[2026:JHHC:32489-DB]

Page | 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

F.A. No. 148 of 2025

Mithilesh Kumar, aged about 50 years, son of Jagdish Prasad, resident

of village-Mandil, P.O.-Mandil, P.S.-Parsabigha, District-Jehanabad

(Bihar), presently residing at Sagar Kunj Niwas, Birsa Chowk, Road

No.3, P.O.-Doranda, P.S.-Jagarnathpur, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand.

… … Plaintiff/Appellant

Versus

Rita Devi, wife of Mithilesh Kumar, daughter of Rajendra Prasad

Verma, resident of E-Block, Sector-5, House No.205, P.O. & P.S.-

Bhuli, District-Dhanbad (Jharkhand).

… … Defendant/Respondent

-------

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AKHIL KUMAR

-------

For the Appellant : Mr. Anurag Kashyap, Advocate

Ms. Kanika Sinha, Advocate

For the Respondent : Mr. Sanjay Prasad, Advocate

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

C.A.V. on 29

th

September, 2026 Pronounced on: 5

th

November, 2026

Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

1. The instant appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Court Act, 1984 is

directed against the order/judgment dated 19.03.2025 passed by the

learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court-I, Ranchi in

Original Suit No. 270 of 2019, whereby and whereunder, the petition filed

under Section 13(1) (1-A) (ii) of the Hindu Marriage Act by the

appellant/appellant seeking a decree of divorce against his wife, has been

dismissed.

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

appellant/appellant needs to be referred herein which is as under:

2.1 The case of the appellant is that the marriage of the appellant was

solemnized with the respondent on 11.05.1995 according to Hindu

rites and rituals and since the date of marriage, appellant and the

[2026:JHHC:32489-DB]

Page | 2

respondent started living together as husband and wife at Ranchi and

out of their wedlock couple blessed with two male children, first son

named Ankur Kumar aged 14 years and second son Rohit Kumar

aged about 11 years.

2.2 It has been pleaded that since 2013 because of persuasion of her

parents, respondent started pressurizing the appellant to settle with

her retired old parents at Bhuli, Dhanbad which was not agreeable to

the appellant. It has further been pleaded that on 13.04.2013 all of a

sudden, the respondent left Ranchi along with the children and went

to her parental house at Bhuli and thereafter the appellant tried his

level best to bring her and their children at Ranchi, but at the instance

of parents of respondent, she never agreed to come to Ranchi, rather

she insisted the appellant to get himself settled at Bhuli alongwith

their children and insisted the appellant to provide all the amenities.

2.3 It has further been pleaded that finding no alternative, the appellant

filed a petition before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi u/s

9 of Hindu marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights being

M.T.S. No. 197/13 which has already been allowed ex-parte on

11.11.2016.

2.4 Thereafter, the appellant in the month of September 2013 came to

know that respondent has filed one complaint case being case no.

1205/13 before the Court of Ld. C.J.M., Dhanbad against the

appellant u/s 498A, 323, 506 of IPC by levelling false and fabricated

allegation against the appellant.

[2026:JHHC:32489-DB]

Page | 3

2.5 It has been further pleaded that the appellant got shocked and

surprised to know about the filing of complaint case against him and

that too on the basis of false, fabricated and concocted allegations,

thereafter the appellant and his well-wishers including relatives have

tried their level best to convince the respondent and her parents for

bringing the respondent and their children at Ranchi, but she had

been quite adamant. Thereafter, through Mediation JHALSA, Ranchi

in connection with ABA 708/2014 both the parties agreed to live

together along with their children at Ranchi but again the respondent

has taken ‘U’ turn and started putting several conditions.

2.6 It is the case of the appellant that because of the best effort made by

appellant and his well-wishers as per the terms of compromise the

respondent and the younger son namely Rohit Kumar were brought

to Ranchi and appellant re-admitted his son in a School at Ranchi

after payment of more than Rs.10,000/- as admission fee and other

miscellaneous expenses and due to non-cooperative and argument

attitude of respondent, the appellant and his two minor children have

been facing odd and adverse situation.

2.7 It has been pleaded that when the mother of appellant died, he went

to ask the respondent to attend her funeral by coming to his native

village along with the children, but instead of going there she again

came to her father 's house along with their school going son Rohit

who was attending his school regularly and since the matter was

pending before the learned court in which respondent has appeared

and the matter has been compromised/settled hence, there was no

[2026:JHHC:32489-DB]

Page | 4

occasion for the appellant to pursue and file show cause in M.P. Case

no. 104/2014 and respondent agreed to withdraw all the cases filed

by her and she started living with appellant at Ranchi.

2.8 It has been pleaded that on the one hand the respondent has stayed

with appellant after mediation and has agreed to withdraw all the

cases filed by her but on the other hand, she was pursuing M.P. case

no. 104/2014. The appellant has suffered a setback with immense

mental trauma and pain coupled with financial stress but he did not

lose his faith and kept continued spontaneous effect to manage the

respondent to join his company but in vain and finally she left the

appellant and fled away to her parental house along with the children

in August 2015 itself.

2.9 It has been pleaded further that in spite of all the efforts made by

appellant and his well-wishers she has not come to appellant and

decided to live at her parental house for no reason and the respondent

has deserted the appellant without reasonable cause and without

consent and against the wish.

2.10 Hence, the suit for divorce was filed before the learned Family Court

being Original Suit No.270 of 2019, whereby and whereunder, the

petition filed under Section 13(1) (1-A) (ii) of the Hindu Marriage

Act by the appellant/appellant, has been dismissed.

3. The learned Family Judge has called upon the respondent-wife. The wife

has filed written statement and altogether five issues had been framed

which are as follows:

(i) Whether the suit as framed is maintainable?

[2026:JHHC:32489-DB]

Page | 5

(ii) Whether the petitioner has valid cause of action for the suit?

(iii) Whether the restitution of conjugal rights as between the parties

was made after passing of a decree for restitution of conjugal

rights?

(iv) Whether the petitioner is entitled for a decree of divorce on the

ground of desertion?

(v) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get any other relief or reliefs as

prayed for?

4. The evidences have been laid on behalf of both the parties. Thereafter, the

judgment has been passed dismissing the suit by holding that the

petitioner/appellant (appellant herein) has not been able to prove his case

against the respondent even to the extent of preponderance of

probabilities.

Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant/husband:

5. Mr. Anurag Kashyap, learned counsel has contended on behalf of the

appellant/petitioner that the factual aspect which was available before the

learned Family Judge supported by the evidences adduced on behalf of the

appellant/petitioner has not properly been considered and as such, the

judgment impugned is perverse, hence, not sustainable in the eyes of law.

6. It has been submitted that the appellant himself filed an application under

Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act which was allowed ex-parte and

after passing of the decree of conjugal rights, the respondent has been

living separately since the year 2017 which itself shows that the

respondent has deserted the appellant for a long period and the same has

[2026:JHHC:32489-DB]

Page | 6

not been taken into consideration in right perspective by the learned

Family Court.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner, based upon the aforesaid

ground, has submitted that the judgment impugned suffers from

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

Submission of the learned counsel for the respondent:

8. Per contra, Mr. Sanjay Prasad, learned counsel for the respondent-wife,

while defending the impugned judgment, has submitted that there is no

error in the impugned judgement. The learned Family Judge has

considered the issue of restitution of conjugal rights and desertion and

having come to the conclusion that no evidence has been adduced to

establish either desertion, has dismissed the petition.

9. It has been submitted that the respondent was subjected to matrimonial

cruelty at the hands of the appellant and his family members for demand

of dowry, hence, she filed a criminal case u/s 498A along with other

sections.

10. It has further been submitted that after the compromise taken place in

between the parties at Mediation Centre at JHALSA in ABA No.708/2014

arising out of C.P. Case No.1205 of 2013, both the parties lived together

but, the respondent was tortured and thrown out of the matrimonial house

along with the minor children, thereafter, she filed a maintenance case

which was allowed.

11. So far as the decree of conjugal rights is concerned, it has been submitted

that the appellant had filed the said case and the same was disposed of ex-

[2026:JHHC:32489-DB]

Page | 7

parte by suppressing the fact of settlement in between the parties in C.P.

Case No.1205 of 2013.

12. It has been further submitted that the respondent is willing to live together

with the appellant but it is due to compelling circumstances that she has to

live separately.

13. Learned counsel, based upon the aforesaid ground, has submitted that if

on that pretext, the factum of desertion has not been found to be

established, based upon which the decree of divorce has been refused to

be granted, the impugned judgment cannot be said to suffer from error.

Analysis:

14. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through

the finding recorded by the learned Family Judge in the impugned

judgment.

15. The case has been heard at length. The admitted fact herein is that the suit

for divorce has been filed mainly on the ground of desertion in respect of

the fact that the respondent has chosen not to live together with the

appellant even after passing of the decree of conjugal rights, i.e., by filing

an application under Section 13(1)(1-A)(ii) of the Hindu Marriage Act,

1955.

16. It is evident from the factual aspect that the appellant/petitioner had a

motion by filing a petition under Section 13(1)(1-A)(ii) of the Hindu

Marriage Act, 1955 for decree of divorce on the background of the fact, as

has been pleading in the suit, that after solemnization of the marriage in

between the parties on 11.05.1995, they have been living together and out

of their wedlock two male children took birth.

[2026:JHHC:32489-DB]

Page | 8

17. It has been pleaded that since 2013 because of persuasion of her parents,

respondent started pressurizing the appellant to settle with her retired old

parents at Bhuli, Dhanbad which was not agreeable to the appellant. It has

further been pleaded that on 13.04.2013 all of a sudden, the respondent

left Ranchi along with the children and went to her parental house at

Bhuli, but at the instance of parents of respondent, she never agreed to

come to Ranchi, rather she insisted the appellant to get herself settled at

Bhuli alongwith their children and insisted the appellant to provide all the

amenities.

18. It has further been pleaded that the appellant filed a petition before the

Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi u/s 9 of Hindu marriage Act for

restitution of conjugal rights being M.T.S. No. 197/13 which has been

allowed ex-parte on 11.11.2016. Thereafter, the appellant in the month of

September 2013 came to know that respondent has filed one complaint

case being case no. 1205/13 before the Court of Ld. C.J.M., Dhanbad

against the appellant u/s 498A, 323, 506 of IPC.

19. Thereafter, through the Mediation Centre at JHALSA, Ranchi is

connection with A.B.A. 708/2014 both the parties agreed to live together

along with their children at Ranchi but again the respondent has taken ‘U’

turn and started putting several conditions.

20. It is the case of the appellant that because of the best effort made by

appellant and his well-wishers as per the terms of compromise the

respondent and the younger son namely Rohit Kumar were brought to

Ranchi and appellant re-admitted his son in a School at Ranchi after

payment of more than Rs.10,000/- as admission fee and other

[2026:JHHC:32489-DB]

Page | 9

miscellaneous expenses and due to non-cooperative and argument attitude

of respondent, the appellant and his two minor children have been facing

odd and adverse situation.

21. It has been pleaded that when the mother of appellant died, he went to ask

the respondent to attend her funeral by coming to his native village along

with the children, but instead of going there she again came to her father 's

house along with their school going son and since the matter was pending

before the learned court in which respondent has appeared and the matter

has been compromised/settled hence, there was no occasion for the

appellant to pursue and file show cause in M.P. Case no. 104/2014 and

respondent agreed to withdraw all the cases filed by her and she started

living with appellant at Ranchi.

22. It has been pleaded that on the one hand the respondent has stayed with

appellant after mediation and has agreed to withdraw all the cases filed by

her but on the other hand, she was pursuing M.P. case no. 104/2014.

23. It has been pleaded further that in spite of all the efforts made by appellant

and his well-wishers she has not come to appellant and decided to live at

her parental house for no reason and the respondent has deserted the

appellant without reasonable cause and without consent and against the

wish.

24. Written statement was filed by the respondent/wife wherein all allegation

has been refuted and accordingly, issues have been framed wherein

primarily issue nos.3 and 4 pertains to whether the restitution of conjugal

rights as between the parties was made after passing of a decree for

[2026:JHHC:32489-DB]

Page | 10

restitution of conjugal rights and on the ground of desertion whether

petitioner entitled for divorced, respectively.

25. The evidence has been led on behalf of both the parties. For ready

reference, the evidence led on behalf of the appellant/petitioner is being

referred as under:

(i) P.W.-1 is the appellant himself and has stated that he is the

appellant in the suit and his marriage was solemnized with

respondent on 11.05.1995 according to Hindu rites and rituals at

Jehanabad and after marriage respondent started living with him in

Ranchi. He has stated that out of their wedlock two sons were born

namely Ankur Kumar aged about 17 years and Rohit Kumar aged

about 14 years. He has stated that from the year 2013 respondent, at

the behest of her parents started pressurizing him to live with her

old aged retired parents in Bhuli, which was not acceptable to him.

He has stated that suddenly on 13.04.2013 at the behest of her

parents, respondent went to Bhuli along with both their children and

in spite of his repeated persuasion, she did not agree to come to

Ranchi and on the contrary, respondent started pressurizing him to

come and live in Bhuli and bear all the expenses, since he had no

other remedy, had to file MTS 197/2013 in Family Court for

restitution of conjugal rights, which was allowed in his favour on

11.11.2016. He has stated that respondent made up a false and

fabricated story against him and filed a C.P Case No. 1205/2013 u/s

498A, 323 and 506 IPC in the court of Ld. Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Dhanbad and thereafter he and his relatives and well-

[2026:JHHC:32489-DB]

Page | 11

wishers tried hard to convince the respondent to come and stay with

him in Ranchi along with their children but the respondent

remained adamant on staying in Dhanbad. He has stated that during

the hearing of ABA No. 708/2014 during the mediation in

JHALSA, the respondent agreed live with him but later on the

respondent refused to live with him and after much persuasion by

him and his well-wishers, the respondent agreed to stay with him in

Ranchi along with his younger son Rohit and he got Rohit admitted

in the school by paying Rs.10,000/- as school admission fee and

other expenses and due to non-cooperation attitude of respondent,

he and his children are facing a lot of trouble. He has stated that

when his mother passed away in her native village, they all went to

her native village for her last rites but from there respondent came

to Ranchi, got Rohit Kumar out of school and went to her maternal

home. He has stated that since a settlement was reached in M.P.

Case No. 104/2014 and the respondent promised to withdraw all the

cases, therefore he did not file his reply in said case whereas he is

fully complying with the order of this Ld. Court and regularly

paying Rs.16,000/- per month including Rs.10,000/- as previous

dues to the respondent which is directly deducted from his salary

and transferred to the bank account of the respondent and after the

mediation respondent had agreed that she would withdraw all the

cases but in spite of that she continued to pursue M.P. Case

No.104/2014. He always tried to get the respondent to come and

stay with him but there was no positive result and ultimately in

August, 2015 respondent went to her parental house with their

[2026:JHHC:32489-DB]

Page | 12

children. He has stated that respondent has not complied with the

decision of the learned court passed in the original case MTS

No.197/2013 dated 11.11.2016 and till date she did not come to his

house and she is living separately from him in Dhanbad for more

than 7 years without any valid reason. He has stated that respondent

does not want to live with him without any valid reason and due to

the attitude of respondent, restoration of marital life is no longer

possible and prayed to dissolve his marriage.

In his cross examination he has stated that after marriage

they lived together at Ranchi for two years and thereafter

respondent started living at her maika. He has stated that respondent

filed a case of dowry harassment against him in the year 2013 and

compromise took place and he was granted bail by the High Court

and in the settlement, it was agreed that he would keep his wife

peacefully. After that, the respondent came and lived whole day and

at 10:00 pm in the night she went to Dhanbad by Pataliputra express

train. He has stated that he had filed M.TS. Case No. 197/2013 for

restitution of conjugal right in which ex-parte order was passed in

his favour. He has stated that respondent had filed a maintenance

case in the year 2014 in Dhanbad in which order was passed

directing him to pay Rs. 6,000/- per month as maintenance to the

respondent. The High Court has been pleased to dismiss his

application and thereafter from 2021, he started giving maintenance

to the respondent He has not solemnized second marriage and after

marriage he lived with his wife for 17-18 years.

[2026:JHHC:32489-DB]

Page | 13

(ii) P.W.2, Anuradha Ranjan has supported the case of appellant in her

examination in chief and has stated more or less the similar version

as stated by appellant in his evidence. On repeated call no one turn

up to cross examine this witness.

26. The respondent-wife has also been examined as D.W.-1. For ready

reference, her evidence is being referred as under:

(i) D.W.-1, Rita Devi who is respondent herself has stated in her

affidavited examination-in-chief that the respondent is the legally

wedded wife of appellant and their marriage was solemnized on

11.09.1995 at Jehanabad and out of the said wedlock two male

children were born namely Ankur Kumar now aged about 15 years

and one Rohit Kumar aged about 12 years, after few years of

marriage physical assault and torture was started by appellant upon

respondent for non-fulfillment of dowry demands then respondent

had also filed a complaint case in the court of C.J.M., Dhanbad,

against the appellant being C.P. Case no. 1205/2013 u/s 498 (A),

323, 506 of I.P.C for the assault and ousting of the respondent from

her matrimonial house on the non-fulfillment of the illegal demands

of the appellant. The respondent was driven out of her matrimonial

house with their two sons in the year 2013 by the appellant and

thereafter she had taken shelter at the house of her retired old father

at Dhanbad. She has stated that during the pendency of C.P. Case

no.1205/2013, compromise took place at the mediation Centre,

JHALSA on 24.06.15 in A.B.A. no. 708/14 and in accordance with

the compromise, the respondent went to her matrimonial house but

[2026:JHHC:32489-DB]

Page | 14

again assault and torture was repeated by the appellant and only

after few days the respondent was ousted from her matrimonial

house at the mercy of her old father at Dhanbad. The only intention

of the appellant for entering into a settlement at the mediation

centre was to obtain the Anticipatory bail, by misleading the High

Court in the garb of mediation. Since the respondent was again

ousted from her matrimonial house by appellant with their two

minor kids after obtaining anticipatory bail from the High Court

then she had taken shelter at her old father house at Dhanbad but

since she had no source of income to fulfill the basic need of herself

and her two kids and the situation was near to starve for herself and

both the children, the respondent for her survival had filed a

Maintenance Petition No.104 of 2014 u/s 125 Cr.P.C. before the

Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhanbad for getting a

monthly maintenance allowance from the appellant wherein the

learned family Court at Dhanbad, after considering the

circumvolving facts and circumstances of the case, passed an

appropriate order of maintenance to the respondent vide order dated

10.06.2016 in M.P. no. 104/2014, whereby and where under, he has

been pleased to allow the maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month

from the date of application i.e. on 01.04.2014, payable to petitioner

wife and further Rs.1,000/- to each son till they attain majority. She

has stated that respondent in her evidence before the learned Family

Court in Maintenance Petition No. 104 of 2014, has narrated the

entire story of assault, torture and further ousting her from the

matrimonial house twice by the appellant. The appellant had

[2026:JHHC:32489-DB]

Page | 15

challenged the order of maintenance at Jharkhand High Court in Cr.

Rev. No. 1043 of 2016, which was dismissed vide order dated

01.07.2020 and on her identification copy of order of said Cr. Rev.

No. 1043/2016 has been marked "X" for identification. She has

stated that nevertheless the harassment of the respondent did not

end here. The appellant has filed the present Divorce petition before

this learned Court making false allegation upon the respondent.

That the very Divorce petition indicates the intention of the

appellant in releasing himself from all kind of family

responsibilities and live a liability free life. He has stated that there

is no cruelty made out against the appellant rather the appellant has

several criminal antecedents to show the cruelty being made on the

respondent on several occasions with frivolous allegations to seek

divorce from the respondent. The respondent is victim in the hands

of the appellant throughout her matrimonial life and till date. The

appellant has never given respect and love to the respondent as his

wife and broken all sacred bonding of marriage and the respondent

wife has remained a silent victim in this relationship. However, the

respondent has all the respect for this sacred relationship and would

never want to break the same. The respondent has always tried her

best to keep the appellant happy in this matrimonial relationship but

the greedy and cruel nature of the appellant never made this

matrimonial relationship grow in peace and always tried to disturb

and exploit the respondent and thus this application has no merit

and has only been filed to satisfy the ego of the appellant and to

[2026:JHHC:32489-DB]

Page | 16

harass the respondent and two minor children in multiplicity of

litigations.

In her cross examination she has stated that her marriage

was solemnized with Mithilesh Kumar with consent of her parents

at Jehanabad and at the time of marriage her father was working in

BCCL at Dhanbad and she was living with her parents at BCCL

colony at Dhanbad. After marriage she lived in her Sasural first

time for six months and after that she went to her maika and after

1½ months she again came to her Sasural and thereafter she does

not remember when she visited her maika but it was continued. She

has stated that their both the sons were born at Dhanbad at her

maika. Her father has retired in the year 2014 and presently she is

living with her father in quarter at Dhanbad. She wants to live with

her husband but he used to assault her. She has stated that presently

her husband is working in Railway and he joined in the year 2009

and after joining of her husband she lived with him for 3-4 years

with him. She has not complained regarding assault to her at any

police station and since 2015 till today she has not tried to meet

with her husband or live with him. She is getting maintenance

Rs.16,000/- per month and she has never come to Ranchi to settle

with Mithilesh. She has denied that in the year 2013 she left her

husband and went to her maika without any reason. She has not

gone at last rituals of her mother-in-law. She has stated that during

pendency of maintenance case as well as complaint case

no.1205/2013 no compromise between them took place. She has

stated that during course of hearing of ABA No. 708/2014

[2026:JHHC:32489-DB]

Page | 17

compromise took place between them at JHALSA where her

husband has agreed to keep her and their children peacefully and on

the basis of compromise, she went to her Sasural with her younger

son where admission of her younger son was made in the school

and she does not know what expenses was incurred at the time of

admission. She does not know at present where her husband is

posted. Her father-in-law died in the year 2013 and she did not go at

the time of his last rituals and when her father-in-law died at that

time complaint case was pending. She wants to live with her

husband. She has denied that she does not want to fulfill her

matrimonial obligation with her husband. Her elder son is studying

and he is not doing any work. She wants to live with her husband

but there is threat of her life and life of their children. She is living

separately from her husband since 2013. She is getting maintenance

of Rs. 16,000/- per month (Rs. 6,000/- for herself and Rs. 10,000/-

for her children).

27. The learned Family Judge after assessing 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 appellant has not been able to prove

the case against the respondent even to the extent of preponderance of

probabilities and accordingly dismissed the said suit against which the

present appeal has been filed.

28. The learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner has argued that the

evidence put forth before the learned Family Court has not properly been

[2026:JHHC:32489-DB]

Page | 18

considered and as such, the judgment suffers from perversity, hence, not

sustainable in the eyes of law.

29. While on the other hand, argument has been advanced on behalf of the

respondent has submitted that the judgment is well considered one and

merely by committing fraud, the suit for divorce has been filed.

30. This Court while appreciating the argument advanced on behalf of the

parties on the issue of perversity needs to refer herein the interpretation of

the word “perverse” as has been interpreted by the Hon'ble Apex Court

which means that there is no evidence or erroneous consideration of the

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

[Represented by the Public Prosecutor] and Anr., (2009) 10 SCC 206

while elaborately discussing the word perverse has held that it is, no

doubt, true that if a finding of fact is arrived at by ignoring or excluding

relevant material or by taking into consideration irrelevant material or if

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

irrationality incurring the blame of being perverse, then, the finding is

rendered infirm in law. Relevant paragraphs, i.e., paras-24, 25, 26 and 27

of the said judgment reads as under:

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

of cases. In Gaya Din v. Hanuman Prasad [(2001) 1 SCC 501]

this Court observed that the expression “perverse” means that

the findings of the subordinate authority are not supported by

the evidence brought on record or they are against the law or

suffer from the vice of procedural irregularity.

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

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

finding” means a finding which is not only against the weight of

evidence but is altogether against the evidence itself. In Triveni

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

[2026:JHHC:32489-DB]

Page | 19

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:32489-DB]

Page | 20

“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.””

31. Thus, from the aforesaid, it is evident that any order said to be perverse 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.

32. Thus, "perversity" refers to a finding or decision so unreasonable or

irrational that no reasonable person acting judicially could have reached it.

It signifies a gross and unreasonable assessment of evidence or law by a

court.

33. Further Perversity is a high threshold for intervention, distinguishing it

from a mere error of fact or law. The "safest approach on perversity is the

classic approach on the reasonable man's inference on the facts but

inadequacy of evidence or a different reading of evidence is not

perversity, reference in this regard be made to the judgment rendered by

the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Damodar Lal v. Sohan Devi,

(2016) 14 SCC 197.

34. It needs to refer herein that since appellate jurisdiction has been invoked

herein, therefore, before entering into merit of the case, at this juncture it

would be purposeful to discuss the appellate jurisdiction of the High

Court.

35. 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

[2026:JHHC:32489-DB]

Page | 21

time being in force in respect of suits and proceedings of the nature which

are described in the explanation to section 7(1).

36. Sub-section (1) to section 19 of the Family Courts Act provides that an

appeal shall lie from every judgment or order not being an interlocutory

order of a Family Court to the High Court "both on facts and on law".

Therefore, section 19 of the Family Courts Act is parallel to section 96 of the

Code of Civil Procedure, the scope of which has been dealt with by the

Hon'ble Apex Court in series of judgments.

37. 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:

“It is no doubt true that the High Court was exercising power

as the first appellate court and hence it was open to the Court to

enter into not only questions of law but questions of fact as well.

It is settled law that an appeal is a continuation of suit. An

appeal thus is a rehearing of the main matter and the appellate

court can reappraise, reappreciate and review the entire

evidence--oral as well as documentary--and can come to its own

conclusion.”

38. Further, it needs 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

[2026:JHHC:32489-DB]

Page | 22

considers its existence so probable that a prudent man under the

circumstances 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 like this.

39. 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.

40. 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.

41. Since this Court is 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.

42. It is an admitted position that the appellant has preferred the suit for

dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1-A) (ii) of the Hindu Marriage

Act, 1955, asserting that the decree for restitution of conjugal rights,

passed earlier, has not complied with by the respondent-wife.

43. In order to appreciate the aforesaid ground, it would be apt to refer herein

the Section 13(1-A) (ii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955:

[2026:JHHC:32489-DB]

Page | 23

((1A)Either party to a marriage, whether solemnised before or

after the commencement of this Act, may also present a petition

for the dissolution of the marriage by a decree of divorce on the

ground

--------

(ii)that there has been no restitution of conjugal rights as

between the parties to the marriage for a period of [one year or

upwards after the passing of a decree for restitution of conjugal

rights in a proceeding to which they were parties.]”

44. Thus, from the aforesaid it is evident that Section 13(1-A)(ii) of the Hindu

Marriage Act, 1955 confers an independent right upon either spouse to

seek dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce where, despite the

passing of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights, there has been no

resumption of cohabitation between the parties for a continuous period of

one year or more thereafter. The legislative intent behind the provision is

that when a decree for restitution of conjugal rights fails to achieve its

object of restoring matrimonial harmony and the parties continue to live

separately even after the decree, the marriage may be treated as having

irretrievably broken down in substance. The continued non-restoration of

conjugal relations for the statutory period constitutes a valid ground for

seeking divorce, irrespective of which party had initially obtained the

decree for restitution of conjugal rights.

45. Thus, Section 13 (1A) (ii) of the Act 1955, provides that in case there is

no restitution of conjugal rights despite a Decree under section 9 of Act

1955 for a period of one year, either party can seek dissolution of

marriage.

46. In the backdrop of the aforesaid factual and legal circumstances, this

Court has carefully examined the impugned judgment and decree passed

by the learned Family Court in order to ascertain whether the findings

[2026:JHHC:32489-DB]

Page | 24

recorded therein suffer from perversity, arbitrariness, or any patent

illegality warranting interference in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction.

47. Admittedly, the respondent is the legally wedded wife of the appellant,

and their marriage was solemnized on 11.05.1995 at Jehanabad, Bihar, in

accordance with Hindu rites and customs. It is also an admitted position

that out of the said wedlock, two sons were born, both of whom are

presently residing with the respondent-mother.

48. The evidence adduced by the respective parties reveals that the appellant

had instituted a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955,

being M.T.S. No. 197 of 2013, before the Family Court at Ranchi, seeking

restitution of conjugal rights. The said proceeding ultimately culminated

in an ex parte decree in favour of the appellant on 11.11.2016.

49. The records further disclose that the respondent-wife had instituted

Complaint Case No. 1205 of 2013 under Section 498A of the Indian Penal

Code and allied provisions against the appellant. In connection therewith,

the appellant had preferred A.B.A. No. 708 of 2014 before this Court

seeking anticipatory bail. During the pendency of the said proceeding, the

dispute between the parties was referred to the Mediation Centre,

JHALSA, where an amicable settlement was arrived at and both parties

agreed to resume cohabitation along with their children. It is the case of

the appellant that only after considerable persuasion by him and his family

members, the respondent, along with their younger son, came to Ranchi,

whereupon he secured the admission of the child in a school.

50. It is the further case of the appellant that, during the aforesaid period, his

mother passed away at their native village. The appellant proceeded to

attend her funeral rites and requested the respondent to accompany him

[2026:JHHC:32489-DB]

Page | 25

with their children. However, instead of attending the funeral of her

mother-in-law, the respondent allegedly left for her parental home along

with the children without informing the appellant.

51. Per contra, the respondent has asserted that the settlement before the

Mediation Centre, JHALSA, was entered into by the appellant only with a

view to securing anticipatory bail and that, after she returned to her

matrimonial home pursuant thereto, she was once again subjected to

torture and humiliation. According to her, being left with no alternative,

she returned to her parental home along with her minor children and, with

the assistance of her aged retired father, pursued Maintenance Petition

No.104 of 2014 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Principal Judge,

Family Court, Dhanbad. The said proceeding was allowed vide order

dated 10.06.2016, whereby the appellant was directed to pay maintenance

of Rs.6,000/- per month to the respondent and their children.

52. It is evident from record that the appellant had challenged the order passed

in the maintenance proceeding by filing Criminal Revision No. 1043 of

2016 before this Court, which came to be dismissed on 01.07.2020 and

only after dismissal of the said revision petition, the appellant commenced

payment of maintenance to the respondent and the children. Thus, from

the aforesaid factual aspect it is apparent that such conduct reflects the

appellant's lack of concern towards the maintenance and educational needs

of his wife and children.

53. It is evident from record that although M.T.S. No. 197 of 2013 was

decreed ex-parte on 11.11.2016, the suit before the learned Family Court

for dissolution of marriage had been instituted by the appellant on

[2026:JHHC:32489-DB]

Page | 26

29.04.2019, i.e., after a lapse of more than two and a half years from the

date of the decree.

54. Further it is evident from the impugned judgment that the learned Family

Court has also noted the aforesaid factual aspect while passing the

impugned judgment and has observed that no material was brought on

record by the appellant to demonstrate that he had taken any steps

whatsoever to execute or enforce the decree for restitution of conjugal

rights with a bona fide intention of restoring matrimonial cohabitation

with the respondent.

55. It needs to refer herein that the judgment rendered in M.T.S. No. 197 of

2013 does not reflect any disclosure by the appellant regarding the

settlement arrived at before the Mediation Centre, JHALSA, or the fact

that the parties had resided together for a certain period during the

pendency of the said proceeding.

56. On the other hand, the respondent, in her oral testimony before the learned

Family Court, categorically asserted that she had no knowledge of the ex

parte judgment and decree passed in M.T.S. No. 197 of 2013.

57. The learned family Court has taken into consideration the aforesaid

factual aspect also and has observed that there was no material on record

to establish that the respondent had ever been made aware of the said

decree, nor had the appellant produced any documentary evidence to

prove such knowledge on her part.

58. Further from the impugned judgment it is evident that the respondent, in

clear and unequivocal terms, stated in her deposition that she is willing to

reside with the appellant.

[2026:JHHC:32489-DB]

Page | 27

59. The aforesaid factual aspect led the learned Family Court, to drew an

inference that the respondent's separate residence was neither deliberate

nor motivated by an intention to permanently terminate cohabitation.

Rather, such separation was held to be a consequence of compelling

circumstances arising out of prolonged matrimonial discord and

continuous litigation between the parties, which had rendered their

relationship strained and non-cordial.

60. It is evident from perusal of the impugned judgment that the learned

Family Court based upon the aforesaid circumstances has concluded that

the appellant (petitioner therein) failed to adduce any cogent and

trustworthy evidence to establish that the respondent-wife, despite having

knowledge of the judgment and decree passed in M.T.S. No. 197 of 2013,

had wilfully refused to resume matrimonial life with him. In the absence

of any such evidence, the allegation that the respondent had deliberately

declined to comply with the decree for restitution of conjugal rights was

held to be unsubstantiated.

61. Thus, based upon the discussion made hereinabove, this Court, is of the

considered view, that the appellant has not adduced any cogent and

reliable evidence that the respondent-wife had not resumed her conjugal

life with the appellant despite knowing about the judgement and decree

passed in M.T.S. No. 197/2013.

62. Further, in the facts of the present case, although the factum of separation

between the parties stands established, the appellant has failed to prove

that the respondent had the requisite intention to bring matrimonial

cohabitation permanently to an end. The evidence available on record

does not disclose the existence of animus deserendi on the part of the

[2026:JHHC:32489-DB]

Page | 28

respondent. Rather, the materials on record, including her categorical

assertion expressing willingness to reside with the appellant, indicate that

her separate residence was not driven by an intention to forsake the

marital relationship permanently, but was a consequence of the prevailing

circumstances. As such, one of the essential ingredients constituting

desertion remains unproved, and the plea of desertion advanced by the

appellant cannot be said to have been established in accordance with law.

63. This Court, based upon the aforesaid discussion, is of the view that the

appellant/petitioner has failed to establish the element of perversity in the

impugned judgment as per the discussion made hereinabove, as such, the

instant appeal deserves to be dismissed.

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

65. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

I agree,

(Akhil Kumar, J.) (Akhil Kumar, J.)

5

th

November, 2026

Saurabh/

A.F.R.

Uploaded on 05.11.2026