2026:JHHC:21857-DB

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

First Appeal No.138 of 2025

Narayan Abhishek @ Rajeshranjan Yadav, aged about 55

years, son of Late Kalicharan Yadav, resident of Opposite

Block No.1, Bariatu Housing Colony, P.O. Bariatu, P.S.

Bariatu, District Ranchi, Jharkhand.

… … Petitioner/Appellant

Versus

Priti Kumari, aged about 37 years, daughter of Devendra

Prasad Yadav, resident of Khoja Bazaar, P.O. Munger,

P.S. Kasim Bazaar, District Munger, Bihar.

…Opp. Party/Respondents

-------

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

-------

For the Appellant : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate

Mr. Ashwini Priya, Advocate

Mr. Souma Ranjan Mukherjee, Advocate

Mr. Kaushik Chakraborty, Advocate

For the Respondent: Mr. Ravi, Advocate

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

C.A.V. on 23

rd

June, 2026 Pronounced on 23/07/2026

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 24.04.2025

and decree dated 01.05.2025 , passed by the learned

Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court-II,

Ranchi in Original (M.T.S) Suit No. 372 of 2020, whereby

and whereunder, the suit filed by the appellant- husband for

dissolution of marriage by decree of divorce u/s 13(1)(ia) of

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 against respondent-wife, has been

dismissed.

2026:JHHC:21857-DB

2

Factual Aspect

2. In brief, the appellant's case, as per Original Matrimonial

Suit, is that prior to filing of Original (M.T.S) Suit No. 372 of

2020, the appellant had filed application for annulment of

marriage by filing Original Suit (M.T.S.) Case No. 841/2019

which has been withdrawn vide order dated 21/08/2020

with a liberty to file fresh one.

3. Accordingly, Original (M.T.S) Suit No. 372 of 2020 has been

filed, the subject matter of present appeal, for decree of

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

1955.

4. The marriage of the appellant was solemnized with the

opposite party at Baba Dham Temple, Deoghar on

23.05.2019 following Hindu Rites and Rituals. The marriage

of the appellant and the opposite party-respondent was an

arranged one and families of both participated in the

ceremony of the marriage. After completion of the

ceremonies, the opposite party-respondent went to the

matrimonial home of the appellant at Ranchi on 24.05.2019.

After returning to the matrimonial home of the

applicant/appellant, the marriage of the appellant and the

opposite party-respondent was never consummated.

5. It has been alleged that the behavior of the opposite party-

respondent was quite abnormal towards the

applicant/appellant and the family members of the applicant

2026:JHHC:21857-DB

3

as she was very aggressive and abusive in nature. There

were constant quarrels between the opposite party -

respondent and the family members of the appellant leading

to physical assaults.

6. The appellant tried a couple of times to restore the conjugal

life with the opposite party/wife. It is submitted that on

02.06.2019 the appellant and the opposite party-respondent

went to Sahebganj to attend one marriage and the opposite

party-respondent insisted to attend one marriage of her own

cousin, so she went along with the appellant to Sahebganj

and from there, she went to Munger with her maternal

uncle. The opposite party- appellant had to attend the

marriage of her cousin on or about 24.06.019 and was

supposed to return after one week post the marriage. After

dropping her at Sahebganj, the appellant, returned to his

home at Ranchi. When the marriage of the cousin of the

opposite party-respondent was over, the applicant/appellant

requested the opposite party to return to the matrimonial

home at Ranchi, but the opposite party-respondent flatly

refused the same. The applicant several times requested the

opposite party-respondent to return to Ranchi and continue

her marital life with the applicant, but all the efforts of the

applicant went in vain and the opposite party ne ver

returned.

2026:JHHC:21857-DB

4

7. The family members of both the applicant and opposite

party-respondent took endeavors to restore the marital life of

the applicant and the opposite party-restore but due to the

rigidity and mental block of the opposite party with respect

to the consummation of marriage, the same couldn't be

done. Till date, the opposite party-respondent has not

returned from her parental home to the matrimonial home

just in order to avoid any such physical contact with the

appellant. The conduct of the opposite party-respondent was

also cruel towards the present appellant and his family

members. The opposite party -respondent gets infuriated

soon and gets indulged in physical assaults. The opposite

party-respondent has on occasions assaulted and abused

the old ailing mother of the appellant and also his sisters.

Whenever the appellant intended to restore the conjugal life,

the opposite party-respondent turned abusive in nature and

has assaulted him. There has been constant threatening on

her part with respect to false implication of the present

appellant and his family members in criminal cases. The

mother of the appellant is totally dependent on him and the

opposite party's adamancy and apathetic behavior towards

her adds to the cruelty inflicted by her. The appellant to all

endeavors to pacify the entire issue and but miserably failed.

The verbal abuses, physical assaults on appellant and his

family members, the threatening for implication in false

2026:JHHC:21857-DB

5

criminal cases and deprivation from conjugal life; collectively

constitutes to cruelty as entailed under the Hindu Marriage

Act.

8. In the backdrop of the aforesaid factual aspect, it has been

submitted by the appellant/petitioner before the Family

Court that the appellant is entitled to get a decree of divorce

from the opposite party on grounds of cruelty. It has further

been submitted that the opposite party-respondent till date

has not returned to the matrimonial home and is still not

willing to continue conjugal life and the cause of action for

filling present suit is 5/9/2020 and 8/9/2020.

9. On being noticed by the learned Family Court the opposite

party / respondent appeared and has filed her written -

statement stating therein that the suit is not maintainable

and fit to be dismissed. There was no cause of action for

institution of the suit, and the cause of action as mentioned

in the plaint is imaginary, baseless and fit to be rejected.

10. The marriage of the applicant Narayan Abhishek and Opp.

Party-respondent was an arranged marriage and it was

solemnized on 23.05.2019, according to the rites and

customs of Hindus at the Sri Baidyanath Temple at Deoghar

and after marriage in the night, on subsequent early

morning both bride and bride-groom alongwith their family

members, proceeded for their houses. The family and

relatives of Opp. Party-respondent went to their native

2026:JHHC:21857-DB

6

village-Khoja Bazar at Munger District, and the family

members and relatives of the appellant along with the Bride

and Bride-Groom at Bariyatu Housing Colony Ranchi. One

of the brother of Opp. Party-respondent Sunny Kumar also

accompanied the bride to her sasural and he remained their

till the reception party in the night of 26th May. In the night

between 24th and 25th May 2019 both bride and bride-

groom enjoyed their Suhagrat at the house of applicant at

Bariyatu, Ranchi. It is also a fact that on 26th May 2019 a

reception party was organized at IMA Marriage Hall, at

Morabadi, Ranchi and till 1st June 2019 th e appellant

enjoyed physical relation with the Opp. Party-respondent to

the extent of his full satisfaction.

11. It is further stated that the appellant and his family

members started demanding more dowry. It is submitted

that the respondent spent a week at her Sasural in a

humiliating atmosphere. After a week on 02.06.2019 the

applicant was to attain a marriage invitation in a village

Mahadevganj, his Maternal grandmother's house, nearby

Sahebganj and the Opp. Party was also told to accompany

him in the marriage invitation. When the appellant reached

Sahebganj alongwith his wife, he called her maternal uncle

by a telephonic call at Sahebganj, and the Opp. Party-

respondent was handed over to her maternal uncle Sanjay

Kumar, saying that she is newly wedded bride, nobody is

2026:JHHC:21857-DB

7

known to herself at village Mahadevgaj, she will feel

monotonous, so at present you took her with yourself to

Bakiya-Dira, and when on return journey he will come to

Bakiya-Dira, he will accompany her with him.

12. Since then, the applicant did not come back either to

Bakhiya-Dira or Sahebganj and by that time the Opp. Party

is living at her parent's house at village-Khoja Bazar,

District-Munger. It is submitted that when nobody of her

Sasural went to the parent's house of the Opp. Party -

respondent to bring her then ultimately on 24.03.2021 the

Opp. Party along with her brother Sunny came to Ranchi

and went to her Sasural, but nobody opened the door and

allowed the respondent to enter into the house. Then the

respondent along with her brother went to Bariyatu Police

Station and stated the entire fact then Bariyatu Police called

upon the family members of the appellant and tried their

best to conciliate the matter but the family members of the

applicant were adamant not to accept the Opp. Party in their

house and ultimately the respondent and her brother spent

their night at Aditya Hotel at Bariyatu, and on subsequent

morning both brother sister returned to their house.

13. It is further contended that it is a matter of great surprise

that just after few months of the marriage, the appellant

filed an application on 19.12.2019 under Section 12(a) of the

2026:JHHC:21857-DB

8

Hindu Marriage Act 1955, for declaration of their marriage

void, without any reason and that has been dismissed.

14. The learned family court, on the basis of pleadings of the

parties and after hearing the respective parties and

analyzing the evidence adduced on behalf of both the sides,

held that petitioner-appellant has failed to prove his case on

the ground of cruelty against the respondent (wife) which are

grounds of divorce under Hindu Marriage Act, accordingly

the suit was dismissed.

Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant-husband:

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

factual aspect which was available before the learned family

court supported by the evidences adduced on behalf of the

appellant has not properly been considered and as such, the

judgment impugned is perverse, hence, not sustainable in

the eyes of law.

16. It has been submitted that the issue of cruelty has not been

taken into consideration in right perspective.

17. Submission has been made that the learned Family Court,

has failed to appreciate that the appellant's sister who was

examined as P.W.1 has fully supp orted the case of the

appellant, who has deposed in her evidence that after

marriage the relationship of the respondent with the

appellant was abusive and the respondent used to often

2026:JHHC:21857-DB

9

misbehave with the appellant. On 02.06.2019, the appellant

and respondent went to Sahebganj to attend a marri age

ceremony but the respondent left to Munger to attend

another marriage on 24.06.2019 with her maternal uncle

and thereafter never returned back.

18. Further in the cross examination P.W. 1, the appellant's

sister has further deposed about the incident occurred on

24.03.2021, wherein she has categorically stated that the

respondent had returned to her matrimonial home only to

assault appellant's family members and had no intention of

residing with them. P.W. 1 further deposed that they had

informed the nearest Police Station regarding the incident

dated 24.03.2021.

19. Further, P.W.2 the appellant himself, has deposed that after

the marriage, the respondent had bad temperament and

used to often quarrel with appellant and his family

members. After the marriage, the respondent resided with

the appellant only for 8 to 9 days and thereafter left for her

parental home and never came back to her matrimonial

home, but that piece of evidence has not been appreciated

by learned family court. P.W.2, the appellant has further

deposed that on 24.03.2021, the respondent suddenly came

to her matrimonial home along with her brother and

physically abused and assaulted appellant's mother and

sisters and thereafter left the matrimonial home with all her

2026:JHHC:21857-DB

10

belongings. The said incident was informed to the nearest

police station, Bariatu Police Station. Thereafter, when no

action was taken against the respondent, the appellant on

20.04.2021, filed a Complaint case being Complaint Case

No. 2941 of 2021 against the respondent and her family

members. Accordingly, the Learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st

Class- XXI, Ranchi in Complaint Case No. 2941 of 2021, vide

order dated 02.12.2022 took cognizance of the offence under

Sections 323, 379, 341, 447, 448 and 34 of the Indian Penal

Code against the respondent and her family members. But

that aspect of the matter has not been appreciated by

learned family court.

20. Further, the learned Family Court, Ranchi, failed to

appreciate that O.P.W.1, the respondent herself, at para no.

28 of her evidence has deposed that marriage was not

consummated on 24.05.2019. It is an admitted position that

the marriage was not consummated and the refusal by the

respondent to consummate marriage caused mental cruelty

to the appellant.

21. Further submission has been made that after 02.06.2019,

the respondent never showed any inclination to return to the

matrimonial home and she never had any intention to start

cohabiting with the appellant.

22. It has been contended that the evidence adduced by the

respondent does not disclose any effort made by her to

2026:JHHC:21857-DB

11

resume the matrimonial relationship and also, she has not

filed any petition for restitution of conjugal rights.

23. From the evidence adduced by the respondent itself, an

inference can be drawn that there was animus deserendi on

the part of the respondent and she has not pleaded or

established any reasonable cause for remaining away from

her matrimonial home.

24. Further, the learned Family Court, also failed to appreciate

that even when the appellant husband makes an offer to

resume the marital relationship and the respondent wife

without any reasonable cause, failing to resume

cohabitation, it would amount to constructive desertion.

25. It has submitted that both the parties are living separately

since 02.06.2019 i.e. more than six years which i tself

amounts to cruelty under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu

Marriage Act, 1955.

26. It has been submitted that on the date of the alleged

incident on 24.03.2021 the appellant was not present in the

house when the respondent and her family members

attacked the appellant's mother and sisters.

27. Referring to the judgment rendered by Hon‟ble Apex Court in

the case of Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh, submission has

been made that in that case, it has been observed that

mental cruelty includes "where there has been a long period

of continuous separation, it may fairly be concluded that the

2026:JHHC:21857-DB

12

matrimonial bond is beyond repair and the marriage becomes

a fiction though supported by a legal tie, it may lead to mental

cruelty". Similarly in this case also the marriage solemnized

between the parties on 23.05.2019 and they are living

separately since 02.06.2019, their marriage never

consummated and all the reasons stated above amount to

cruelty. In the case at hand, the marriage had lasted hardly

for few days and was never consummated on the account of

the fact that the respondent has incapable of performing her

matrimonial obligations.

28. Submission has been made that the learned family judge

has discarded the evidence of the appellant even though

there is no question on behalf of the respondent in course of

the cross-examination that why the earlier suit was filed by

taking aid of Section 12 (a) of Act 1955 and later on the suit

for dissolution of marriage was filed on the ground of

cruelty. Submission has been made that rule of putting

one‟s version in cross-examination is one of essential justice

and nor merely technical one. In this regard reference has

been made to the judgment rendered by Hon‟ble Apex Court

in the case of Arvind Singh Vs. State of Maharas htra

[(2021) 11 SCC 1].

29. Desertion has fully been proved if the entire evidence will be

taken into consideration since it is the respondent who has

2026:JHHC:21857-DB

13

left the matrimonial house parting away from the life of the

appellant.

30. Attention has been drawn towards the statement of the

respondent having been recorded in course of cross -

examination that she can part away from the life of the

appellant subject to make payment of one crore, house etc.

Therefore, submission has been made that the said evidence

itself clarifies that the respondent only in order to get the

sufficient amount has solemnized the marriage.

31. Submission has been made that the parties are living

separately for a long period of time and there is no chance of

restoration of conjugal right, but this aspect of the matter

has also not been taken into consideration while passing the

impugned judgment , therefore, the same requires

interference by this Court.

32. Submission has been made that the relationship of husband

and wife is on the thread of trust which itself has been

broken and there is no chance of re-union.

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

grounds, has submitted that the judgment impugned suffers

from perversity, as such, is not sustainable in the eyes of

law.

Submission on behalf of respondent-wife

34. While on the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent

has submitted that it is a case where there is no error in the

2026:JHHC:21857-DB

14

impugned judgment reason being that the evidence in

entirety of all the witnesses has been taken into

consideration.

35. The marriage was solemnized on 23.05.2019 and

immediately after six months the suit has been filed to get

the declaration of nullity of marriage by filing application

under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 but due to

the rider as referred under Section 14 of the Hindu Marriage

Act, 1955 the same was withdrawn with the liberty to file

fresh suit.

36. It has been contended that immediately after six months the

fresh suit has been filed, in which, the impugned judgment

has been passed now making departure from the ground

which was there in the earlier suit and this time a suit for

dissolution of marriage has been filed on the ground of

cruelty by filing application under Section 13 1(i-a).

37. The argument has been advanced that it has come in the

evidence of the appellant that he somehow wants to get rid

of his wife and therefore, immediately after six months from

the date of solemnization of marriage, the first suit was filed

and assessing the situation that ground which has been

taken for getting the declaration of nullity of marriage is

quite impossible to be proved then the same was withdrawn

and second suit being the present one has been filed on the

ground of cruelty.

2026:JHHC:21857-DB

15

38. It has come in the evidence that after solemnization of

marriage she has rushed to attend the marriage in the house

of the relatives of the appellants but he was not allowed to

participate rather she has been handed over to her maternal

uncle in order to keep in his house.

39. Even after solemnization of the marriage when the appellant

has reached he has asked the maternal uncle to go in the

paternal house with the maternal uncle. Therefore, it has

been contended that it is not being proved that the

respondent has parted away the appellant rather it is the

appellant who has forced her to go out of the matrimonial

house.

40. The allegation of assault has been leveled when the

respondent has come to the matrimonial house but she was

not allowed to enter in the house and a false allegation has

been made by instituting an FIR that the respondent along

with her brother who has come along with the respondent so

that he may reach to the matrimonial house safely but they

have not been allowed to enter.

41. It has been stated in the affidavit that the respondent being

the resident outside Ranchi that is far away place from

Munger, as such it cannot be expected from the outsider to

assault the family members along with the appellants by

entering into their residence.

2026:JHHC:21857-DB

16

42. The learned counsel based upon the aforesaid has submitted

that impugned judgment requires no interference and the

appeal is fit to be dismissed.

Response:

43. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel in response has

submitted on the argument advanced on behalf of the

appellant that the departure which has been made in two

suit i.e., one in the declaration of suit for nullity and second

for grant of decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty cannot

be said fatal rather it can always be available for the plaintiff

to shift the ground.

Analysis:

44. 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 as also the trial court

record.

45. This Court, in order to appreciate the testimony available on

record, has gone through the testimonies of the witnesses,

as available in the impugned order.

46. On behalf of appellant-petitioner following witnesses have

been examined.

47. P.W.-1 Poonam Kumari , deposed that petitioner filed the

case for dissolution of their marriage against the respondent.

The marriage of the petitioner with re spondent was

solemnized on 23.05.2019 according to Hindu rites and

2026:JHHC:21857-DB

17

rituals at Deoghar. After marriage, the respondent came to

matrimonial house at Ranchi and thereafter started living

conjugal life with the petitioner. She deposed that the

relationship of the petitioner with respondent was not good

as the respondent always misbehave with the petitioner. She

deposed that on 02.06.2019 petitioner and respondent went

to Sahebganj for participating in a marriage but the

respondent left the petitioner and went to her maika on

24.06.2019 and since then the respondent resided at her

maika and not return to the matrimonial house. She

deposed that petitioner was taken several efforts to restore

conjugal life with respondent but all the efforts went in vain.

48. In cross-examination, para- 13 deposed that the petitioner

Narayan Abhishek solemnized marriage at the age of 50 and

within one year he filed divorce against the respondent, but

the said fact is not within her knowledge. In para-16 she

deposed that the respondent came to matrimonial house on

24.03.2021 but not ready to reside in the matrimonial house

and only assaulted and beaten the petitioner. In para 21,

she deny that the respondent is ready to reside in the

matrimonial house.

49. P.W-2- Narayan Abhishek @ Rajesh Ran jan Yadav,

petitioner himself, who has deposed that he filed divorce

case against respondent Priti Kumari. He deposed that his

marriage was solemnized with respondent Priti Kumari on

2026:JHHC:21857-DB

18

23.05.2019 according to Hindu rites and rituals at Deoghar

and on 24.05.2019 the respondent came to matrimonial

house at Ranchi. He deposed that after marriage the

behaviour of the respondent was not good with his sister and

mother, and the respondent always entered into quarrel with

them. There was no marriage consummat ed due to ignoring

attitude of respondent. He deposed that on 02.06.2019 he

went to Sahebganj along with respondent to attend marriage

ceremony of his relative and when they reached Sahebganj

with the respondent, respondent called her Mama and went

to Munger without participating in the marriage ceremony

and the respondent undertake that she will return to Ranchi

within a week. He further deposed that the respondent never

return to her matrimonial house. He has taken several

efforts to bring her back in the matrimonial house but all the

efforts went in vain. He deposed that respondent after

marriage only stay at matrimonial house for 8 to 9 days and

during this period the respondent entered into quarrel with

her sister and with her mother. He deposed that on

24.03.2021 the respondent suddenly came along with his

brother and used filthy language against him and also

assaulted and beaten of his mother and sister and

respondent finally left the matrimonial house along with all

belongings, the said information given to police station

Bariatu.

2026:JHHC:21857-DB

19

50. He deposed that he filed criminal complaint against the

respondent and other in-laws, in which warrant has been

issued against them. He identified the order-sheet of the said

case dated 31.07.2023 which marked as Ext.1. Н e has

deposed that all the allegations made in the written

statement are absurd and bundle of lies, the respondent and

his relatives assaulted and beaten him on 24.03.2021 at his

residence and for that a police case lodged. He further

deposed that he had appe ared before the police on

25.03.2021 but the respondent was not appeared.

51. In cross-examination, para 23 deposed that his marriage

was solemnized on 25.05.2019 and he filed divorce case on

19.12.2019 bearing Case O.S. No. 871/2019. In para 28, he

deposed that respondent had resided in the matrimonial

house only for 8 days. In para 32, deposed that on

19.12.2019 he decided to file divorce case against the

respondent. In para - 41, deposed that there was no

evidence to prove that he had taken several efforts to bring

back the respondent.

52. On behalf of Opp. Party-respondent, following witnesses

have been examined.

53. O.P.W. No. 1 Priti Kumari, deposed that her marriage was

solemnized on 23.05.2019 with Narayan Abhishek according

to Hindu rites and rituals at Deoghar. After marriage, she

came to matrimonial house at Ranchi and on 24.05.2019

2026:JHHC:21857-DB

20

the marriage with respondent was consummated. She

deposed that till 01.06.2019 she was resided at Bariatu

housing colony along with her husband/petitioner. She

deposed that she leads a peaceful conjugal life with

petitioner. She further deposed that on 02.06.2019, the

petitioner went to Sahebganj for participating in the

marriage ceremony and the petitioner also took her to

Sahebganj. She deposed that when she reached at

Sahebganj the petitioner called her Mama Sanjay Yadav and

he send her with Sanjay Yadav at her maika. She deposed

that she went to her maika with her Mama upon instruction

of petitioner and the petitioner assured her that he will

return after attending marriage ceremony and took her to

Ranchi. The petitioner never came to her maika and he filed

divorce case bearing O.S. Case No. 841/2019 dated

19.12.2019 U/s- 14 of Hindu Marriage Act. The petitioner

filed the case premature as the one year of mandatory period

was not completed, hence the divorce case was dismissed.

She identified the order-sheet of O.S. Case No. 841/2019.

She deposed that she try her best to stay at her maika. She

deposed that on 24.03.2021 she came to her matrimonial

house along with her younger brother but the petitioner and

their sister not permitted her to enter into matrimonial

house. She deposed that she stay in a hotel with her brother

and on next day return to Munger.

2026:JHHC:21857-DB

21

54. In cross-examination, at para 30 she deposed that she

stayed at matrimonial house till 01.06.2019 and thereafter

on 02.06.2019 she went to her maternal grand -parent's

house and then went to her maika and till date she has been

residing there. In para 32, she deposed that the petitioner

called her Mama and forced to go to her Nani's place and she

went there along with her Mama and thereafter went to her

maika but the petitioner never visited her maika to bring her

back in the matrimonial house. She deposed that she have

taken several efforts to visit and go her matrimonial house

but petitioner and his family not allowed her to enter into

the matrimonial house.

55. O.P.W. No.2 Sanjay Kumar, deposed that the respondent is

her niece and her marriage solemnized on 23.05.2019 with

Narayan Abhishek according to Hindu rites and rituals at

Deoghar. After marriage, the respondent came to her

matrimonial house at Ranchi. There was reception on

26.05.2019 at IMA marriage Hall, Ranchi and he was also

present in the said reception party. The respondent

discharged her matrimonial obligation with all dignities and

respect. He deposed that on 02.06.2019 the petitioner called

him over phone and stated that he was on his way to

Mahadevganj for attending marriage with respondent and he

requested to come at Sahebganj for some urgent talk. He

deposed that after receiving the call, he went to Sahebganj

2026:JHHC:21857-DB

22

and meet with the petitioner and the petitioner requested

him to took her respondent to her Nanihal because she was

new to the marriage place and undertake that after

attending marriage he came there and took her to

matrimonial house. He deposed that according to request of

the petitioner; he took respondent to his residence. He

deposed that the petitioner never came to bring the

respondent at her matrimonial house since 2019 and

thereafter the respondent went to her maika. The petitioner

have two old sisters, they never wanted to return the

respondent at matrimonial house.

56. In cross-examination, para 20 deposed that with the consent

of the party the marriage of the petitioner with respondent

was solemnized. In para 23, he deposed that respondent

Priti Kumari while staying at her matrimonial house

discharged all the matrimonial obligations. In para 29, he

deposed that the respondent Priti Kumari has been staying

separately with the petitioner at her maika and in para-30

deposed that the petitioner always keep his mobile switched

off and also block his number.

57. On the basis of the pleading of the parties, the learned

Principal Family Judge after appreciating the ocular

evidence, dismissed the suit filed by the appellant-husband

for dissolution of marriage by decree of divorce u/s 13(1)(i-a)

2026:JHHC:21857-DB

23

of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 against respondent/husband,

against which the present appeal has been preferred.

58. 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.

59. 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).

60. 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.

61. 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

2026:JHHC:21857-DB

24

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.”

62. Herein, the learned counsel for the appellant has argued

that the evidence of cruelty as also the demand of dowry has

not properly been considered and as such, the judgment

suffers from perversity, hence, not sustainable in the eyes of

law.

63. From the pleadings available on record and the arguments

advanced by the learned counsel, the issue which requires

consideration is as to:

“Whether the judgment and decree passed by the

learned family court denying the decree of divorce on

the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the

Hindu Marriage Act requires interference?”

2026:JHHC:21857-DB

25

64. This Court, while appreciating the argument advanced on

behalf of learned counsel on the issue of perversity, needs to

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

been interpreted by the Hon'ble Apex Court which means

that there is no evidence or erroneous consideration of the

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

State [Represented by the Public Prosecutor] and Anr.,

(2009) 10 SCC 206 while elaborately discussing the word

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

fact is arrived at by ignoring or excluding relevant material

or by taking into consideration irrelevant material or if the

finding so outrageously defies logic as to suffer from the vice

of irrationality incurring the blame of being perverse, then,

the finding is rendered infirm in law. Relevant paragraphs,

i.e., paras-24, 25, 26 and 27 of the said judgment reads as

under:

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

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

this Court observed that the expression “perverse” means that the

findings of the subordinate authority are not supported by the

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

from the vice of procedural irregularity.

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

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

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

but is altogether against the evidence itself. In Triveni Rubber &

Plastics v. CCE [1994 Supp (3) SCC 665 : AIR 1994 SC 1341]

the Court observed that this is not a case 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.

2026:JHHC:21857-DB

26

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 EncyclopedicEdn.)

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.”

65. Herein, submission has been made on behalf of the

appellant-husband that the respondent-wife committed

cruelty against the appellant-husband and his family

members and further it is the wife who deserted and refused

to live with the appellant.

2026:JHHC:21857-DB

27

66. Herein, since the appellant has sought for a relief of

dissolution of her marriage on the ground of cruelty.

Therefore, this Court before proceeding further needs to go

the term cruelty.

67. Herein, cruelty has been taken by the appellant as the main

ground for dissolution of marriage.

68. So far the allegation of cruelty is concerned, it requires to

refer herein the definition of „cruelty’ as has been defined by

Hon‟ble Apex in the judgment rendered in Dr. N.G. Dastane

Vs. Mrs. S. Dastane [(1975) 2 SCC 326], wherein it has

been held that the Court is to enquire as to whether the

charge as cruelty, is of such a character, as to cause in the

mind of the petitioner, a reasonable apprehension that, it

will be harmful or injurious for him to live with the

respondent.

69. The cruelty has also been defined in the case of Shobha

Rani Vs. Madhukar Reddi [(1988) 1 SCC 105], wherein the

wife alleged that the husband and his parents demanded

dowry. The Hon‟ble Apex Court emphasized that “cruelty”

can have no fixed definition.

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

“conduct in relation to or in respect of matrimonial conduct

in respect of matrimonial duties and obligations”. It is the

conduct which adversely affects the spouse. Such cruelty

can be either “mental ” or “physical”, intentional or

2026:JHHC:21857-DB

28

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.”

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

while dealing with such complaints of cruelty that it is

important for the Court to not search for a standard in life,

since cruelty in one case may not be cruelty in another case.

What must be considered include the kind of life the parties

are used to, “their economic and social conditions”, and the

“culture and human values to which they attach

importance.”

72. 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.

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

wife alleged in her written statement that her husband was

suffering from “mental problems and paranoid disorder”. The

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

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

conducting cross-examination. The Hon‟ble Apex Court held

these allegations against the husband to constitute “cruelty”.

2026:JHHC:21857-DB

29

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

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

observed by taking into consideration the allegations levelled

by the husband in his written statement that his wife was

“unchaste” and had indecent familiarity with a person

outside wedlock and that his wife was having an

extramarital affair. These allegations, given the context of an

educated Indian woman, were held to constitute “cruelty”

itself.

75. 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.

76. Cruelty” has an inseparable nexus with human conduct and

is always dependent on social strata or milieu to which

parties belong, their ways of life, relationship, temperaments

and emotions that are conditioned by their social status,

2026:JHHC:21857-DB

30

reference be made to the judgment rendered by the Hon‟ble

Apex Court in the case Vishwanath Agrawal v. Sarla

Vishwanath Agrawal, (2012) 7 SCC 288.

77. The Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of K. Srinivas

Rao v. D.A. Deepa, (2013) 5 SCC 226 has observed

thatcruelty is evident where one spouse so treats other and

manifests such feelings in other, as to cause reasonable

apprehension in mind of other that it would be harmful or

injurious to reside with other spouse and cruelty may be

physical or mental. It has further been observed that staying

together under the same roof is not a precondition for

mental cruelty. Spouse can cause mental cruelty by his or

her conduct even while he or she is not staying under the

same roof.

78. In matrimonial relationship cruelty mean absence of mutual

respect and understanding between spouses which

embitters relationship. Sometimes it may take form of

violence, or at times may just be an attitude or approach.

Silence in some situations may also amount to cruelty

reference be made to the case of Ravi

Kumar v. Julmidevi, (2010) 4 SCC 476.

79. For considering dissolution of marriage at instance of a

spouse who alleges mental cruelty, result of such mental

cruelty must be such that it is not possible to continue with

matrimonial relationship reference may be taken from the

2026:JHHC:21857-DB

31

judgment rendered by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of

Joydeep Majumdar v. Bharti Jaiswal Majumdar, (2021)

3 SCC 742.

80. Further the word „cruelty‟ is used relation to human conduct

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

respect of matrimonial duties and obligations. It is a course

of conduct and one which is adversely affecting the other.

The cruelty may be mental or physical, intentional or

unintentional. There may be cases where the conduct

complained of itself is bad enough and per se unlawful or

illegal. Then the impact or the injurious effect on the other

spouse need not be enquired into or considered. In such

cases, the cruelty will be established if the conduct itself is

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

judgment rendered by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of

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

81. Further, in the case of Manish Tyagi v. Deepak

Kumar, (2010) 4 SCC 339 the Hon‟ble Apex Court has

categorically observed that to constitute „cruelty‟, it is

enough that conduct of one of parties is so abnormal and

below accepted norm that another spouse could not

reasonable be expected to put up with it. Conduct is no

longer required to be so atrociously abominable which would

cause reasonable apprehension that it would be harmful of

injurious to continue cohabitation with another spouse.

2026:JHHC:21857-DB

32

Hence, it is not necessary to establish physical violence.

Continued ill-treatment, cessation of marital intercourse,

studied neglect, indifference may lead to inference of

cruelty.

82. The word “cruelty” under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Act has got

no static connotation, and therefore, gives a very wide

discretion to the Court to apply it liberally and contextually.

What is cruelty in one case may not be the same for another

and has to be applied from person to person while taking

note of the attending circumstances. Harm or injury to

health, reputation, the working-career or the like, would be

important considerations in determining whether the

conduct of the defending spouse amounts to cruelty. It has

to be shown that the defending spouse has treated him with

cruelty to cause reasonable apprehension in his/her mind

that it will be harmful or injurious to live with the contesting

spouse.

83. This Court, based upon the aforesaid discussions on the

issue of cruelty, has gone through the testimony of witnesses

and found from the testimony of P.W.-1 Poonam Kumari,

that after marriage, the respondent came to matrimonial

house at Ranchi and thereafter started living conjugal life

with the petitioner. She deposed that the relationship of the

petitioner with respondent was not good as the respondent

always misbehave with the petitioner. She deposed that on

2026:JHHC:21857-DB

33

02.06.2019 petitioner and respondent went to Sahebganj for

participating in a marriage but the respondent left the

petitioner and went to her maika on 24.06.2019 and since

then the respondent resided at her maika and not return to

the matrimonial house.

84. P.W-2- Narayan Abhishek @ Rajesh Ranjan Yadav, petitioner

himself, who has deposed that after marriage the behaviour

of the respondent was not good with his sister and mother,

and the respondent always entered into quarrel with them.

There was no marriage consummated due to ignoring

attitude of respondent. He deposed that on 02.06.2019 he

went to Sahebganj along with respondent to attend marriage

ceremony of his relative and when they reached Sahebganj

with the respondent, respondent called her Mama and went

to Munger without participating in the marriage ceremony

and the respondent undertake that she will return to Ranchi

within a week but never return to her matrimonial house.

85. He deposed that on 24.03.2021 the respondent suddenly

came along with his brother and used filthy language

against him and also assaulted and beaten of his mother

and sister and respondent finally left the matrimonial house

along with all belongings, the said information given to

police station Bariatu. He deposed that he filed criminal

complaint against the respondent and other in-laws, in

which warrant has been issued against them.

2026:JHHC:21857-DB

34

86. In cross-examination, para 23 deposed that he filed divorce

case on 19.12.2019 bearing Case O.S. No. 871/2019. In

para 28, he deposed that respondent had resided in the

matrimonial house only for 8 days. In para 32, deposed that

on 19.12.2019 he decided to file divorce case against the

respondent. In para - 41, deposed that there was no

evidence to prove that he had taken several efforts to bring

back the respondent.

87. O.P.W. No. 1 Priti Kumari, deposed that after marriage, she

came to matrimonial house at Ranchi and on 24.05.2019

the marriage with respondent was consummated. She

deposed that till 01.06.2019 she was resided at Bariatu

housing colony along with her husband/petitioner. She

deposed that she leads a peaceful conjugal life with

petitioner. She further deposed that on 02.06.2019, the

petitioner went to Sahebganj for participating in the

marriage ceremony and the petitioner also took her to

Sahebganj. She deposed that when she reached at

Sahebganj the petitioner called her Mama Sanjay Yadav and

he send her with Sanjay Yadav at her maika. She deposed

that she went to her maika with her Mama upon instruction

of petitioner and the petitioner assured her that he will

return after attending marriage ceremony and took her to

Ranchi. The petitioner never came to her maika and he filed

divorce case bearing O.S. Case No. 841/2019 dated

2026:JHHC:21857-DB

35

19.12.2019 U/s- 14 of Hindu Marriage Act. The petitioner

filed this case premature as the one year of mandatory

period was not completed, hence the divorce case was

dismissed.

88. O.P.W. No.2 Sanjay Kumar, deposed that on 02.06.2019 the

petitioner called him over phone and stated that he was on

his way to Mahadevganj for attending marriage with

respondent and he requested to come at Sahebganj for some

urgent talk. He deposed that after receiving the call, he went

to Sahebganj and meet with the petitioner and the petitioner

requested him to take her respondent to her Nanihal

because she was new to the marriage place and undertake

that after attending marriage he came there and took her to

matrimonial house. He deposed that according to request of

the petitioner, he took respondent to his residence. He

deposed that the petitioner never came to bring the

respondent at her matrimonial house since 2019 and

thereafter the respondent went to her maika.

89. In the backdrop of aforesaid testimonies of the witnesses

produced on behalf of parties, this Court needs to consider

the argument advanced on behalf of the respondent on the

issue of the conflicting grounds which has been taken in two

suits i.e., in Original Suit (MTS) No. 841 of 2019 which was

filed for declaration of marriage nullity under Section 12 (a)

of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on the ground that has not

2026:JHHC:21857-DB

36

been consummated. The copy of the plaint filed in Original

Suit (MTS) No. 841 of 2019 as well as order passed in the

said suit is available on record. The documents since is

available and as such it is the bounden duty of this Court to

appreciate the said document therefore, this Court has gone

through the said document i.e., plaint along with the order

passed in Original Suit (MTS) No. 841 of 2019.

90. It is evident from the plaint that the suit was filed under

Section 12(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 but the same

was withdrawn with liberty to file fresh suit.

91. The said suit was withdrawn realizing the said rider with the

liberty to file fresh suit as would be evident from order dated

21.08.2020 passed in Original Suit (MTS) No. 841 of 2019.

For ready reference, the same is being referred as under:

ORDER

21.08.2020:-An affidavited withdrawal has been filed on

behalf of petitioner.

Heard the Ld. Advocate of the petitioner as well as

the petitioner through video Conferencing. The petitioner

has submitted that both the parties are amicably settled

their disputes, out side the Court, and want to file a

divorce petition with mutual consent. As such, the

petitioner wants to withdraw the present suit as per his

own will with liberty to file a fresh suit.

Heard the petitioner and his Ld. Advocate

through Video Conferencing. Since the petitioner has

himself want to withdrawn the present suit and does not

want to proceeding further with this case, hence, the

petitioner is granted permission to withdraw the present.

2026:JHHC:21857-DB

37

Hence, the present suit is hereby dismissed as

withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh suit.

Office is directed to consigned the record in the Record

Room within stipulated period.”

92. The second proceeding, being Original Suit No. 372

of 2020, from which the present appeal has emanated, was

instituted seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of

cruelty, as contemplated under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

93. Thus, from the foregoing circumstances, it becomes

manifest that the appellant, in the two suits aforesaid, has

invoked distinct and separate grounds. In doing so, he has

effected a departure from the ground originally pleaded in

Original Suit No. 841 of 2019, to the ground subsequently

urged in Original Suit No. 372 of 2020.

94. It has been contended by the learned counsel for

the appellant that the learned family judge has discarded

the evidence of the appellant even though there is no

question on behalf of the respondent in course of the cross-

examination on the issue of departure that why the earlier

suit was filed by taking aid of Section 12 (a) of Act 1955 and

later on the suit for dissolution of marriage was filed on the

ground of cruelty. Submission has been made that rule of

putting one‟s version in cross-examination is one of essential

justice and nor merely technical one. The learned counsel

for the petitioner/appellant has relied upon the judgment

2026:JHHC:21857-DB

38

rendered by Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Arvind Singh

Vs. State of Maharashtra (supra).

95. We have gone through the judgment rendered by

the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Arvind Singh Vs.

State of Maharashtra (supra) wherein the Hon‟ble Apex

Court while relying upon the judgment rendered in the case

of Muddasani Venkata Narsaiah v. Muddasani

Sarojana, (2016) 12 SCC 288 has observed that the rule of

putting one's version in cross-examination is one of essential

justice and not merely technical one. The effect of non-cross-

examination is that the statement of witness has not been

disputed. It has further been observed that party is required

to put his version to the witness and if no such questions

are put the Court would presume that the witness account

has been accepted.

96. There is no dispute about the aforesaid settled

position of law as has been settled by the Hon‟ble Apex

Court.

97. The failure to cross-examine a witness on a

particular point implies acceptance of the witness's

testimony on that point. This principle is fundamental to the

adversarial system, preventing a party from later

contradicting or challenging evidence that was not disputed

during cross-examination. The object is to give the witness

2026:JHHC:21857-DB

39

an opportunity to stand by their statement or offer an

explanation.

98. However, the application of this rule is not absolute

and rigid. Courts have recognised circumstances where the

failure to put one's version may not necessarily lead to an

adverse inference or be fatal to the challenging party's case.

The necessity of putting one's version to a witness depends

on the facts and circumstances of each case, the nature of

the evidence, and whether the point in question is explicitly

denied or is inherently improbable.

99. It is the probability of the evidence, which has to be

considered not the absence of cross -examination. Even

absence of cross-examination, the evidence is to be weighed

with its value without attaching much importance on the

absence of cross-examination. The truth of the evidence is to

be tested on the basis of the probabilities and reliability and

the credence of the respective witnesses, particularly, when

two versions have been brought on record by the husband

and the wife.

100. The absence of cross-examination would

undoubtedly affect the value and weight to be attached to

the statement of the witness, but it would not render the

statement inadmissible or result in its effacement.

101. The Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Bhagwan

Singh v. State of Punjab, (1995) 6 SCC 379 has

2026:JHHC:21857-DB

40

categorically held that merely because a witness was not

cross-examined on a particular point, it does not necessarily

mean that the prosecution's case is demolished. The effect of

non-cross-examination depends on the facts and

circumstances of each case.

102. In the State of U.P. v. Nahar Singh (Dead) and

Ors., (2010) 9 SCC 785 the Hon‟ble Apex Court has

observed that the omission to cross-examine a witness on a

particular point would lead to an inference that the

statement of the witness on that point is accepted but this is

not an absolute rule and must be applied with caution,

considering the entire evidence on record.

103. It is pertinent to mention herein that in the case of

Lakshmi Singh v. State of Bihar, (2000) 4 SCC 75 the

Hon‟ble Apex Court has observed that if a fact is so obvious

or so clearly established by other evidence that it does not

require specific cross-examination, or if the witness has

already given an explanation, then the absence of specific

cross-examination on that point may not be fatal.

104. In regard to the submission advanced on behalf of

the appellant, that the alleged departure ought to have been

confronted to him in the course of cross-examination, this

Court is constrained to observe that cross-examination is

necessitated only where the fact in issue is disputed. In the

present case, the departure is self -evident from the

2026:JHHC:21857-DB

41

documentary record, which was brought on file by the

appellant himself. Consequently, even if no specific question

was put to him in cross-examination on that aspect, the

appellant cannot be permitted to dispute his own pleadings

as contained in both the plaints, namely Original Suit (MTS)

No. 841 of 2019 and Original Suit No. 372 of 2020.

105. Here, the question which is being considered that if

the appellant had any wish to get the marriage dissolved

then there is no dispute that a suit is to be filed by taking a

ground as available under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage

Act, however, the contention raised on behalf of the

respondent is that the appellant initially instituted Original

Suit No. 841 of 2019 for a decree of nullity of marriage on the

ground of non-consummation. Upon withdrawal of that suit,

he subsequently filed Original Suit No. 372 of 2020, which is

the subject matter of the present appeal, not on the ground

of nullity for non-consummation, but instead on the distinct

ground of cruelty.

106. According to the considered view of this Court, the

departure made by the appellant in pursuing two successive

suits on distinct grounds unmistakably reflects his conduct.

It demonstrates that he has endeavored, by varying pleas, to

sever the marital tie with the respondent—first, by seeking a

declaration of nullity of marriage on the ground of alleged

2026:JHHC:21857-DB

42

abnormality and non-consummation, and thereafter, in the

second round, by invoking the ground of cruelty.

107. It must be observed that, had the element of cruelty

in fact existed and been experienced by the appellant, such

ground ought to have been agitated from the inception, i.e.,

at the time of filing the first suit. Admittedly, however, in

that initial proceeding no such plea was advanced. Instead,

the appellant invoked Section 12(a) of the Hindu Marriage

Act, 1955, seeking a declaration of nullity of marriage on the

ground of non-consummation.

108. This Court is, therefore, of the considered view that the

appellant‟s conduct in first invoking the ground of

non-consummation of marriage and thereafter shifting to the

ground of cruelty, itself casts a serious doubt upon the bona

fides of the grounds so agitated. Such departure, by its very

nature, reflects an attempt to secure dissolution of marriage

by varying pleas rather than by consistent assertion of a

genuine cause.

109. Now coming to the point of cruelty, from the pleadings

available on record. Further, the respondent-wife had been

sent to her maika, which has been stated by the respondent-

wife in her deposition and remained un-shaked in the cross-

examination. Forceful desertion of wife by the husband itself

amounts to cruelty.

2026:JHHC:21857-DB

43

110. From the pleadings it is further evident that even that on

24.03.2021 she came to her matrimonial house along with

her younger brother but the appellant and his sister not

permitted her to enter into matrimonial house. It is further

deposed by the respondent-wife that she took several efforts

to visit and go her matrimonial house but appellant and his

family not allowed her to enter into the matrimonial house.

111. This Court taking into consideration the law laid down by

Hon‟ble Apex Court on the issue of „cruelty‟ vis-à-vis the

evidence adduced by the appellant -husband and

respondent-wife has found that no element of cruelty has

been meted out to the appellant-husband rather it is the

respondent-wife who has been subjected to cruelty.

112. This Court, after discussing the aforesaid factual aspect

along with the settled legal position as discussed and

referred hereinabove in the preceding paragraphs and

adverting to the consideration made by the learned Family

Judge in the impugned judgment has found therefrom that

the issue of element of cruelty has been properly considered

by the learned Family Judge.

113. Accordingly, issue as framed by this Court is decided

against the appellant-husband.

114. This Court, on consideration of the aforesaid discussion,

is of the view that the impugned judgment and decree

passed by the learned Family Judge is not coming under the

2026:JHHC:21857-DB

44

fold of perversity, since, the conscious consideration has

been made to the evidences available on record, as would be

evident from the impugned judgment.

115. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands dismissed.

116. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands

disposed of.

I Agree (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

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

23

rd

July, 2026

A.F.R

Alankar/-

Uploaded on 23

rd July, 2026