1

2026:JHHC:1185-DB

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

F.A. No. 02 of 2021

--------

1. Krishna Kumar, aged about 36 years, son of Ganauri Lal,

resident of Village-Makatpur, P.O.- Makatpur, P.S.-Giridih

(T), District- Giridih. … … Appellant

Versus

1. Rajni Lal, wife of Krishna Kumar, at present residing at

Village- Barabani, Station Road, Near Shiv Mandir, P.O.

& P.S. Domuhani, District- Burdwan (W.B.).

2. Sandeep Lal Burnwal, son of Indradeo Lal Burnwal,

resident of Village & P.O.-Sihodih, P.S.-Giridih (M),

District- Giridih. … … Respondent

-------

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI

-------

For the Appellant : Ms. Kehkashan Afsheen, Advocate

: Mr. Pran Pranay, Advocate

For the Respondent : Mr. Srikant Swaroop, Advocate

: Ms. Sharda Kumari, Advocate

------

CAV on 17.12.2025 Pronounced on 15/01/2026

Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.:

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

Act, 1984 is directed against the judgment dated 28.01.2020

and Decree dated 14.02.2020 passed by the learned Principal

Judge, Family Court, Giridih in Original Suit No.101 of 2014,

whereby and whereunder, the petition filed under Section

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

(appellant herein) seeking a decree of divorce against his wife

2

2026:JHHC:1185-DB

(respondent herein), has been dismissed.

Factual Matrix

2. The brief facts of the case leading to filing of the divorce

petition by the appellant/ plaintiff needs to be referred herein

as under:

The appellant/plaintiff and respondent/defendant

No.1 are legally married husband and wife and their marriage

has been solemnized in 11

th November, 2008 as per Hindu

rites and customs in a simple ceremony and they were blessed

with two daughters namely Ritika aged about 5 years and

Kabya aged about six months.

It has further been stated that defendant No.-1 is a

lady of easy virtue from very beginning and she is maintaining

illicit promiscuous relationship with another man even after

her marriage with the plaintiff and this fact came into the

knowledge of the plaintiff since the day of his marriage

reception party on 30.11.2008, when the plaintiff went

outside to see of some guests, a person who was previously

known to the defendant No.-1 took her in his lap and walked

up to the room of the newlywed couple in front of many ladies

guests of the family of the plaintiff and at that time, the

defendant did not object nor shown any sign of displeasure

towards the act of that person and for the sake of maintaining

respect of the family of the plaintiff/appellant could not raise

3

2026:JHHC:1185-DB

much objection.

It has further been alleged that from that day of

30.11.2008, the defendant No.-1 Rajni Lal always remained

in contact with her aforesaid boyfriend on regular basis either

through Mobile phone or through occasional physical contact.

It has further been alleged that in March 2009 when

the plaintiff had gone outside Giridih for some business work

and when he returned at about 10.00 pm in the night, he

found the aforesaid boyfriend with his wife in his bed and the

plaintiff/appellant lost his temper and started slapping and

abusing the aforesaid boyfriend who somehow managed to

flee away from the place.

After the aforesaid occurrence, the defendant No.-1

remained silent for some weeks and thereafter again

established her usual relationship with her aforesaid

boyfriend.

It has further been alleged that plaintiff in order to

break the relationship of the defendant no -1 with her

boyfriend, seized her mobile phone, thereafter getting very

much disturbed, Rajni tried to commit suicide by cutting her

wrist vain, but due to timely arrival of the plaintiff, her life was

saved on that day.

It has further been alleged that defendant was saying

openly that she cannot survive without her boyfriend and if

4

2026:JHHC:1185-DB

she is not allowed to meet her boyfriend, she will commit

suicide.

It has further been alleged that on 31.08.2009 a

female child was born and plaintiff believes that the aforesaid

daughter Ritika is not his daughter as because, the plaintiff

had no physical contact with his wife during the period

aforesaid child was conceived. This fact can be duly

ascertained through DNA test.

It has further been alleged that the behaviour of the

defendant No.-1 continued as usual and in April 2013 during

the marriage ceremony of the cousin of the plaintiff/appellant,

she remained absent from the ceremony and in the next

morning on search she was found with her boyfriend in a dark

corner room of Dharamshala, where the marriage ceremony

was taken place. In September 2013, the defendant No.-1 gave

birth to another baby girl at her parental house and plaintiff

brought his wife and daughters on 15.12.12013 and she was

so disturbed that on the same day on 15.12.2013 she filed a

complaint against her husband and in-laws in Mahila PS,

Giridih (T).

It has further been alleged that defendant No.-1

behaviour deteriorated day-by-day towards her husband and

in-laws. She turned more violent and quarrelsome and

threatening of implicating them in dowry cases after

5

2026:JHHC:1185-DB

committing suicide, so the plaintiff filed a Senha as 28/14 on

04.01.2014 before CJM, Giridih, and also gave an application

to the SP, Giridih on 15/01/2014 and 17/01/2014 with a

prayer to monitor the mobile calls of his wife.

It has further been alleged that defendant No.1 tried

to give poison to her mother-in-law, but somehow she was

saved by the plaintiff and on 20.02.2014, the defendant No.-

1 drank "Nurani Tel" and the plaintiff treated her and she

could somehow be saved. This matter was also informed to

the Police station of Giridih by way of a written compliant by

the plaintiff.

It has further been alleged that on 22.02.2014, while

the defendant No.-1 was still admitted in the Nursing Home,

her parents came and forcibly asked for discharging her and

the doctors discharged the defendant No.-1 on a written

undertaking of the father of the respondent on 22.02.2014

and at that time, the younger daughter was also with the

defendant No.-1 and the elder daughter Ritika was living with

her father at Giridih.

It has further been alleged that the differences

between the parties has grown due to misconduct and

misdeeds as aforementioned of the defendant No.-1 Rajni Lal

and in the aforesaid facts and circumstances it became

extremely difficult for the plaintiff/appellant to put up with

6

2026:JHHC:1185-DB

the defendant No.-1.

Thereafter being aggrieved with the conduct of

respondent-wife, the appellant-husband had preferred a suit

being Original Suit No. 101 of 2014.

In the divorce suit, the respondent-wife has appeared

and filed her written statement wherein she took preliminary

objection that the suit was not maintainable on the basis of

facts and circumstances as mentioned by the plaintiff and the

allegations levelled against her are false, bogus and

manufactured one.

It has further been stated that the plaintiff and

defendant No.-1 were married on 29.11.2008 and they lived

together as husband and wife and two daughters were born.

It has further been stated that defendant No.-1 is fair

and pious lady and come from a conservative family and

cannot ever imagine of keeping Illicit relationship with

another person and no such occurrence occurred on the date

of marriage reception party and the reception party was held

on 01.12.2008 and not on 30.11.2008 as stated in petition

and defendant No.-1 Rajni Lal had no boyfriend and she never

kept any relationship with another person as stated and no

specific date has been mentioned for the incident and these

statements are specifically denied by the defendant No.-1.

It has further been stated that it is quite wrong and

7

2026:JHHC:1185-DB

incorrect and she never tried to commit suicide by cutting her

wrist, rather she was completely devoted to her husband as a

married Hindu woman.

It has further been alleged that a girl child named

Ritika was born from this wedlock on 31.08.2009 and after

the birth of the female child, the defendant no. 1 was abused

and tortured for carrying a female child and defendant

suffered pain and misery after the birth of her daughter and

plaintiff is keeping his daughter Ritika with him and not

allowed to come with her mother. But now falsely disclaims

his own blood and flesh for making a false case of adultery

against his wife which is extremely shameful on the part of

the plaintiff and it is correct that another girl child was born

to Rajni Lal, who is now about 10 months and lives with her

mother and after the birth of 2 girl child, the defendant No.-1

meted with extreme cruelty for carrying another girl child and

she was compelled to file a complaint in the Mahila PS, but

after getting assurance from the In-laws, she withdrew the

complaint. The defendant No.-1 was tortured by the plaintiff

and her In-laws for dowry and having girl child and life of the

wife became extremely painful and miserable and she never

tried to give poison to her mother-in-law.

It has further been alleged that the statement made

in para 22 and 23 are false and concocted and the real fact is

8

2026:JHHC:1185-DB

that the plaintiff and the In-laws of the defendant No.-1

forcibly made her to drink poison in order to kill her, but due

to intervention of neighbours, who come after hearing the

cries of Rajni for help, the plaintiff and his parents took her to

nearby Nursing home, but due to threatening by the plaintiff

of dire consequences, the defendant No.-1 could not speak-

out before police and after some treatment, defendant No.-1

went to her father's house in compelling circumstances.

It has further been alleged that the defendant No.-1

still wants to live with her husband peacefully and from the

very beginning of the married life, defendant No.-1 was

tortured for bringing more dowry. At the time of marriage,

defendant's father had given cash of Rs. 5.00 lac and also

spent Rs. 3.00 lac for jewelries, even after this, the plaintiff

and his parents always demanded more money at least 2.50

lakh and she was always mentally and physically tortured.

It has further been alleged that the husband Krishna

Kumar has chosen a girl and they always meet and also travel

to places together as husband and wife, which is well known

to the locality and it is the root cause of filing this divorce suit.

It has further been alleged that defendant No.-1 has

filed a complaint case under Sections 328, 316, 498-A IPC

against the plaintiff and her in-laws which is pending and she

has also instituted a maintenance case No.-280 and a

9

2026:JHHC:1185-DB

complaint case No.-347/14 under Section 406 of IPC at

Asansol Court, West Bengal.

It has further been stated that under the facts and

circumstances as stated above the plaintiff is not entitled for

getting any relief in this suit.

The defendant No.-2 Sandip Lal also appeared and

filed his show-cause stating therein that defendant No.-2 has

no concern with the instant suit and the defendant is added

as party subsequently under ill advice of some back biters,

who are on inimical terms with him and intended to create a

fictitious ground for divorce.

It has further been alleged that all the allegations

against own wife are surprising and never appreciable and

this defendant has no knowledge of such reception party on

30.11.2008 and in petition, no name of alleged boy is

mentioned.

It has further been stated that in the year 2010, the

plaintiff Krishna Kumar had committed act of cheating and

forgery against this answering defendant No.-2 and for such

criminal acts, this answering defendant had filed a criminal

case bearing No.-381/10 against him who later on had

compromised.

It has further been alleged that defendant No.-1 had

filed a dowry case against her husband Krishna Kumar, Gauri

10

2026:JHHC:1185-DB

Shankar Lal and others and with a view to save skin from

dowry case, the plaintiff in collusion with Gauri Shankar Lal

and Bijoy Kumar Lal, filed divorce suit and since this

defendant no.2 had refused to give false evidence in favour of

plaintiff, then subsequently made this answering defendant

as defendant No.-2 in the instant suit.

The learned Family Court after taking into

consideration the pleading had dismissed the prayer for

dissolution of marriage as prayed by the appellant/plaintiff.

Against the aforesaid order, the instant appeal has been

preferred.

3. The learned Family Judge has called upon the

respondent/defendant/wife. The wife has filed written

statement and altogether five issues have been framed which

are as follows:

(i) Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form?

(ii) Whether the respondent has after the solemnisation of the

marriage had illicit relation with Sandeep Lal Burnwal?

(iii) Whether the respondent was victim of extreme cruelty

by the petitioner and her In-laws?

(iv) Whether the petitioner was treated with cruelty by

respondent?

(v) Whether the petitioner is entitled to decree of divorce?

4. The suit has been filed on the ground of adultery and cruelty,

but the issues could not be proved and accordingly, the prayer

for dissolution of marriage has been dismissed which is the

11

2026:JHHC:1185-DB

subject matter of the present appeal.

Submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for

the appellant:

5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-husband has

submitted that the Learned Family Court has failed to

appreciate that the appellant has produced credible evidence

which are sufficient to establish that the respondent-wife has

subjected him to cruelty and on account of cruelty, the

appellant is entitled for grant of decree of divorce.

6. Further, it has been submitted that the findings recorded by

the learned Trial Court while answering issue no.(iv) (cruelty)

are perverse and based on mere presumption, therefore, the

same will not stand in the eye of law.

7. Submission has also been made that the learned Court below

also failed to appreciate that the appellant has successfully

substantiated the allegation that the respondent has

extramarital affairs and, therefore, the petitioner / appellant

is entitled for grant of decree of divorce. But that aspect of the

matter has not been taken into consideration by the learned

Family Court.

8. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that the

factual aspect which was available before the learned court

supported by the evidences adduced on behalf of the appellant

12

2026:JHHC:1185-DB

has not properly been considered and as such, the judgment

impugned is perverse, hence, not sustainable in the eyes of

law.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the

specific pleadings of the plaintiff/ appellant to the effect that

from the very day of Reception dated 30.11.2008, the

respondent No.1 always remained in contact with her

boyfriend on regular basis either through mobile or through

occasional physical contacts and in March, 2009, when the

appellant was out of Giridih, at about 10 p.m; he found the

said boyfriend of the respondent No:1 with her in his bed, who

managed to flee away from the room, could not be appreciated

and considered in its true perspective, although the appellant

has been able to establish such allegation.

10. It has further been submitted that the evidence led by the

appellant in support of his specific pleading in the petition for

divorce could not be properly appreciated and considered by

the learned court.

11. Learned counsel has submitted that the finding of the learned

court to the effect that although there is some differences

between the parties and the defendant /respondent cannot be

held responsible solely for their matrimonial misconduct, is

contrary to the materials available on record.

13

2026:JHHC:1185-DB

12. He has further submitted that the learned court committed

an error in observing that the appellant could not prove any

act of cruelty on the part of respondent No.1 either in his

plaint or in his evidence adduced on his behalf. Such

observation/finding is completely perverse as would be

evident from a bare perusal of the plaint as well as evidence

of PWs 1 to 4 categorically stating that respondent No.2 is a

relative working with Bijay Lal and before six months of his

Ring Ceremony, respondent No.2 used to talk with his wife,

but in the Reception party respondent N o.2 took the

respondent No.1 in his lap and went inside the room and all

the relatives have seen such occurrence and he further stated

that respondent No.2 had illicit relationship with respondent

No.1. Such facts have totally been ignored by the learned

court.

13. The learned court further failed to take note of the fact that

the appellant (PW-1) categorically stated in his evidence that

10.03.2013 at on about 7 p.m. when he returned to his house,

respondent No.1 started abusing him and also injured his

head. He further stated in his evidence that respondent No.1

tried to administer poison to his mother. The specific and

categorical statements of PW-1, to the effect that on

10.03.2013, the appellant got himself treated by doctor and

he filed prescriptions in support thereof, marked Exhibits-1,

14

2026:JHHC:1185-DB

2 and 3, have not been taken note of which categorically

establish cruelty on the part of respondent No:1.

14. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the

learned Family court also erred in not taking into

consideration the specific evidence of PW-1 to the effect that

on 22.02.2014, respondent No.1 left the company of the

appellant without any reason and she filed four false cases

against the appellant due to impleadment of respondent No.2

in this case.

15. He has further submitted that PWS-2, 3 and 4, being

neighbours of the appellant, also supported the fact that

respondent No.1 is an uncultured woman having ill-behaviour

who always used to pick quarrel with the appellant and used

to abuse her in-laws and members of the house and in June,

2014, she tried to administer poison to her mother-in-law and

she had illicit relationship with respondent No.2 and upon

objection by the appellant, she started quarrelling with them

and in February, 2014, she took 'Nurani oil' and such

statements clearly establish not only illicit relation between

the respondent Nos.1 and 2, but also cruelty on her part.

16. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that such

categorical statements on the part of different PWs clearly

proves factum of cruelty as well as the factum of adultery.

15

2026:JHHC:1185-DB

17. Learned counsel for the appellant, based upon the aforesaid

grounds, has submitted that the judgment impugned suffers

from perversity, as such, not sustainable in the eyes of law.

Submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for

the respondent:

18. Learned counsel for the respondent -wife, defending the

impugned order, has submitted that the appellant has sought

divorce on the ground that the behaviour of respondent-wife

towards the appellant and his family members is torturous

and she has extramarital affairs and, therefore, the appellant

cannot reasonably be expected to live with the respondent but

the learned Family Court, after taking into consideration the

evidence, has held that the appellant-husband has not

succeeded to prove and establish the ground of cruelty as also

failed to prove that the respondent had any illicit relation and

has rightly dismissed the suit.

19. Learned counsel for the respondent has further submitted

that learned trial court has rightly held that the appellant is

not entitled for the decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty

and adultery because the appellant has miserably failed to

prove his case even to the extent of preponderance of

probabilities.

20. Learned counsel for the respondent-wife on the aforesaid

grounds has submitted that the impugned judgment requires

16

2026:JHHC:1185-DB

no interference by this Court.

Analysis:

21. We have heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties,

gone through the Trial Court Records, as also the impugned

judgment, the testimonies of the witnesses and the

documents exhibited therein.

22. This Court, before looking into the legality and propriety of the

impugned order, requires to refer the testimonies of the

witnesses, as available on record.

23. The appellant, in support of his case, has adduced four

witnesses including himself. The relevant portion of the

testimonies of the witnesses are mentioned as under:-

PW-1 Damodar Singh is neighbour of plaintiff and

he has stated that plaintiff is a very good person and his wife

is ill behaved and uncultured woman and plaintiff kept his

wife and children with love and affection, but his wife always

used to quarrel with him and abused his in-laws also.

He has further stated that in the month of January,

2014, he tried to give poison to his mother-in-law and the

reason behind this is that Rajni had illicit relation with one

Sandeep Lal and when it was objected by plaintiff and his

family members, then she started quarrelling with them.

He has further stated that in the month of February,

17

2026:JHHC:1185-DB

2014, she drank "Nurani Tel" and the reason behind this is

that, the mother-in-law had objected her.

He further stated that on 25/12/2008, he went to

Khandoli for Picnic where he saw that Rajni is sitting with

Sandeep Lal in a side of a rock and when he objected, then

she replied not to disturb them and he many times saw Rajni

went on the motorcycle of many person.

During cross examination, he stated that he resided

adjacent to the house of plaintiff on rent and he had a

business of Brick and Sand and plaintiff has called him for

giving evidence. He denied that he is falsely giving evidence

and he had no knowledge that 2

nd daughter of plaintiff was

born in the year 2013 in Bangal.

He has further stated that he and Arjun Yadav,

Balmukund Roy, and Rohit Roy went for Picnic and there were

lots of people and crowd. He further stated that he is known

to Sandeep and he had no knowledge where Sandeep lived

and he is not his relative.

PW 2 Arjun Yadav is neighbour of plaintiff and he

has stated that the behavior of Rajni to plaintiff is cruel and

many times she insulted the plaintiff and always used to

quarrel with him.

He has further stated that in the month of January,

2014, Rajni tried to give poison to her mother-in-law, but due

18

2026:JHHC:1185-DB

to plaintiff, she was saved and in the month of February, 2014

when the mother of plaintiff tried to object her, then she drink

"Nurani Tel" and stated to implicate them in a false case.

He has stated that the behavior of Rajni is cruel

towards plaintiff and his life became hell and Rajni always

seen with Sandeep Lal. He further stated that on 25.12.2014,

he went to Khandoli for Picnic and where he saw that Rajni is

sitting with Sandeep in a side of a rock and when he objected,

then she replied not to disturb them.

During cross-examination, he has stated that he

resided with his family in the rented house of Vimal Vernwal

from February 2013 to December 2015 and the behavior of

Rajni towards Krishna was cruel. He further stated that

Krishna has admitted Rajni in hospital on February, 2014 and

she admitted for one day only and he had no knowledge that

from hospital, the father of Rajni taken her to barabani and

he had no knowledge about the name of that person who was

with Rajni. He further denied that on 25.12.2014, Rajni was

not in Khandoli and she was at her naihar.

PW 3 Laldeo Koda, is neighbour and he stated that

in the reception party, he saw that Sandeep Lal, who is a

relative of plaintiff had taken Rajni in his lap and taken to her

room and plaintiff was busy in attending guests.

He has further stated that plaintiff always objected

19

2026:JHHC:1185-DB

Rajni not to talk with Sandeep, but she disobey ed him.

Plaintiff became bankrupt due to dispute with his wife.

He has further stated that he also tried to make her

understand, but she was adamant to live with Sandeep Lal.

During cross-examination, he has stated that he is a

labour in stone colliery at Chargo and plaintiff has taken him

for evidence.

He has further stated that he is well known to the

plaintiff and his wife and their marriage has been solemnised

about ten years ago but he could not specify the date of

marriage and date of reception party and he could not narrate

what had happened in that reception party.

He has further stated that both parties always

quarrel with each other and he tried to pacify the matter. He

denied that Sandeep and Rajni are brother and sister.

PW-4 Krishna Kumar, plaintiff himself has stated in

his examination-in-chief that he has filed this case for divorce

against Rajni Lal and Sandeep Lal and his marriage has been

solemnised with defendant no.1 Rajni Lal on 29.11.2008 by

Hindu rites and rituals at Deoghar.

He has further stated that defendant no.2 Sandeep

Lal is a relative and the appellant and defendant no.2 are

working with one Vijay Lal, so they had good relation.

20

2026:JHHC:1185-DB

He has stated that before six months of his ring

ceremony, Sandeep Lal used to talk with his wife Rajni and he

never objected, but on the event of his reception party,

Sandeep Lal took Rajni on his lap and went inside the room

and all relatives have seen this occurrence.

He has stated that Rajni Lal had illicit relation with

Sandeep Lal and Rajni Lal ruined his prestige in the society.

He has further stated that in the month of February, 2014,

Rajni drank "Nurani Tel" and he admitted Rajni to a hospital

and in front of police she stated that she wants to implicate

the plaintiff and his family members in a false case.

He further stated that on 10.03.13 at about 7 pm,

when he returned to his house and wanted drinking water,

then she started abusing him and she hit him with “Lodhi”

because of which he got injury on his head and at present he

had pain in his head for which he takes medicine.

He has stated that in January 2014, Rajni tried to

give poison to his mother, but she was somehow saved by him.

He further stated that on 22.02.14, Rajni left the company of

plaintiff without any reason and Rajni filed four false cases

against plaintiff and when he made defendant no.2 Sandeep

Lal as party in this case, she also filed a false case against

him.

He has further stated that Sandeep Lal always used

21

2026:JHHC:1185-DB

to call on the mobile phone of Rajni Lal and when he objected,

then she replied to face dire consequences. He further stated

that on 10.03.2013 his wife had pelted "Lodhi" upon him on

10.03.13, he treated himself by Dr. B.K. Sinha and he filed

the prescription which is marked as Ext-1. He further filed the

treatment prescription of Dr. Prasen Ranjan marked as Ext-2

and also filed the treatment prescription of Dr. A.K. Deo

marked as Ext-3.

He has stated that he filed Sanha against Rajni in the

court marked as Ext-4. He further stated that he filed a

petition before Mahila PS on 13.01.14 and receiving is marked

as Ext-5. He further stated that on 17.01.14, he again filed a

petition before Mahila PS which is marked as Ext -6. He

further stated that on 21.02.14, be filed an application before

Thana in-charge which is marked as Ext-7.

During cross-examination, he stated that he has filed

this suit against Rajni Lal for divorce and he had not made

Sandeep Lal party at the time of filing of this suit.

He stated that he is well known to Sandeep Lal prior

to filing of this case and Sandeep Lal had also filed a case

through his wife against him before filing of this suit for

forgery.

He denied that due to inimical term, he has made him

party in this suit. He has further stated that his wife had filed

22

2026:JHHC:1185-DB

dowry case, maintenance case against him after filing of his

case and his marriage was solemnised with Rajni on

29/11/2008 and reception party was on 30/11/2008 and he

denied that in marriage card, he printed the date as

01/12/2008 as reception party and he further denied that he

made party to Sandeep Lal for getting divorce and Sandeep

had no relation with his wife.

He has further stated that he has written in this suit

that his elder daughter Ritika is not his daughter and he

further stated that his wife demanded the custody of his

daughter Ritika and he objected and Ritika was handed over

to Rajni by the help of police and he made objection on the

ground that Ritika is his daughter.

He further denied that he falsely stated on his affidavit that

Rajni had pelted Lodhi upon his head and he also denied that

due to accident on 10.03.13 by a motorcycle, he was treated

by Dr. B.K. Sinha and he also further denied that due to

accident by a motorcycle, he got injury on his head and he

was treated by Dr. Prasen Ranjan on 31 .08.16 and then

treated by Dr. A.K.Deo on 02.08.17.

24. The respondent-defendant has adduced three witnesses

including herself. For ready reference, the evidence adduced

by the respondent-defendant and her witnesses is being

referred as under:

23

2026:JHHC:1185-DB

D.W-1 Rajni Lal is defendant herself. She has denied

the case of plaintiff and has stated that her marriage was

solemnized with the plaintiff on 29.11.2008 and she resided

with plaintiff and blessed with two daughters and at the time

of her marriage, her parents had given Rs. 5.00 lac and other

household articles of Rs. 3.00 lac. After marriage, she resided

4-5 months peacefully and thereafter she was tortured for

demand of additional dowry and in the meantime, she was

blessed with one daughter Ritika. In the year 2011, she

became pregnant again and in-laws pressurized her to drink

medicine and for that reason, she became ill and admitted in

Shivam Clinic and Doctor informed that her unborn baby

died. She again became pregnant and blessed with girl child

and after birth of second daughter, plaintiff and his family

members to tortured her and assaulted her.

She has further stated that all the allegations levelled

by the plaintiff are false and she never made illicit relation

with any other person and plaintiff always falsely alleged that

she had a boyfriend.

She has stated that Sandeep Lal was made party after

filing of this suit and she had no illicit relation with him and

in business, plaintiff had made inimical relation with

Sandeep, so he made him party and she has never made any

attempt to suicide.

24

2026:JHHC:1185-DB

She has further stated that in this suit, plaintiff had

alleged that her elder daughter Ritika is not his daughter, but

denied to handover Ritika to her, but by the intervention of

court and police, Ritika was handed over to her.

She has further stated that her reception was held on

01.12.2008 and not on 30/11/2008 and in that reception

party, Sandeep Lal was not present.

She has stated that a dowry case bearing no- 158/14

was filed in Giridih court and one maintenance case was also

filed in Asansol court and court awarded Rs. 7000/- per

month as maintenance, but plaintiff is not paying the awarded

maintenance allowance to her. She has also filed a domestic

violence case no. 277/14 in Asansol court and the dowry case

bearing no-347/14 was also filed in Asansol court and her

husband has falsely filed this suit.

During cross-examination, she has stated that Rs.

5.00 lac was given by his father on installment, but she could

not file any paper.

She has stated that she filed a petition in Mahila PS

Giridih on 19.12.2013 and she had no paper regarding

admission to Shivam clinic and she had filed a case u/s 498

A IPC.

25

2026:JHHC:1185-DB

She has stated that in the year 2009 on event of her

abortion, she could not file any complaint and she had filed

four cases against her husband and all the cases are filed after

filing of divorce case by her husband and at the event of taking

poison, she resided at Makatpur in the rent house of one

Vimal Kumar and after birth of her first daughter from

01.09.2009, she was tortured by plaintiff and his family

members.

She has stated that her elder daughter studies in

Carmel School and she could not specify that who bears the

educational expenses. Her husband had filed a petition for

custody of her daughter. She is residing separate from

22.02.2014 from plaintiff. She denied that in the reception

party on 01.12.2008, Sandeep Lal was also present and she

also denied that after marriage, she had made relation with

Sandeep Lal and for that reason, her husband used to quarrel

with her and she had no documentary proof showing that

Sandeep Lal had business relation with her husband.

She denied that she always quarrel ed with her

husband and her behavior is cruel with plaintiff and he

further denied that in the month of March 2009, she was

caught red handed with Sandeep Lal.

DW 2 Ganesh Vernwal, is relative of defendant no.1.

26

2026:JHHC:1185-DB

He has stated that plaintiff is his maternal brother and the

couple blessed with two daughter s and at the time of

marriage, the father of defendant no.1 had given Rs. 5.00 lac

cash and other household articles of Rs. 3.00 lac and Rajni

resided at her sasural for 4-5 months peacefully and her

husband and his family members always tortured her and

demanded additional dowry.

He has stated that after birth of daughter, she was

subjected to cruelty and plaintiff had filed this divorce case on

false allegations. Rajni had no any boyfriend.

He has further stated that defendant no.2 Sandeep

Lal was made party after filing of this suit and Rajni had never

made illicit relation with Sandeep and plaintiff had filed this

case on false allegation.

He has stated that at present, defendant no.1 is residing

at her naihar in very pathetic condition.

During cross examination, he has stated that he resided

with her family at Baraboni and he had ice-cream business

and he could not specify the date of giving Rs. 5.00 lac and he

could not specify the date of demand of dowry and he could

not specify the date from when Rajni is of living at her naiher.

He has further stated that he was present in

27

2026:JHHC:1185-DB

reception party and he could not specify the name of the

relative of Krishna and he never visited to Giridih and he could

not say where both parties lived in Giridih.

He has stated that he never met with Sandeep Lal

and he is not known to Sandeep Lal but he has heard about

him and he had no knowledge that Rajni had drunk "Nurani

Tel" at her sasural and he had no knowledge that in reception

party, Sandeep had taken Rajni in her lap and taken to her in

room.

He has stated that the father of Krishna never told

him regarding cruel behavior of Rajni towards them. He has

denied that he had falsely stated that Rajni is a good character

lady and she had no relation with Sandeep Lal and he further

denied that due to cruel behavior of Rajni, her husband had

filed this false divorce case.

DW 3 Mahesh Ve rnwal is maternal uncle of

defendant no.1 and has stated in his evidence that plaintiff

had filed this false divorce case against Rajni and the marriage

of both parties was solemnised on 29.11.2008 and they were

blessed with two daughters. The father of Rajni had given Rs.

5.00 lac and other household articles of Rs. 3.00 lac and Rajni

lived at her sasural for 4-5 months peacefully but she was

tortured for demand of additional dowry. In the meantime, she

28

2026:JHHC:1185-DB

gave birth to her first daughter and after that she again

became pregnant in the year 2011, and due to the medicine

given by her in-laws, she was admitted to Shivam Clinic,

where her unborn child died.

He has further stated that Rajni again became

pregnant and she gave birth to another girl child at her naihar

and due to birth of girl child, her In-laws again started

torturing her.

He has stated that plaintiff had falsely alleged that

Rajni had a boyfriend and filed this divorce case on false

allegations. He has further stated that in this suit, plaintiff

had alleged that her elder daughter Ritika is not his daughter,

but the plaintiff refused to handover Ritika to Rajni, but by

the intervention of court and police, Ritika was handed over

to Rajni.

He has further stated that her reception was held on

01.12.2008 and not on 30.11.2008 and in that reception

party, Sandeep Lal was not present.

He has identified the original marriage card of Rajni

and Krishna which is exhibited as Ext-A. He further identified

Giridih Town FIR no-158/14 dated 02.06.14 which is marked

as Ext-B and he also identified Ext-C as Misc. case no.05/16.

29

2026:JHHC:1185-DB

During cross-examination, he has stated that Rajni

had filed three cases in Asansol and one case in Giridih Court

and he stated that Rajni is living separate from plaintiff from

the year 2013-14 and after filing of this divorce case, there is

very serious dispute arisen out between them.

He has further stated that out of Rs. 5.00 lac, some

cash was given in front of him and some cash was given by

the father and brother of Rajni and cash was given in presence

of him in the year 2007, but he could not specify the date. He

has stated that due to death of unborn child of Rajni, no one

filed any case against plaintiff and he could not specify the

date of demanding additional dowry and meeting was held

between plaintiff and the family of Rajni, but no Panchayti

was held and they continued to torture her.

He has stated that Rajni had filed a complaint in

Mahila PS Giridih in the year 2015. He further stated that

Ritika is studying in Carmel School, Giridih and at present

she is studying at her maternal grandfather’s house. He has

further stated that it is correct that after filing of this divorce

case, three cases are filed at Asansol Court and one case is

filed at Giridih court. He has denied that due to cruel behavior

of Rajni and due to assault and abuse, the plaintiff has filed

this divorce case and he further denied that Rajni had tried to

give poison to her mother-in-law and she filed false case

30

2026:JHHC:1185-DB

against her husband.

25. The learned Family Judge has gone into the interpretation of

the word “cruelty” and adultery and assessing the same from

the evidences led on behalf of the parties as also the

submission made in the pleading, i.e., plaint and written

statement, has found that the element of cruelty and adultery

has not been established.

26. The learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff has argued

that the evidence of cruelty/adultery has not properly been

considered and as such, the judgment suffers from perversity,

hence, not sustainable in the eyes of law.

27. While on the other hand, argument has been advanced on

behalf of the respondent-defendant that the judgment is well

considered.

28. This Court while appreciating the argument advanced on

behalf of the parties on the issue of perversity needs to refer

herein the interpretation of the word “perverse” as has been

interpreted by the Hon'ble Apex Court which means that there

is no evidence or erroneous consideration of the evidence. The

Hon'ble Apex Court in Arulvelu and Anr. vs. State

[Represented by the Public Prosecutor] and Anr., (2009)

10 SCC 206 while elaborately discussing the word perverse

has held that it is, no doubt, true that if a finding of fact is

31

2026:JHHC:1185-DB

arrived at by ignoring or excluding relevant material or by

taking into consideration irrelevant material or if the finding

so outrageously defies logic as so to suffer from the vice of

irrationality incurring the blame of being perverse, then, the

finding is rendered infirm in law. Relevant paragraphs, i.e.,

paras-24, 25, 26 and 27 of the said judgment reads as under:

“24. The expression “perverse” has been dealt with in

a number of cases. In Gaya Din v. Hanuman Prasad

[(2001) 1 SCC 501] this Court observed that the

expression “perverse” means that the findings of the

subordinate authority are not supported by the

evidence brought on record or they are against the

law or suffer from the vice of procedural irregularity.

25. In Parry's (Calcutta) Employees' Union v. Parry &

Co. Ltd. [AIR 1966 Cal 31] the Court observed that

“perverse finding” means a finding which is not only

against the weight of evidence but is altogether

against the evidence itself. In Triveni Rubber &

Plastics v. CCE [1994 Supp (3) SCC 665 : AIR 1994 SC

1341] the Court observed that this is not a case where

it can be said that the findings of the authorities are

based on no evidence or that they are so perverse that

no reasonable person would have arrived at those

findings.

26. In M.S. Narayanagouda v. Girijamma [AIR 1977

Kant 58] the Court observed that any order made in

conscious violation of pleading and law is

a perverse order. In Moffett v. Gough [(1878) 1 LR

1r 331] the Court observed that a “perverse verdict”

may probably be defined as one that is not only against

the weight of evidence but is altogether against the

32

2026:JHHC:1185-DB

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.””

29. Thus, from the aforesaid it is evident that if any order made in

conscious violation of pleading and law then it will come under the

purview of perverse order. Further “perverse verdict" may probably

33

2026:JHHC:1185-DB

be defined as one that is not only against the weight of evidence

but is altogether against the evidence.

30. Now this court is adverting to the issue of cruelty. The learned

Family Judge has dismissed the suit seeking divorce on the

ground of cruelty.

31. It needs to refer herein that the “cruelty” has been interpreted

by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dr. N.G. Dastane vs.

Mrs. S. Dastana, (1975) 2 SCC 326 wherein it has been laid

down that the Court has to enquire, as to whether, the

conduct charge as cruelty, is of such a character, as to cause

in the mind of the petitioner, a reasonable apprehension that,

it will be harmful or injurious for him to live with the

respondent.

32. This Court deems it fit and proper to take into consideration

the meaning of ‘cruelty’ as has been held by the Hon’ble Apex

Court in Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi, (1988)1 SCC

105 wherein the wife alleged that the husband and his

parents demanded dowry. The Hon’ble Apex Court

emphasized that “cruelty” can have no fixed definition.

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

in relation to or in respect of matrimonial conduct in respect

of matrimonial obligations”. It is the conduct which adversely

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

34

2026:JHHC:1185-DB

“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.”

34. The Hon’ble Apex Court has further observed therein that

while dealing with such complaints of cruelty 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.”

35. 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.

36. In V. Bhagat vs. D. Bhagat (Mrs.), (1994)1 SCC 337 , the

wife alleged in her written statement that her husband was

suffering from “mental problems and paranoid disorder”. The

wife’s lawyer also levelled allegations of “lunacy” and

“insanity” against the husband and his family while he was

conducting a cross-examination. The Hon’ble Apex Court

held these allegations against the husband to constitute

35

2026:JHHC:1185-DB

“cruelty”.

37. In Vijaykumar Ramchandra Bhate v. Neela Vijay Kumar

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

observed by taking into consideration the allegations levelled

by the husband in his written statement that his wife was

“unchaste” and had indecent familiarity with a person outside

wedlock and that his wife was having an extramarital affair.

These allegations, given the context of an educated Indian

woman, were held to constitute “cruelty” itself.

38. 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.

39. Further in the case of Vishwanath Agrawal v. Sarla

Vishwanath Agrawal , (2012) 7 SCC 288, the Hon’ble Apex

Court has held as follows:—

36

2026:JHHC:1185-DB

22. The expression “cruelty” has an inseparable nexus with

human conduct or human behaviour. It is always

dependent upon the social strata or the milieu to which the

parties belong, their ways of life, relationship,

temperaments and emotions that have been conditioned by

their social status.

25. After so stating, this Court observed in Shobha Rani

case about the marked change in life in modern times and

the sea change in matrimonial duties and responsibilities. It

has been observed that : (SCC p. 108, para 5)

“5. … when a spouse makes a complaint about the

treatment of cruelty by the partner in life or relations, the

court should not search for standard in life. A set of facts

stigmatised as cruelty in one case may not be so in another

case. The cruelty alleged may largely depend upon the type

of life the parties are accustomed to or their economic and

social conditions. It may also depend upon their culture and

human values to which they attach importance.”

26. Their Lordships in Shobha Rani case referred to the

observations made in Sheldon v. Sheldon wherein Lord

Denning stated, “the categories of cruelty are not closed”.

Thereafter, the Bench proceeded to state thus: (Shobha

Rani case, SCC p. 109, paras 5-6)

“5. … Each case may be different. We deal with the conduct

of human beings who are not generally similar. Among the

human beings there is no limit to the kind of conduct which

may constitute cruelty. New type of cruelty may crop up in

any case depending upon the human behaviour,

capacity or incapability to tolerate the conduct complained

of. Such is the wonderful (sic) realm of cruelty.

6. These preliminary observations are intended to

emphasise that the court in matrimonial cases is not

concerned with ideals in family life. The court has only to

understand the spouses concerned as nature made them,

and consider their particular grievance. As Lord

Reid observed in Gollins v. Gollins : (All ER p. 972 G-

H)

‘… In matrimonial affairs we are not dealing with objective

37

2026:JHHC:1185-DB

standards, it is not a matrimonial offence to fall below the

standard of the reasonable man (or the reasonable woman).

We are dealing with this man or this woman.’”

40. In the case of Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh, (2007) 4 SCC

511 it has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court as follows:—

99. Human mind is extremely complex and human

behaviour is equally complicated. Similarly human

ingenuity has no bound, therefore, to assimilate the entire

human behaviour in one definition is almost impossible.

What is cruelty in one case may not amount to cruelty in

other case. The concept of cruelty differs from person to

person depending upon his upbringing, level of sensitivity,

educational, family and cultural background, financial

position, social status, customs, traditions, religious beliefs,

human values and their value system.

100. Apart from this, the concept of mental cruelty cannot

remain static; it is bound to change with the passage of

time, impact of modern culture through print and electronic

media and value system, etc. What may be mental cruelty

now may not remain a mental cruelty after a passage of

time or vice versa. There can never be any straitjacket

formula or fixed parameters for determining mental cruelty

in matrimonial matters. The prudent and appropriate way

to adjudicate the case would be to evaluate it on its peculiar

facts and circumstances while taking aforementioned

factors in consideration.

41. Thus, from the aforesaid settled position of law it is evident

that “Cruelty” under matrimonial law consists of conduct so

grave and weighty as to lead one to the conclusion that one of

the spouse cannot reasonably be expected to live with the

other spouse. It must be more serious than the ordinary wear

and tear of married life.

38

2026:JHHC:1185-DB

42. Cruelty must be of such a type which will satisfy the

conscience of the Court that the relationship between the

parties has deteriorated to such an extent that it has become

impossible for them to live together without mental agony. The

cruelty practiced may be in many forms and it must be

productive of an apprehension in the mind of the other spouse

that it is dangerous to live with the erring party. Simple

trivialities which can truly be described as a reasonable wear

and tear of married life cannot amount to cruelty. In many

marriages each party can, if it so wills, discover many a cause

for complaint but such grievances arise mostly from

temperamental disharmony. Such disharmony or

incompatibility is not cruelty and will not furnish a cause for

the dissolution of marriage.

43. Since the allegation of extramarital affair has also been levelled

by the plaintiff/appellant therefore in the aforesaid context, it

needs to refer herein that Section 13(1)(i) of the Hindu Marriage

Act, 1955, allows for divorce if the other spouse has, after the

marriage, had voluntary sexual intercourse with anyone other

than their spouse and providing a ground for divorce for either

husband or wife. This is one of several grounds under Section

13(1) for dissolving a Hindu marriage, alongside cruelty (13(1) (ia)),

desertion (13(1) (ib)), conversion, mental disorder, and venereal

39

2026:JHHC:1185-DB

disease. For ready reference the said section is being quoted

herein which reads as under:

“13. Divorce.—(1) Any marriage solemnised,

whether before or after the commencement of this

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—

22[(i) has, after the solemnisation of the marriage,

had voluntary sexual intercourse with any person

other than his or her spouse; or”

44. It needs to refer herein that the Hon'ble Apex Court, while

striking down the offence of adultery in Joseph

Shine v. Union of India, (2019) 3 SCC 39 also

acknowledged how the notion of marriage had changed since

the enactment the Penal Code in 1860:

“102. The background in which this provision was

enacted now needs to be stated. In 1860, when the Penal

Code was enacted, the vast majority of the population in

this country, namely, Hindus, had no law of divorce as

marriage was considered to be a sacrament. Equally, a

Hindu man could marry any number of women until

1955. …

Two of the fundamental props or bases of this archaic

law have since gone. Post 1955-1956, with the advent of

the “Hindu Code”, so to speak, a Hindu man can marry

only one wife; and adultery has been made a ground for

divorce in Hindu Law.

45. It is considered view of this Court that since adultery is a

very grave allegation in the context of matrimonial life,

40

2026:JHHC:1185-DB

therefore, a very high degree or standard of proof is required

and the offence of adultery should be proved beyond

reasonable doubt. Further a husband or wife can ask for

divorce only if at the time of filing the suit, the other party ‘is

in adulterous relationship and merely a bald allegation

without any cogent evidence of extra marital intercourse is not

sufficient to dissolve the marriage.

46. Herein since appellate jurisdiction has been invoked

therefore, before entering into merit of the case, at this

juncture it would be purposeful to discuss the appellate

jurisdiction of the High Court.

It needs to refer herein that under section 7 of the

Family Courts Act, the Family Court shall have and 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).

47. 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

41

2026:JHHC:1185-DB

Hon'ble Apex Court in series of judgments.

48. 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 case and has powers to affirm, reverse or

modify the judgment under question. In “Jagdish Singh v.

Madhuri Devi” (2008) 10 SCC 497 the Hon'ble Supreme

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:

27. 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.

49. Further, it requires to refer herein that under section

3 of the Indian Evidence Act a fact is said to be proved when

the Court either believes it to exist or considers its existence

so probable that a prudent man under the circumstances

42

2026:JHHC:1185-DB

would proceed on the supposition that such fact really exists.

Therefore, the normal rule of preponderance of probability

is the rule which governs the civil proceedings but herein since

grave allegation of extra-marital affair has been alleged

therefore cogent evidence is required to be laid by the

plaintiff/appellant.

50. The expression “preponderance of probability” is not capable

of exact definition nor can there be any strait-jacket formula

or a weighing machine to find out which side the balance is

tilted. The preponderance of probability would imply a positive

element about possibility of existence of a fact. This means a

higher degree of probability of happening of something and

existence of a fact.

51. In “A. Jayachandra v. Aneel Kaur” (2005) 2 SCC 22 the

Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that the concept, a proof

beyond the shadow of doubt, is to be applied to criminal trials

and not to civil matters and certainly not to matters of such

delicate personal relationship as those of husband and wife.

Therefore, the Court has to see what are the probabilities in

the case and legal cruelty has to be found out, not merely as

a matter of fact, but as the effect on the mind of the

complainant spouse caused by the acts or omissions of the

other.

43

2026:JHHC:1185-DB

52. Since this Court are exercising the power of appeal as referred

hereinabove and as per the settled position of law which

require the consideration of the appellate Court is that the

order/judgment passed by the appropriate Forum, if suffers

from perversity, the same is to be taken as a ground for its

reversal.

53. In the aforesaid backdrop of the aforesaid settled position of

law and factual aspect of the instant case this Court is now

adverting to the issue of cruelty as well as allegation of extra

marital affair as involved in the present case.

54. Admittedly, the plea of cruelty along with extra-marital affair

has been raised by the appellant-husband. It has been stated

by the appellant-husband that his respondent-wife had

adulterous relationship with respondent no.2 Sandeep Lal

Burnwal.

55. Herein, as per the pleading, the ground of adultery has also

been taken for dissolution of the marriage. The

appellant/plaintiff who had been examined as P.W. 4 had

stated that defendant has treated him with cruelty as she is

moving with Sandeep Lal freely, and he is suspicious of their

relationship and the fact that on the day of his marriage

reception on 30.11.2008, respondent no.2 Sandeep Lal

Burnwal took the respondent-wife in his lap and went inside

the room and all the relatives have seen such occurrence.

44

2026:JHHC:1185-DB

56. But, respondent-wife has in her evidence at paragraph-16 has

stated that her reception was held on 01.012.2008 and not on

30.11.2008. DW-3 Masesh Burnwal, is the maternal

uncle(mama) of the respondent Rajni Lal and he has also

stated in his evidence that reception was held on 01.012.2008

but, appellant has in his plaint has mentioned that reception

party was held on 30.11.2008.

57. Hence, the very genesis of the case, which the appellant has

tried to build that on the day of reception respondent no.2

Sandeep Lal had taken his defendant no.1/respondent-wife

in his lap and went inside the room and all the relatives have

seen such occurrence, is demolished due to serious objection

raised by the respondent-wife and her maternal uncle(mama)

DW-3 Masesh Burnwal as to denial of date of reception party

on 30.11.2008.

58. Further, in his plaint at paragraph-14 appellant-husband has

stated that he believes that his daughter Ritika in not his

daughter as petitioner had no physical contact with his wife

at the period on which the aforesaid child was conceived.

59. But, contrary to his statement made in paragraph-14 of his

plaint, appellant in his cross-examination at paragraph-24

admitted that Ritika is his daughter.

60. Hence, appellant-husband has raised question on the

45

2026:JHHC:1185-DB

character of his respondent-wife and has alleged illicit

relationship, but, appellant-husband has failed to give cogent

evidence.

61. The allegation levelled by the appellant in his pleading that

daughter Ritika is not his daughter and his wife being

unchaste and having extra-marital affair itself constitute of

cruelty upon the respondent/wife.

62. Thus, it is evident from the aforesaid statement of the

appellant-husband that he has alleged adultery against the

defendant-wife but this allegation against defendant-wife

appears to be a bald allegation since in support of the

aforesaid allegation plaintiff/husband has not filed any cogent

evidence rather it appears that the same has been alleged

without any basis only because the appellant-husband wants

divorce from his wife.

63. Further from impugned order it is evident that since

February, 2014, both parties are living separately and the

instant suit was also filed in the year 2014.

64. Now coming to the testimony of the appellant wife who had

been examined as D.W.1 wherein she had deposed that she

was treated with cruelty by appellant and her in-law because

she gave birth to two female children as also for demand of

additional dowry and she never made illicit relation with any

46

2026:JHHC:1185-DB

other person and appellant falsely alleged that she had a

boyfriend. The aforesaid testimony of the respondent/wife has

fully been substantiated by the other defence witnesses.

65. This Court, based upon the aforesaid discussions is of

considered view that the issue of cruelty a as has been alleged

by the appellant-husband against his wife could not be proved

because no cogent evidence to that effect has been produced

by the appellant and, as such, this Court has no reason to

take different view that has been taken by the learned Family

Court observing that the plaintiff has not been able to prove

that the defendant subjected him with cruelty to the extent

required by law.

66. Hence, appellant-husband has failed to prove any act of

cruelty on part of his respondent-wife, instead from the

evidence it appears that cruelty has been meted out to the

respondent wife by the appellant-husband.

67. Appellant has-stated that in January,2014, Rajni tried to give

poison to his mother, but somehow his mother was saved.

But, appellant mother did not come forward to give evidence

and this has been taken note by the learned family Court.

68. So far as issue of adultery as has been alleged by the appellant

is concerned, the appellant and his witnesses have stated in

their evidence that respondent-wife has illicit relation with

47

2026:JHHC:1185-DB

defendant no-2. They have stated that in the reception party,

the defendant no-2 had taken the respondent-wife in his lap

and taken to her room, but neither the plaintiff nor any

witnesses have stated that they have personally seen that

occurrence. Therefore, the learned Family Judge has rightly

come to the conclusion that the plaintiff has not been able to

prove this issue and the plaintiff failed to prove that the

respondent had any illicit relation.

69. On the perusal of the impugned judgment, it is considered

view of this court that learned Family Court after due

deliberation of factual aspect as well as evidence led by both

the parties has recorded its finding, therefore, the contention

of learned counsel for the appellant that impugned judgment

is suffering from perversity, is not fit to be accepted, hence

rejected.

70. This Court, on the basis of discussions made hereinabove, is

of the view that the judgment passed on 28.01.2020 and

Decree dated 14.02.2020 passed by the learned Principal

Judge, Family Court, Giridih whereby and whereunder

Original Suit No.101 of 2014 filed by the appellant-husband

under Section 13(1)(i)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for

a decree of divorce has been dismissed, requires no

interference by this Court.

48

2026:JHHC:1185-DB

71. Accordingly, the instant appeal fails and is dismissed.

72. Pending interlocutory application, if any, also stands disposed

of.

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

I agree,

(Arun Kumar Rai, J.) (Arun Kumar Rai, J.)

Date : 15/01/2026

Birendra/A.F.R.

Uploaded on 16.01.2026