2026:JHHC:21856-DB

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

First Appeal No.165 of 2023

-----

Abhay Prasad, aged about 33 years, son of Sri Krishan Murari Prasad,

resident of Mohali Chuwan, P.O. Giridih, P.S. Giridih (M). District-

Giridih, Jharkhand ...... .… Petitioner/Appellant

Versus

Nikki Kumari, wife of Abhay Prasad and D/o Ajay Kumar Sah, resident

of Mohali Chuwan, P.O. Giridih, P.S. Giridih (M) District-Giridih,

Jharkhand, At present resident of Miyan Chak, Chatti Road, P.O.

Begusaria, P.S. Begusarai Sadar, District-Begusarai (Bihar).

.… .… Opp. Party/Respondent

-------

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

-------

For the Appellant : Mr. Ashish Kumar, Advocate

For the Respondent : Mr. Priyanshu Nilesh, Advocate

Mr. Rahul Dev, Advocate

Ms. Shipra Sonam, Advocate

------

CAV on 03.07.2026 Pronounced on 23/07/2026

Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

Prayer

The instant appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Court Act,

1984 is directed against the judgment dated 19.04.2023 passed in Original

Suit No.201 of 2018 by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Civil

Court, Giridih, whereby and whereunder, the petition filed under section

13(1) (i-a) & (iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 by the appellant-

husband against the respondent-wife has been dismissed.

Facts

2. The brief facts of the case as pleaded in the plaint having been

recorded by the learned Family Judge, needs to be referred herein as:

2026:JHHC:21856-DB

2

(i) The marriage between the petitioner, Abhay Prasad (appellant

herein) and the respondent, Nikki Kumari @ Nicky Kumari

(respondent herein) was solemnized on 22.06.2017 at R.R.P

Goenka Sewa Sadan, near Kutiya Road, Giridih as per Hindu

Rites and customs prevailing in between the parties in the

presence of guardian and relatives of both the parties. After

solemnizing the marriage, wife/opposite party, Nikki Kumari

came to his matrimonial home at Mohali Chuwan, P.S-Giridih

(M), District-Giridih and both of them started to live together.

(ii) The petitioner, appellant herein has stated that in the first night,

he (petitioner) found that his wife/respondent, Nikki Kumari is

suffering from mental disorder and she failed and neglect to

maintain the proper marital relationship with him. Since his wife

suffers from a chronic and incurable mental disorder and is not

in proper mental state to lead a married life.

(iii) It was further averred that the parents of his wife were informed

about physical and mental condition of the respondent, , then the

parents of his wife came to his house and disclosed the fact that

the respondent is suffering from mental disease since her

childhood and they provided medicine.

(iv) The petitioner has further pleaded that his wife is suffering from

a mental illness and though she was under medication,

suppressing the material facts, the father of the opposite party

negotiated the marriage of the opposite party and immediately

after that, it was notice that there is suppression of the material

facts. It has been further stated that the respondent/wife was

2026:JHHC:21856-DB

3

acting in very abnormal manner, as she used to abruptly get very

aggressive, hostile and suspicious nature.

(v) It has been further averred that the respondent/wife had been

taken away by her parents after next day of the marriage. Thus,

the respondent went to her parents’ house with her parents. The

petitioner has further averred that on account of serious mental

illness which is of incurable and that he cannot be expected to

live with her. There is every chance of violent acts, which could

be dangerous to the petitioner. The father of the opposite party

fraudulently concealed the fact of mental illness of the

respondent and obtained his consent by fraud. The marriage was

not consummated due to mental illness of the respondent.

(vi) The petitioner/husband has further narrated that the respondent

has treated him with cruelty as she has failed to provide love and

affection and has failed to discharge her marital obligation. It was

further pleaded that he only lived with his wife for a day. Again,

the petitioner has pleaded that he tried his best to take back the

respondent/wife by various means and he went to his sasural

situated at Begusarai and inspite of the best efforts on his part,

the wife did not return to his house.

(vii) The petitioner has pleaded that the cause of action for the suit

has arisen on 22.06.2017 when the marriage was performed.

(viii) Thus, on the ground of mental illness of the respondent/wife, as

also on the ground of cruelty, the petition for divorce under

Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was filed by the

petitioner/husband against his respondent/wife, Nikki Kumari.

2026:JHHC:21856-DB

4

3. Upon perusal of the record, it appears that when the respondent, Nikki

Kumari @ Nicky Kumari was not appeared then the petition for divorce

was proceeded ex-parte against the respondent on 31.08.2021. later on the

respondent /wife entered her appearance in the case and filed a petition for

setting aside the ex-parte order dated 31.08.2021 and finally the court has

set aside the ex-parte order dated 31.08.2021.

4. Thereafter, she has filed her written statement on 04.09.2021. The

allegations made in the divorce petition were controverted and resisted by

the respondent/wife.

5. The case of the respondent/wife is that she has admitted the fact that her

marriage was solemnized with the petitioner on 22.06.2017 at R.R.P,

Goenka Sewa Sadan, Kutiya Road, Giridih. At the time of marriage, her

father gave Rs. 11,00,000/-cash and jeweleries etc. After marriage, she

entered inside the matrimonial home with her husband.

6. The respondent has further stated that she was never suffering from any

mental illness or any other mental disorder problem. She denied that she

suffered from any mental disorder, far less of a chronic and incurable

nature. She had taken a stand that she is absolutely a normal lady and after

the marriage, she was living with her husband leading a conjugal life, but

she was being subjected to tortured and cruelty by the hands of her husband

and his family members due to demand of four wheelers vehicle. After

marriage, she led a happy marital life a period of 2 months.

7. The respondent/wife has pleaded that she has all along been ready and

willing to lead a normal marital life with the petitioner/husband. The wife

has also further pleaded that she was never medically checked up by the

2026:JHHC:21856-DB

5

Doctor about mental illness, however, she was tortured and harassed by her

husband and his family members for bringing less dowry in the marriage.

8. The respondent has averred in her pleading that there is no fraud played

upon the petitioner. The version of the petitioner/husband is that the

marriage of the parties could not be consummated due to inability of the

respondent/wife, is totally false and fabricated and false story was made by

her husband. Her husband did not provide proper food to her when she had

been living in the matrimonial home. On the first night of her marriage, she

came in close contact with her husband and slept together. Her mental

condition is quite normal. The marriage was solemnized after obtaining the

full and free consent of the petitioner and there was no deception or fraud.

9. The case of the respondent/wife is further that she and the petitioner

both of them live together happily for some period and in this period her

husband gave good treatment to her.

10. But later on, her husband and his family members started demanding

her to bring four wheelers from her parents and her husband used to insist

her to go her parental house to bring the same because her husband and his

family members were not satisfied with the dowry and they have been

making demand.

11. It has been further pleaded that she was driven out of the matrimonial

home on 17.09.2017 after keeping all her jewelries and at that time her

husband had taken her signature on the blank paper. It was further pleaded

by respondent/wife that her father and relatives tried to pacify the matter

but in vain. Several efforts were made by her and her father to get the matter

settled but they went in vain as her husband/petitioner is/was not interested

to keep her. She is willing to return to the matrimonial home but the

2026:JHHC:21856-DB

6

husband had refused to rehabilitate her. Thus, she was compelled to leave

the matrimonial home. Thus, the respondent/wife has prayed that the

petition for divorce which was filed the petitioner/husband is liable to be

dismissed.

12. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, following issues were

framed by the learned Family Court for proper adjudication of the divorce

petition.

(i) Whether the suit as is maintainable in its present

form?

(ii) Whether the plaintiff has got a valid cause of action

for the suit?

(iii) Whether the defendant is able to co-habitat with

plaintiff?

(iv) Whether the marriage solemnized between the

plaintiff and defendant is fit to be dissolved on the

ground of cruelty?

(v) Whether plaintiff is entitled for the relief claimed ?

13. In order to prove and substantiate his divorce petition, the

petitioner/appellant, Abhay Prasad has produced and examined the

following witnesses. P.W 1 is Abhay Prasad (petitioner/applicant himself),

P.W 2 is Sunaina Devi, P.W-3 is Vijay Kumar Laheri and P.W-4 is Amit

Prasad.

14. Thus, on behalf of the petitioner, four witnesses were produced and

examined to prove his case. However, no documentary evidence has been

filed by the petitioner side.

15. On the contrary, in order to prove her case, the respondent/wife

produced three witnesses as O.P.W-1 is Ajay Kumar Sah, O.P.W-2 is Rajiv

Ranjan and O.P.W-3 is Nikki Kumari (respondent herself).

16. It has been submitted before the learned Family Judge that she is

suffering from mental illness since long and due to her insanity, it is not

possible for the appellant/plaintiff to lead conjugal life with defendant and,

2026:JHHC:21856-DB

7

as such, a prayer has been made that the decree of divorce may be granted

by dissolving the marriage of the parties.

17. Learned Family Judge, after institution of the said case, taking into

consideration of the pleadings of the parties has formulated the issues and

has decided the lis by refusing to grant divorce to the appellant/plaintiff.

18. The aforesaid judgment by which divorce has not been granted is under

challenge by filing the instant appeal.

Submission on behalf of the appellant-husband:

19. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-husband has taken

the following grounds in assailing the impugned judgment:

(i) There is an error in the impugned judgment, since, each and

every aspect of the matter has not been taken into consideration

based upon the ocular evidences.

(ii) The element of mental disorder has been found to be there if

the evidences adduced on behalf of the appellant-husband will be

taken into consideration but without appreciating the same

properly, the learned Family Judge has come to the finding by

holding that no element of mental disorder is there and, as such,

the impugned judgment and decree suffer from an error.

(iii) The respondent-wife is suffering from mental disorder and

she failed and neglect to maintain the proper marital relationship

with him. Since his wife suffers from a chronic and incurable

mental disorder and is not in after mental state to lead a married

life.

(iv) It has been contended that the appellant has been meted out

with cruelty at the hands of the respondent due to her abnormal

2026:JHHC:21856-DB

8

behaviour as would be evident from the evidence adduced on

behalf of the appellant-husband, but the same has not been taken

into consideration.

(v) It has been contended that though the learned Family Judge

has proceeded with the matter and dismissed the original suit, but

he has failed to appreciate the evidences adduced on behalf of the

appellant as in the trial, the evidence has come that it was the

respondent-wife who has committed cruelty upon him by her

cruel behaviour and act.

20. The learned counsel, based upon the aforesaid ground, has

submitted that the impugned judgment and decree suffers from perversity,

therefore, needs interference.

Submission on behalf of the respondent-wife:

21. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-wife has taken the

following grounds in defending the impugned judgment:

(i) There is no error in the impugned judgement. The learned

Family Judge has considered the entire issue and on the

basis of evidence as led by the parties has passed the order

impugned as such same may not be interfered with.

(ii) The appellant has sought divorce on the ground that the

respondent-wife is of unsound mind or has been suffering

continuously or intermittently for mental disorder and the

appellant cannot reasonably be expected to live with the

respondent but the learned Family Court, after taking into

consideration the evidences, has observed that the entire

allegations levelled therein were absolutely illegal,

2026:JHHC:21856-DB

9

uncalled for and as such, the suit has rightly been

dismissed.

(iii) It has been submitted that after some time of marriage, her

husband and in-laws started to demand four wheelers and

taking this issue, she was being subjected to physical and

mental cruelty. When the alleged demand was not fulfilled

then she was being tortured by the hands of the petitioner

and his family members. Apart from this, it has been

submitted that the petitioner-appellant wants to marry

another woman.

(iv) It has also been submitted that the learned Family Court

after taking into consideration the material available on

record has found that the conduct of the appellant/ husband

has never been towards salvaging the institution of

marriage as it is he who has come for dissolution of the

marriage, therefore, on the pretext of the aforesaid

categorical finding of the Family Court, the impugned

order requires no interference.

22. Learned counsel, based upon the aforesaid grounds, has

submitted that if on that pretext, the factum of cruelty and mental disorder

have not been found to be established, hence, the impugned judgment

cannot be said to suffer from an error.

Analysis:

2026:JHHC:21856-DB

10

23. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties,

gone through the impugned judgment as well as the Trial Court Records,

as also the testimonies of the witnesses.

24. 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 appellant/plaintiff, before the learned Family Court, wherein

the element of mental disorder has been shown by the appellant-husband.

25. During the trial, the petitioner, Abhay Prasad has produced and

examined the following witnesses;

P.W. 1, Abhay Prasad (petitioner/applicant himself),

P.W 2, Sunaina Devi, P.W-3, Vijay Kumar Laheri and

P.W-4, Amit Prasad.

P.W 1, Abhay Prasad, who is petitioner himself, in his

examination-in-chief has stated that he instituted this divorce petition

against the respondent Nikki Kumari, who is his legally wedded wife.

He was married to Nikki Kumari according to Hindu rites and rituals

on 22.06.2017 in presence of relative of both the parties at R.R.P

Goenka Sewa Sadan, Kutiya Mandir, Giridih. After marriage, the

respondent/wife came to his house. On the first night of the marriage,

he found that his wife was acting in very abnormal manner, she used

to abruptly get very aggressive, hostile and suspicious in nature. The

petitioner further found that the respondent/wife suffers from a

chronic and incurable mental disorder and is not in a fit mental state

to lead a married life. The fact that the respondent is/was suffering

from mental disorder, has been suppressed by the parents of

2026:JHHC:21856-DB

11

respondent before the marriage. The petitioner contended that the

marriage was never consummated due to abnormal behaviour of the

respondent. Thus, there is fraud played upon the parents of

respondent with him concealing the fact that the respondent suffered

from unsoundness of mind and his consent has been obtained for

marriage by suppression. It was further detected that before the

marriage, the respondent was under treatment from the childhood.

This witness has deposed that the following day of the marriage, the

matter of illness of the respondent was informed to the father of the

respondent, thereafter his father-in-law, mother-in-law and others

came to his house. On being inquired by father-in-law, he said that

his daughter had been suffering from mental disorder since her

childhood.

This witness has further deposed that the respondent had taken

away by parents along all her belongings. This witness has claimed

that the marriage could not be consummated because of the physical

inability of his wife and it was difficult to live together with the

respondent/wife. There is every chance of violent acts, which could

be dangerous to his life. The father of the respondent/wife

fraudulently concealed the fact of mental illness and obtained his

consent by fraud.

In his cross-examination, this witness has stated that the

respondent is a graduate. This witness has clarified that he is a

government employee posted at Pune and he is an owner of a flat. He

is getting monthly of Rs. 50,000/-. He has further deposed that he did

not examine his wife from doctor. Before marriage, his family

2026:JHHC:21856-DB

12

members reached in the house of his wife to see her and thereafter

the marriage was negotiated.

This witness has further deposed that he never opposed his

marriage. He has further clarified that the respondent lodged a

criminal case having P.S case no-30/19 before Kodwa P.S. Pune and

after that he was called out by police at Police station. Except this an

application was submitted before secretary of housing Society, Pune

against him. This witness has vehemently deposed that he did not

desire to keep his wife with him.

P.W-2, Sunaina Devi, who is mother of the petitioner, has stated

that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 22.06.2017

at Giridih. After marriage, respondent came to her house. In the first

night of the marriage, her son, Abhay Prasad found that the

respondent, Nikki Kumari was mentally ill and suffering from mental

retardation. Thereafter the matter of illness was informed to father of

Nikki Kumari and provide medicine to the respondent. On being ask,

the parents of respondent have narrated that the respondent is

suffering from mental illness and she is under medication.

Thereafter, the respondent was taken out by her parents at Begusarai.

This witness has further stated that her son, who is petitioner, made

efforts to call back his wife, but no avail. She has further deposed

that before marriage the fact that the respondent is suffering from

mental disease, has been suppressed by the respondent's father.

P.W-3, Vijay Kumar Laheri in his examination-in-chief has

stated that his house is 100 gauge away from the house of Abhay

Prasad. This witness has stated that the petitioner is son of his

2026:JHHC:21856-DB

13

brother-in-law. After marriage, Nikki Kumari came to the house of

petitioner where in the first night of the marriage it was found that

the behavior of the respondent was abnormal and she was mentally

weak lady. After that the matter was informed to the parents of Nikki

Kumari and after receiving the alleged information the parents and

other persons came to the house of the petitioner and the parents of

Nikki Kumari have admitted that Nikki Kumari is/was suffering from

mental disease and it was suppressed before the marriage by them.

This witness has further deposed that the marriage could not be

consummated due to inability of respondent and ultimately the

respondent was taken out by the parents. Thereafter, the petitioner

instituted this divorce petition.

In his cross-examination he has stated that before the marriage

the family members of petitioner liked the respondent and this is an

arranged marriage, in which the girl was seen by the petitioner side.

After that the function of marriage was performed in which he also

participated. After solemnizing the marriage, he left marriage place

and went to his house. This witness denied the fact that at the time of

first night he was present. The matter of mental illness of the

respondent was informed to him by the petitioner.

P.W, 4 Amit Prasad, who is petitioner's brother in his

examination-in-chief has stated that his brother instituted this divorce

petition against the respondent Nikki Kumari, who is legally wedded

wife of the petitioner. The marriage of both was solemnized

according to Hindu rites and rituals on 22.06.2017 in presence of

relative of both the parties at R.R.P Goenka Sewa Sadan, Kutiya

2026:JHHC:21856-DB

14

Mandir, Giridih. After marriage, the respondent entered appearance

in her matrimonial home. On the first night of the marriage, his

younger brother found that his wife was acting in very abnormal

manner, as she used to abruptly get very aggressive, hostile and

suspicious in nature. His brother further found that the respondent

suffers from a chronic and incurable mental disorder and is not in a

fit mental state to lead a married life. The fact that the respondent

is/was suffering from mental disorder, has been suppressed by the

parents of respondent before the marriage.

This witness has contended that the marriage was never

consummated due to abnormal behaviour of the respondent. Thus,

there is fraud played upon the parents of respondent. concealing the

fact that the respondent suffered from unsoundness of mind and the

consent has been obtained for marriage by suppression. This witness

has further deposed that the following day of the marriage, the matter

of illness of the respondent was informed to the father of the

respondent, thereafter the parents of the respondent and others came

to his house. On being inquired by the parents of the respondent, they

said that his daughter had been suffering from mental disorder before

the marriage.

This witness has also further deposed that the respondent had

taken away by parents. This witness has further testified that the

marriage could not be consummated because of the physical inability

of the respondent.

In his cross-examination he has admitted that the petitioner is his

own brother. He along with family members reached at Deoghar to

2026:JHHC:21856-DB

15

see the respondent. When his family members liked the respondent

then the marriage of the petitioner was negotiated. This witness has

clarified that the respondent was Staying in her parents’ house from

July, 2017.

26. Now, it needs to refer the witnesses examined on behalf of the

respondent-wife, i.e., O.P.W 1, Ajay Kumar Sah, O.P.W 2, Rajiv Ranjan

and O.P.W 3 Nikki Kumar (respondent herself)

O.P.W 1, Ajay Kumar Sah, who is father of the respondent,

in his examination-in-chief has stated that the respondent, Nikki

Kumari is his daughter. She was married to the petitioner on

22.06.2017 as per Hindu ceremonies. His son-in-law filed this

petition for divorce on the basis of false allegations against her

daughter. He has stated that at the time of marriage, he gave Rs.

11,00,000/- cash as well as gold and silver ornaments amounting to

Rs. 8,00,000/- to the petitioner. After marriage, her daughter entered

appearance in her matrimonial home where she started to live with

her husband including her in-laws. After some time of the marriage,

his son-in-law including in-laws started to demand four wheelers as

additional dowry and the petitioner used to insist her daughter to

bring money from her parents for him. Taking this issue her daughter

was being tortured. When the alleged demand was not fulfilled by

him, then her daughter was subjected to physical and mental cruelty

and she was kept continued without food several occasions. This

witness has further stated that when the torture of the petitioner and

in-laws was not bearable then her daughter informed to him about

torture. After receiving the information of torture, he reached the

2026:JHHC:21856-DB

16

matrimonial home of the respondent and requested to the petitioner

and his family members not to torture her daughter but in-vain. This

witness has further stated that seeing the atmosphere of torture he

proposed to take his daughter with him on 17.07.2017. Thereafter,

after taking all the jeweleries of the respondent, the petitioner and his

family members kicked out him as well as his daughter from their

house. Thereafter he along with daughter left that place and reached

his house. He has further deposed that for fear of his life and life of

the respondent he did not complain the same before police station.

This witness denied the fact that her daughter is suffering from any

mental disease, she is mentally fit lady. This witness has further

stated that his son-in-law desire to conduct second marriage due to

which, he levelled false allegations on his daughter.

In his cross-examination, he has stated that her daughter was

living with her husband till 17.07.2017 for a period of 25 days. One

day his son-in-law reached his house and stated that he did not desire

to keep the respondent along with him.

O.P.W, 2 Rajiv Ranjan has stated that after marriage,

respondent reached in her matrimonial home where she was tortured

for demand of additional dowry like four wheelers. On the request of

respondent's father, he along with respondent's father reached the

matrimonial home of Nikki Kumari where it was found that the

respondent used to be tortured by the hands of petitioner and his

family members taking the four wheelers vehicle.

This witness has further stated that the petitioner and his family

members threatened the respondent's father saving that if the demand

2026:JHHC:21856-DB

17

would not be fulfilled then you should ready to serve consequence.

This witness has further stated that the respondent is absolutely a

normal lady and allegation of the petitioner that she is suffering from

mental disorder is totally concocted and the respondent was being

subjected to torture for the additional demand.

O.P.W 3, Nikki Kumari, who is respondent herself, has filed her

examination-in-chief through an affidavit in which she has stated that

this divorce petition has been filed by her husband. She was married

to the petitioner, Abhay Prasad as per Hindu rites and customs on

22.06.2017 at R.R.P. Goenka Sewa Sadan, Giridih. At the time of

marriage, her parents gave sufficient gifts.

After solemnizing the marriage, she went to her matrimonial

home and joined the society of her husband and started to perform

her matrimonial obligation with her husband. She lived in her

matrimonial home till 17.09.2017.

This witness has deposed that her husband and her in-laws

started demanding her to bring four wheelers from her parents, taking

this issue she was being subjected to physical and mental cruelty. The

matter was informed by her to her father. But the alleged demand was

not fulfilled by her father. This witness has further stated that taking

this issue, she was kept confined without food till several day.

Thereafter, her husband and in-laws started to blame to her saying

that she is suffering from mental disorder. She is absolutely a normal

lady and after the marriage, she was living with her husband leading

a conjugal life, but after some time of the marriage she was being

subjected to torture and cruelty by the hands of her husband and his

2026:JHHC:21856-DB

18

family members with respect of additional dowry of four wheelers.

She was kicked out by her husband on 17.09.2017 after snatching all

her ornaments, then she reached her parents’ house with her father.

In her cross-examination, she has stated that she is a normal

lady and she was/is never suffering from any mental illness or any

other mental disorder. The petitioner and her in-laws demanded four

wheelers and taking this issue she was being tortured and ultimately

after receiving the information of torture, her father came to her

matrimonial home. This witness has further clarified that she was

kicked out by the hands of her husband, then she reached her parents’

house with her father.

27. The learned Family Judge has appreciated the entire facts and

evidence and has come to the conclusion that the appellant-husband has

failed to make the ground of cruelty and mental disorder and, as such, has

dismissed the suit.

28. The fact about filing of suit on the ground of mental disorder is

admitted one as per the evidences adduced on behalf of the appellant. The

appellant-husband has tried to establish the element of cruelty upon him

at the hands of the respondent-wife.

29. The appellant-husband all along has alleged the issue of insanity

due to which he was subjected to cruelty by his wife and in order to

establish the same the evidences have been laid as has been referred

hereinabove.

30. From the testimony so recorded of the appellant-husband, the

learned Principal Judge, Family Court has come to the conclusion that in

the instant case, except the vague and omnibus allegations made by

2026:JHHC:21856-DB

19

husband against his respondent-wife, no cogent convincing, clinching

evidence, no concrete documentary evidence has been led to substantiate

the charges of mental illness. The onus to prove the grounds taken for

divorce squarely rests on the husband which are required to be discharged

by leading a cogent, tangible and reliable evidence.

31. This Court while appreciating the argument advanced on behalf

of the appellant 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.

32. 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.

2026:JHHC:21856-DB

20

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.

2026:JHHC:21856-DB

21

“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.”

33. In the context of the aforesaid factual aspect only seminal issue

has to be decided herein that;

“Whether the appellant/plaintiff is entitled to get divorce

from the defendant/respondent herein U/s 13(1)(i-a) and (iii)

of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955?”

Issue of Cruelty

34. Since the plea of cruelty has been advanced by the

appellant/husband, it becomes imperative to delineate the contours of

"cruelty" as judicially interpreted. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in a catena

of judgments, has consistently held that cruelty under matrimonial law is

not confined to physical violence alone but extends to mental cruelty,

which may manifest in conduct, words, or circumstances causing such

pain, anguish, or suffering that it renders cohabitation insupportable.

35. 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.

36. 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.

2026:JHHC:21856-DB

22

37. According to the Hon’ble Apex Court, “cruelty” is the “conduct

in relation to or in respect of matrimonial conduct in respect of

matrimonial duties and obligations”. It is the conduct which adversely

affects the spouse. Such cruelty can be either “mental” or “physical”,

intentional or unintentional. For example, unintentionally waking your

spouse up in the middle of the night may be mental cruelty; intention is

not an essential element of cruelty but it may be present. Physical cruelty

is less ambiguous and more “a question of fact and degree.”

38. 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.”

39. 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.

40. 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”.

41. In Vijay kumar Ramchandra Bhate v. Neela Vijay Kumar

Bhate, (2003)6 SCC 334 the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed by taking

2026:JHHC:21856-DB

23

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.

42. 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.

43. “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.

44. 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

2026:JHHC:21856-DB

24

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.

45. 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.

46. 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.

47. Further the word ‘cruelty’ is used relation to human conduct or

human behaviour. It is the conduct in relation to or in respect of

matrimonial duties and obligations. It is a course of conduct and one which

is adversely affecting the other. The cruelty may be mental or physical,

intentional or unintentional. There may be cases where the conduct

complained of itself is bad enough and per se unlawful or illegal. Then the

impact or the injurious effect on the other spouse need not be enquired into

or considered. In such cases, the cruelty will be established if the conduct

itself is proved or admitted, reference in this regard be made to the

2026:JHHC:21856-DB

25

judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vinita

Saxena v. Pankaj Pandit, (2006) 3 SCC 778.

48. Further, in the case of Manish Tyagi v. Deepak Kumar, (2010)

4 SCC 339, the Hon’ble Apex Court has categorically observed that to

constitute ‘cruelty’, it is enough that conduct of one of parties is so

abnormal and below accepted norm that other spouse could not reasonable

be expected to put up with it. Conduct is no longer required to be so

atrociously abominable which would cause reasonable apprehension that

it would be harmful of injurious to continue cohabitation with another

spouse. Hence, it is not necessary to establish physical violence.

Continued ill-treatment, cessation of marital intercourse, studied neglect,

indifference may lead to inference of cruelty.

49. 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.

50. From the deposition of the petitioner/appellant, it is manifest that

this witness did not allege in his testimony that subsequent to the marriage

the respondent/wife committed acts of cruelty against him. No assertion

was made that the respondent abused or assaulted either the appellant or

2026:JHHC:21856-DB

26

his family members. The only narration advanced was that, owing to

alleged mental disorder, the marriage was not consummated. However,

the petitioner failed to adduce any cogent evidence before the learned

Family Court to substantiate the plea of non-consummation.

51. According to the appellant, the respondent resided in his house

for merely one day. In contradistinction, the respondent, Nikki Kumari,

examined as O.P.W. No. 3, deposed that she was married to the petitioner

on 22.06.2017 and thereafter entered her matrimonial home, where she

was subjected to torture for demand of four-wheelers, and ultimately, after

her ornaments were snatched, she was expelled on 17.09.2017. Thus, as

per her version, she remained in the matrimonial home for about three

months.

52. Further, the testimony of P.W.-2, Sunaina Devi, mother of the

petitioner, reveals that she too did not allege in her evidence that the

respondent abused or assaulted either her husband or other family

members of the appellant.

53. In view of the foregoing, it is evident that there is no cogent or

reliable evidence on record to establish that the respondent/wife

committed cruelty upon the appellant/husband. The allegations remain

unsubstantiated and fail to meet the threshold laid down by the Hon’ble

Apex Court for proving cruelty in matrimonial disputes.

54. Further, it is evident from impugned order that the learned

Family Court has also taken into consideration the testimony of

appellant/husband and his mother and has observed that there is no iota of

evidence on the record to show that the respondent/wife committed cruelty

against the petitioner/husband.

2026:JHHC:21856-DB

27

55. Based on the aforesaid discussion and appreciation of evidence,

this Court is of the considered view that the learned Family Court has

rightly evaluated the entire gamut of facts and circumstances and has

dismissed the suit. The findings recorded therein are supported by the

material on record and are consistent with the settled principles laid down

by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in matrimonial jurisprudence.

Accordingly, this Court finds no infirmity warranting interference and

sees no reason to take a distinct view from that of the learned Family Court

on the issue of cruelty.

Issue of Mental Illness

56. It is evident from order impugned that on the issue of mental

illness, the learned Family Court has categorically held that no cogent

evidence has been adduced by the plaintiff/husband in order to prove the

mental illness of OP- wife and therefore the Family Court has also decided

this issue against the appellant/husband.

57. In the aforesaid context, it needs to refer herein Section 13(1) (iii)

of the Act 1955 which reads as under:

“13. Divorce. — (1) Any marriage solemnized, whether before or

after the commencement of the Act, may, on a petition presented

by either the husband or the wife, be dissolved by a decree of

divorce on the ground that the other party—

-------------

(iii) has been incurably of unsound mind, or has suffering

continuously or intermittently from mental disorder of such a kind

and to such an extent that the petitioner cannot reasonably be

expected to live with the respondent.

Explanation- In this clause—

(a) the expression “mental disorder” means mental illness,

arrested or incomplete development of mind, psychopathic

2026:JHHC:21856-DB

28

disorder or any other disorder or disability of mind and include

schizophrenia;

(b) the expression “psychopathic disorder” means a persistent

disorder or disability of mind (whether or not including

subnormality of intelligence) which results in abnormally

aggressive or seriously irresponsible conduct on the part of the

other party and whether or not it requires or is susceptible to

medical treatment; or………”

58. The aforesaid provision shows that there are two separate

grounds in the provision viz. (a) incurable unsound mind; and, (b)

respondent spouse has been suffering continuously or intermittently from

mental disorder and the disorder is of such kind and of such extent that

the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with the respondent.

59. From the wording of the aforesaid provision, it can be said that

the mental condition like incurable unsound mind mentioned in the first

part or the mental disorder mentioned in the second part needs to be

proved by expert evidence and that evidence needs to satisfy the Court

that such mental condition exists.

60. From the wording of the provision, it can be said that the second

part of the provision has wide scope. For this part, it is not necessary that

mental disorder is incurable. However, the mental disorder must be of

such kind and extent that the Court needs to be satisfied that it is not

advisable to ask the petitioner to live with the respondent. The scope

shows that there is no limit to the kind of mental disorder as no specific

kind is mentioned. However, the term “has been suffering” shows that

the period of illness must not be too short or the petition should not be

based on one or two instances showing such mental disorder.

61. The term “intermittently” cannot be misread in this provision to

2026:JHHC:21856-DB

29

infer that the mental illness returns after the treatment within few days.

The term “extent” is also important and on that also the Court needs to

be satisfied to come to the conclusion that the petitioner cannot

reasonably be expected to live with the opposite party.

62. Thus, it is evident that the relief is discretionary and while using

discretion, the Court is expected to keep in mind the aforesaid things as

mentioned above. Further, the burden to prove mental disorder

mentioned as second part of the aforesaid provision or the burden to

prove incurable unsound mind lies on the party who seeks to use the

ground.

63. It needs to refer herein that Psychiatrist is an expert but in view

of provision of section 45 of the Evidence Act, it is up to the Court to

either rely on the opinion or refuse to do so. Further, he being a witness,

his credibility can be impeached like the credibility of any other

witnesses and his veracity can be tested as provided in section 146 and

other provisions of Evidence Act. As psychiatrist is expected to give

evidence on the basis of the examination of the patient done by him, the

symptoms noted by him, the treatment and the follow up treatment given

by him and the record created by him needs to be considered both for

corroboration and contradiction purpose. In such a case the evidence of

other witnesses or the circumstances which relates to the behaviour of the

respondent can be considered by the Court as that can help strengthening

the opinion or create probability that the opinion has no justification and

it is weak.

64. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kollam Chandra

Sekhar v. Kollam Padma Latha, (2014) 1 SCC 225 has categorically

2026:JHHC:21856-DB

30

observed that the ideas of unsoundness of ‘mind’ and ‘mental disorder’

occur in the section as grounds for dissolution of a marriage, require the

assessment of the degree of the ‘mental disorder’. Its degree must be such

that the spouse seeking relief cannot reasonably be expected to live with

the other. All mental abnormalities are not recognized as grounds for

grant of decree. If the mere existence of any degree of mental abnormality

could justify dissolution of a marriage, few marriages would, indeed,

survive in law. For ready reference, the relevant paragraph of the

aforesaid judgment is being quoted as under:

“22. The relevant portions with regard to “unsoundness of

mind” and “mental disorder” from the case referred to supra are

extracted hereunder: (Ram Narain Gupta case [(1988) 4 SCC

247] , SCC pp. 254-56, paras 20-24)

“20. The context in which the ideas of unsoundness of ‘mind’ and

‘mental disorder’ occur in the section as grounds for dissolution

of a marriage, require the assessment of the degree of the ‘mental

disorder’. Its degree must be such that the spouse seeking relief

cannot reasonably be expected to live with the other. All mental

abnormalities are not recognised as grounds for grant of decree.

If the mere existence of any degree of mental abnormality could

justify dissolution of a marriage few marriages would, indeed,

survive in law.

21. The answer to the apparently simple—and perhaps

misleading—question as to ‘who is normal?’ runs inevitably into

philosophical thickets of the concept of mental normalcy and as

involved therein, of the ‘mind’ itself. These concepts of ‘mind’,

‘mental phenomena’, etc. are more known than understood and

the theories of ‘mind’ and ‘mentation’ do not indicate any

internal consistency, let alone validity, of their basic ideas.

Theories of ‘mind’ with cognate ideas of ‘perception’ and

‘consciousness’ encompass a wide range of thoughts, more

ontological than epistemological. Theories of mental phenomena

are diverse and include the dualist concept—shared by Descartes

and Sigmund Freud—of the separateness of the existence of the

2026:JHHC:21856-DB

31

physical or the material world as distinguished from the non-

material mental world with its existence only spatially and not

temporally. There is, again, the theory which stresses the

neurological basis of the ‘mental phenomenon’ by asserting the

functional correlation of the neuronal arrangements of the brain

with mental phenomena. The ‘behaviourist’ tradition, on the

other hand, interprets all reference to mind as ‘constructs’ out of

behaviour. ‘Functionalism’, however, seems to assert that mind

is the logical or functional state of physical systems. But all

theories seem to recognise, in varying degrees, that the

psychometric control over the mind operates at a level not yet

fully taught to science. When a person is oppressed by intense and

seemingly insoluble moral dilemmas, or when grief of loss of dear

ones etch away all the bright colours of life, or where a broken

marriage brings with it the loss of emotional security, what

standards of normalcy of behaviour could be formulated and

applied? The arcane infallibility of science has not fully pervaded

the study of the non-material dimensions of ‘being’.

22. Speaking of the indisposition of science towards this study, a

learned author says:

‘… we have inherited cultural resistance to treating the conscious

mind as a biological phenomenon like any other. This goes back

to Descartes in the seventeenth century. Descartes divided the

world into two kinds of substances: mental substances and

physical substances. Physical substances were the proper domain

of science and mental substances were the property of religion.

Something of an acceptance of this division exists even to the

present day. So, for example, consciousness and subjectivity are

often regarded as unsuitable topics for science. And this

reluctance to deal with consciousness and subjectivity is part of

a persistent objectifying tendency. People think science must be

about objectively observable phenomena. On occasions when I

have lectured to audiences of biologists and neurophysiologists,

I have found many of them very reluctant to treat the mind in

general and consciousness in particular as a proper domain of

scientific investigation.

… the use of the noun ‘mind’ is dangerously inhabited by the

ghosts of old philosophical theories. It is very difficult to resist

the idea that the mind is a kind of a thing, or at least an arena, or

2026:JHHC:21856-DB

32

at least some kind of black box in which all of these mental

processes occur.’ [ John R. Searle, Minds, Brains and Science-

Reith Lectures (Harvard University Press, 1984), pp. 10 and 11.]

23. Lord Wilberforce, referring to the psychological basis of

physical illness said that the area of ignorance of the body-mind

relation seems to expand with that of knowledge.

In McLoughlin v. O'Brian [(1983) 1 AC 410 : (1982) 2 WLR 982

: (1982) 2 All ER 298 (HL)] , the learned Lord said, though in a

different context: (AC p. 418 B : All ER p. 301)

‘… Whatever is unknown about the mind-body relationship (and

the area of ignorance seems to expand with that of knowledge), it

is now accepted by medical science that recognisable and severe

physical damage to the human body and system may be caused by

the impact, through the senses, of external events on the mind.

There may thus be produced what is as identifiable an illness as

any that may be caused by direct physical impact. It is safe to say

that this, in general terms, is understood by the ordinary man or

woman who is hypothesised by the courts….’

24. But the illnesses that are called ‘mental’ are kept

distinguished from those that ail the ‘body’ in a fundamental way.

In Philosophy and Medicine, Vol. 5 at p. X the learned editor

refers to what distinguishes the two qualitatively:

‘Undoubtedly, mental illness is so disvalued because it strikes at

the very roots of our personhood. It visits us with uncontrollable

fears, obsessions, compulsions and anxieties….

… This is captured in part by the language we use in describing

the mentally ill. One is an hysteric, is a neurotic, is an

obsessive, is a schizophrenic, is a manic-depressive. On the other

hand, one has heart disease, has cancer, has the

flu, has malaria, has smallpox….’”

(emphasis in original)

The principle laid down by this Court in the aforesaid case with

all fours is applicable to the fact situation on hand wherein this

Court has rightly referred to Section 13(1)(iii) of the Act and

Explanation to the said clause and made certain pertinent

observations regarding “unsound mind” or “mental disorder”

and the application of the same as grounds for dissolution of

marriage. This Court cautioned that Section 13(1)(iii) of the Act

2026:JHHC:21856-DB

33

does not make a mere existence of a mental disorder of any degree

sufficient in law to justify the dissolution of marriage.

35. In the English case of Whysall v. Whysall [1960 P 52 : (1959)

3 WLR 592 : (1959) 3 All ER 389] , it was held that a spouse is

“incurably of unsound mind” if he or she is of such mental

incapacity as to make normal married life impossible and there

is no prospect of any improvement in mental health, which would

make this possible in future. The High Court of Judicature of

Calcutta, in Pramatha Kumar Maity v. Ashima Maity [AIR 1991

Cal 123] has held that mental disorder of the wife, even if proved,

cannot, by itself, warrant a decree of divorce and it must be

further proved that it is of such a nature as the husband could not

be expected to live with the wife.

38. We are of the view that the High Court in exercise of its

appellate jurisdiction has rightly come to a different conclusion

that the respondent is not suffering from the ailment of

schizophrenia or incurable unsoundness of mind. Further, the

High Court has rightly rejected the finding of the trial court which

is based on Ext. B-10 and other documentary and oral evidence

by applying the ratio laid down by this Court in Ram Narain

Gupta v. Rameshwari Gupta [(1988) 4 SCC 247] referred to

supra. A pertinent point to be taken into consideration is that the

respondent had not only completed MBBS but also did a

postgraduate diploma in Medicine and was continuously working

as a Government Medical Officer and had she been suffering from

any serious kind of mental disorder, particularly, acute type of

schizophrenia, it would have been impossible for her to work in

the said post. The appellant husband cannot simply abandon his

wife because she is suffering from sickness. Therefore, the High

Court allowed both the CMAs and dismissed OP No. 203 of 2000

filed by the appellant for divorce and allowed OP No. 1 of 1999

filed by the respondent for restitution of conjugal rights wherein

the High Court granted decree of restitution of conjugal rights in

favour of the respondent.”

65. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment has

categorically held that marriage is highly revered in India and we are a

nation that prides itself on the strong foundation of our marriages, come

2026:JHHC:21856-DB

34

hell or high water, rain or sunshine. Life is made up of good times and

bad, and the bad times can bring with it terrible illnesses and extreme

hardships. The partners in a marriage must weather these storms and

embrace the sunshine with equanimity. Any person may have bad health,

this is not their fault and most times, it is not within their control, as in

the present case, the respondent was unwell and was taking treatment for

the same. The illness had its fair share of problems. Can this be a reason

for the appellant to abandon her and seek dissolution of marriage.

66. Thus, the Hon’ble Apex Court cautioned that Section 13(1)(iii)

of the Act does not make a mere existence of a mental disorder of any

degree sufficient in law to justify the dissolution of marriage.

67. In the backdrop of the aforesaid settled position of law we have

gone through the impugned order wherefrom it is evident from the

deposition of P.W.-1, Abhay Prasad (husband), particularly paragraph 11

of his cross-examination, that prior to the marriage the family members

of the petitioner met the respondent/wife, and upon seeing her, the

marriage was negotiated. This version stands corroborated by P.W.-3, a

relative of the petitioner, who in paragraph 13 & 14 of his

cross-examination narrated that both parties met each other and, after

mutual liking, the marriage was arranged. Thus, it is an admitted position

that before marriage the family members of the petitioner saw and

approved the respondent/wife.

68. It is further admitted that the marriage was arranged, and the

petitioner’s side had ample opportunity to interact with the respondent

prior to solemnization. Therefore, it is evident that the family members

of the petitioner, after satisfying themselves, negotiated the marriage

2026:JHHC:21856-DB

35

with the respondent.

69. Significantly, the petitioner/husband has not examined any

medical practitioner or jurist to prove the alleged mental illness of the

respondent/wife. There is no medical evidence on record to substantiate

the allegation. No document has been produced by the appellant/petitioner

to support his case that the respondent/wife was either physically

incapable of consummating the marriage or was suffering from mental

illness. None of the medical jurists were examined by the petitioner’s side

to prove the alleged ailments.

70. Turning to the evidence of the respondent/wife, it is evident from

the impugned judgment that she submitted her examination-in-chief by

way of affidavit and was cross-examined on 30.11.2022 by the petitioner’s

side. The learned Family Court observed that her conduct remained

consistent throughout the lengthy cross-examination, and she gave proper

and cogent answers to the questions put to her.

71. The learned Family Court, upon perusal of the cross-examination

of the respondent/wife, has observed that nothing emerged to suggest that

she was mentally ill. On the contrary, it was noted that the respondent/wife

answered all questions put forth by the petitioner’s side in a coherent and

well-mannered fashion.

72. From the aforesaid facts, it is apparent that if indeed the

respondent/wife had any health problems, it was incumbent upon the

petitioner/husband to have taken her to a competent medical practitioner

for examination and treatment. Merely alleging that a wife suffers from

health problems cannot, in law, constitute a ground for divorce.

2026:JHHC:21856-DB

36

73. Further, from the impugned judgment, it is evident that the

respondent/wife has expressed her readiness and willingness to resume

cohabitation and join the company of the appellant/petitioner/husband.

However, the petitioner/husband has consistently refused to accept her as

his wife.

74. The learned Family Court while appreciating the issue of mental

illness has referred the ratio of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex

Court in the case of Ram Narain Gupta v. Rameshwari Gupta, [(1988) 4

SCC 247 has observed that the petitioner/husband had failed to prove that

the respondent/wife had been incurably of unsound mind or had been

suffering from mental disorder of such a kind and to such an extent that

the petitioner/husband cannot reasonably be expected to live with the

respondent/wife. It has further been observed that the petitioner/husband

failed to established that the respondent/wife was suffering from mental

disorder before the marriage or at the time of marriage or onward.

75. Thus, on basis of discussion made hereinabove, it appears that

the aforesaid ground of mental illness has been raised by the appellant/

husband on the flimsy ground and taking into consideration the aforesaid

factual aspect the learned Family Court has rightly decided the said issue

against the plaintiff /appellant husband as such the judgment impugned

requires no interference by this Court on the aforesaid ground of mental

illness of respondent/wife.

76. 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 cruelty and mental disorder has well been considered by

2026:JHHC:21856-DB

37

the learned Family Judge.

77. On consideration of the evidence, the learned Family Judge has

come to conclusion that the appellant-husband has miserably failed to

establish the ground of cruelty and mental disorder against the

respondent-wife. The aforesaid reason has led the learned Family Judge

to dismiss the suit.

78. 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 passed by the learned Family Judge is not coming

under the fold of the perversity, since, the conscious consideration has

been made of the evidences, as would be evident from the impugned

judgment.

79. This Court, therefore, is of the view that the judgment dated

19.04.2023 passed in Original Suit No.201 of 2018 by the learned Family

Judge needs no interference and, accordingly, the instant appeal stands

dismissed.

80. Pending I.As, if any, stands disposed of.

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

I Agree.

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

23

rd

July, 2026

Rohit/-A.F.R.

Uploaded on 23.07.2026