Jharkhand High Court
Abhishek Kumar Pathak vs Asha Pathak Aged About 31 Years on 24 April, 2026
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Sanjay Prasad
2026:JHHC:12132-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
First Appeal No. 102 of 2026
Abhishek Kumar Pathak, aged about 35 years, S/o Sri
Ram Pravesh Pathak, resident of Village-Mayapur, P.O.-
Chatra, P.S.-Sadar, District-Chatra (Jharkhand)
... ... Appellant/Petitioner
Versus
Asha Pathak aged about 31 years, W/o Abhishek
Kumar Pathak, D/o Sri Gopal Krishna Pathak, resident
of Village-Nutan Nagar, P.O. and P.S.-Korra, District-
Hazaribag (Jharkhand)
... ... Respondent/Respondent
-------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
-------
For the Appellant : Mr. Anjani Kr. Verma, Advocate
Mr. Shiv Prasad, Advocate
Mr. Arvind Prakash Malakar,
Adv
For the Respondent : Mr. Vijay Kumar Sharma, Adv
Ms. Km. Poonam Verma, ADv.
----------------------------
CAV on 17.04.2026 Pronounced on 24/04/2026
Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
Prayer:
1. The instant appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family
Court Act, 1984 is directed against the order/judgment
dated 18.12.2024 and decree signed on 03.01.2025
passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court,
Chatra in Original Suit No. 11 of 2024, whereby and
whereunder, the suit filed by the petitioner-appellant
[husband] for dissolution of marriage by decree of divorce
u/s 13(1)(i-a) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 against
respondent/wife, has been dismissed.
1
2026:JHHC:12132-DB
Factual Matrix:
2. The brief facts of the case, leading to filing of the divorce
petition by the appellant-petitioner, as taken note in the
impugned order, emanated from the plaints, needs to be
referred herein, which as under:
3. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on
08.12.2020 according to Hindu rites and custom. After
marriage, respondent-wife came to her Sasural at village
Mayapur and lived for some days properly.
4. However, it is alleged that after sometime, she visited her
Maika [paternal house] on 05.10.2021 and returned to her
Sasural on 25.11.2021. After returning therefrom, she
started quarreling and treated the petitioner-appellant and
his family members with cruelty and after quarreling she
stopped providing food and used to abuse the petitioner-
appellant. The petitioner has further averred that she
pressurized petitioner to sell his ancestral land and
purchase flat in Hazaribagh in her name so that both can
live in Hazaribagh, otherwise she would implicate him in
false case.
5. It is stated that the petitioner-appellant is the only son of
his parents and he has responsibility of his parents and
grandparents also. He has further averred that
respondent-wife was not ready to hear anything and she
began to pressurize him to give her twelve lakh rupee for
2
2026:JHHC:12132-DB
divorce as she did not want to live with him. Thereafter,
petitioner arranged twelve lakh rupees and had given her
whereupon, she entered into an agreement to the effect
that within three months she would file petition for divorce
and would return the ornaments, given by her Sasural
worth five lakh rupees. It was also written in that
agreement that if she would not take divorce within three
months, it would be deemed that divorce has taken place.
The petitioner has stated that respondent did not adhere
to the terms and conditions of the agreement and when
petitioner asked in this regard, she became furious and
told that she would not give him divorce and would not
return him any rupee and ornament. Thereafter, he issued
a legal notice whereupon respondent came to her Sasural
on 17.05.2022 and again an agreement was prepared on
23.05.2022 in which it was written that both parties
would not torture each other and would not do any work
which would raise differences between them. She also
wrote that she would not have any contact in her Naihar
except her parents and brother. But, after sometime, again
she started to pressurize petitioner to sell his ancestral
property and purchase a flat in Hazaribagh in order to live
there. On protest, she started abusing and quarreling, as
she was not inclined to live in her Sasural at village
Mayapur. It is alleged that in the meantime, she became
3
2026:JHHC:12132-DB
pregnant but she was not ready to be a mother and on
04.08.2022 she left her Sasural for her Naihar without
informing anyone and she got her abortion there.
6. In spite of that, the petitioner-appellant requested her to
come to her Sasural but she was not ready to come and
then again petitioner-appellant issued a legal notice on
20.03.2023 to return his twelve lakh rupees and
ornaments of Rs. 5,00,000/- and to restore her conjugal
life with petitioner, but neither any reply was given nor
she returned, which clearly revealed that she did not want
to live with petitioner.
7. Thereafter, petitioner filed a suit for divorce being O.S.
Case No. 36/2023 in which she appeared and the matter
was referred to Mediation Centre, where initially the
mediation was failed but again after filing of her written
statement, the matter was referred to mediation center,
where the matter was settled on 12.12.2023 and both
parties agreed to live separately and it was also agreed
that respondent will take Rs. 3,50,000/- as permanent
alimony and both parties agreed to file divorce with
mutual consent under section 13B and it was also agreed
that on 20.12.2023, the petitioner would return the entire
household items to respondent which were given to him at
the time of marriage and further the respondent would
withdraw her maintenance case at Hazaribagh.
4
2026:JHHC:12132-DB
8. Thereafter, petitioner-appellant withdrew his petition for
divorce and the same was dismissed as withdrawn but the
respondent did not comply the terms and condition arrived
between the parties at mediation center, hence the
petitioner has filed this case stating therein that the cause
of action arose for this case on 13.01.2022 when
respondent executed an agreement after taking twelve
lakh rupees that she would give divorce to petitioner and
she left for her Naihar and no conjugal relation has been
established between the parties since 04.08.2022. On the
grounds aforesaid, the appellant filed the suit.
9. In pursuance of notice, the Respondent-wife appeared
before the learned family court and filed written statement
denying the allegation leveled against her. Statement has
been made that it is wrong that after marriage she started
quarreling and behaving cruelly. It is stated that she never
treated the petitioner and his family member with cruelty
and she never pressurized petitioner to sell his ancestral
land and has never threatened him, rather she always
respected her in-laws and grandfather-in-law. She never
proposed for taking divorce and it is false that she had
taken twelve lakh rupees, rather, it is a conspiracy of the
petitioner so that she may leave her matrimonial house
and petitioner may perform another marriage with some
other. She has further mentioned that although petitioner
5
2026:JHHC:12132-DB
and his family members attempted to take her signature
on a blank stamp paper, but she never put her signature
on any paper and she left for her Naihar due to the cruel
behaviour of the family member of her Sasural. She has
further mentioned that the alleged fact written in the so-
called agreement that within three months if she would
not give divorce, the same would be deemed that she had
given divorce is totally false, fabricated and in this way no
such divorce is done and this fact is known to the parties
and thus such document is forged by the petitioner. She
has further mentioned that she had never taken twelve
lakh rupees from petitioner and had never usurped the
ornament of the petitioner and if it is so the petitioner
should have filed criminal case against her, but no such
case has been filed. She has further mentioned that she
put her signature on agreement of 23.05.2022 so that her
conjugal life may be pleasant but again she became the
prey of conspiracy of the family member of her Sasural
and she was driven out from her Sasural.
10. In the written statement, she denied that she was ever
pregnant and aborted and further she never told petitioner
that she was not ready to be a mother of his child. She
never wanted divorce and it is wrong to say that she never
wanted to live with petitioner, rather she is ready even
today to live with him. Further she under pressure of
6
2026:JHHC:12132-DB
petitioner-appellant and his family members, put her
signature in mediation center for divorce but she did not
get opportunity to understand and later on when she
realized that her whole life will be ruined by divorce, she
decided to live with her husband and since she is legally
wedded wife of petitioner, she wants to live with him her
whole life. She has further stated that it is totally false
that she had taken twelve lakh rupees and executed
agreement, rather it is totally false, imaginary and under
the conspiracy, the said agreement was prepared.
11. She has further mentioned that she wants to live with
petitioner as his wife and matrimonial bond is a secret
bond and it is petitioner and his family member, who
subjected her to cruelty, but still she had shown her
strong desire to live with the petitioner-appellant.
12. On the basis of the pleadings of both the parties, the
learned family court framed the issue as to whether the
petitioner, the appellant herein [husband], is entitled for a
decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty, and accordingly
evidence was adduced on behalf of parties.
13. The learned Principal Judge, family court, after
appreciating the evidence adduced on behalf of parties,
hold that plaintiff/petitioner Abhishek Kumar Pathak has
not been able to prove his case against the respondent
even to the extent of preponderance of probabilities,
7
2026:JHHC:12132-DB
accordingly he is not entitled to a decree as claimed for
and the suit was dismissed, against which, the instant
appeal has been preferred.
Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant:
14. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that the
factual aspect which was available before the learned
family court supported by the evidences adduced on behalf
of the appellant has not properly been considered and as
such, the judgment impugned is perverse, hence, not
sustainable in the eyes of law.
15. Submission has been made that the learned court below
has not appreciated the fact that in earlier round of
ligation, i.e., in Original Application No. O.S. Case No.
36/2023 in which she appeared, the matter was referred
to Mediation Centre, where the matter was settled on
12.12.2023 and both parties agreed to live separately and
it was also agreed that respondent will take Rs. 3,50,000/-
as permanent alimony and both parties were also agreed
to file divorce by mutual consent under section 13B and it
was also agreed that on 20.12.2023, the petitioner would
return the entire household items to respondent which
were given to him at the time of marriage and further the
respondent would withdraw her maintenance case at
Hazaribagh. On the pretext of the agreement arrived at
between the parties, the petitioner-appellant withdrew his
8
2026:JHHC:12132-DB
petition for divorce which was dismissed as withdrawn.
But after withdrawal of the Original Application, the
respondent-wife did not comply the terms and condition
arrived between the parties at mediation center.
16. It has been submitted that thereafter again the appellant
filed original application, which is the subject matter of
instant appeal, but the learned family court did not
consider the fact that the respondent again and again had
disregarded the agreement entered into between the
parties and she even did not adhere to the agreement
which was entered before the mediator before the earlier
round of litigation.
17. Further, the learned family court did not consider the fact
that the appellant was subjected to cruelty at the hands of
respondents due to personal ego, superiority complex of
being brought up in Hazaribag Town and dissatisfaction of
being married with petitioner residing in a village area.
18. Further, the respondent-wife used to pressurize the
appellant to live separately from his parents at
Hazaribagh, after selling the paternal property, which the
appellant refused as he is the only son and he has to
shoulder responsibility of taking care of his old ageing
parents. Such act of respondents caused mental cruelty to
the appellant, but this aspect of the matter has not been
taken into consideration by learned family judge.
9
2026:JHHC:12132-DB
19. Submission has been made that the judgment passed by
learned court below is perverse in the eye of law as the
wife has committed cruelty towards the appellant-husband
for the reasons aforesaid
20. Learned counsel for the appellant, based upon the
aforesaid grounds, has submitted that the judgment
impugned suffers from perversity, as such, is not
sustainable in the eyes of law.
Submission of the learned counsel for the respondent:
21. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-
wife, while defending the impugned judgment, has
submitted that there is no error in the impugned
judgment. The learned Principal Judge has considered the
issue of cruelty and having come to the conclusion that no
evidence has been adduced to establish cruelty has
dismissed the suit, which requires no interference.
22. Submission has been made that she never treated the
petitioner and his family member with cruelty and she
never pressurized petitioner to sell his ancestral land and
has never threatened him, rather she always respected to
her in-laws and grand father-in-law. She never proposed
for taking divorce and it is false that she had taken twelve
lakh rupees, rather it is a conspiracy of petitioner so that
she may leave her matrimonial house and petitioner may
perform his remarriage with some other.
10
2026:JHHC:12132-DB
23. It has further been submitted that it is the appellant who
attempted to take her signature on a blank stamp paper,
but she never put her signature on any paper and she left
for her Naihar due to the cruel behaviour of the family
member of her Sasural.
24. She has further mentioned that the alleged fact written in
the alleged agreement that within three months if she
would not give divorce, the same would be deemed that
she had given divorce is totally false. It has further been
submitted that the respondent never took twelve lakh
rupees from petitioner-appellant and had never usurped
the ornament of petitioner-appellant.
25. Learned counsel for the respondent has further submitted
that it is admitted fact that she put her signature on
agreement of 23.05.2022 so that her conjugal life may be
pleasant but again she became the prey of conspiracy of
the family member of her Sasural and she was driven out
from her Sasural.
26. Learned counsel for the respondent has further stated that
under pressure of petitioner and his family members, she
put her signature in mediation center for divorce but she
did not get opportunity to understand and later on when
she realized that her whole life will be ruined by divorce,
she decided to live with her husband and since she is
11
2026:JHHC:12132-DB
legally wedded wife of petitioner, she wants to live with
him her whole life.
27. Learned counsel, based upon the aforesaid ground, has
submitted that if on that pretext, the factum of cruelty has
not been found to be established, based upon which the
decree of divorce has been refused to be granted, the
impugned judgment cannot be said to suffer from error.
Analysis:
28. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties
and gone through the finding recorded by the learned
Family Judge in the impugned judgment.
29. The admitted fact herein is that the suit for divorce has
been filed on the ground of cruelty, by filing an application
under Section 13 (1) (i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
and accordingly, issues have been framed and decided
against the petitioner-appellant.
30. The evidence has been led on behalf of both the parties.
31. On behalf of petitioner-husband, five witnesses have been
examined. P.W. 1-Abhishek Kumar Pathak, the petitioner-
appellant himself; P.W. 2-Sandeep Singh, friend of father
of the petitioner; P.W. 3-Rajendra Singh, neighbor of
petitioner; P.W. 4-Prabhat Ranjan Singh, friend of the
father of petitioner and P.W. 5-Ram Pravesh Pathak, father
of the petitioner. Besides oral evidence documentary
evidence has also been produced. The Original paper of
12
2026:JHHC:12132-DB
agreement dated 13.01.2022 on which respondent Asha
Pathak put her signature [Ext. 1]; Signature of petitioner
on the plaint [Ext. 2] and Short signature of Advocate Shri
Shakti Kumar Singh on the plaint [Ext. 2/1].
32. In support of her case, the respondent-wife has examined
three witnesses, namely, R.W. 1-Bitu Kumar Sharma,
tenant of the house of father of respondent; R.W. 2-
Sadhna Devi, elder sister of respondent and R.W. 3- Asha
Pathak, respondent herself. Besides oral evidence, some
documentary evidence has also been adduced. Ext. A is
Signature of respondent on her written statement; Ext. B
is the Prescription dated 13.12.2023 of Shekh Bhikhari
Medical College Hospital, Hazaribagh (with objection) and
Ext. C and C/1 are two photographs of the left injured leg
of respondent, who met in an accident on 13.12.2023
(with objection).
33. This Court in order to appreciate the testimony available
on record has gone through the testimonies of the
witnesses, as recorded in the impugned order.
34. PW-1-Abhishek Kumar Pathak, has stated in his
affidavited examination-in-chief that his marriage was
performed with respondent on 08.12.2020 according to
Hindu rites and custom. After marriage, his wife came to
her marital home at village Mayapur and she visited
several times to her Naihar, but after coming from her
13
2026:JHHC:12132-DB
Naihar on 25.11.2021, she started quarreling and treating
the petitioner and his family members with cruelty. She
used to abuse petitioner and pressurize him to sell his
ancestral properties and purchase a flat in Hazaribagh in
her name so that both parties may live together. She
pressurized him to leave his parents and to live with her in
Hazaribagh. When she did not ready to hear the petitioner,
she started pressurizing him to give twelve lakh rupees for
divorce and thereafter petitioner managed twelve lakh
rupees and had given to respondent and an agreement
was executed that within three months she would proceed
for divorce and return the ornaments of Rs. 5 lakh. The
said agreement has been marked as Ext. 1 on his
identification. He has further stated that she did not
comply the terms and condition of agreement and she
flatly refused. Thereafter, petitioner issued legal notice and
then again respondent returned to her Sasural and again
an agreement was executed on 23.05.2022, in which she
agreed that she would not torture anyone and would live
in her Sasural and perform her duty of his wife and
daughter-in-law, but after some days again she started
pressurizing him to sell his ancestral land and purchased
a flat in Hazaribagh and she started cruelty. She became
pregnant but without informing anyone she left for her
Naihar and got her child aborted and she was not ready to
14
2026:JHHC:12132-DB
return her Sasural, then a notice was sent on 20.03.2023,
but the same was not replied and then petitioner filed a
suit for divorce being O.S. Case No. 36/2023, in which
during mediation both parties agreed to live separately
and total alimony of Rs. 3,50,000/- was agreed to be given
to respondent and it was also agreed that both parties
would file divorce with mutual consent till 21.12.2023 and
hence the said suit was withdrawn by petitioner but again
she did not comply the term and condition arrived at
between the parties at mediation center and then
petitioner has filed this case for divorce. He has identified
his signature and the signature of his learned counsel on
petition which has been marked Ext. 2 and 2/1.
35. In his cross-examination, he has stated that before
marriage, he had verified about the respondent Asha
Pathak. His father had gone to the house of Asha Pathak
for negotiation of the marriage. He has further stated that
after quarreling, respondent used to stop providing food.
He has further stated that he is a farmer and his father is
a Pandit, who performs the rituals. He has further stated
that Asha Pathak used to torture him for purchasing a flat
in Hazaribagh, but he had no money, hence he did not
purchase the flat. He has stated that the agreement is not
registered and it was not written before the Registrar. The
agreement was written in Chatra Court, but he does not
15
2026:JHHC:12132-DB
know who wrote the agreement. The witnesses were not
present at the time of preparation of agreement in Chatra
Court. He had given cash of Rs. 12,00,000/- but he
cannot say that from whom he had borrowed the money.
He has further stated that he did not file any petition for
restitution of his conjugal rights. He has denied that
agreement is forged and fabricated. He has denied that he
pressurized Asha Pathak for taking divorce. He has denied
that Asha Pathak had never aborted her child. He has
stated that he is ready to keep his wife, if she is ready.
36. PW-2, Sandeep Singh is the friend of the father of
petitioner. He has stated the similar facts in his affidavited
examination-in-chief what PW-1 has stated.
37. In his cross-examination, he has stated that respondent
Asha Pathak lived about three months peacefully after her
marriage. No quarrel had taken place in his presence. He
cannot tell when respondent had gone to her Naihar. Asha
Pathak had never assaulted petitioner in his presence and
had never treated petitioner and his father with cruelty in
his presence. He has further stated that agreement was
prepared in Civil Court regarding giving money and at that
time Asha Pathak and her father were present. He has
further stated that he cannot tell from where petitioner
had managed the rupees.
16
2026:JHHC:12132-DB
38. PW-3, Rajendra Singh is the close neighbor of petitioner.
He has stated the similar facts in his affidavited
examination-in-chief what PW-1 has stated.
39. In his cross-examination he has stated that Asha Pathak
had never assaulted petitioner in his presence. She had
never treated petitioner with cruelty in his presence. He
was told by the father of petitioner that Asha Pathak
wanted that her husband should purchase a flat in
Hazaribagh. Agreement was prepared in old Court, where
the father of Abhishek and Asha Pathak were present.
40. PW-4, Prabhat Ranjan Singh is the friend of father of
petitioner. He has stated the similar facts in his affidavited
examination-in-chief what PW-1 has stated.
41. In his cross-examination, he has stated that on
13.01.2022 Asha Pathak told to purchase a flat in
Hazaribagh. He has stated that the father of Abhishek told
him that agreement was prepared in Court. He has
admitted that agreement was not prepared in his
presence. He has further admitted that he had never seen
that Asha Pathak had subjected petitioner and his family
members to cruelty. In Court question, he has stated that
after taking money of Rs. 12,00,000/-, Asha Pathak had
not returned to her Sasural and he had never seen her
living in her Sasural. Abhishek Pathak had not filed any
case for his twelve lakh rupees.
17
2026:JHHC:12132-DB
42. PW-5, Ram Pravesh Pathak is the father of petitioner. He
has also stated the similar facts in his affidavited
examination-in-chief what PW-1 has stated. He has
identified the signature of petitioner on agreement dated
13.01.2022 which has been marked as Ext. 1/1. He has
identified the signature of Prabhat Ranjan Singh and
Rajendra Singh, which has been marked as Ext. 1/2 &
1/3 with objection. He has identified the signature of draft
maker Vijay Kumar Singh, which has been marked Ext.
1/4 with objection.
43. In his cross-examination, he has stated that agreement
was prepared in the Court but Asha Pathak had put her
signature on agreement in her Sasural. It is true that no
signature of the family member of her Naihar is there on
the agreement. He has further stated that petitioner has
not mentioned that from where he brought the rupee and
had given. He has further admitted that his son had never
filed any case for restitution of conjugal rights against his
wife. He has further stated that no case has been filed
against Asha Pathak regarding her cruel behaviour. He
has further stated that there is no name of witness in
plaint in whose presence Asha Pathak told about
purchasing the flat and living alone there. He has
admitted that Asha Pathak had not filed case against
them. He has also stated that no case has been filed
18
2026:JHHC:12132-DB
against Asha Pathak that she had taken twelve lakh
rupees. He has further stated that at the time of
preparation of agreement in Court, Asha Pathak was in
her Sasural. The said Agreement was typed, but he cannot
say the name of Typist. He has denied that the signature
of Asha Pathak is forged in the said agreement. He has
further stated that no document has been filed regarding
the abortion of Asha Pathak. He has denied that he and
his son had treated the respondent with cruelty so that
she fled away. He has denied that he had bad eyes on
Asha Pathak. He has also denied that under a conspiracy
he prepared a false document so that she fled away and he
may perform the second marriage of his son.
44. RW-1, Bitu Kumar Sharma is the tenant in the house of
father of respondent. He has supported the facts stated by
RW-3 in his affidavited examination-in-chief.
45. In his cross-examination, he has stated that no
occurrence was taken place in his presence. He has stated
what he has been told by Asha Pathak. No agreement was
prepared in his presence. Asha Pathak is ready to live in
her Sasural, but she should be kept properly.
46. RW-2, Sadhna Devi is the elder sister of respondent. She
has stated the similar facts in her affidavited examination-
in-chief what RW-3 has stated. In her cross-examination,
she has stated that petitioner Abhishek Pathak pelted
19
2026:JHHC:12132-DB
stone in her Sasural and his language was not proper. She
has denied that her sister had taken twelve lakh rupees
from petitioner for divorce. She has denied that Asha
Pathak pressurized her husband to purchase a flat in
Hazaribagh rather her sister was tortured by her husband.
47. RW-3 is the respondent Asha Pathak herself. She has
stated in her affidavited examination-in-chief that her
marriage was performed with Abhishek Kumar Pathak on
08.12.2020. Her father had given cash and kind in her
marriage, but in her Sasural she was tortured. She never
pressurized in her Sasural to sell any land, rather she
always lived there as an ideal woman and she had given
her best services to her husband and in-laws and
grandfather-in-law. She never offered for taking divorce
but the behavior of her husband and in-laws was not good
towards her and she does not believe them and they may
kill her any time if she would live with them. She denied
that she was given twelve lakh rupees on 13.01.2022 and
she left her matrimonial home. She has further stated that
her signature was forged and a false agreement was
prepared that she had taken twelve lakh rupees and,
would give divorce within three months. She has further
stated that if petitioner and her father-in-law undertake
that they would not torture her and her father-in-law also
undertakes that he would not have bad eye on her, she is
20
2026:JHHC:12132-DB
ready to live with her husband. She has further stated
that her signature was taken in mediation under pressure
during O.S. Case No. 36/2023 and on 13.12.2023 she had
to appear before the Court but as she met with an
accident and she was hospitalized in Shekh Bhikhari
Hospital, Hazaribagh, hence she could not come to Court
and O.S. No. 36/2023 was disposed of. She has identified
her signature on written statement, which has been
marked as Ext. A. She has also identified medical
prescription and two photographs of her injury in her leg,
which have been marked as Ext. B, C & C/1. In her cross-
examination, she has stated that during mediation her
father was also present. She has further stated that she
did not file any complaint against the pressure during the
mediation in previous suit, as she got her accident and
she was hospitalized for one day. She has further stated
that her husband is a liar, hence she does not want to live
with him. She has denied that she had taken twelve lakh
rupees for divorce. She has denied that she had got
abortion. She has also denied that she does not want to
live with her husband.
48. On the basis of the pleading of the parties the learned
Principal Family Judge had framed issues for proper
determination of the lis, and after due appreciation of the
ocular as well as documentary evidence had negated the
21
2026:JHHC:12132-DB
claim of the husband/appellant and observed that the
petitioner/husband has totally failed to prove and
establish the allegation of cruelty and desertion on the
part of wife for dissolution of marriage.
49. Herein, the learned counsel for the appellant has argued
that the evidence of cruelty has not properly been
considered and further agreement dated 23.05.2022
entered before the mediator has not been respected by the
respondent-wife and as such, the judgment suffers from
perversity, hence, not sustainable in the eyes of law.
50. While on the other hand, argument has been advanced on
behalf of the respondent that the judgment is well
considered and the learned family court has rightly come
to the conclusion by denying the decree of suit of divorce
in favour of petitioner-husband accordingly, dismissed the
suit which requires no interference by this Court.
51. From the pleadings available on record and the arguments
advanced on behalf of parties, the issue which requires
consideration is as to:
“Whether the judgment and decree passed by the
learned family court denying the decree of divorce
on the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of
the Hindu Marriage Act and/or on the ground of
curelty under Section 13(1)(ia) requires
interference?”
22
2026:JHHC:12132-DB
52. This Court, while appreciating the argument advanced on
behalf of the parties on the issue of perversity, needs to
refer herein the interpretation of the word “perverse” as
has been interpreted by the Hon’ble Apex Court which
means that there is no evidence or erroneous
consideration of the evidence. The Hon’ble Apex Court in
Arulvelu and Anr. vs. State [Represented by the Public
Prosecutor] and Anr., (2009) 10 SCC 206 while
elaborately discussing the word perverse has held that it
is, no doubt, true that if a finding of fact is arrived at by
ignoring or excluding relevant material or by taking into
consideration irrelevant material or if the finding so
outrageously defies logic as to suffer from the vice of
irrationality incurring the blame of being perverse, then,
the finding is rendered infirm in law. Relevant paragraphs,
i.e., paras-24, 25, 26 and 27 of the said judgment reads as
under:
“24. The expression “perverse” has been dealt with in a
number of cases. 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
23
2026:JHHC:12132-DB
where it can be said that the findings of the authorities are
based on no evidence or that they are so perverse that no
reasonable person would have arrived at those findings.
26. In M.S. Narayanagouda v. Girijamma [AIR 1977 Kant
58] the Court observed that any order made in conscious
violation of pleading and law is a perverse order.
In Moffett v. Gough [(1878) 1 LR 1r 331] the Court observed
that a “perverse verdict” may probably be defined as one that
is not only against the weight of evidence but is altogether
against the evidence. In Godfrey v. Godfrey [106 NW 814]
the Court defined “perverse” as turned the wrong way, not
right; distorted from the right; turned away or deviating from
what is right, proper, correct, etc.
27. The expression “perverse” has been defined by various
dictionaries in the following manner:
1. Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current
English, 6th Edn.
“Perverse.–Showing deliberate determination to behave in
a way that most people think is wrong, unacceptable or
unreasonable.”
2. Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English,
International Edn.
Perverse.–Deliberately departing from what is normal and
reasonable.
3. The New Oxford Dictionary of English, 1998 Edn.
Perverse.–Law (of a verdict) against the weight of evidence
or the direction of the judge on a point of law.
4. The New Lexicon Webster’s Dictionary of the English
Language (Deluxe Encyclopedic Edn.)
Perverse.–Purposely deviating from accepted or expected
behavior or opinion; wicked or wayward; stubborn; cross or
petulant.
5. 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.”
24
2026:JHHC:12132-DB
53. Herein, cruelty has been taken by the appellant as the
main ground for dissolution of marriage.
54. So far the allegation of cruelty is concerned, it requires to
refer herein the definition of „cruelty’ as has been defined
by Hon‟ble Apex 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 petitioner, a reasonable
apprehension that, it will be harmful or injurious for him
to live with the respondent.
55. The cruelty has also been defined in the case of Shobha
Rani Vs. Madhukar Reddi [(1988) 1 SCC 105], wherein
the wife alleged that the husband and his parents
demanded dowry. The Hon‟ble Apex Court emphasized
that “cruelty” can have no fixed definition.
56. 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
25
2026:JHHC:12132-DB
it may be present. Physical cruelty is less ambiguous and
more “a question of fact and degree.”
57. 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.”
58. 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.
59. 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 cross-examination. The
Hon‟ble Apex Court held these allegations against the
husband to constitute “cruelty”.
60. In Vijay kumar Ramchandra Bhate v. Neela Vijay
Kumar Bhate, (2003)6 SCC 334 the Hon’ble Apex Court
has observed by taking into consideration the allegations
26
2026:JHHC:12132-DB
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.
61. The Hon‟ble Apex Court in Joydeep Majumdar v. Bharti
Jaiswal Majumdar, (2021) 3 SCC 742, has been pleased
to observe that while judging whether the conduct is cruel
or not, what has to be seen is whether that conduct, which
is sustained over a period of time, renders the life of the
spouse so miserable as to make it unreasonable to make
one live with the other. The conduct may take the form of
abusive or humiliating treatment, causing mental pain
and anguish, torturing the spouse, etc. The conduct
complained of must be “grave” and “weighty” and trivial
irritations and normal wear and tear of marriage would
not constitute mental cruelty as a ground for divorce.
62. This Court in the touchstone of the principles laid down in
the judgment, as referred hereinabove, is going into the
factual aspect vis-Ã -vis testimonies to see as to whether
the materials available on record are sufficient to
constitute cruelty entitling the petitioner to a get a decree
of divorce.
27
2026:JHHC:12132-DB
63. In the present case, admittedly the marriage of the
petitioner was solemnized with respondent on 08.12.2020
and after the marriage respondent went to her Sasural.
64. The main allegation against the respondent is that she
pressurized petitioner to purchase a flat in Hazaribagh so
that she may live with him in Hazaribagh, but the
petitioner has nowhere stated that respondent did not
want to live with him. He has alleged that respondent
wanted that petitioner should purchase flat in Hazaribagh
and live with her and when petitioner was not ready, she
had taken twelve lakh rupees on 13.01.2022 and had
executed an agreement that she would give divorce him
within three months, but she failed.
65. This Court, on perusal of the pleadings available on record
and the impugned order, has found from the pleading and
evidence of petitioner that on issuing legal notice,
respondent returned on 17.05.2022 and began to live with
petitioner which also revealed that there was cordial
relation between both the parties even though there was
allegation that respondent had taken twelve lakh rupees
for divorce. Furthermore, it is apparent that appellant-
petitioner had never taken recourse for recovery of his
twelve lakh rupees. Even allegedly after the alleged
agreement dated 13.01.2022, the respondent returned to
her Sasural on 17.05.2022 and it is alleged that another
28
2026:JHHC:12132-DB
agreement dated 23.05.2022 was prepared between both
the parties on a stamp paper in which both the parties
assured that they would not torture each other and
respondent would live peacefully and perform her duties of
a wife, but admittedly no whisper has been made in the
said subsequent agreement regarding taking of any rupee
earlier by respondent from petitioner, which also casts
cloud on the agreement dated 13.01.2022 regarding the
story of taking rupee/money by respondent.
66. Though allegation has been made by the respondent that
by forging her signature, the agreement dated 13.01.2022
has been prepared by the petitioner.
67. However, earlier to the present litigation, the petitioner
had filed O.S. Case No. 36/2023 which was sent to
Mediation Center where both parties agreed that petitioner
would give Rs. 3.5 Lakh to respondent as permanent
alimony and they would file divorce with mutual consent
but it has been disputed by respondent stating that she
never wanted divorce and is always ready to live with the
petitioner and she was under pressure during mediation.
She has further specifically stated that she wanted to file
objection but just on the next day of mediation i.e. on
13.12.2023 she met with an accident in Hazaribagh and
she sustained injury in her leg and she was admitted in
Shekh Bhikhari Medical College Hospital, Hazaribagh,
29
2026:JHHC:12132-DB
hence she could not come to Court to file objection and
she came to know that the case was disposed of. In this
regard, she has filed medical prescription of Shekh
Bhikhari Medical College Hazaribagh dated 13.12.2023
which has been marked Ext. B and she has also filed two
photographs of her leg injury which have been marked as
Ext. C & C/1. Her such version remained in-tact in cross-
examination.
68. Further, it is apparent from record that the said
agreement arrived between the parties at Mediation Center
was not acted upon as respondent was not paid any
money and she never filed joint petition for divorce with
mutual consent rather she has made objection that she
was under pressure during mediation and she never
wanted divorce and even today she is ready to live with
petitioner.
69. It is settled position of law that an agreement signed
before the mediator in a family court is legally binding,
final and enforceable but such agreement must be
voluntary but admitted it was under duress.
70. So far as the issue of cruelty is concerned, even the
witnesses examined on behalf of petitioner, have clearly
admitted in their evidence that they had not seen that
respondent had ever treated the petitioner with cruelty.
Further, petitioner has not mentioned in his petition as
30
2026:JHHC:12132-DB
well as in his evidence regarding any physical cruelty
caused by respondent and he himself has admitted in his
evidence that he is ready to keep his wife, meaning
thereby that it cannot be said that nothing is left between
the parties and they cannot live together or there is no
hope of their reunion.
71. Even the petitioner-appellant could not prove the
allegation regarding pregnancy of respondent and her
abortion by any cogent and reliable evidences and hence
considering the entire evidences of petitioner and his
witnesses as well as considering the entire material, it is
apparent that petitioner has failed to prove the allegation
of cruelty meted out by the respondent within the purview
of Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act.
72. From the discussions made hereinabove, it is evident that
no cruelty has been meted out to the appellant-husband
by the respondent-wife rather it is the appellant-husband
who tortured the respondent-wife by making false
allegations and filing one case and another.
73. On the basis of the discussion made hereinabove, this
Court is of the considered view that the
appellant/husband has failed to brought any cogent
evidence on record in order to establish the alleged cruelty
by the respondent/wife as such the behaviour of the
31
2026:JHHC:12132-DB
respondent wife as alleged, does not amount to cruelty
justifying dissolution of the marriage.
74. Accordingly, issue as framed by this Court is decided
against the appellant-husband and it is held that the
judgment and decree passed by the learned family court,
denying the decree of divorce passed to the appellant-
husband on the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia)
of the Hindu Marriage Act, requires no interference by this
Court.
75. This Court, based upon the aforesaid discussion, is of the
view that the appellant/petitioner has also failed to
establish the element of perversity in the impugned
judgment as per the discussion made hereinabove, as
such, this Court do not find any merit in the appeal.
76. Accordingly, the instant appeal fails and is dismissed.
77. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands
disposed of.
I Agree (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Sanjay Prasad, J.) (Sanjay Prasad, J.)
24th April, 2026
A.F.R.
Alankar/
Uploaded on 24.04.2026
32
