Jharkhand High Court
Payal Sahoo @ Payal Gupta @ Payal Shah vs Sohan Lal Shah on 14 July, 2026
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Sanjay Prasad
2026:JHHC:20915-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
F.A. No. 16 of 2024
1. Payal Sahoo @ Payal Gupta @ Payal Shah, aged about 38 years, wife
of Sri Sohan Lal Shah, daughter of late Girdhari Prasad Sahoo, resident
of Ashirbad Mandap, Canteen No.2, Sector-5, Near V.I.P Market,
Rourkella, PO & PS-Rourkella, District-Sundergarh, State Odisha.
... ... Respondent/ Appellant
Versus
Sohan Lal Shah, son of Late Radhe Shyam Shah, resident of Ward
No.3, Main Road Chakradhapur, PO & PS-Chakardhapur, District-
West Singhbhum, State-Jharkhand, at present residing at Gnagotri
Nagar (In the House of Sri Bal Krishna Sharma) Thana Road
Chakradharpur, P.O & PS-Chakardhapur, District-West Singhbhum,
State Jharkhand ... ... Petitioner/Respondent
-------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
-------
For the Appellant : Mr. R.C.P Sah, Advocate
Mr. Chandra Gupta Ashok Bardhan, Advocate
Mrs. Ragini Kumari, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Kripa Shankar Nanda, Advocate
----------------------------
C.A.V on 19.06.2026 Pronounced on 14/07/2026
Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
1. The instant appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Court Act, 1984
is preferred against the order/judgment dated 23.12.2023 and the decree
sealed and signed on 05.01.2024 passed by the learned Principal Judge,
Family Court, Chaibasa in Original Suit No. 34 of 2023, whereby and
whereunder, the petition filed under Section 13(1) (i-a) of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955 by the respondent/petitioner /husband seeking a
decree of divorce against his wife (appellant herein), has been allowed.
2. The brief facts of the case leading to filing of the divorce petition by
the husband needs to be referred herein as under:
1
2026:JHHC:20915-DB
(i) The marriage between the appellant and the respondent was
solemnized on 08.02.2019 at Rajasthan Bhawan, Bishtupur,
Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum as per Hindu rites and custom.
(ii) After the marriage, both parties lived together as a husband and
wife at Ward No.3, Main Road, Chakradharpur, P.O and P.S-
Chakradharpur, District-West Singhbhum (Jharkhand) and their
marriage was consummated.
(iii) At the time of marriage respondent/petitioner/husband and his
family members had given one piece of Gold Necklace, two
piece of Gold Churi (Kangan), two pieces of Gold Jhumka, one
set of Gold Tops, one piece Lady Diamond Ring, one piece
Gold Lady Ring, one piece Gold Mangalsutra, once piece Gold
Nath, one pair silver payal, clothes worth of Rs.95000/- and
one-piece Samsung Mobile worth Rs.12000/-.
(iv) Initially, the matrimonial life of parties was normal and happy
but after few days of marriage, the behaviour of the respondent
(appellant herein) towards the petitioner-husband was hostile.
She had told to the petitioner that she had no love and devotion
towards him. The parties have no issue out of their wedlock.
(v) There were three litigations between the parties prior to filing of
Original Suit No.34 of 2023 which are:
I. Original Suit No.26 of 2020 which was filed by the
petitioner-husband against the respondent-wife under
2
2026:JHHC:20915-DBsections 13(1) (i-a) (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1954
which was disposed of as withdrawn;
II. Original Suit No.28 of 2021 under section 9 of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1954 filed by the petitioner-husband
against the respondent/wife/appellant which was
dismissed vide order dated 14.03.2022 and
III. Original Maintenance Case No.05 of 2022 under section
125 Cr.P.C which was disposed of on compromise.
Thereafter the Original Suit No.34 of 2023 was filed
which is the subject matter of the present appeal.
(vi) That on the date of disposal of Original Maintenance Case
No.05 of 2022 the respondent came with the petitioner in a
rented house at Gangotri Nagar (In the House of Sri Bal
Krishna Sharma) Thana Road, Chakdradharpur, P.O. & P.S.-
Chakradharpur, District-West Singhbhum Jharkhand) and
started residing together as husband and wife.
(vii) It has been alleged that after few days, respondent had started to
commit physical, mental and economic cruelties upon the
petitioner. Several times, respondent pushed the petitioner from
the bed, which cause pain to the petitioner. The respondent also
took money from the pocket of petitioner without his consent
and in his absent, when petitioner told her not to do such acts,
then she gave threatening that she will put his Khandan, behind
the bar.
3
2026:JHHC:20915-DB
(viii) The respondent told to the petitioner that she had a boyfriend.
She regularly commented to petitioner by saying her relation
with her boyfriend. After checking the mobile of the
respondent, the petitioner came to know that she was chatting
and talking with an unknown person, on mobile and the mobile
number of said unknown person was xxxxxx7648. The
petitioner told to the respondent that why she is making relation
with the said person, then she said that she will do that. She also
threatened the petitioner that she will implicate him and his
family in a case of dowry and cruelty.
(ix) After hearing the same, the petitioner (respondent herein)
informed the matter to the office-in-charge, Chakradharpur
Police Station. The petitioner was residing in the above-
mentioned rented house with respondent from 13.04.2022. The
respondent always told to the petitioner that she will live with
her boyfriend Dharmveer, as because he is her life. She also
told that he was only A.T.M. for her for making money and she
will enjoy with said Dharmveer and she was continuing her
relation with Dharmveer. Due to that the petitioner went under
mental agony and depression.
(x) Further, on 31.12.2022, the respondent (appellant herein)
quarreled with petitioner and told him that she will enjoy New
Year 2023 with Dharmveer, but the petitioner opposed it, then
on 03.01.2023, she left the house of the respondent/petitioner
without his consent and told him that she is going to enjoy with
4
2026:JHHC:20915-DB
Dharmveer at Rourkela and since then she is residing at
Rourkela.
(xi) On 05.04.2023, the respondent/wife came to Chakradharpur and
gave threatening to the petitioner/husband and his family
members to implicate them in the case. Thereafter, on the same
day, the petitioner made an application to the office-in-charge
of Chakradharpur police station about the said incident.
(xii) The aforesaid conduct and acts of the respondent/wife have
inflicted upon the petitioner/husband such mental pain and
suffering as would made it was not possible for the petitioner to
live with the respondent. The petitioner endured these actions in
the hope that the respondent’s behavior would improve;
however, the respondent’s cruel acts have escalated day by day.
3. On the aforesaid ground of cruelty, the petitioner husband has sought
for a decree of divorce and filed the suit before the learned family Court.
4. The learned Family Judge had issued notices to the respondent-wife
(appellant herein) upon which she appeared and filed her written
statement mentioning therein that the suit is not maintainable either in law
or on facts. The marriage between the parties was admitted. It is admitted
that the petitioner (respondent herein) had gifted articles to the
respondent/wife as mentioned in the plaint, but it is denied that the
respondent was given cloths worth Rs. 95,000/-.
5. The respondent (appellant herein) had denied that she ever made any
cruel act upon the respondent/petitioner and it is said that the
5
2026:JHHC:20915-DB
respondent/wife always accords due respect, love and affection to the
petitioner. The respondent, who is a well-educated and matured lady, has
never changed her behavior towards the petitioner at any point of time and
she had always normal towards the petitioner/husband but it is the
petitioner, who intentionally keeping himself off from the respondent the
reason best known to him.
6. It has further been stated that it is wrong to say that the respondent
changed her behavior soon after the marriage or she has no love and
affection towards the petitioner. The respondent/appellant/wife alleged
that it is the petitioner/husband who intentionally did not wish to have
issue out of this marriage and used the respondent/wife for sexual pleasure
only. Whenever, the respondent proposed the petitioner to have their own
child, he always twisted her words with refusal saying that the time was
not ripe for them to take such responsibility. He used to say that he wanted
a gap of 2-3 years for such matter.
7. The respondent/wife has alleged that the fact of the matter is that the
petitioner does not want to keep the respondent with him and in that view
of the matter, he is persistently going on the blame the respondent
variously and thereby demeaning and derogating the respondent to fulfill
his vested interest. It is alleged that the petitioner never tried to open a
bank account with the name of the respondent at any point of time. It is
averred that there was no quarrel took place between the parties.
8. It has further been stated that the respondent not entangled with the
so-called Dharamveer or anybody else. It is pleaded that on 03.01.2023,
the respondent/petitioner was to take the respondent to Raurkela as per the
6
2026:JHHC:20915-DB
plan to give a visit at respondent’s/wife ‘Maika’ but the day before
03.01.2023, the petitioner/respondent/husband refused to accompany the
respondent/wife and, as such, the respondent himself went to Raurkela to
visit her parental home. After a week, as per the schedule, the petitioner
had to bring back his wife to Chakradharpur but he did not come. Finally,
on 05.04.2023, the respondent after informing the petitioner on mobile
came back to Chakradharpur but the petitioner did not allow her to enter
into his house, i.e., in the rented accommodation and the house was kept
locked. On the day, the petitioner quarreled with the respondent and
hurled filthy languages and flatly refused to keep her as wife. The
respondent spent hours till night in front of the petitioner’s house,
requesting him to allow herself in their marital life keeping aside all
bitterness if any, but it all went in vain. Lastly, the respondent approached
the local police at Chakradharpur to get the house opened as it was night
at that time but police did not help stating that it was their personal affair
and there were already court cases between the parties. At last, the
respondent went to Chakradharpur Railway Station to take the train for
Raurkella. On reaching her parental house at Raurkella in the same night,
she narrated the whole matter to her mother and brother and subsequently,
her family members initiated reconciliatory efforts to settle the dispute if
any at all persist between them but the petitioner did not incline for any
settlement.
9. The respondent/wife further reiterates that there is no such person
Dharamveer other than the petitioner in the life of respondent. The marital
7
2026:JHHC:20915-DB
tie between the parties still alive and the respondent/wife is very much
willing to be united with the petitioner.
10. On consideration of the evidence, oral as well as documentary, the
learned Family Judge has granted divorce in favour of the petitioner-
husband (respondent herein) and has observed that the marriage
solemnized in between petitioner Sohan Lal Sah and respondent Payal
Sahu @ Payal Gupta dated 08.02.2019 stands dissolved on the basis of
cruelty u/s 13 (1) (ia) of Hindu Marriage Act.
11. The said judgment and decree of divorce is under challenge in the
instant appeal.
Argument on behalf of the learned counsel for the Appellant-wife:
12. Mr. R.C.P. Sah, learned counsel for the appellant-wife has taken the
following grounds in assailing the impugned judgment:
(i) The learned Family Judge, though framing four distinct issues, has
failed to consider and answer them in accordance with law. The
impugned judgment proceeds to conclude that the marriage has
become irretrievable without any proper adjudication of the framed
issues. Such a finding, being unsupported by issue-wise
determination, is perverse and unsustainable in law.
(ii) The conclusion that the marriage has irretrievably broken-down
rests merely on the presumption that the appellant-wife resides
separately. The learned Family Judge has ignored the material fact
that the appellant-wife was willing to cohabit, but was forcibly
prevented by the petitioner-husband, who locked the matrimonial
8
2026:JHHC:20915-DBhome and denied her entry, compelling her to reside at her parental
house. The finding is therefore unjust and contrary to evidence.
(iii) The petitioner-husband himself admitted in his examination-in-
chief that he never attempted to bring back the respondent-wife to
the matrimonial home. The learned Family Judge’s omission to
consider this admission vitiates the finding.
(iv) The petitioner alleged that the respondent-wife behaved cruelly and
even pushed him from the bed causing injury. However, no specific
date, time, or corroborative evidence was produced to substantiate
this allegation. The finding of cruelty is therefore baseless.
(v) It has been contended that although the ground has been taken by
the petitioner that the respondent-wife is having illicit relation with
one Dharmveer but the respondent/husband has not impleaded the
said Dharmveer as respondent to prove the allegation of adultery as
such the allegation that the appellant wants to live with the
Dharmveer is not proved.
(vi) The learned Family Judge erred in holding that the respondent-
wife’s act of taking money from her husband’s pocket amounted to
cruelty. Such conduct, being a commonplace domestic affair
between spouses, cannot be equated with theft or cruelty. The
finding is legally untenable.
13. Learned counsel for the appellant-wife, based upon the aforesaid
ground, has submitted that it is, therefore, a fit case to interfere with the
9
2026:JHHC:20915-DB
impugned judgment by remitting it before the learned Family Judge for
hearing afresh.
Argument on behalf of the learned counsel for the respondent-husband:
14. On the other hand, Mr. Kripa Shankar Nanda, learned counsel for the
respondent/husband has taken the following grounds in defending the
judgment impugned:
(i) The ground has been taken that the appellant-wife has separated
from the respondent-husband of her own without any reason and, as
such, she has acted cruelty upon him, hence, it cannot be said that
the judgment suffers from an error.
(ii) The argument has been advanced that it is admitted by the
respondent-wife that Dharmveer is her Facebook friend with whom
there was chatting message in between them which clearly shows
that she was having an illicit relation with him and, as such, the
learned Family Judge has not erred by holding that the respondent
intentionally concealed the fact of her relation with said Dharmveer.
(iii) The learned Family Judge after taking into consideration the
evidence on record which was recorded in favour of the petitioner-
husband and based upon the same, the ground of cruelty has been
found to be there and on account of the aforesaid evidence the
consideration has been given by the learned Family Judge holding
the marriage to be irretrievable and if in that premise, the decree of
divorce has been passed, the same cannot be said to be suffer from
any error.
10
2026:JHHC:20915-DB
15. Learned counsel for the petitioner-husband, based upon the aforesaid
ground, has submitted that the instant appeal therefore needs to be
dismissed.
Analysis:
16. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties as also the finding
recorded by the learned Family Judge in the impugned judgment as also
the record of the learned Family Judge.
17. After going through the pleadings made available in the plaint as well
in the written statement, the following issues have been framed by the
learned Family Judge for its consideration which reads as under:
(i) Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form?
(ii) Whether there is any cause of action for the suit?
(iii) Whether the respondent Payal Sahoo has committed physical
and mental cruelty with her husband Sohan Lal Shah by leaving her
matrimonial home without the consent of her husband and started
living relationship with Dharambir at Raurkela?
(iv) Whether the petitioner is entitled any other relief on the basis of
pleading?
18. The issue pertaining to ground for divorce is by formulating a specific
issue “Whether the respondent Payal Sahoo has committed physical and
mental cruelty with her husband Sohan Lal Shah by leaving her
matrimonial home without the consent of her husband and started living
relationship with Dharambir at Raurkela?” as issue no.(iii).
19. The learned Family Judge has considered the evidence adduced on
behalf of the parties for proper adjudication of the lis.
11
2026:JHHC:20915-DB
20. This Court in order to appreciate the aforesaid rival submission before
entering into the legality and propriety of the impugned judgment needs to
discuss herein the relevant part of the evidences adduced on behalf of the
parties wherein the element of cruelty has been shown by the
respondent/husband as also the evidence adduced on behalf of the
appellant/wife wherein the allegation of cruelty has been denied.
21. Altogether four witnesses have been examined on behalf of the
respondent/petitioner-husband including, Sohan Lal Shah, the petitioner
himself, who has been examined as P.W.1; Vikash Shah as P.W.2; Sunil
Kumar Khowala as P.W.3 and; Rajesh Lal Shah has been examined as
P.W.-4.
22. The petitioner-husband has produced some documents in support of his
contention which were exhibited during the trial which are as under:
(i) Ext-1:- Original receiving application dated 15.01.2023 addressed
to officer-in-charge Chakradharpur P.S. (Two Sheets).
(ii) Ext.1/1-C.C of decree dated 09.12.2016 passed in O.S No.68/2015.
23. While on the other hand, the respondent-wife has also examined two
witnesses including herself as RW-1 and R.W-2 is Kusum Prasad Sahu,
who is the mother of the respondent.
24. In support of his case, P.W.-1 Sohan Lal Shah (Petitioner) has deposed
that he has filed the instant suit for divorce against his wife. His marriage
was solemnized on 08.02.2019 by Hindu rites and rituals at Rajasthan
Bhawan, Jamshedpur. After marriage both arrived to his house at
Chakradharpur on 09.02.2019 and their marriage was consummated. No
12
2026:JHHC:20915-DB
issue was born out of their wedlock. At the time of marriage, he and his
family members gifted one golden neck-less, one diamond ring, one
golden ring, one set of golden ears tops, one set of Jhumka, two pieces
golden bangles, one gold Mangalsutra, one set silver anklet (Payal), one
mobile worth of Rs. 12,000/-, one golden nose-pin and cloths worth of
Rs. 95,000/- and the entire gifted items are with his wife Payal Sahoo. The
witness further deposed that initially, their relations were good but later
on, his wife did not love him as well as did not talk with him and used to
torture him. The witness also deposed that he has filed Matrimonial Suit
No. 26/2020 & 28/2021 against his wife. His wife had also filed a
maintenance case against him bearing O.M.C. No. 5/2022, in which the
matter was amicably resolved and both parties started residing in the
rented house of Balkishan Sharma. After compromise, the behavior of his
wife was good for some days but gradually, she started torturing physical
and mental with him. His wife used to push from bed at the time of
sleeping. His wife used to say that Dharamveer is her boyfriend and she
will reside with him. The witness further deposed that when he checked
the mobile his wife, he found that he (Dharamveer) used to send false
messages and wrong videos and it came to his knowledge that the relation
of chat and has filed in Court. The mobile number of Dharamveer is
xxxxx547648. The witness further deposed that when he objected and
forbid to his wife not to talk with Dharamveer then she replied that she
will reside with him and she will implicate him (husband) in a false case.
The witness further deposed that he had given information to police
station on 15.01.2023 and 05.04.2023. The witness deposed that his wife
told on 31.12.2022 that she will celebrate New Year Party with
13
2026:JHHC:20915-DB
Dharamveer, so he objected, but she started quarreling with him and on
03.01.2023, she went to Raurkela without informing him. Now, there is no
possibility to lead conjugal life with his wife. The marital bond has been
irretrievably broken down. His wife does not permit him to make physical
relation. The witness identified the receipt copy of Letter dated
15.01.2023, which was given to Station Officer, Chakradharpur, which
has been marked as Ext.-1. The witness also identified the receipt copy of
application dated 12.04.2023, which was given to Station House Officer,
Chakradharpur which has been marked as Ext.-2. The witness also
identified five photographs in which his wife has worn the Jeweleries. The
photographs have been identified as Mark-X to X/4. The witness further
deposed that he has also filed black colour pen-drive, in which it has been
recorded that his wife used to steal money from his pocket. He demanded
the C.D.R. of Dharamveer and his wife but police station refused to give
the details of calling. The witness denied that he used to commit torture to
his wife. The witness denied that it is wrong to say that he does not want
to born child from his wife. The witness denied that he did not permit his
wife to enter into her matrimonial home on 05.04.2023.
25. During cross-examination, PW1 had deposed in para-43 that he had never
gone to his Sasural with his wife. The witness deposed in para-46 that he
never went outside with his wife. The witness deposed at para-53 that
police did not make any inquiry on the basis of application dated
15.01.2023 (Ext.-1) and did not register it in station diary. He has deposed
in para-54 that neither police registered any case in station-diary nor
investigate the case in the light of his application dated 12.04.2023
14
2026:JHHC:20915-DB
(Ext.-2). The witness deposed in para- 60 that it is not true that no one
contains name as Dharamveer. The witness admitted in para-68 that his
wife had come to Chakradharpur on 05.04.2023 and went to rented house
but it was locked and at that time, he was at his shop. The witness deposed
in para-80 that he does not want to keep his wife in present situation and
he wants divorce from his wife as she wants to reside with Dharamveer.
26. P.W.-2 Vikash Shah has deposed that petitioner Sohan Lal Shah is his
uncle. The marriage of Sohal Lal Shah was solemnized with Payal Sahoo
according to Hindu rites and rituals. There is no issue out of their
wedlock. At the time of marriage, golden and silver ornaments were
gifted to her and the entire ornaments were taken by his aunt and
proceeded to Raurkela. After marriage, Payal Sahoo had been living with
them. Initially, the behavior of Payal Sahoo was good but when she went
to Raurkela, thereafter, her behavior was changed towards his uncle. The
witness further deposed that as per Courts order, his uncle was residing
with aunty Payal in a rented house but his aunt used to threaten his uncle
to implicate in false case. On 05.04.2023 while he was at his shop, Sohan
Lal Shah arrived to his shop at 2:00 PM and told that his wife/respondent
is trying to enter into his house forcefully. His uncle was not permitting
his aunt to enter into the house as his aunt has illicit relation with
Dharamveer. Presently, the marital status in between his uncle and aunt
has been completely broken down. There is no possibility to reside
together, therefore, his uncle has filed instant suit for divorce.
During cross-examination, PW2 has deposed in para-14 that he
does not know Dharamveer. His uncle told him about the relation of his
aunt with Dharamveer. The witness deposed in para-16 that his aunt
15
2026:JHHC:20915-DB
(respondent herein) arrived at her showroom on 05.04.2023 and
threatened that she will implicate the entire family in false case. The
witness deposed in para-18 that his aunt has not filed any case against
him and his parents.
27. P.W.-3 Sunil Kumar Khowala has deposed that the marriage of Sohan
Lal Shah and Payal Sahoo was solemnized on 08.02.2019 at Rajasthan
Bhawan, Jamshedpur. He was also present there. Initial talking of
marriage was performed in his presence at Karni Mandir, Chaibasa. At the
time of marriage, the family members of Sohan Lal Shah had gifted
golden ornaments, diamond ring and cloths to Payal Sahoo. She resided
15 days at her matrimonial home, thereafter, proceeded for Raurkela along
with her ornaments. After negotiation and compromise made before
Court, both Sohan Lal Shah and his wife had been living in rented house
since 13.04.2022 at Thana Road, Chakradharpur. Sohan Lal told in the
month of December 2022 and January 2023 that his wife is not behaving
well with him. She does not provide food to Sohan Lal Shah and used to
take money from his pocket. The witness further deposed that Payal
Sahoo has relation with Dharamveer and she used to say that she will
reside with Dharamveer.
During cross-examination, PW3 has admitted that Sohan Lal
Shah (the petitioner) is his Saala (brother-in-law).
28. P.W.-4 Rajesh Lal Shah deposed that Sohan Lal Shah is his younger
brother. The marriage of Sohan Lal Shah was solemnized with Payal
Sahoo. At the time of marriage, golden ornaments were given to Payal
Sahoo which is still remain with her. After compromise in Court, his
16
2026:JHHC:20915-DB
brother took his wife and had been living in a rented house at Thana Road,
Chakradharpur. The wife of his brother (Respondent) used to misbehave
with Sohan Lal Shah and also used to torture him. The wife of Sohan Lal
Shah used to say that she has illicit relation with Dharamveer and she will
reside with him. On 03.01.2023, Payal Sahoo quarreled with Sohan Lal
Shah and told that she will reside with Dharamveer, Sohan Lal Shah
denied but she left her house without the consent of his brother Sohan Lal
Shah and proceeded for Raurkela. Payal Sahoo committed torture to the
extreme level so it is impossible to lead conjugal life with Payal Sahoo.
During his cross-examination, PW4 has deposed in para-9 that the
occurrence was of dated 03.01.2023 which did not occur in his presence.
The witness also deposed in para-10 that he does not know Dharamveer.
The witness had deposed in para-15 that it is true that prior to filing case
there was no family meeting was convened in regard to matrimonial
disputes arose in between the petitioner and the respondent.
29. On the other hand, R.W.-1 Payal Sahoo @ Payal Gupta @ Payal Shah
deposed that the instant suit has been filed by her husband for divorce.
Her husband has alleged that he was committed cruelty by her. Her
marriage was solemnized on 08.02.2019 by Hindu rites and rituals at
Bistupur, Jamshedpur. She arrived to her matrimonial home on
09.02.2019 at Chakradharpur. She had come to her matrimonial home
with some household articles but the furniture and other items were
remained at her parental home. The witness further deposed that one day,
she went for bath then her Jethani (Sister-in-law) put off her entire it
would be with mother-in-law. She stayed 15 days at her matrimonial
17
2026:JHHC:20915-DB
home and on 24.02.2019, her elder brother arrived to her matrimonial
home and took her to Raurkela. The witness further deposed that
thereafter she did not go to her matrimonial home as none came to take
her. When her husband filed a case for restitution of conjugal right in the
year 2022, then she came to her matrimonial home. The witness further
deposed that it was resolved with consent that both husband and wife shall
reside together, therefore, she went to her matrimonial home. Her husband
kept her in a rented house in spite of matrimonial home where necessary
items were made available. Her husband also lived with her. She went to
her parental home on 18.05.2022 and returned with all domestic
household articles on 06.06.2022. She stayed till 03.01.2023 at her
matrimonial home. She went to her parental home at Raurkela on
03.01.2023 and returned to her matrimonial home on 05.04.2023. The
witness deposed that she was willing to come at her matrimonial home on
13.03.2023 but her husband informed her that someone has died in his
family, therefore, don’t come so she came to her matrimonial home on
05.04.2023. She returned to rented house prior to that she went to Pawan
Chawk, Chakradharpur to take key but her husband replied that wait for
some time and he will give key but she waited from 1:00 p.m. to 3.30 p.m.
Her husband and Vikash arrived there and started abusing and clearly told
that they will not keep her. Thereafter, she went to T.V. showroom where
she met with Vikash Shah, who told that uncle has gone to Chaibasa and
Vikash Shah did not permit her to enter into the house (Matrimonial
Home). She went to police station. Her husband was called by police. Her
husband arrived at 9.00 p.m. till then she was sitting in Thana premises,
her husband told in presence of police that he will not keep her. She
18
2026:JHHC:20915-DB
requested before police to open the door but police did not help her, as a
result, she return to Raurkela in night. She went to Sector-4 police station
Raurkela where her husband was called but did not appear there. The
witness further deposed that she never committed any cruelty with her
husband and she wants to live with her husband. She has not filed any
criminal case against her husband and she has not filed any case for
maintenance also. Her husband has filed false case against her and she has
not entitled relief as claimed by him. The witness deposed that the saying
of her husband that she had gone to celebrate New Year Party with
Dharamveer on 31.12.2022 is wrong. Dharamveer is her facebook friend
but she never meets with him.
During her cross-examination, the witness deposed in para-22 that
she has not filed any document which could establish that she had filed a
petition before Mahila Thana, Raurkela for calling her husband. The
witness deposed in para-23 that she has not filed any paper before
Chakradharpur police station on 05.04.2023. The witness deposed in
para-27 that she has completed M.C.A. and B.Ed course. The witness
further deposed in para-28 that it is wrong to say that after 15 days of
marriage, she returned to her parental home at Raurkela along with all
ornaments and her ornaments has been kept at Raurkela till date. The
witness deposed in para-33 that her facebook friend had not sent message
to her as (I Love You) but once he sent a message (Thank You Meri
Jaan) and it was objected by her.
30. R.W.-2 Kusum Prasad Sahu (Mother of respondent) deposed that the
instant suit has been filed by her ‘Damad’ (Son-in-law) against her
19
2026:JHHC:20915-DB
daughter for getting divorce. The marriage of her daughter was
solemnized on 08.02.2019 at Rajasthan Bhawan, Jamshedpur. After
marriage, her daughter went to her matrimonial home at Chakradharpur.
She has further stated that her son-in-law had a joint business. The witness
further deposed that she had gifted one golden chain, one golden ring, one
Titan Watch and Rs. 51,000/- cash for cloths and Rs. 35,000/- for the
cloths of family members. All the household articles were also given at
the time of marriage. She had also gifted golden ornaments to her
daughter. This witness further deposed that her daughter was beaten on
05.04.2023 and since then her daughter is residing at her parental home.
The witness further deposed that she got treatment on 10.01.2023. City-
scan was also made. Thereafter, she also gets treatment on 20.01.2023,
14.02.2023 and 03.03.2023. The witness deposed that her daughter arrived
to her parental home on 03.01.2023 after getting information about her
disease (P.W.-2). There is no issue out of the wedlock of Sohan Lal Sahu
and Payal Sahoo. She does not want divorce in between her daughter and
son-in-law.
During cross-examination, RW2 has deposed in para-21 that her
daughter Payal Sahoo never told her that Dharamveer is her facebook
friend. The witness denied in para-24 that her daughter has filed a suit for
getting family property. The witness deposed in para-27 that her daughter
reached Raurkela on 05.04.2023 at 10.30 PM. The witness denied in
para-28 that her daughter reached Raurkela on 06.04.2023 in spite of
05.04.2023. The witness deposed that it is wrong to say that her daughter
committed cruelty with her husband and Sohan Lal has no alternative to
take divorce.
20
2026:JHHC:20915-DB
31. On the basis of the evidence led by both the parties the learned Court
has passed the decree of divorce by taking into consideration that there is
no reasonable cause to the appellant-wife to live separately. The learned
Family Judge has also come to the conclusion that there is irretrievable
breakdown of marriage and because of such breakdown of marriage, the
marriage between the parties is beyond repair and no useful purpose will
be served by keeping such a marriage alive.
32. The aforesaid impugned judgment is under challenge in this appeal.
33. It needs to refer herein that since appellate jurisdiction has been
invoked herein, therefore, before entering into merit of the case, at this
juncture it would be purposeful to discuss the appellate jurisdiction of the
High Court.
34. It also needs to refer herein that under section 7 of the Family Courts
Act, the Family Court shall have an exercise all the jurisdiction
exercisable by any District Court or any Sub- ordinate Civil Court under
any law for the time being in force in respect of suits and proceedings of
the nature which are described in the explanation to section 7(1).
35. Sub-section (1) to section 19 of the Family Courts Act provides that
an appeal shall lie from every judgment or order not being an
interlocutory order of a Family Court to the High Court “both on facts and
on law”. Therefore, section 19 of the Family Courts Act is parallel
to section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the scope of which has been
dealt with by the Hon’ble Apex Court in series of judgments.
36. The law is well settled that the High Court in a First Appeal can
examine every question of law and fact which arises in the facts of the
21
2026:JHHC:20915-DB
case and has powers to affirm, reverse or modify the judgment under
question.
37. In “Jagdish Singh v. Madhuri Devi” (2008) 10 SCC 497 the Hon’ble
Apex Court observed that it is lawful for the High Court acting as the First
Appellate Court to enter into not only questions of law but questions of
fact as well and the appellate Court therefore can reappraise, reappreciate
and review the entire evidence and can come to its own conclusion. For
ready reference, the relevant paragraph of the said judgment is being
quoted as under:
“It is no doubt true that the High Court was exercising power as the
first appellate court and hence it was open to the Court to enter into
not only questions of law but questions of fact as well. It is settled law
that an appeal is a continuation of suit. An appeal thus is a rehearing
of the main matter and the appellate court can reappraise,
reappreciate and review the entire evidence–oral as well as
documentary–and can come to its own conclusion.”
38. In the backdrop of the aforesaid settled position of law, now this Court
is re-adverting to the factual aspect of the case. Herein the fact about filing
of suit on the ground of cruelty is admitted one and the petitioner-husband
(respondent herein) has tried to establish the element of cruelty upon him
at the hands of the respondent-wife (appellant herein).
39. The respondent husband all along has alleged the issue of cruelty
which he was subjecting to by his wife and in order to establish the same
the evidences has been laid before the learned Family Court as has been
referred hereinabove.
40. Herein, it has been urged by learned counsel for the appellant that
although the learned Family Judge formulated four issues, the primary
22
2026:JHHC:20915-DB
issue being cruelty as a ground for divorce, none of the issues have been
answered in accordance with law. Instead, the Family Court has
selectively relied upon the statement recorded in the evidence adduced on
behalf of the respondent-husband and, on that basis alone, proceeded to
hold that the marriage has irretrievably broken down. Such reliance,
without proper issue-wise adjudication, and the consequent use of
irretrievable breakdown as a ground for granting divorce, is manifestly
perverse and unsustainable in the eyes of law.
41. This Court, while appreciating the argument advanced on behalf of the
appellant-wife 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.
42. The word ‘perverse’ 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:
23
2026:JHHC:20915-DB
“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.
Ltd. [AIR 1966 Cal 31] the Court observed that “perverse
finding” means a finding which is not only against the weight of
evidence but is altogether against the evidence itself. In Triveni
Rubber & Plastics v. CCE [1994 Supp (3) SCC 665 : AIR 1994
SC 1341] the Court observed that this is not a case where it can
be said that the findings of the authorities are based on no
evidence or that they are so perverse that no reasonable person
would have arrived at those findings.
26. In M.S. Narayanagouda v. Girijamma [AIR 1977 Kant 58]
the Court observed that any order made in conscious violation
of pleading and law is a perverse order.
In Moffett v. Gough [(1878) 1 LR 1r 331] the Court observed
that a “perverse verdict” may probably be defined as one that is
not only against the weight of evidence but is altogether against
the evidence. In Godfrey v. Godfrey [106 NW 814] the Court
defined “perverse” as turned the wrong way, not right; distorted
from the right; turned away or deviating from what is right,
proper, correct, etc.
27. The expression “perverse” has been defined by various
dictionaries in the following manner:
1. Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current
English, 6th Edn.
“Perverse.–Showing deliberate determination to behave in
a way that most people think is wrong, unacceptable or
unreasonable.”
2. Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English,
International Edn.
Perverse.–Deliberately departing from what is normal and
reasonable.
3. The New Oxford Dictionary of English, 1998 Edn.
Perverse.–Law (of a verdict) against the weight of evidence
or the direction of the judge on a point of law.
4. The New Lexicon Webster’s Dictionary of the English
Language (Deluxe Encyclopedic Edn.)
Perverse.–Purposely deviating from accepted or expected
behavior or opinion; wicked or wayward; stubborn; cross or
petulant.
5. 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:20915-DB
43. Since the principal ground urged before the learned Family Court was
cruelty, and the decree of dissolution has been passed on that basis, it
becomes imperative to examine the legal constituents of cruelty.
44. The concept of cruelty, as envisaged under matrimonial law,
encompasses both physical and mental dimensions, requiring cogent
evidence of conduct so grave and weighty as to render cohabitation
insufferable. Therefore, before affirming dissolution on the ground of
cruelty, the Court is duty-bound to assess whether the acts alleged and
proved rise to the threshold contemplated by law.
45. It needs 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.
46. 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.
47. 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
25
2026:JHHC:20915-DB
element of cruelty but it may be present. Physical cruelty is less
ambiguous and more “a question of fact and degree.”
48. 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.”
49. 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.
50. 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”.
51. 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 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.
26
2026:JHHC:20915-DB
52. 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.
53. “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.
54. 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.
27
2026:JHHC:20915-DB
55. In matrimonial relationship cruelty mean absence of mutual respect
and understanding between spouses which embitters relationship.
Sometimes it may take form of violence, or at times may just be an
attitude or approach. Silence in some situations may also amount to
cruelty reference be made to the case of Ravi Kumar v. Julmidevi, (2010)
4 SCC 476.
56. For considering dissolution of marriage at instance of a spouse who
alleges mental cruelty, result of such mental cruelty must be such that it is
not possible to continue with matrimonial relationship reference may be
taken from the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case
of Joydeep Majumdar v. Bharti Jaiswal Majumdar, (2021) 3 SCC 742.
57. Further the word ‘cruelty’ is used in 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.
58. 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 another spouse could not
28
2026:JHHC:20915-DB
reasonable be expected to put up with it. Conduct is no longer required to
be so atrociously abominable which would cause reasonable apprehension
that it would be harmful of injurious to continue cohabitation with another
spouse. Hence, it is not necessary to establish physical violence.
Continued ill-treatment, cessation of marital intercourse, studied neglect,
indifference may lead to inference of cruelty.
59. The word “cruelty” under Section 13(1) (i-a) of the Act has got no
static connotation, and therefore, gives a very wide discretion to the Court
to apply it liberally and contextually. What is cruelty in one case may not
be the same for another and has to be applied from person to person while
taking note of the attending circumstances. Harm or injury to health,
reputation, the working-career or the like, would be important
considerations in determining whether the conduct of the defending
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.
60. This Court, based upon the aforesaid discussions on the issue of
cruelty, has gone through the testimony of witnesses.
61. It is evident from the impugned order that the allegations specific to
the ground of alleged cruelty has been made by respondent/husband vide
paras- 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 of his petition/plaint. Starting with
paras-9 of the petition/plaint, the respondent/petitioner-husband has
alleged that appellant/respondent/wife had started to commit physical,
mental and economic cruelties upon the petitioner. Several times,
respondent pushed the petitioner from the bed, which cause pain to the
29
2026:JHHC:20915-DB
petitioner. The respondent also took money from the pocket of petitioner
without his consent.
62. It has further been alleged the appellant/respondent/wife told to the
petitioner/respondent/husband that she had a boyfriend. She regularly
commented to petitioner by saying her relation with her boyfriend. After
checking the mobile of the respondent/wife, the petitioner/husband came
to know that she was chatting and talking with an unknown person, on
mobile and the mobile number of said unknown person was xxxxxx7648.
The petitioner told to the respondent that why she is making relation with
the said person, then she said that she will do that.
63. It is further alleged that on 31.12.2022, the respondent quarreled with
petitioner and told him that she will enjoy New Year 2023 with
Dharmveer, but the petitioner opposed it, then on 03.01.2023, she left the
house of the petitioner without his consent and told him that she is going
to enjoy with Dharmveer at Rourkela and since then she is residing at
Rourkela.
64. The aforesaid pleading has been taken into consideration by the
learned Family Judge and it has been observed that “the respondent/wife
initially denied any relationship with Dharmveer but during evidence
admitted Dharmveer as her facebook friend and also admitted that he sent
message like “Thank You Meri Jan” which is sufficient to presume that
respondent Payal Sahoo was earlier known to Dharmveer and she
intentionally concealed the fact at the time of filing written statement.
65. In the aforesaid context, it is pertinent to record that the instant case,
though instituted by the petitioner before the learned Family Court
30
2026:JHHC:20915-DB
seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty, reveals from the
averments in the plaint that allegations of illicit relationship have been
levelled against the appellant/wife, asserting that she was maintaining a
relationship with another person; and it is upon such averments the
learned Family Court proceeded to pass the order of dissolution of
marriage.
66. From perusal of record as well as from relevant paragraph of the
impugned judgment it is evident that the learned family Court while
giving its finding on the point of illicit relationship alleged against wife,
has totally ignored the testimony of the appellant wife who in her cross
examination has categorically stated that Dharamveer is her facebook
friend but she has never meet with him. She had further deposed in para-
33 that her facebook friend had not sent message to her as (I Love You)
but once he sent a message (Thank You Meri Jaan) and it was objected by
her.
67. Further, it is pertinent to observe that the allegation that the appellant
is residing with another person after deserting the respondent-husband has
not been cogently proved. The very contents of the divorce petition do not
disclose the exact identity or parentage of the person with whom the
appellant is alleged to have maintained an illicit relationship. Moreover,
the petition itself records that the relationship between the parties was
initially cordial; however, beyond such assertion, no specific date, period,
or occasion has been indicated to establish when the matrimonial bond
deteriorated or when the alleged misconduct commenced.
68. Further, there was no cogent material to prove that the appellant/wife
having illicit relation with some other person, on account of which she has
31
2026:JHHC:20915-DB
left the respondent/husband and a such the very allegation is merely a
ballpark assessment of the respondent/husband.
69. Further since the finding of adultery would adversely affect the
interest of adulterer, opportunity should be given to him to defend himself
and to disprove the claim of adultery, the said adulterer should be arrayed
in the proceedings which would help the court to effectively and
completely adjudicate the controversy. Further, if an allegation is made by
husband that is required to be proved by the husband by way of leading
the evidence and that cannot be adjudicated effectively without making
the adulterer as one of the parties.
70. The rationale behind this mandate, the Court said, is twofold. First,
allegations of illicit relationship, if proved, entail serious civil
consequences and stigma upon the alleged paramour. To record such
findings without affording them a right of hearing would be contrary to
the principle of audi alteram partem.
71. Second, the Family Court cannot effectively or fairly adjudicate the
ground of illicit relationship without the presence of the alleged
participant and since the allegations of adultery, by their very nature,
touch upon the reputation and dignity of a third party, and therefore
justice requires that such person be given a fair opportunity to defend
themselves.
72. In the present case, since the finding of illicit relationship against the
appellant/wife has been observed by the learned Family Court while
disregarding the testimony of the appellant/wife as well as other evidence
available on record, this Court is of the considered view that the
conclusion reached by the learned Family Judge, holding that the
32
2026:JHHC:20915-DB
appellant/wife was maintaining an illicit relationship with another person,
stands vitiated and is perverse in nature.
73. The learned Family Judge has further observed that the petitioner, in
paragraph 25 of his deposition, alleged that his wife had taken money
from his pocket in his absence.
74. Although the respondent denied this allegation in her written
statement, she admitted in paragraph 40 of her cross-examination that on
two occasions she had taken a nominal sum of Rs.10-20/- from her
husband’s pocket, explaining that there was no money in the house to
purchase essential items such as sag and Murhi.
75. Further, the respondent-wife has categorically deposed in her
evidence that she has taken out Rs.10-20/- twice from the pocket of her
husband as there was no money in the house for purchasing Sag and
Murhi which clearly shows that it was the petitioner-husband who has not
given any penny to his wife and deprived her to purchase things for daily
need even for purchasing Sag and Murhi. Thus, he has acted cruelty upon
the respondent-wife by not providing any penny for purchasing things for
daily need.
76. Further, this Court is of the considered view that such allegations are
commonplace in the domestic sphere between husband and wife. From the
aforesaid, it is evident that while the learned Family Judge considered the
evidence relating to cruelty and the alleged act of theft by the wife, he
failed to take into account the underlying reason behind such act, namely,
the necessity to meet household requirements, which detracts from any
inference of cruelty or criminality.
33
2026:JHHC:20915-DB
77. It has also come in evidence that the petitioner-husband has admitted
that when his wife (appellant herein) come back to his rented house to live
there he locked the room and not permitted her to enter into room
whereafter she was compelled to remain outside the room at night and
thereafter she went to police station to get help but there also she could
not get the help of police by saying that it was family affair between the
parties and there were already court cases between the parties.
78. It has also come in evidence that the appellant-wife has not been
allowed to enter into the rented house. Thereafter, being compelled the
respondent went to Chakradharpur Railway Station to take the train for
Raurkella. On reaching her parental house at Raurkella in the same night,
she narrated the whole matter to her mother and brother and subsequently,
her family members initiated reconciliatory efforts to settle the dispute
between them but the petitioner did not incline for any settlement. Thus, it
shows that it was the respondent-husband who acted cruelty upon the
appellant-wife.
79. It has further come in the evidence that the respondent/husband has
admitted that he never went to maike of this appellant/wife to bring her
back which clearly shows that it was the petitioner-husband who has
deserted the respondent-wife and compelled her to live in her maike.
80. It is evident from record that the appellant/wife has expressed his
desire before the learned Family Court that she wants to live with her
husband. Further, from record, it is evident that the appellant/wife has not
filed any criminal case against her respondent husband and she has not
filed any case for maintenance also.
34
2026:JHHC:20915-DB
81. From the foregoing discussions, it is manifest that the learned Family
Judge has failed to take into account the aforesaid factual matrix and the
settled principles of law adverted to hereinabove. The Court has, instead,
magnified trivial incidents amounting to mere ordinary wear and tear of
matrimonial life into grounds of dissolution, thereby committing a serious
error in appreciation of evidence and misapplication of law.
82. This Court after discussing the aforesaid factual aspect along with the
legal position and adverting to the consideration made by the learned
Family Judge in the impugned judgment has found therefrom that the
issue of element of cruelty has not well been considered by the learned
Family Judge.
83. Upon consideration of the evidence, it is manifest that the learned
Family Judge, while concluding dissolution of marriage, failed to
appreciate that the respondent-husband miserably fell short of establishing
the ground of cruelty against the appellant-wife. On the contrary, it is the
respondent-husband who himself perpetrated cruelty upon the
appellant-wife by casting aspersions of her having a boy-friend, namely
one Dharmveer, without cogent proof.
84. This Court, on consideration of the finding arrived at by the learned
Family Judge and based upon the aforesaid discussion, is of the view that
the judgment and decree passed by the learned Family Judge is coming
under the fold of the perversity, since, the conscious consideration has not
been made of the evidences, both ocular and documentary, as discussed
hereinabove.
85. This Court, in view of the aforesaid, is of the view that the judgment
dated 23.12.2023 and the decree sealed and signed on 05.01.2024 passed
35
2026:JHHC:20915-DB
in Original Suit No.34 of 2023 by the learned Family Judge needs
interference.
86. Accordingly, the judgment dated 23.12.2023 and the decree sealed
and signed on 05.01.2024 passed in Original Suit No.34 of 2023 is hereby
quashed and set aside.
87. In the result, the instant appeal stands allowed.
88. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
I Agree.
(Sanjay Prasad, J.)
(Sanjay Prasad, J.)
Sudhir
Jharkhand High Court,
Dated:14/07/2026
AFR
Uploaded on 15/07//2026.
36
