2026:JHHC:31866-DB

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

F.A. No.40 of 2025

-------

1. Suman Kumar Mandal aged about 43 yrs. S/o Late Ishwar Mandal, R/o

Quarter No.668/B Railway Colony, Bekarbandh, P.O.&P.S.&Dist.

Dhanbad.

Appellant

Versus

Kumari Rashmi Sinha, aged about 32 yrs. W/o Suman Kumar Mandal,

D/o Sri Nageshwar Prasad Sinha, Present Add. Shastri Colony, Jamui,

P.O., P.S.&Dist. Jamui (Bihar). Permanent Address Quarter No.668/B

Railway Colony, Bekarbandh, P.O., P.S.&Dist. Dhanbad.

… … Respondent

With

F.A. No.252 of 2024

-------

2. Kumari Rashmi Sinha, aged about 32 years, wife of Suman Kumar

Mandal, daughter of Sri Nageshwar Prasad Sinha, present address:

Shastri Colony, Jamui, P.O. and P.S. Jamui, District Jamui, Bihar,

permanent address: Quarter No.668/B, Railway Colony, Bekarbandh,

Dhanbad, P.O. and P.S. Dhanbad, District Dhanbad, Jharkhand.

… … Appellant

Versus

3. Suman Kumar Mandal aged about 43 yrs. S/o Late Ishwar Mandal, R/o

Quarter No.668/B Railway Colony, Bekarbandh, Dhanbad, P.O. and

P.S. Dhanbad, District Dhanbad, Jharkhand

… … Respondent

-------

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD

-------

F.A. No.40 of 2025

For the Appellant : Mrs. Arpita Sinha, Advocate

For the Respondent : Mr. Aman Ali, Advocate

-------

F.A. No.252 of 2024

For the Appellant : Mr. Aman Ali, Advocate

For the Respondent : Mrs. Arpita Sinha, Advocate

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

CAV on 31/08/2026 Pronounced on 30/10/2026

Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

2026:JHHC:31866-DB

2

1. At the outset, it needs to refer herein the order dated 31

st

August,

2026, whereby and whereunder, the following order was passed: -

“11/31

st

August, 2026

1. At the outset, learned counsel appearing for the

appellant in F.A. No.252 of 2024 has submitted that

the appeal has been preferred against the issue of

dissolution of marriage.

2. He has further submitted that he is contesting the issue

of dissolution of marriage.

3. This Court, therefore, is of the view that the issue of

dissolution of marriage is being contested by filing the

appeal and as such, the F.A. No.252 of 2024 is to be

heard first for the reason that the outcome of the same

will govern the first appeal being F.A. No.40 of 2025

wherein the appellant has challenged the part of the

impugned judgment pertaining to issue of alimony by

which a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- has been directed to be

paid by the appellant in F.A. No.40 of 2025 in favour

of the respondent in F.A. No.40 of 2025 (appellant in

F.A. No.252 of 2024).

4. The Court has heard both the appeals.

5. Arguments concluded.

6. Judgment Reserved.”

Prayer

2. The present appeal, being F.A. No. 40 of 2025, has been preferred by

the appellant-husband under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act,

1984, assailing the judgment dated 12.06.2024 and decree drawn on

18.06.2024 (seal and signed on 21.06.2024) passed by the learned

Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhanbad in Original Suit No.761 of 2018.

By the said judgment, while decreeing the suit for dissolution of marriage,

the Family Court has directed the appellant-husband to pay a sum of

₹12,00,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs) as permanent alimony to the

respondent-wife. The present appeal is confined only to that part of the

order which pertains to payment of the aforesaid permanent alimony.

3. The appeal being F.A. No.252 of 2024 preferred by the appellant-wife

against the judgment dated 12.06.2024 and decree signed dated

2026:JHHC:31866-DB

3

21.06.2024 passed in Original Suit No.761 of 2018 by the learned

Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhanbad, whereby and whereunder, the

petition filed by the respondent-husband under Section 13(i-a) of the

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for grant of decree of divorce against his

appellant-wife, has been allowed.

4. It appears that the issue of dissolution of marriage is being contested

by filing the appeal and as such, F.A. No.252 of 2024 is to be dealt with

first for the reason that the outcome of the same will govern the first

appeal being F.A. No.40 of 2025, wherein, the appellant-husband has

challenged the part of the judgment pertaining to issue of alimony by

which a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- has been directed to be paid by the

husband in favour of the respondent-wife.

5. This Court, taking into consideration the ground which has been taken

for dissolution of marriage on merit, i.e., the ground of cruelty, hence, is

of the view that appeal being F.A. No.252 of 2024 is to be considered

first.

F.A. No.252 of 2024

Factual Matrix

6. The brief facts of the case, as per the plaint of plaintiff (respondent

herein), which required to be enumerated, needs to be referred as under:

7. It is the case of the plaintiff/husband (respondent herein) that his

marriage was solemnized with the defendant Kumari Rashmi Sinha

(appellant herein) on 07.07.2006 at Jamui as per Hindu Rites and

Customs. After marriage, she came to his house and they started leading

happy conjugal life with each other. During their coverture, they got

2026:JHHC:31866-DB

4

blessed with two children namely Sanskriti Suman, aged about 9 and

Sanskar Suman, aged about 6 respectively. He has further asserted that

four years back, they were living separately in the same quarters, in

different rooms and there was no physical relation between them due to

denial of the respondent. She always said to him several times that she did

not like or love him. She frequently talked to her boyfriend on mobile

phone.

8. It is the further case that the respondent-wife was trying to get him

murdered and to get appointment in railway in his place and to fulfil that

purpose, she always subjected him to mental and physical cruelty. He has

further asserted that on 04.10.2018, the respondent-wife attempted to

murder him by administering some toxic substance to him.

9. It is the further case that it is impossible to lead future life with the

respondent-wife and from the last 5 to 6 years, the relation between them

has completely broken down and the same cannot be retrieved, therefore,

marriage solemnized between them on 07.07.2006 may be dissolved and

by dissolving the marriage a decree of divorce may be granted in his

favour.

10. After receiving the summon, the defendant/wife has appeared

and contested the suit by filing a written statement stating therein that the

present suit is not maintainable either in law or in fact. She has further

asserted that the petitioner has got no cause of action for the suit and the

suit is bad for suppression of material facts. The suit barred under the

limitation act as well as by the provisions of the Contract Act. The Suit

barred under the principles of waiver, estoppel and acquiescence. The

2026:JHHC:31866-DB

5

affidavit in support of the plaint is incomplete and not in accordance with

the provisions laid down under order XIX CPC. She has further asserted

that the petitioner has not come up before the court with clean hands and

guilty of suppression of material facts and, therefore, the petitioner has

not entitled to any relief in the suit. The documents in support of the

plaint having not been filed with the plaint, the suit is bad under order VII

Rule 14 CPC. All the material allegations made in the plaint are false

fictitious and self-contradicting besides being untenable and impressible

as per law. She has further asserted that the petitioner lodged several

criminal cases against her, vide C.P Case No. 3363/2018, C.P Case No.

165/2020 and Dhanbad P.S Case No. 435, dated 28.10.2020, U/s 326 &

326 (A) IPC and in the said case, she was arrested and sent to jail and

when she came out from jail, she came to know that her husband has filed

criminal case against her only to divorce her. She has further asserted that

she loves the petitioner very much and she cannot live without him and as

such, on so many occasions, she was regularly talking with the petitioner.

She has further asserted that she is willing to live with her husband,

therefore, she prayed to dismiss the suit.

11. On the basis of pleadings made on behalf of the parties, the learned

Family Judge has framed the following issues for proper adjudication of

the suit, which are as follows:

(i) Whether the suit is maintainable in it’s present form?

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

(iii) Whether the respondent has treated the petitioner with cruelty?

(iv) Whether the petitioner is entitled for any other relief?

2026:JHHC:31866-DB

6

12. In order to prove and substantiate the case, the respondent/plaintiff

(husband) has produced and examined four witnesses in support of his

case, i.e., P.W.1-Yaswant Kumar, P.W.2-Sumitra Devi (Mother of the

plaintiff), P.W.3-Shanskriti Suman (Daughter of the plaintiff and the

respondent) and P.W.4-Suman Kumar Mandal (the plaintiff himself).

13. Apart from the above, the plaintiff/husband has filed the following

documents:-

Ext.-1 Application dated 15.11.2018 of Suman Kumar Mandal.

Ext.-2 Application of 13.10.2018 to O/C Dhanbad P.S.

Ext.-3 Certified copy of complaint Case No.3363/2018

Ext.-4 Application to O/C Mahila P.S, dated 18.12.2019

Ext.-5 Discharge Ticket of Patliputra Medical College Hospital dated

20.12.2011

Ext.-6 Report of C.T. Scan dated 19.12.2019 of Suman Kumar

Mandal

Market X for

identification

Xerox copy of Medical treatment of Mahila P.S. dated

18.12.2019

X/1 Xerox copy of application to S.S.P, Dhanbad dated

10.01.2020

Ext.-7 Order passed in Dhanbad P.S. Case No.435/2020

Ext.-8 FIR of Dhanbad P.S. Case No.435/2020

Ext.-9 Charge-sheet of Dhanbad P.S. Case No.435/2020

Market X/2 to X/3 Photographs

Material ext. M

(electronic)

Pen Drive

Mark X/4 Photographs

Mark X/5 to X/8 Photographs

Ext.-10 Certified copy of petition of A.B.P No.2732/2020

2026:JHHC:31866-DB

7

14. On the other hand, the defendant-wife (appellant herein) has examined

the witness in order to rebut and contradict the claim of plaintiff, i.e.

D.W.1-Kumari Rashmi Sinha (the defendant herself/appellant herein),

D.W.2-Nageshwar Prasad (father of the defendant)) and D.W.3-Manish

Kumar (brother of the defendant).

15. After perusal of the evidence led by the parties, the learned Family

Judge, vide judgment dated 12.06.2024 has allowed the suit in favour of

the respondent-husband, against which, the present appeal being F.A.

No.252 of 2024 has been preferred by the appellant-wife.

Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant-wife

16. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant-wife in F.A. No.252

of 2024 that the factual aspect which was available before the learned

Family Judge supported by the evidences has not properly been

considered and as such, the judgment impugned is perverse, hence, not

sustainable in the eyes of law.

17. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant-wife

that her husband has love for other unknown lady and he solemnized

marriage with her and started leading conjugal life.

18. It has also been submitted that respondent-husband has never paid due

love and affection to her but she continued to lead her conjugal life with a

hope that after birth of child, all would be well.

19. It has been contended that the respondent-husband has filed O.S.

No.761 against her and filed C.P. Case No.157 and C.P. Case No.3363 as

also lodged the case vide Dhanbad P.S. Case No.435 of 2020 and in the

2026:JHHC:31866-DB

8

said case, she was arrested and sent to Jail at that time, she was in her

quarters. Thereafter, she came out from jail and came to know that the

respondent-husband had filed criminal case against her only to divorce

her.

20. It has also been contended that the learned Family Court has not taken

into consideration that the allegations as have been made by

respondent/husband was false and fabricated.

21. It has been contended that there is nothing to show that the appellant

has ever instigated the respondent-husband to commit suicide.

22. The learned Family Court has not taken into consideration the fact that

the marriage is of the year 2006 and the children are also aged about 6 and

9 years and at this point of life, the dissolution of marriage will seriously

hamper the proper development of the children.

23. The learned Family Court has also not taken into consideration that

the respondent-husband has not brought any material to suggest that the

appellant-wife is having any relation with any boy with whom she used to

talk as alleged by respondent-husband.

24. Learned counsel for the appellant-wife, based upon the aforesaid

grounds, 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-husband

25. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-husband,

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

error in the impugned judgement so far as the issue of cruelty is

2026:JHHC:31866-DB

9

concerned. The learned Family Judge has considered all aspects of the

matter in right perspective in granting a decree of divorce in favour of the

respondent-husband.

26. It has been contended that the respondent-husband has never subjected

the appellant-wife or her family members with cruelty nor he had done

any such act which can be treated as a cause of action for filing a suit for

divorce.

27. Learned counsel, based upon the aforesaid grounds, has submitted that

the impugned judgment cannot be said to suffer from an error.

Analysis:

28. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, gone through the

Trial Court records, the impugned judgment, the testimonies of the

witnesses and the documents exhibited therein.

29. The admitted fact herein is that the suit for divorce has been filed by

the respondent-husband (plaintiff before the learned Family Court) on the

grounds of cruelty, i.e., by filing an application under Section 13(1)(i-a) of

the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and accordingly, issues have been framed

wherein the primary issue, i.e., issue no.(iii) which pertains to cruelty.

30. The evidences have been led on behalf of both the parties, i.e., the

plaintiff-husband (respondent in F.A. No.252 of 2024) and the

respondent-wife (appellant in F.A. No.252 of 2024).

31. The plaintiff-husband has examined four witnesses in support of his

case, i.e., P.W.1-Yaswant Kumar, P.W.2-Sumitra Devi (Mother of the

2026:JHHC:31866-DB

10

plaintiff), P.W.3-Shanskriti Suman (Daughter of the plaintiff and the

respondent) and P.W.4-Suman Kumar Mandal (the plaintiff himself).

32. On the other hand, the defendant-wife (appellant in F.A. No.252 of

2024) has examined three witnesses, i.e., D.W.1-Kumari Rashmi Sinha

(the defendant herself/appellant herein), D.W.2-Nageshwar Prasad (father

of the defendant)) and D.W.3-Manish Kumar (brother of the defendant).

33. For ready reference, the evidences led on behalf of the parties are

being referred as under: -

P.W.4, namely, Suman Kumar Mandal (the plaintiff

himself) has deposed in his examination-in-chief that he has brought this

suit for divorcing his wife. His marriage was solemnized with the

respondent Kumari Rashmi Sinha on 07.07.2006, but the respondent was

unhappy with that marriage and she had become ready for her marriage

with him on the pressure of her parents and in reality, she was willing to

marry her lover. She used to threaten him to drag him in false cases. Any

way on consummation of their marriage she delivered a daughter namely

Sanskriti Suman, aged about 14 and son Sanskar Suman aged about 11.

He has further testified that from the last 5 to 6 years they have

been living separately in the same quarters but in different rooms and has

never been physical relation between them due to denial of the

respondent. Her denial from establishing physical relation with him and

living separately are compelling him to take food in hotel. He has further

testified that the respondent was trying to get him murdered and to get

appointment in railway in his place and to fulfil that purpose, she always

subjected him to mental and physical cruelty. On 15.11.2018, he

2026:JHHC:31866-DB

11

submitted an application regarding the above facts before the Sr.

Divisional Finance Manager, East Central Railway, Dhanbad.

In the year 2018, his wife fled away with household articles

regarding which he filed a written complaint before the Dhanbad Police

and he has proved a copy of the said application as Ext. 2. In the year

2018 itself once the respondent administered poison in his tea to kill him

and regarding that occurrence, he filed a complaint in Dhanbad court on

15.10.2018. He has proved a certified copy of the same comprising seven

pages proved as Ext.-3. Again on 18.12.2019, the respondent tried to put

him to death and in this regard, he filed a written application before

Mahila police station. He has proved the copy of the same as Ext.- 4. He

has further filed a document marked X for identification which is an

order to refer him to Dhanbad Medical College for his treatment. He has

further testified that on 18.12.2019 he was admitted in Patliputra Medical

College and Hospital, Dhanbad and he was discharged from the hospital

on 20.12.2019 and has proved the discharge certificate as Ext. -5. During

his treatment C.T Scan was done on 19.12.2019 by Dr. S. Baksi, the

report of C.T Scan has been proved as Ext. 6.

He has further deposed that on 10.01.2020 he submitted an

application before the S.S.P, Dhanbad against his mother-in-law which

comprises two pages and the same has been marked as X/1 for

identification. He has further testified that it has become impossible to

lead future life with the respondent and actually from the last 5 to 6 years

the relation between them has completely broken down and the same

cannot be retrieved, therefore, marriage between them dated 07.07.2006

2026:JHHC:31866-DB

12

may be dissolved. He has further testified that his children were living

with him one year ago and in his absence, the respondent took them to

Patna and settled down at Kadam Kuan, Patna where she is an employee

in an Ayurvedic College having a monthly income of Rs. 20,000/- to Rs.

25,000/-. He has further testified that due to extreme bitter relation

between them on 10.08.2018 a bond was executed by them and in

paragraphs No. 8&9 they decided that they would be living separately for

a period of six months. In paragraph no. 3 it has been mentioned that

bond was executed on the pressure of the respondent Kumari Rashmi

Sinha. He has filed the said bond dated 10.08.2018 marked as X/4 for

identification.

In paragraph 21 the petitioner has again categorically stated

that in the year 2020, the respondent poured boiling water on him and

tried to kill him by pouring the hot water on him, therefore, he lodged

Dhanbad P.S Case No. 435/2015 which has already been marked as Ext.

8. In that case cognizance has already been taken by the learned CJM,

Dhanbad vide Ext.-7 and charge-sheet has been proved as ext. 9. In

paragraph no. 22 he has testified that the respondent tried to set him

ablaze and he has got four photographs marked as X/5 X/6, X/7, X/8

respectively. Lastly, he has asserted that he cannot lead his conjugal life

with the respondent, therefore, he is praying to dissolve the marriage and

to grant a decree of divorce in his favour. He has further testified that in

support of the facts mentioned in paragraph 10 regarding his wife's

attempt to put him to death, he has filed two photographs in which his

head was bandaged. Both the photographs have been marked as X/2 and

X/3 for identification. He has further testified that the respondent used to

2026:JHHC:31866-DB

13

send Whatsapp massages with vituperative languages from mobile Nos.

8298xxx637 and 9199xxx935 on mobile No. 9304xxx1486 and he has

produced a Pen-drive which has been marked as material Ext. M.

He has further testified regarding the bond dated 10.08.2018 and

has filed a photocopy of the same comprising 3 pages which were singed

by two witnesses from each side and the same has been marked as X/4

for identification.

During his cross-examination, in paragraph-31 he has disclosed

that his wife is not living with him and the children are with him, but they

are in the school hostel. In paragraph no. 33 he has disclosed that his wife

has been living separately from the last 6 to 7 years. In paragraph no. 34

he has admitted that he has been making payment of education fee of his

children who are pursuing their education in Narayan School, Andal,

Durgapur. In paragraph no. 37 he has asserted that prior to filing of the

case, his wife did not file any criminal case against him. He has also not

filed any case for restitution of conjugal rights. He has admitted that he is

an employee in railway and has disclosed that he lived with her from the

year 2006 to 1

st

February 2021, after which his wife has been living

separately in his quarters. In paragraph 53 he has disclosed that once he

gave information to his authority regarding separate stay of his wife in his

quarters, but the documents cannot be procured because, by breaking his

Almirah his wife has taken away all the relevant documents. He has

admitted to have entered his wife's name in his service book and he got a

railway pass issued in the name of his wife and can prove this fact. In

paragraph No. 61 he has testified that even if the respondent be ready to

2026:JHHC:31866-DB

14

live with him, he cannot keep her anymore because, she will kill him. He

has already filed a case of attempt to murder which was numbered as G.R

No. 627/2021 and now the same has been pending in the court of CJM,

Dhanbad. He has denied that due to the illicit relation with other ladies he

is willing to divorce his wife.

P.W.1, Yaswant Kumar and P.W.2, Sumitra Devi mother of

the plaintiff have stated nothing new in their evidence and have simply

reproduced the evidence that has been given by the P.W.4.

P.W.3, namely, Shanskriti Suman (daughter of the plaintiff)

has completely buttressed and supported the assertions and contentions of

the plaintiff. She has further testified in her examination-in-chief that her

mother quarreled with her father and compelled him to take food in hotel.

She has further testified that her mother poured boiling water on her father

and tried to kill him by pouring the hot water on him.

Apart from the above, now it needs to refer herein the witnesses

examined on behalf of the defendant-wife.

D.W.-1, namely, Kumari Rashmi Sinha (defendant herself)

has deposed in her examination-in-chief that she had information that

though her husband had love for other unknown lady, he solemnized

marriage with her with a grand wedding and started leading happy

conjugal life. But he never paid due love and affection to her, but she

continued to lead her conjugal life with a hope that after birth of children

all would be well. In the mean time she delivered two children. She has

further testified that due to his hard nature, sometimes he used to stop

giving maintenance to her and her children. But for appeasement of her

2026:JHHC:31866-DB

15

husband, she tolerated all sorts of torture from the hands of her husband,

but once he got her signature on a bond comprising three papers in non-

judicial stamp papers. She has further testified that she came to know that

he managed his daughter to become a witness to the bond and got her

signature on the same. She has further stated that the petitioner never took

her to any party and never introduced her to his relatives. The

petitioner/husband has filed O.S No. 761 on 19.11.2018 against her and

filed C.P Case No. 157 dated 31.01.2020 and C.P Case No. 3363 on

15.03.2020 and has also lodged case on 28.10.2020 vide Dhanbad P.S

Case No. 435/2020 and in the said case she was arrested and was sent to

jail at that time she was in her quarters. She came out from jail and came

to know about the case and also came to know that her husband had filed

criminal case against her only to divorce her. She has denied to have tried

to give poison to him and has asserted that the petitioner has cohabited

with her in the recent days in her quarters and on some occasions,

whenever he showed his willingness to make love with her, she went to

his residence/quarters and let him cohabit with her and this fact is known

to their children also. She has further testified that she does not know

Abhishek and no Panchayati was convened on the topic of Abhishek, and

their marriage was solemnized with free consent of both of them and still

she is willing to live with her husband and her both the children. She has

denied to have treated her husband with cruelty.

Further, in her cross-examination, this witness has deposed that

she has admitted that she is employee of an Aurbedic College, Patna. In

paragraph-24 she has admitted that right from the very beginning of their

marriage, there had been quarrel and skirmishing between her and her

2026:JHHC:31866-DB

16

husband and her husband has filed altogether four cases. She has also

admitted to have filed three cases against her husband in Samastipur out

of which one is for restitution of conjugal rights, one of Domestic violence

Act and one is for maintenance. She has further admitted to have filed a

case of torture for dowry against her husband, but has denied to have filed

all the above cases only to harass her husband. She has admitted that at

present she has been living at Kadam Kuan, Patna near Uma Cinema. She

has denied to have any illicit relation with Abhishek Sinha. She has

admitted to be an M.A and skilled in computer Science and is disclosed

that at the time of marriage, she was B.A and after marriage she has

pursued the education of M.A and training of computer and she is skilled

in computer science also. She has denied that during exchange of hot

words with her husband, she wanted to kill her son and uttered that she

would force her daughter for prostitution. She has admitted that her

husband neither had love for her nor has any love for her. At present there

had been strained relation between them from the year 2018. She has

admitted that in C.P Case No. 3363/2020 her husband made an allegation

against her that she inflicted injury on the head of her husband, the

petitioner. She has showed her ignorance regarding admission of her

husband in hospital, therefore, she did not go to hospital to see him. She

has further admitted that to get bail in Dhanbad P.S Case No. 435/2020,

she had filed an anticipatory bail application. The entire copy of the bail

application has been proved as Ext. 10.

During her cross-examination, the same questions were put by

the petitioner himself. During the question and answer, the respondent has

denied to have given teeth bite to her husband and has also denied that any

2026:JHHC:31866-DB

17

panchyati was held on the matter of Abhishek. She has denied that she

always told him that she was married to him by force. She has further

denied that she used to throw dirty rugs smeared with blood of periods on

him when he used to remain in puja. She has also denied to have given

teeth bite and to have scratched him on his offer to cohabit with her. She

has denied to have cohabited with other persons due to the petitioner's

failure to satisfy her. She has also denied that the case is genuine case and

her husband is entitled get a decree of divorce.

D.W.2, namely, Nageshwar Prasad (father of the defendant)

and D.W.3, namely, Manish Kumar (brother of the defendant) have

also completely supported the assertions and averments made by the

defendant-wife in their evidence before the Court.

34. The learned Family Judge has appreciated the entire evidence as well as

the documents exhibited on behalf of both the parties and after

formulating a specific issue, whether the plaintiff-husband is entitled for a

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

1955, has allowed the suit filed by the husband, which is under challenge

in the instant appeal being F.A. No.252 of 2024.

35. 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.

36. 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:31866-DB

18

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

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

37. 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.

38. 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.”

39. 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

considers its existence so probable that a prudent man under the

circumstances would proceed on the supposition that such fact really

2026:JHHC:31866-DB

19

exists. Therefore, the normal rule of preponderance of probability is the

rule which governs the civil proceedings like this.

40. 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.

41. 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.

42. 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.

43. At this juncture, it needs to refer herein that 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,

2026:JHHC:31866-DB

20

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

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

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

number of cases. In Gaya Din v. Hanuman Prasad [(2001)

1 SCC 501] this Court observed that the expression

“perverse” means that the findings of the subordinate

authority are not supported by the evidence brought on

record or they are against the law or suffer from the vice of

procedural irregularity.

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

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

finding” means a finding which is not only against the

weight of evidence but is altogether against the evidence

itself. In Triveni Rubber&Plastics v. CCE [1994 Supp (3)

SCC 665 : AIR 1994 SC 1341] the Court observed that this

is not a case where it can be said that the findings of the

authorities are based on no evidence or that they are so

perverse that no reasonable person would have arrived at

those findings.

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

58] the Court observed that any order made in conscious

violation of pleading and law is a perverse order.

In Moffett v. Gough [(1878) 1 LR 1r 331] the Court

observed that a “perverse verdict” may probably be

defined as one that is not only against the weight of

evidence but is altogether against the 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.”

2026:JHHC:31866-DB

21

2. Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English,

International Edn.

Perverse.—Deliberately departing from what is normal

and reasonable.

3. The New Oxford Dictionary of English, 1998 Edn.

Perverse.—Law (of a verdict) against the weight of

evidence or the direction of the judge on a point of law.

4. The New Lexicon Webster's Dictionary of the English

Language (Deluxe Encyclopedic Edn.)

Perverse.—Purposely deviating from accepted or

expected behavior or opinion; wicked or wayward;

stubborn; cross or petulant.

5. Stroud's Judicial Dictionary of Words&Phrases, 4th

Edn.

“Perverse.—A perverse verdict may probably be defined as

one that is not only against the weight of evidence but is

altogether against the evidence.”

44. 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.

45. 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.

46. 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

2026:JHHC:31866-DB

22

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

(2016) 14 SCC 197.

47. In the instant case, the ground for divorce has been taken on the ground

of cruelty, therefore, it would be apt for this Court to discuss the element

of cruelty in order to appreciate the claim of the husband that whether he

has been subjected to cruelty by his wife.

48. The “cruelty” has been interpreted by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case

of Dr. N.G. Dastane vs. Mrs. S. Dastana, (1975) 2 SCC 326 wherein it

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

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

of the petitioner, a reasonable apprehension that, it will be harmful or

injurious for him to live with the respondent.

49. This Court, deems it fit and proper to take into consideration the meaning

of ‘cruelty’ as has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Shobha Rani

v. Madhukar Reddi, (1988)1 SCC 105 wherein the wife alleged that the

appellant-husband and his parents demanded dowry. The Hon’ble Apex

Court emphasized that “cruelty” can have no fixed definition.

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

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

obligations”. It is the conduct which adversely affects the spouse. Such

cruelty can be either “mental” or “physical”, intentional or unintentional.

For example, unintentionally waking your spouse up in the middle of the

night may be mental cruelty; intention is not an essential element of

cruelty but it may be present. Physical cruelty is less ambiguous and more

“a question of fact and degree.”

2026:JHHC:31866-DB

23

51. The Hon’ble Apex Court has further observed therein that while dealing

with such complaints of cruelty it is important for the Court to not search

for a standard in life, since cruelty in one case may not be cruelty in

another case. What must be considered include the kind of life the parties

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

human values to which they attach importance.”

52. 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.

53. In V. Bhagat vs. D. Bhagat (Mrs.), (1994)1 SCC 337, the wife alleged in

her written statement that her husband was suffering from “mental

problems and paranoid disorder”. The wife’s lawyer also levelled

allegations of “lunacy” and “insanity” against the husband and his family

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

held these allegations against the husband to constitute “cruelty”.

54. 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.

55. It needs to refer herein that the Hon’ble Apex Court in Joydeep

Majumdar v. Bharti Jaiswal Majumdar, (2021) 3 SCC 742, has

observed that while judging whether the conduct is cruel or not, what has

2026:JHHC:31866-DB

24

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.

56. Thus, from the aforesaid, it is evident that for established act of cruelty

the conduct complained of either by the spouse 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. Further it is

evident from the interpretation of the word cruelty that the same is to be

considered on different parameters depending upon the material, if

available on record.

57. This Court, on the premise of the interpretation of the word “cruelty” has

considered the evidences of the witnesses as has been incorporated by the

learned trial Court in the impugned judgment and the same has been

referred hereinabove in the preceding paragraphs.

58. It is admitted fact that the parties were married on 07.07.2006 and two

children were born out of the wedlock, namely, a daughter, Sanskriti

Suman, and a son, Sanskar Suman.

59. The case of the respondent-husband before the learned Family Court was

substantially that the appellant-wife subjected him to mental and physical

cruelty, denied him physical relationship, lived separately from him

despite residing in the same quarter, threatened him, attempted to cause

his death on different occasions, administered poison in his tea, poured

2026:JHHC:31866-DB

25

boiling water upon him, attempted to set him ablaze, and sent abusive

messages through WhatsApp. It was further alleged that the appellant was

interested in securing his railway employment after his death.

60. The appellant-wife denied the allegations of cruelty and alleged, inter

alia, that the respondent-husband had never extended due love and

affection towards her, had neglected her and the children, and had himself

been responsible for the strained relationship. She asserted that the

allegations levelled against her were false and that she continued to be

willing to reside with her husband and children.

61. The respondent-husband examined four witnesses, namely, P.W.1-

Yaswant Kumar, P.W.2-Sumitra Devi, P.W.3-Shanskriti Suman, the

daughter of the parties, and P.W.4-Suman Kumar Mandal, the

respondent-husband himself.

62. The appellant-wife examined herself as D.W.1 and also examined her

father, Nageshwar Prasad, as D.W.2, and her brother, Manish Kumar, as

D.W.3.

63. The principal evidence in support of the allegations of cruelty is that of

P.W.4, (respondent-husband) who has made several allegations against

the appellant. P.W.1 and P.W.2 have substantially repeated the version of

P.W.4. P.W.3, the daughter of the parties, has also supported the

allegation that her mother quarreled with her father and that boiling water

was poured upon him.

64. The appellant, in her evidence, has denied the allegations of poisoning,

assault, pouring of boiling water, attempt to kill, abusive conduct and

other allegations of cruelty. She has stated that the parties had strained

2026:JHHC:31866-DB

26

relations but has maintained that she was willing to resume matrimonial

life with the respondent.

65. In the facts of the present appeal, the principal issues which arise for

consideration are:

(i) Whether the evidence adduced by the respondent-

husband establishes, on the preponderance of

probabilities, that the appellant-wife had treated him

with cruelty within the meaning of Section 13(1)(i-a) of

the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, so as to entitle him to a

decree of divorce?

(ii) Whether the impugned judgment and decree of

dissolution of marriage rendered by the learned

Family Court suffers from perversity or irrationality,

thereby falling within the ambit of appellate

interference.

66. In the present case, the respondent-husband has made a large number of

serious allegations against the appellant-wife. These include

administering poison in tea, attempting to cause his death, pouring

boiling water upon him, attempting to set him ablaze, and seeking to

secure his employment after his death.

67. The seriousness of these allegations makes it necessary for the Court to

examine the supporting evidence with due care. A mere assertion by the

spouse seeking divorce cannot, by itself, be treated as proof of the

occurrence alleged.

68. So far as the allegation regarding administration of poison in tea is

concerned, the respondent has referred to a complaint allegedly filed

before the competent court and has produced a certified copy thereof as

Ext.3. However, the mere institution of a complaint or criminal

proceeding does not establish the truth of the allegations contained

therein. The fact that a criminal case or complaint has been instituted is a

circumstance which may be noticed, but it cannot, without proof of the

2026:JHHC:31866-DB

27

underlying occurrence, be treated as conclusive proof of cruelty in

matrimonial proceedings.

69. Similar is the position regarding the allegations concerning the alleged

incident dated 18.12.2019, the hospitalization of the respondent/husband,

and the medical documents produced by him. The discharge certificate

and CT Scan report may establish that the respondent received medical

treatment; however, the documents, by themselves, do not establish that

the injuries or medical condition were caused by the appellant-wife.

70. The respondent has also relied upon criminal proceedings, including

Dhanbad P.S. Case No. 435/2020, the order taking cognizance and the

charge-sheet. It is important to distinguish between the existence of a

criminal proceeding and proof of the allegation constituting the offence.

The filing of an FIR, submission of a charge-sheet or taking of

cognizance does not amount to a finding of guilt against the accused.

71. The same principle applies to the other complaints and applications relied

upon by the respondent. They demonstrate that serious disputes existed

between the parties, but the fact that complaints were made cannot, in the

absence of adjudication establishing the allegations, automatically

establish matrimonial cruelty.

72. The respondent has further relied upon the fact that the parties had been

living separately. It is admitted from his own cross-examination that the

appellant had been residing separately and that the relationship had

become strained. However, the mere fact that spouses are living

separately, particularly where their relationship has become strained, does

not by itself establish that the wife treated the husband with cruelty

2026:JHHC:31866-DB

28

73. The respondent has alleged that the appellant refused to establish

physical relations with him for several years. The appellant, on the other

hand, has denied such allegation and has specifically stated that on

several occasions, she had cohabited with the respondent and she is

willing to live with him.

74. The evidence on the aforesaid aspect is therefore directly conflicting. No

independent evidence has been brought on record which conclusively

establishes the allegation of a continuous and unjustified refusal of

matrimonial intercourse by the appellant. In such circumstances, the

allegation cannot, merely on the basis of the husband's statement, be

treated as conclusively established.

75. It is also significant that the respondent admitted during cross-

examination that he had not instituted any proceeding for restitution of

conjugal rights. While the absence of such proceedings is not, by itself,

determinative of the matrimonial dispute, it is a relevant circumstance

when the respondent simultaneously asserts that the appellant's refusal to

cohabit was the main cause of the alleged cruelty.

76. The respondent further admitted that the appellant's name had been

entered in his service book and a railway pass had been issued in her

name. These circumstances, considered along with the fact that the

parties had continued their matrimonial relationship for a considerable

period and had two children, do not by themselves establish the

allegations of cruelty levelled against the appellant.

77. Thus, from the aforesaid it is evident that the most serious allegations

made by the respondent is the alleged attempts made by the appellant to

cause his death. It is true that the respondent has referred to several

2026:JHHC:31866-DB

29

complaints and criminal proceedings in support of these allegations.

However, the Court has to decide the matrimonial dispute on the

evidence legally established before it. The existence of pending criminal

proceedings cannot be equated with proof of the commission of the

alleged acts.

78. The appellant/wife has consistently denied the allegations. Significantly,

there is no final adjudication in the material placed before this Court

establishing that the appellant was guilty of attempting to cause the death

of the respondent.

79. The learned Family Court, while considering the evidence, appears to

have attached substantial weight to the fact that complaints, medical

papers, criminal proceedings and other documents had been brought on

record. However, the crucial question was not merely whether such

proceedings or documents existed, but whether the evidence as a whole

established that the appellant had committed acts constituting cruelty

within the meaning of Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Act.

80. Admittedly, P.W.3, the daughter of the parties, has supported the case of

the respondent-husband and has stated that the appellant quarrelled with

him and poured boiling water upon him.

81. The testimony of a child of the parties cannot be discarded merely

because she is related to them. At the same time, where the matrimonial

dispute is itself highly contested, such testimony has to be assessed along

with the surrounding circumstances and the other evidence on record.

82. In the present case, the testimony of P.W.3, when considered along with

the other evidence, does establish that the matrimonial relationship

between the parties had become seriously strained. However, in the

2026:JHHC:31866-DB

30

absence of sufficiently corroborative and conclusive evidence connecting

the appellant with the alleged acts of physical violence, the testimony,

standing in the circumstances of the present case, does not furnish a safe

basis for granting a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty.

83. The appellant-wife has consistently denied the allegations made against

her. More importantly, she has stated that she was willing to live with the

respondent and the children.

84. The evidence of the appellant does reveal that the relationship between

the parties had been strained for several years and that several

proceedings had been instituted by both sides. Her admission that she had

instituted proceedings for restitution of conjugal rights, maintenance and

under the Domestic Violence Act, as well as a case relating to dowry

torture, has to be viewed in its proper context.

85. The institution of matrimonial or criminal proceedings by a spouse does

not, in every case, amount to cruelty. Whether the filing of a particular

proceeding constitutes cruelty depends upon the facts and circumstances,

including its nature, foundation and the manner in which it was pursued.

86. The appellant's statement that she was willing to resume matrimonial life

is also a relevant circumstance. It does not by itself disprove the

allegations made by the respondent, but it does bear upon the overall

assessment of the matrimonial relationship and the question whether the

respondent has established a case for dissolution of marriage on the

ground of cruelty.

87. The respondent's assertion that he cannot live with the appellant/wife and

the relationship has broken down, may demonstrate the seriousness of the

2026:JHHC:31866-DB

31

matrimonial discord, but it does not, standing alone, establish that the

appellant treated him with cruelty.

88. Further, the principle that a matrimonial proceeding is civil in nature and

the standard of proof is preponderance of probabilities does not dispense

with the necessity of establishing the foundational facts. Even on the

standard applicable to matrimonial proceedings, the Court must be

satisfied that the conduct complained of is proved cogently and that such

conduct is of the nature contemplated by Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Act.

Thus, this Court, while exercising appellate jurisdiction under the Act,

cannot convert the fact of a long-standing matrimonial dispute into proof

of cruelty unless the statutory ingredients of the ground pleaded are

established cogently.

89. On the basis of discussions made hereinabove, it is considered view of

this Court that in the present case, the evidence, when considered as a

whole, establishes matrimonial discord, separation and acrimony between

the parties. It does not, however, sufficiently establish that the appellant-

wife subjected the respondent-husband to such cruelty as would justify

dissolution of the marriage under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Act.

Accordingly, the finding of the learned Family Court that the respondent-

husband had established cruelty on the part of the appellant-wife cannot

be sustained. As such, the judgment dated 12.06.2024 and decree passed

by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhanbad in Original Suit

No.761 of 2018 are hereby quashed and set aside.

90. Consequently, the present appeal, being F.A. No. 252 of 2024, stands

allowed.

2026:JHHC:31866-DB

32

91. The judgment and decree passed by the learned Family Court whereby

the matrimonial suit filed by the respondent-husband under Section

13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was decreed and the marriage

solemnized between the parties on 07.07.2006 was dissolved, are hereby

quashed and set aside.

92. It is, however, clarified that this judgment shall not be construed as a

finding upon the guilt or innocence of either party in any criminal

proceeding pending between them. The criminal proceedings, if any,

shall be decided by the competent criminal court independently in

accordance with law.

F.A. No.40 of 2025

93. In consequence of allowing the prayer made in F.A. No.252 of 2024, the

appeal being F.A. No.40 of 2025 stands dismissed.

94. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

I Agree

(Sanjay Prasad, J.)

(Sanjay Prasad, J.)

30/10/2026

Rohit/A.F.R.

Uploaded on 30.10.2026