay at matrimonial
home the respondent never took care of family members of
the appellant in any manner including health and food
and she used to avoid even to cook food for the family
members including the appellant and such action of the
respondent always caused mental pain and agony to the
appellant and his other family members because it was a
cruelty against the appellant and his family members,
which has been caused by the respondent-wife. The
respondent was also making pressure upon the appellant
to transfer his ancestral landed properties in the name of
the respondent and on denial for the same, she used to
quarrel with the appellant and his other family members
causing mental pain and agony to them.
9. It has been stated that the respondent was also
advancing threats to the appellant and his family members
for their implication in false cases, this act of the
respondent was nothing but a cruelty against the
appellant and his family members and all the cruelties,
caused by the respondent against the appellant and his
family members, were tolerated in a hope that in future
the respondent will amend her behaviour, but there was
no progress in the behaviour of the respondent, who was
not ready to leave her service and live in the matrimonial
4
home and discharge her matrimonial obligations and
seeing the unwillingness of the respondent, the appellant
many times requested her to stay with the appellant but
always the respondent showed her unwillingness without
any reason.
10. It has been stated that the respondent had no
effect about the request of the appellant and his family
members, she threatened to the appellant that if any
objection will be made, she will lodge F.I.R. against the
appellant and all other family members of her matrimonial
home.
11. It has been stated that the respondent developed
tendency of levelling false allegations upon the appellant
and his family members and pick quarrel with them by
passing fake remarks against the appellant and creation of
scene in the house became the routine of the respondent.
12. It has further been stated that the appellant
always tried to establish a better relation but the
respondent never paid any heed on it and continued her
acts and actions which was causing cruelty to the
appellant. The respondent at her own desire and will, left
the matrimonial home on 10.07.2018 with her all
belongings and living separately for more than 03 (three)
years and has completely deserted the appellant and even
5
after several requests not joined the company and society
of the appellant.
13. It has been stated that the appellant made all
possible efforts to keep the respondent with him and he
also separately requested the respondent to not to leave
him, but she refused and left the company and society of
the appellant with her all belongings and has made the life
of the appellant barren/desert causing mental pain and
agony to the appellant.
14. It has been stated that with a view to cover her
own guilt the respondent has filed case U/s 32 of the
Divorce Act, 1969 vide Original (Matrimonial) Suit
no.621/2021 in the court of Principal Judge, Family
Court, Ranchi, against this appellant on wholly false and
concocted grounds, wherein this appellant filed his
detailed show cause and placed the entire matter before
the court. The said suit is still pending for adjudication.
15. It has been stated that the respondent has
knowingly, intentionally and willingly deserted the
appellant without any rhyme or reason and due to said act
of the respondent, the life of the appellant has become a
hell.
16. It has been stated that the appellant and the
respondent are living separately for more than 03 years
6
and as such there is no impediment to grant a decree of
divorce under section 10(ix) of the Indian Divorce Act,
1869.
17. It has been stated that the respondent without any
reasonable cause left the company and society of the
appellant only to fulfill her lust and has caused several
kinds of cruelty against the appellant and the appellant
several times requested the respondent to live in the
company of the appellant, but the respondent paid no any
heed on it causing pain and agony to the appellant.
18. The appellant has left with no other alternative
efficacious remedy than to file this suit for dissolution of
marriage solemnized in between the appellant and the
respondent on 19.10.2015.
19. The case was admitted for hearing and upon notice
the respondent-wife appeared.
20. Thereafter, the respondent-wife filed her written
statement in which it has been stated that the instant suit
preferred by the appellant under Section 10 (ix) and (x) of
the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 for dissolution of marriage is
not tenable either in law or in view of the facts and
circumstances of this case and as such the same is liable to
be dismissed.
21. It has been stated that the appellant has not come
7
up before the learned Court with clean hands and has filed
the suit after suppressing material facts with a motive to
mislead the learned Court.
22. It has been stated in the written statement that only
after appearing before this learned Court in a proceeding
preferred by the respondent under Section 32 of the Indian
Divorce Act, 1869 for restitution of conjugal rights as O.S.
No. 621/21, the appellant filed the suit alleging frivolous
and manufactured charges against the respondent and
hence, the suit is not tenable in the eye of law.
23. The statement regarding the marriage between the
parties solemnized on 19.10.2015 at N.W.G.E.L. Church,
Main Road, Ranchi in presence of the relatives, friends and
respectable persons is not denied. Admittedly, after
solemnization of marriage the respondent went to her
matrimonial house along with the appellant and started
living there along with the appellant and his younger
brother.
24. It is stated that only after a week of marriage the
appellant returned back to his work place to join his duty,
while the respondent continued in her matrimonial house
along with the younger brother of the appellant for about a
month.
25. It has been stated that prior to the marriage, both
8
the parties have decided to get their transfer to Ranchi to
lead peaceful conjugal life and according to the said
decision, the respondent applied for her transfer to Ranchi
sometimes in the month of August or September 2014 i.e.
much before her marriage with the appellant on his
assurance.
26. It is, however, stated that since the appellant-
husband was posted at Kharagpur, it was not possible to
transfer the respondent to Ranchi as per the transfer policy
the Bank. Somehow or other, in the year 2018 she had been
transferred to Ranchi under Patna Circle and got her posting
in Tangarbansli Branch within Mandar Police Station. The
appellant never requested or proposed the respondent to
resign the service and live with him to perform matrimonial
obligations. Contrary to it, the appellant insisted the
respondent to continue in service and take proper care of his
younger brother, who is sitting idle till date. It is true that
his younger brother, who is mentally and physically sound,
is still unemployed at the similar age group of this
respondent and only due to his unemployment, he cannot
be said to be a dependent of his employed elder brother.
Moreover, it is stated and submitted that this respondent
has spent much more time with her brother-in-law than her
husband i.e. the appellant and she never create any
9
hindrance into their relationship.
27. It has been stated that the respondent always tried
her best to fulfill all the demands of her younger brother-in-
law. It can be said that the respondent has never behaved
against the will and wish of the appellant or his younger
brother, which cause mental agony to them.
28. It has been stated in the written statement that the
respondent woke up early morning at 5.00 A.M. regularly to
perform the daily house keepings like cleaning, washing and
cooking and she used to conclude the cooking of breakfast,
lunch and her tiffin everyday till 8.30 A.M. and thereafter
she used to go to her work place which is about 35
kilometers away from their residence. Her duty hour was
10.00 Α.Μ. to 5,00 P.M. and therefore, she returned to her
home at about 7.30 to 8.00 P.M. on usual working day. After
coming to her home, she used to prepare dinner and after
completing the entire responsibility, used to go to bed at
about 11.00 P.M.
29. It has been stated that her brother-in-law never
supported her even in marketing or to keep the home clean
rather he used to stop the water supply when the
respondent takes bath. He was well aware that the
respondent will come back at about 7.30 to 8.00 P.M. to
home but, he intentionally and willfully used to go outside
10
after locking the main door and return back to home at late
night and under this situation the respondent has no option
than to go to her neighbour for time pass.
30. It has been stated that the family of the appellant
consist of himself, his younger brother and the respondent
being his legally wedded wife and therefore, the allegations
levelled against the respondent has no legs to stand.
31. It has been stated that the respondent has
approached the maternal aunty of the appellant namely
Jaiwanti Tigga, who is living with her family at Dhumsatoli
near Bahubazar at Ranchi and requested her to make the
appellant and his brother understand and direct them to co-
operate with the respondent but she never paid any heed to
it as she is supposed to be the only elderly guardian of the
appellant and his brother.
32. So far the statement regarding making pressure to
transfer the ancestral landed properties in favour of the
respondent is concerned, the appellant must disclose the
detail of such properties, which have been aimed by the
respondent to be transferred in her favour.
33. It has been stated that the respondent has not filed
any case either civil or criminal against the appellant save
and except a suit for restitution of her conjugal rights under
section 32 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 under compelling
11
circumstances, which is still pending before this learned
Court as O.S. 621/21.
34. It has been stated that the respondent has already
moved before this learned Court earlier for restitution of her
conjugal rights and after appearing therein, in course of
mediation process, the appellant has refused to restore his
relationship with the respondent. The respondent was
compelled to leave the matrimonial house due to the non-
cooperation and rude behaviour of the appellant.
35. The matter of the parties of the present proceeding
was referred to Mediation Centre, Ranchi to arrive any
amicable settlement between them but the same failed. In
view of it, the suit was taken up for its decision on merit.
36. It has been stated that the appellant-husband is not
entitled to get any decree, u/s 10 of the Divorce Act as the
suit is devoid of any merit either in law or on facts and same
is liable to be dismissed.
37. The learned Family Judge has taken into
consideration the pleading made by the parties in the plaint
as well as in the written statement.
38. The case proceeded for evidence which the
appellant-husband has produced and examined three
witnesses including himself.
12
39. The respondent-wife has produced and examined
altogether two witnesses including herself.
40. The learned Principal Judge, after hearing learned
counsel for the parties, framed seven issues for adjudication
of the lis, which are being referred as under:
I. Whether the suit as framed is maintainable?
II. Whether the appellant has valid cause of
action for the suit?
III. Whether the respondent wife has treated the
appellant husband with cruelty?
IV. Whether the respondent wife has deserted the
appellant husband since 24.10.2015?
V. Whether the appellant husband is taking
advantage of his own wrong?
VI. Whether the appellant is entitled to get the
decree of divorce?
VII. Whether the appellant is entitled to get any
other relief or reliefs?
41. The aforesaid issues were decided against the
appellant-husband and in favour of respondent-wife and the
suit was dismissed on contest.
42. The appellant-husband, being aggrieved with the
judgment passed on 03.07.2025 and decree signed on
14.07.2025 by learned Additional Principal Judge,
13
Additional Family Court-I, Ranchi approached this Court by
filing the instant appeal.
Submission made on behalf of the appellant-husband
43. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-husband
has submitted that the impugned judgement passed by the
learned court below is wholly wrong, illegal, against the
weight of evidence and materials available on record and is,
therefore, liable to be set aside.
44. It has been submitted that the learned court below has
passed the impugned judgement without properly
considering the materials available on record and as such
the same is fit to be set aside.
45. The learned Family Court has failed to take into
consideration that the appellant as well as other witnesses
specifically stated that the respondent/opposite party used
to pressurize the appellant/appellant to live separately from
his younger brother and was quarrelling with the appellant
and his younger brother for no reason which sufficiently
proves cruelty on the part of the respondent/opposite party.
46. The learned Family Court has failed to take into
consideration that the respondent/opposite party had suo
moto left the house of appellant/petitioner-husband on
10.07.2018 without any rhymes and reason which itself
amounts to desertion and cruelty.
14
47. The learned Family Court has failed to take into
consideration that admittedly the appellant and
respondent/opposite party are living separately since last
more than seven years and there is no chance of
reconciliation and in such circumstances, the marriage
ought to have been dissolved in the interest of justice.
48. The learned Family Court has failed to take into
consideration that alleging a false allegation on appellant are
sufficient ground to prove cruelty.
49. The learned Family Court has failed to take into
consideration that the respondent/opposite party has
without any cogent reason, withdrawn herself from the
society of the petitioner/appellant and is living separately
since 2018 in her parental house.
50. The learned Family Court ought to have considered the
ill-treatment and misbehavior of the respondent/opposite
party which she has done with the appellant and his
younger brother.
51. The learned Family Court ought to have considered the
desertion by the respondent/opposite party towards the
appellant/petitioner.
52. Further, it has been submitted that the findings
recorded by the learned Trial Court while answering issue
No.III (cruelty) are perverse and based on mere presumption,
therefore, the same will not stand in the eye of law.
15
53. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant, on the
basis of aforesaid grounds, has submitted that the judgment
passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional
Family Court-I, Ranchi requires interference.
Submission made on behalf of respondent-wife
54. Learned counsel for the respondent-wife, defending the
impugned order, has submitted that appellant and
respondent are legally married couple and she has filed a
suit for restitution of conjugal right but the appellant does
not want to keep her and has deserted her without any
rhyme and reason.
55. It has further been submitted that the respondent is
still ready to reside with the appellant-petitioner and the
allegation levelled against her by the appellant-husband are
false and fabricated as she never subjected him with cruelty
rather it is the appellant-husband who has deserted her.
56. It has been submitted that still she wants to live with
appellant and prayed to dismiss the suit filed by appellant.
57. Learned counsel for the respondent-wife on the
aforesaid grounds has submitted that the impugned
judgment requires no interference by this Court.
Analysis
58. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant-
husband as also learned counsel for the respondent-wife and
16
perused the material available on record and the finding
recorded in the impugned order.
59. This Court, before looking into the legality and propriety
of the impugned order, requires to refer the testimonies of the
witnesses, as available on record.
60. The appellant-husband, in support of his case, has
adduced three witnesses including himself. The relevant
portion of the testimonies of the witnesses are mentioned as
under :-
P.W.1, Jaywanti Tigga has supported the case of
appellant in her examination-in-chief and she has stated that
she knows the appellant-husband and the respondent-wife of
this suit. The marriage of the appellant and the respondent
was solemnized on 19.10.2015 at G.E.L. Church, Main Road,
Ranchi according to Christian religion in the presence of their
relatives, friends and well-wishers after which a relationship
of husband and wife was formed between them and both of
them started living together.
After marriage, the appellant along with the respondent
came to his residence at Mauja Bajra Kumbatoli, Near ITI
Bus Stop, Ranchi, so that they could live peacefully and lead
a married life but due to the cruel behaviour of the
respondent, there was a rift in their married life. The
appellant is the elder son of her younger sister and since the
death of his parents, he has been taken care of under her
17
and her family’s, due to which they keep visiting theappellant’s house.
She has stated that whenever she used to go to the
appellant’s house on Sundays, she used to meet the
appellant but never met the respondent It was known that
she goes to her mother’s house in Pathalkudwa every
Saturday. The appellant was working in Union Bank in
Kharagpur (from 2013 to 2022) and he used to reach his
home on Saturday morning on every second and fourth
Saturday, i.e., bank holiday. She used to go to her mother’s
house, staying there on Sunday and going to office from there
on Monday. This was her routine manner, but for some days
she used to stay at her mother’s house even when the
appellant came to his house and on asking the respondent
she used to say that her back cannot bend and she cannot
work, then the appellant used to spend the entire day
sweeping and mopping the whole house and cleaning it. But
knowing her problem, he remained silent.
She has stated that after few days the respondent
started behaving inhumanly towards her brother-in-law
which is unforgivable and now even when the appellant came
on leave, the respondent used to go to her mother’s house on
Saturday even then she did not come home and this trend
started increasing.
18
She has stated that despite her separation, the
appellant was silent. In this way both of them started living
separately,
She has stated that once the respondent went to
Kharagpur, the workplace of the appellant along with her
parents without informing anyone and started inquiring
about appellant by levelling allegation of having an immoral
relationship with some woman, which the appellant’s
landlord said that it was baseless and after this incident the
appellant’s mind became completely detached from the
respondent and he started feeling sad that the respondent
was harassing him mentally without any reason.
She has further stated that the respondent is not
fulfilling her proper responsibilities in marital life, behaving
inappropriately with her brother-in-law, not staying with the
family and staying at her parental house, not giving proper
place to her husband in her life, unnecessarily suspecting
and blaming her husband, the respondent has aggravated
the separation and divorce due to which it has become not
only impossible but also impossible for the appellant to
spend her marital life with her. The appellant and the
respondent have no children from their marital life.
This witness has stated that on 10th July, 2018,
respondent left the house after quarreling with the appellant
and since then it has been almost five years significant period
19
of their marital relationship has passed since its breakdownand now it is not possible for the appellant to continue her
marital life with the respondent
In her cross examination, she has stated that she is
relative from the side of mother of appellant. She has retired.
She did not get any chance to get reunion between appellant
and respondent. She has not seen quarreling by the
respondent. The respondent has threatened her. She has
denied that she came to depose falsely in this case.
P.W.2, Nishith Tigga @ Nishith Biswas has supported
the case of appellant in his examination-in-chief and he has
stated that he knows the appellant and the respondent of
this suit. The appellant has filed this suit for divorce against
the respondent. The marriage of the appellant and the
respondent was solemnized on 19.10.2015 at G.E.L. Church,
Main Road, Ranchi according to Christian religion in the
presence of their relatives, friends and well-wishers. After
that a husband-wife relationship was formed between them
and both husband and wife started living together. Both the
parties to this suit belong to the Oraon caste under the
Scheduled Tribe and are followers of Christianity, therefore
the appellant has filed this suit under the Indian Divorce Act.
He has stated that after marriage, the appellant took the
respondent at his residence at Mauja Bajra Kumbatoli, Near
ITI Bus Stand, Ranchi so that they could live their marital life
20
peacefully. The appellant is his maternal cousin brother andhis parents had died before their marriage and since the
death of his parents he has been brought up and looked after
under the care of his family due to which they keep visiting
the appellant’s house.
He has stated that before marriage they were not aware
that the appellant would not be able to maintain harmony
with her family because whenever they used to go to the
appellant’s house, the OP. always did not behave well with
them and would get irritated over small things and would be
ready to quarrel and she was not able to maintain good
relation with the appellant also.
He has stated that before marriage, they had the
impression that both husband and wife will live well with
each other and will behave well with them and their family,
friends etc. but after marriage, whenever they and their other
relatives used to visit her place, she used to misbehave and
insult everyone so that no one comes to her house and thus
they stopped visiting the appellant’s house due to the
misbehaviour of the respondent and the appellant became
very sad after knowing all this and used to explain to the
respondent that whoever from side of appellant comes, she
should behave well with them and live together but the
respondent used to quarrel with the appellant regarding this
matter and started threatening in various ways and
21
threatened the appellant to implicate him in false case. Theappellant’s parents died leaving appellant and his younger
brother and since then the appellant alone has been taking
care of and providing for his younger brother which the
respondent always opposed and the respondent did not want
the appellant’s younger brother to live with them whereas the
appellant is the eldest member of the family and being the
head of the family, he wants to take everyone along with him.
He has further stated that since the time of marriage,
ideological differences arose between the parties which kept
on increasing day by day and because of the said ideological
differences it is not possible for both of them to spend
married life together and till now there is no child even after
married life. On 10th July, 2018 the respondent left the
house after quarreling with the appellant and since then,
about five years of the important period of marital life have
passed but the respondent has never come to the appellant’s
house.
He has stated that the respondent would go directly
from her office to her maternal home and on weekends like
Saturday and Sunday when the appellant was in Ranchi, the
respondent would stay at her maternal home and would not
come to the appellant’s house. The appellant was working in
Union Bank in Kharagpur (from 2013 to 2022) and used to
reach his home on Saturday morning on every second and
22
fourth Saturday during bank holiday. Before marriage, theyhad no idea that the respondent could not adjust with his
family and every Saturday after leaving her office in
Pathalkudwa, where she works in State Bank, she used to go
to her maternal home instead of coming home, staying there
on Sunday and going to office from there on Monday. This
was her routine and even when the appellant was at home,
the respondent used to stay at her maternal home.
In his cross examination he has stated that he is
relative by side of mother of appellant. The marriage of
appellant was arranged marriage. He does not remember
when he last met with the respondent. The respondent did
not like when he visited the house of appellant. No quarrel
between this witness and respondent took place. He has no
knowledge that when respondent came to house after duty
then younger brother of appellant left the house after locking
the door and due to fed up she started to go office from her
maika. The respondent never threatened him. He has stated
that except this case one another case OS 621/21 is pending
in which they have given their evidence. He has no knowledge
that respondent went to Kharagpur at workplace of appellant
to save her marital life.
PW-3 Abhishek Kerketta is appellant himself. He has
stated in his examination-in-chief that he is appellant in this
suit and he is fully aware of all the facts and circumstances
23
of this suit. He has filed this suit for a decree of divorceagainst the respondent who is his wife as the attitude of the
respondent has always been indecent towards him and his
other family members and she was very cruel towards him
and has never followed her duties as a wife.
He has stated that his marriage was solemnized with
the respondent on 19.10.2015 at GEL Church, Main Road
Ranchi according to Christian rites and religion in the
presence of their relatives. friends and well-wishers and after
marriage he took the respondent along with him to his
residence at Mouza Bajra Kumbatoli, Near ITI Bus Stand,
Ranchi so that he could live his married life peacefully but
due to the cruel behaviour of the respondent there was a rift
in their marital life.
He has stated that after the death of his parents, he and
his younger brother are under the care of his aunt Jaywanti
Tigga and her family members, due to which they keep
coming to his house, which the respondent never liked and
whenever his aunt Jaywanti Tigga used to come to his house,
after their departure, the respondent used to express her
displeasure and quarrel with him.
He has stated that he was working in Union Bank in
Kharagpur (from 2013 to 2022) and he used to reach his
home on Saturday morning on every second and fourth
Saturday during bank holiday, he used to find that the
24
respondent was at her maternal home in Pathalkudwa. Hewent to Pathalkudwa many times and requested the
respondent to come home with him but she did not come.
He has stated that before marriage he had no idea that
the respondent cannot adjust with his family and almost
every Saturday she used to go to her in-law’s house at
Pathalkudwa. She works in State Bank, instead of coming
home after work, she used to stay at her mother’s house on
Sunday and go to office from there on Monday. This was her
routine and even knowing that he is at home and have come
on leave, she used to stay at her parental house.
He has stated that when he used to come home on
Saturday, he used to find the whole house in a disorder and
on asking the respondent, she used to say that she could not
do any household work and helplessly he used to sweep,
clean and cook on his holidays.
He has stated that after a few days of marriage
respondent started behaving inhumanly towards him and his
younger brother, which is unforgivable. The respondent used
to go to her maternal home from her workplace every
Saturday, stayed at her maternal home on Sunday and went
to work from her maternal home on Monday morning. He has
stated that once the respondent went to his workplace at
Kharagpur along with her parents without informing him and
started investigating him by levelling false allegation on him
25
of having an immoral relationship with a woman, which hislandlord said that it was baseless and due to this act of the
respondent, his image has also been spoiled among his
colleagues at Kharagpur.
He has stated that after this incident his mind got
completely detached from the respondent and he started
feeling very sad that the respondent unnecessarily harasses
him mentally. The respondent always pressurized him to
leave his younger brother and take a separate house on rent
and live with the respondent. They do not have any child
from their marital life.
He has stated that respondent never took proper
responsibility in the marital life. The respondent used to
behave inappropriately with her brother-in-law. She never
respected his family members and she preferred to stay with
her parents instead of living with him and she did not give
him proper place in her life and by doubting and accusing
him unnecessarily, the respondent has intensified the
separation and divorce due to which, it has become not only
impossible but also impossible for him to spend marital life
with the respondent.
He has stated that on 10th July, 2018, after a quarrel
regarding share in the property the respondent left the house
and since then almost five years of important period of their
marital life have passed but the respondent has never come
26
to his house since 10th July, 2018 and now it is not possiblefor him to spend his marital life with the respondent.
He has stated that the behaviour of the respondent has
always been extremely harsh, cruel, inhuman and insensitive
towards him and his family members due to which he has
always been mentally distressed and prayed that a decree for
dissolution of the marriage solemnized between them on
19.10.2015 should be passed.
In his cross examination he has stated that his
marriage was arranged one and, in his family, his younger
brother who is physically and mentally fit resides with him.
In the year 2018 he had gone to bring his wife back and after
that he never tried to bring her back. He has not filed case of
restitution of conjugal right with her own will. He has not
filed any application before any court or police station with
regard to allegation which he has alleged upon his wife. He
used to come Ranchi on second and fourth Saturday. He has
no knowledge that when his wife returned home after duty
then his brother used to lock the door and went to his aunt’s
house.
He has denied that his wife came to his work place at
Kharagpur in the year 2019 and at that time he did not allow
to enter in his house as a result she returned to Ranchi at
night. He has stated that prior to his marriage he did not ask
his wife to leave the job.
27
61. The respondent-wife has also adduced two witnesses in
support of her case which are being dealt hereunder as :-
D.W.1, Asha Bilung has supported the case of
respondent in her examination-in-chief and she has stated
that she knows both the parties of this proceeding and after
marriage respondent also lived in the same house with the
appellant and his younger brother.
She has stated that the marriage of both the parties was
solemnized on 19.10.2015 according to Christian rites and
rituals at NW GEL, Church, Main Road, Ranchi and no child
was begotten out of their wedlock.
She has stated that at the time of marriage appellant
was working in Union Bank and was posted in West Bengal,
while the respondent was working in State Bank of India and
was posted in Chhattisgarh and after marriage respondent
was trying to get her transfer to Ranchi, after which in 2017
she was transferred to Ranchi and was posted in
Tangarbansali branch.
She has stated that after marriage respondent started
living in her in-laws’ house where the appellant’s younger
brother also used to live with her. The appellant’s parents
had died before their marriage, so in the appellant’s absence,
only her younger brother and the respondent used to live in
that house.
28
She has stated that the respondent was transferred
from Chhattisgarh to Ranchi and posted at Tangarbasli
branch and she used to commute to duty from her in-laws’
house every day and before going to work respondent used to
do all the household chores and prepare food for her brother-
in-law and prepare dinner after returning from work.
She has stated that respondent’s brother-in-law did not
help the respondent in any household work, rather he used
to harass her intentionally and used to make false
complaints to the appellant due to which differences started
arising between them.
She has stated that she used to often enquire about the
well-being of the respondent and try to make her understand.
She has stated that apart from her many relatives of the
parties and people from the society tried to convince both the
parties many times but the appellant did not make any effort
to improve his marital life and even after the separation once
in the year 2019, the respondent went to meet the appellant
in Kharagpur at his work place but the appellant did not
even allow the respondent to enter in his house and she had
to return at night.
She has stated that she has never seen the respondent
quarrelling with the appellant and his younger brother. The
respondent used to do all the household chores herself and
she had to do all the shopping as her brother-in-law did not
29
do any work. She has also seen many times that when therespondent returned from work, her brother-in-law
deliberately locked the house and went somewhere and at
that time the respondent used to come to her and wait for
him to return and many times when it was quite late, the
respondent had to eat with them.
She has stated that respondent has never made any
dispute or claim regarding the property. She has stated that
after the differences arose between both the parties, the
respondent left her in-laws’ house but no effort was ever
made by the appellant to bring her back to his house.
In her cross examination she has stated that she does
not remember the case number in which she came to depose.
This divorce suit has been filed by Abhishek. She knows
Shobha Kujur since 2015. She had attended in the marriage
of Shobha Kujur. The marriage took place with consent of
family members of both the parties. She knows the family of
Abhishek since 2012 and parents of Abhishek have already
died and Abhishek has two brothers.
She has stated that Abhishek and Shobha both are
doing job and at the time of marriage both were posted at
different city. The brother of Abhishek still resides with
Abhishek and his brother always used to harass Shobha. She
has denied that in mediation centre Shobha Kujur demanded
Rs. 80 lakhs from Abhishek.
30
DW-2 Shobha Kujur, respondent herself. She has
stated in her examination-in-chief that her marriage was
solemnized with the appellant on 19.10.2015 as per
Christian rites and rituals in presence of members of both
the families, friends and well-wishers at NW GEL Church,
Main Road, Ranchi.
She has stated that at present she is working in State
Bank of India, Mandar Branch, Ranchi and at the time of
marriage she was posted in Kunkuri Branch, Chhattisgarh,
whereas the appellant is working in Union Bank and at the
time of marriage he was posted in Kharagpur (West Bengal)
and presently, after being transferred from West Bengal in
the year 2022 he is posted in Doranda Branch, Ranchi.
She has stated that after marriage she started living at
her in-laws’ house i.e. the appellant’s house with appellant
and his younger brother Anuj Kerketta, her mother-in-law
and father-in-law had passed away before their marriage.
After marriage she and her husband stayed together for
about a week because after that the appellant went to
contribute to his work whereas she had taken one month’s
leave from her work for her marriage and so after the
appellant left, she stayed at her in-laws’ house only for a
month. She and her brother-in-law Anuj Kerketta were
residing. Presently the appellant’s younger brother is aged
about 38 years and he is mentally and physically fit and is
31
unmarried and unemployed and stays at home. She used tocome to her in-laws’ house when she got leave from the bank
and even in the absence of appellant, she used to take up all
the responsibilities of the house, her brother-in-law did not
help her in household chores rather he used to complain
about her to his brother over petty matters, due to which
differences between them arose which was causing a rift in
their married life.
She has stated that in this context she has requested
the appellant many times that he himself should come and
stay with them for a few days, then the whole truth will come
out automatically, but he never listened to her and believed
only the words of his younger brother and his aunt and aunt
of the appellant and her family members were against their
marriage from the very beginning and even now they are
hellbent on ending their married life instead of resolving it.
The differences between them grew due to petty domestic
issues and no efforts were made by the appellant to resolve
the same, which resulted in breakdown of their marital life.
She has stated that before marriage both of them had
decided that they would get themselves transferred to Ranchi
and for this reason, before marriage she had sent a request
letter to the headquarter of her bank for getting herself
transferred to Ranchi.
32
She has stated that after about three years she was
transferred to Ranchi and she is posted in Tangarbasli
branch. She used to come to Tangarbasli for her work daily
from her in-laws’ place and presently she is posted in Mandar
branch.
She has stated that before going to her duty she used to
do all the household chores and prepare breakfast and lunch
for her brother-in-law and after returning from work, she
used to prepare dinner and she used to take full care of her
brother-in-law’s likes and dislikes and used to prepare food
of his choice, even after this, sometimes her brother-in-law
used to lock the house and go somewhere when she returned
from duty and used to return very late at night at such times
she used to go to her tenant and later to her house. Apart
from spending time at the house of neighbour Asha Bilung,
who is respondent witness no.1 where she also used to eat
food when it was late. She used to explain this to her
brother-in-law as well, but never discussed this with anyone
else.
She has stated that her brother-in-law did not help her
in any household work rather, he used to harass her
deliberately and make false complaints against her to his
brother. She took advise from her acquaintances many times
on this matter and they also tried to resolve the matter but
no meaningful result was achieved.
33
She has stated that even after several efforts when there
was no improvement in their relations, she was forced to
leave her in-laws’ house in unbearable condition on 10th July
2018, carrying only her handbag and tiffin, and started living
at her parental house and since then both are living
separately.
She has stated that in the month of October, 2019 when
she went to Kharagpur to meet the appellant after about 1
years of separation with intention of reestablishing her
marital relationship but appellant did not even allow her to
enter in his house and she had to return in the night itself.
She has stated that due to living separately their family
members also came to know about the disputes in their
married life and then this matter was told to the Panches and
they were requested to resolve this dispute. Then some
members of the Church and the neighbours went to convince
the appellant but the appellant did not listen to them.
She has stated that when she was left with no option to
save her marital life, she decided to take legal advice and filed
Original Matrimonial) Suit No. 621/2021 in the Family
Court, Ranchi u/s 32 of the Divorce Act for restoration of her
marital life, which is presently pending.
She has stated that the appellant appeared in that suit
after receiving the notice issued by the Court but no
meaningful effort was made by him to restore his married life.
34
In the said suit after filing his written statement on03.12.2021, on 28.03.2022 he filed this instant original
(matrimonial) suit number 246/2022 u/s 10 (ix) and (x) of
the Divorce Act on the basis of baseless, false and fabricated
allegations for divorce which itself shows the intention of the
appellant.
She has stated that before filing the suit for divorce by
the appellant, no complaint was ever made against her to the
family members nor was any information given to any police
station or court and even in the written statement filed by the
appellant in the original (matrimonial) suit number
621/2021, he has not mentioned that she has harassed him
mentally, physically or financially. The allegations levelled
against her by the appellant are beyond the truth, false,
misleading, baseless and fabricated.
In her cross examination she has stated that her
marriage was solemnized with appellant on 19.10.2015 with
consent of both their family members and after marriage she
went to her Sasural where she lived for one month. At the
time of marriage she was posted at SBI Kurkuri Branch,
Chhattisgarh while her husband was posted in West Bengal
at Kharagpur Branch. After four days of marriage her
husband went on his duty.
She has stated that no child was begotten out of their
wedlock. She has stated that younger brother of appellant
35
was residing in her Sasural as parents of appellant were
already died and differences took place between she and
younger brother of appellant on petty matter. On, 10th July,
2018 she left her Sasural and came to her parental house
and since then she is living in parental house.
She has stated that she has filed a suit against her
husband for restitution of conjugal right which is now
pending. There is no marital relation between them since
2018.
She has stated that it is incorrect to say that she has
demanded Rs. 80 lakhs from her husband in Mediation
Centre due to which the mediation failed. She has denied
that she put pressure upon her husband to transfer his
property in her name. She has denied that she did not
respect her husband.
62. Besides oral evidence, documentary evidences were also
adduced, which were marked as exhibits.
63. Since the learned counsel for the appellant has raised
the issue of perversity by contending that the findings
recorded by the learned Family Court while answering issue
no. (iii) i.e. issue of cruelty are perverse, therefore, before
addressing the aforesaid seminal issue it would be apt to
discuss herein the appropriate meaning of word “perverse”.
64. This Court while appreciating the argument advanced
on behalf of the appellant on the issue of perversity needs to
36
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.
65. 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 are37
so perverse that no reasonable person would have arrived
at those findings.
26. In M.S. Narayanagouda v. Girijamma [AIR 1977 Kant
58] the Court observed that any order made in conscious
violation of pleading and law is a perverse order. In
Moffett v. Gough [(1878) 1 LR 1r 331] the Court observed
that a “perverse verdict” may probably be defined as one
that is not only against the weight of evidence but is
altogether against the evidence. In Godfrey v.
Godfrey [106 NW 814] the Court defined “perverse” as
turned the wrong way, not right; distorted from the right;
turned away or deviating from what is right, proper,
correct, etc.
27. The expression “perverse” has been defined by
various dictionaries in the following manner:
1. Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current
English, 6th Edn. “Perverse.–Showing deliberate
determination to behave in a way that most people think
is wrong, unacceptable or unreasonable.”
2. Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English,
International Edn. Perverse.–Deliberately departing from
what is normal and reasonable.
3. The New Oxford Dictionary of English, 1998 Edn.
Perverse.–Law (of a verdict) against the weight of
evidence or the direction of the judge on a point of law.
4. The New Lexicon Webster’s Dictionary of the English
Language (Deluxe Encyclopedic Edn.) Perverse.–
Purposely deviating from accepted or expected behavior
or opinion; wicked or wayward; stubborn; cross or
petulant.
5. 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.”
66. Thus, from the aforesaid it is evident that if any order
made in conscious violation of pleading and law then it will
38
come under the purview of perverse order. Further “perverse
verdict” may probably be defined as one that is not only
against the weight of evidence but is altogether against the
evidence.
67. It needs to refer herein that as per the Section 2 of the
Divorce Act, 1869, empowers the Court to grant relief to the
husband or wife, one of whom is a Christian. As per Section
2 of the Act, either the husband or a wife, one of whom is a
Christian, is entitled to invoke the provisions contained
under this Act for relief. This Act does not specify that it will
only apply to a marriage solemnized in a particular form. If
one of the parties to the lis is a Christian, irrespective of the
form of marriage solemnised, the provisions contained under
the Act will be applicable to them for resolution of
matrimonial dispute.
68. Further it needs to refer herein that a Court of Law
holds a superior position than the Cannon Law. Dissolution
of a Christian marriage is covered under the Divorce Act,
1869. As per Section 2 of the Divorce Act, 1869, in order to
seek relief under this Act one of the parties that is either the
appellant or the respondent must be a Christian by religion.
The Indian Divorce Act, 1869 governs dissolution of
marriage, judicial separation, nullity, restitution of conjugal
rights, alimony, and custody for Christians in India. It
applies to all Christian denominations, including Catholics
39
and Protestants.
69. Section 10 of the Divorce Act, 1869 provides instances
as to when a Christian marriage can be terminated. The first
and the foremost ground is that of adultery. In addition to
that, a wife may initiate divorce proceedings against her
spouse who has committed cruelty on her or is accused of
rape, sodomy, bestiality. If one of the spouses converts to
another religion, then also marriage may be dissolved. In
case of unsound mind, sexually transmitted diseases and
desertion of the person by their spouse for a period equal to
or more than two years a divorce can be sought on such
grounds.
70. Admittedly the suit for dissolution of marriage has
been preferred before the learned Family Court under
Section 10 (ix) and (x) of the Indian Divorce Act, for ready
reference the Section 10 (ix) and (x) of the said Act is being
referred herein which reads as under:
“10. Grounds for dissolution of marriage.–(1) Any
marriage solemnized, whether before or after the
commencement of the Indian Divorce (Amendment)
Act, 2001 (51 of 2001), may, on a petition presented
to the District Court either by the husband or the
wife, be dissolved on the ground that since the
solemnization of the marriage, the respondent–
….
(ix) has deserted the appellant for at least two years
immediately preceding the presentation of the
petition; or
(x) has treated the appellant with such cruelty as to
40
cause a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the
appellant that it would be harmful or injurious for the
appellant to live with the respondent.”
Issue of desertion
71. Now coming to the issue of desertion, which is also
taken as a ground for decree of divorce. It is evident from the
from the plaint of the appellant before Family Court which
has also taken note in the impugned judgment, that the
husband and wife are living separately.
72. Learned Additional Principal Judge, taking into
consideration the fact that since even otherwise there is no
desertion on the part of respondent-wife as she has filed
original suit for restitution of conjugal rights. Thus,
although the husband appellant had filed petition under
Section 10 (ix) and (x) of the Indian Divorce Act but no
cogent evidence was led in this respect, as such the same
was discarded by the learned family court.
73. It needs to refer herein that the word ‘desertion’ has
been given in Section 3 (9) of the Divorce Act wherein it has
been stated that the expression “desertion”, implies an
abandonment against the wish of the person charging it.
74. It is pertinent to note that the word ‘desertion’, as has
been defined in Section 3 (9) of the Divorce Act, means
abandonment against the wish of the person charging it and
its grammatical variations and cognate expressions shall be
construed accordingly.
41
75. Further, it requires to refer herein that the word
‘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.
76. Rayden on Divorce ,which is a standard work on the
subject at p. 128 (6th Edn.), has summarised the case-law
on the subject in these terms:
“Desertion is the separation of one spouse from the
other, with an intention on the part of the deserting
spouse of bringing cohabitation permanently to an end
without reasonable cause and without the consent of
the other spouse; but the physical act of departure by
one spouse does not necessarily make that spouse the
deserting party.”
77. 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.”
78. Desertion is not the withdrawal from a place but from a
state of things, for what the law seeks to enforce is the
42
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.
79. 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.
80. Desertion as a ground of divorce differs from the
statutory grounds of adultery and cruelty in that the offence
founding the cause of action of desertion is not complete,
but is inchoate, until the suit is constituted, desertion is a
continuing offence.
81. It is, thus, evident from the aforesaid reference of
meaning of desertion that the quality of permanence is one
of the essential elements which differentiate desertion from
wilful separation. If a spouse abandons the other spouse in
a state of temporary passion, for example, anger or disgust,
without intending permanently to cease cohabitation, it will
not amount to desertion. For the offence of desertion, so far
as the deserting spouse is concerned, two essential
conditions must be there, namely, (1) the factum of
43
separation, and (2) the intention to bring cohabitation
permanently to an end.
82. Similarly, two elements are essential so far as the
deserted spouse is concerned: (1) the absence of consent,
and (2) absence of conduct giving reasonable cause to the
spouse leaving the matrimonial home to from the necessary
intention aforesaid.
83. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Debananda Tamuli vs.
Kakumoni Kataky, (2022) 5 SCC 459 has considered the
definition of ‘desertion’ on the basis of the judgment
rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Lachman
Utamchand Kirpalani v. Meena, AIR 1964 SC 40 which
has been consistently followed in several decisions of the
Hon’ble Apex Court.
84. The law consistently has been laid down by the Court
that desertion means the intentional abandonment of one
spouse by the other without the consent of the other and
without a reasonable cause. The deserted spouse must
prove that there is a factum of separation and there is an
intention on the part of deserting spouse to bring the
cohabitation to a permanent end. In other words, there
should be animus deserendi on the part of the deserting
spouse. There must be an absence of consent on the part of
the deserted spouse and the conduct of the deserted spouse
should not give a reasonable cause to the deserting spouse
44
to leave the matrimonial home.
85. Applying the above proposition of law, under the
factual aspect of this case, it appears that admittedly
marriage between the parties was solemnized on 19.10.2015
according to Christian rites and rituals. It is also not in
dispute that out of their wedlock no child was born.
86. So far as plea of desertion is concerned, admittedly it
was the respondent-wife who moved an application for grant
of decree of restitution of conjugal right in the court prior to
filing divorce suit by the appellant and the appellant has
admitted in his evidence that he chose not to file any
application for restitution of conjugal right.
87. Further, the appellant has admitted in his cross-
examination that after transfer from Chhattisgarh to
Jharkhand the respondent started residing in her
matrimonial home with her younger brother-in-law as
appellant went to join his duty and it has come in evidence
that the respondent used to attend her duties like cooking
meal and doing household work like cleaning, washing etc.
88. It has been stated by the wife that she used to go to her
work place which was about 35 kilometers away from her
matrimonial home and her duty hours was 10.00 AM to 5.00
PM and therefore, she used to return at about 7.30 PM to
8.00 PM on usual working day and after coming to her home
she used to prepare dinner and after completion the entire
45
responsibilities she used to go to bed at 11.00 PM and her
younger brother-in-law never supported her either in
marketing or in household work rather he used to stop the
water supply when the respondent took bath and he was
well aware that the respondent will return at about 7.30 PM
to 8.00 PM to home but he intentionally and willfully used to
go outside after locking the main door and returned back to
home at late night and under this situation the respondent
had no option then to go to her neighbours.
89. The D.W.1 has also stated in para-12 of her
examination-in-chief that the respondent used to do entire
household work and her younger brother-in-law did not do
any work and she used to go to shop with the respondent for
purchasing household articles and in para-13 she has
supported the allegation that younger brother-in-law of the
respondent used to go outside after locking the main door at
the time of returning of the respondent and used to return
home at late night due to which many times respondent had
to take food with them and during cross examination also
she has stated in para-29 that the brother of appellant used
to harass the respondent.
90. Admittedly, the respondent left her matrimonial home
on 10.07.2018 and since then she is residing in her paternal
home. However, from the material available on record it is
apparent that the respondent was compelled to leave her
46
matrimonial home and prior to that she had taken all
possible steps to resume her matrimonial relationship.
91. It has come in evidence that earlier the respondent was
posted at Chhattisgarh and she got herself transferred to
Ranchi. It has also come in the evidence of the respondent
that she took leave of one month for marriage and in para-
28 she has stated that her husband went to Kharagpur to
resume his duty just after four days.
92. Further, P.W.1 and P.W.2 in para-27 and 33 of their
cross examination respectively have not denied rather
shown their ignorance by deposing that they are not aware
that Panches from Church and others came with the
respondent to convince the appellant for keeping the
respondent with him.
93. Further, P.W.3 who is appellant himself has also not
denied rather deposed in para-34 and 35 of his cross
examination respectively that he has no knowledge that
when his wife used to return from Mandar after her duty his
brother used to lock his house and used to return from late
and under such circumstances respondent used to stay in
the house of her tenant and dine with them whereas D.W.1
has supported these allegations that younger brother of
appellant used to lock his house at the time of returning of
the respondent due to which she had to live with them and
dine with them. Further, the appellant himself has admitted
47
in para-31 of his cross examination that since her transfer
the respondent lived in her matrimonial home and their
mess was joint and record shows that admittedly she left her
matrimonial home on 10.07.2018.
94. Thus it is apparent that the respondent lived in her
matrimonial home for a considerable period and in spite
mischief played by her brother-in-law she somehow
managed and attempted to save her matrimonial
relationship and involved members of Church and others
also to save her matrimonial relationship and also filed a
suit of restitution of conjugal right whereas the appellant did
nothing to save his matrimonial relationship although he
has stated in para-25 of his cross examination that he went
to bring his wife from her maternal home in the year 2018
but learned counsel for the respondent has pointed out that
in suit for restitution of conjugal right during cross
examination the appellant has stated that he never went to
bring back his wife and it appears that the appellant has
admitted in para-27 that his wife has lodged a suit for
restitution of conjugal right whereas in para-26 he has
stated that he willingly did not file any case for restitution of
conjugal right rather record shows that after filing of suit for
restitution of conjugal right by his wife, the appellant has
filed this divorce suit.
95. Thus, it is apparent that the appellant has failed to
48
prove that the respondent left her matrimonial home with
intention to desert him rather evidence on record indicate
that she was compelled to leave her matrimonial home.
96. Thus, upon scrutinizing the entire evidence, on this
point it is apparent that on account of compelling
circumstances the respondent was forced to leave her
matrimonial home which by itself would not lead to
inference that she went to her parental home with intention
of deserting her husband and in the matter of desertion
what is important is the intention of the parties. Merely
because the respondent had gone to her parental home in
the background of evidence brought on record, by itself,
without anything more does not prove any intention on the
part of respondent to desert the appellant. If at all the
respondent had intention of deserting her husband and
avoiding matrimonial obligation, she would not have filed
suit for restitution of conjugal relation.
97. Thus, it is held that the appellant has failed to prove
the plea of desertion against the respondent as required u/s
10(1)(ix) of the Divorce Act 1869.
98. Further from impugned order it is evident that
desertion has not been proved before the Family Court
through concrete and tangible evidence and further it has
come on the record that even otherwise there is no desertion
on the part of respondent-wife as she has tried to restore her
49
marital life by filing suit for restitution of conjugal rights.
99. This Court, on the basis of discussions made
hereinabove, is of the view that the appellant husband has
not been able to prove the ground of desertion for one of the
grounds for divorce before the learned Family Court. As
such, we have no reason to take a different view that has
been taken by the learned Family Court.
Issue of cruelty
100. The marriage journey of the appellant and the
respondent shows that there was some discord in their
matrimonial life, but neither party made any complaint
anywhere.
101. Since ground of cruelty has been taken, it requires to
refer herein the definition of ‘cruelty’ as has been defined by
Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgment rendered in Dr. N.G.
Dastane Vs. Mrs. S. Dastane [(1975) 2 SCC 326], wherein
it has been held that the Court is to enquire as to whether
the charge as cruelty, is of such a character, as to cause in
the mind of the appellant, a reasonable apprehension that, it
will be harmful or injurious for him to live with the
respondent.
102. The cruelty has also been defined in the case of
Shobha Rani Vs. Madhukar Reddi [(1988) 1 SCC 105],
wherein the wife alleged that the husband and his parents
demanded dowry. The Hon’ble Apex Court emphasized that
50
“cruelty” can have no fixed definition.
103. According to the Hon’ble Apex Court, “cruelty” is the
“conduct in relation to or in respect of matrimonial conduct
in respect of matrimonial duties and obligations”. It is the
conduct which adversely affects the spouse. Such cruelty
can be either “mental” or “physical”, intentional or
unintentional. For example, unintentionally waking your
spouse up in the middle of the night may be mental cruelty;
intention is not an essential element of cruelty but it may be
present. Physical cruelty is less ambiguous and more “a
question of fact and degree.”
104. The Hon’ble Apex Court has further observed 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.”
105. 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.
106. In Vijay Kumar Ramchandra Bhate v. Neela Vijay
51
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.
107. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Joydeep Majumdar v.
Bharti Jaiswal Majumdar, (2021) 3 SCC 742, has been
pleased to observe that while judging whether the conduct is
cruel or not, what has to be seen is whether that conduct,
which is sustained over a period of time, renders the life of
the spouse so miserable as to make it unreasonable to make
one live with the other. The conduct may take the form of
abusive or humiliating treatment, causing mental pain and
anguish, torturing the spouse, etc. The conduct complained
of must be “grave” and “weighty”.
108. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vidhya
Viswanathan v. Kartik Balakrishnan, (2014) 15 SCC 21
has specifically held that cruelty is to be determined on
whole facts of the case and the matrimonial relations
between the spouses and the word ‘cruelty’ has not been
defined and it has been used in relation to human conduct
or human behaviour. It is the conduct in relation to or in
52
respect of matrimonial duties and obligations. It is a course
of conduct and one which is adversely affecting the other.
109. “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 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.
110. 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.
111. 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.
53
Silence in some situations may also amount to cruelty
reference be made to the case of Ravi
Kumar v. Julmidevi, (2010) 4 SCC 476.
112. Further the word ‘cruelty’ is used relation to human
conduct or human behaviour. It is the conduct in relation to
or in respect of matrimonial duties and obligations. It is a
course of conduct and one which is adversely affecting the
other. 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.
113. 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
54
necessary to establish physical violence. Continued ill-
treatment, cessation of marital intercourse, studied neglect,
indifference may lead to inference of cruelty.
114. The word “cruelty” as prescribed under 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 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.
115. Now reverting to the fact of the case since the ground
of cruelty has been taken by the appellant, therefore, in
order to corroborate his evidence on the point of quarrel and
inhuman behaviour of respondent towards her brother-in-
law, the most competent witness was younger brother of
appellant as admittedly during relevant period most of the
time appellant remained in West Bengal in connection with
his duty and used to visit his home during holidays only.
Further P.W.1 as well as P.W.2 are admittedly mere relatives
55
of the appellant, who are residing separately from the
appellant in their own home. But surprisingly, in the present
case, it is for the reason best known to the appellant he had
chosen not to examine his younger brother in order to prove
the alleged cruel conduct of respondent towards him.
116. So far alleged misconduct of respondent against other
family members/relatives of appellant is concerned P.W.1
has admitted in para-24 of her cross examination that she
herself had not seen any altercation between the appellant
and the respondent and P.W.2 has admitted in para-23 that
respondent never quarreled with him and he has stated that
he was never threatened also by the respondent. The
appellant has further Alleged that respondent never took
care of food also, however in para-32 of his cross
examination he has stated that after transfer of his wife she
used to reside in her matrimonial home along with his
younger brother and their mess was joint and in para-47 he
has stated that he never kept any maid in his house to help
his wife in her household work, therefore the allegation that
respondent was not preparing meal for them also seems to
be improbable as appellant has failed to bring any evidence
on record that if not his wife then who cooked meal for them
whereas evidence of D.W.1 on this point has stated that
respondent used to cook meal for them.
117. Further allegation levelled by the appellant is that
56
respondent threatened to implicate them in false case and
lodge FIR and levelled false allegation against him and his
family members. On this point P.W.1 has admitted in para-
25 of her cross examination that respondent never
threatened them to implicate in false case and as already
mentioned herein above, P.W.2 has also admitted in para-28
that he was never threatened by the respondent and P.W.3
who is appellant himself has also admitted in para-29 that
he never lodged any case or complaint against his wife
regarding alleged threat extended to them in any police
station or the court.
118. So far as the allegation levelled in para-10 of
examination-in-chief of appellant that respondent without
informing him came to his work place at Kharagpur along
with her parents and imputed allegation of his immoral
relation with some lady and his landlord told that allegation
is baseless due to which his image was maligned amongst
his co-workers is concerned, it appears that neither the
landlord of appellant nor any co-worker of appellant were
examined on behalf of appellant to prove this fact.
119. Further, appellant has failed to disclose any day, date,
month or year of aforesaid incident either in his petition or
in his evidence, therefore this allegation also seems to be
highly vague and non-specific too.
120. So far as allegation levelled in para-14 of examination-
57
in-chief of appellant that on 10.07.2018 the respondent left
home after altercating with him regarding share in property
is concerned, during cross examination, the appellant has
stated in para-28 that he could not remember those
allegation levelled in para-14 of his affidavit and in para-50
he has stated that his wife has not filed any case relating to
share of his property.
121. Besides aforesaid evidence it also appears that there is
nothing on record to show that the respondent has ever
lodged any FIR or complaint case either against the
appellant or his family members save and except a suit for
restitution of conjugal right. Therefore, the appellant has
also failed to prove that he was being threatened by the
respondent to implicate in false case.
122. The learned Principal Judge, from the statements of
the witnesses so produced on behalf of the parties and after
going through the documentary evidence, has come to the
conclusion that the appellant-husband has not been able to
prove the grounds of alleged cruelty pleaded by him in his
petition.
123. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that the judgment
and decree passed by the learned family court, dismissing
the suit for decree of divorce on the ground of desertion and
cruelty under Section 10(ix) and (x) of the Divorce Act,
requires no interference.
58
124. Accordingly, the instant appeal fails and is dismissed.
125. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands
disposed of.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
I agree.
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Date : 14/07/2026
Birendra / A.F.R.
Uploaded on 15/07/2026
59
