Jharkhand High Court
Mukesh Kumar vs Nitu Devi on 10 June, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Rajesh Kumar
2025:JHHC:14998-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
F.A. No. 42 of 2024
1. Mukesh Kumar, aged about 53 years, son of Vivekanand Thakur,
resident of Village Lukluki, P.O. Lukluki, P.S. Godda (M), District:
Godda, State Jharkhand
... ... Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff
Versus
Nitu Devi, Wife of Mukesh Kumar, resident of Gandhi Nagar, Near
Mission Hospital, Godda, P.O.-Godda and P.S.- Godda (T), District:
Godda, State Jharkhand
... ... Respondent/Opposite Party
-------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
-------
For the Appellant : Mrs. Jasvindar Mazumdar, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Rupesh Singh, Advocate
----------------------------
CAV on 08/05/2025 Pronounced on 10/06/2025
Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
1. The instant appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Court Act, is directed against the Judgment dated 21.12.2023 (decree drawn up on 07.02.2024) passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Godda in Original Suit No. 55 of 2019, whereby and whereunder, the learned court while decreeing the suit under Section 13(1)(i-a)(i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ( herein referred as the Act, 1955) for a decree of divorce by the appellant against the respondent, has directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- as permanent alimony under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act to the respondent out of which Rs.5,00,000/- shall be paid to the respondent within four months from the date of decree and remaining Rs.10,00,000/- will be paid in two installments within next eight months that within 12 months from the date of decree and further, 1 F.A. No. 42 of 2024 2025:JHHC:14998-DB directed that the appellant has to return all "Stri-Dhan" and belongings, gifts of respondent to her as per the written statement dated 01.07.2019. Factual Matrix
2. The brief facts of the case, which required to be enumerated, needs to be referred as under:
3. It is the case of the appellant/plaintiff/petitioner (hereinafter referred as "appellant") that the plaintiff's marriage has been solemnized with the O.P/respondent (hereinafter refereed as "respondent") on 18.04.2008 and after marriage she lived with him (her husband) at his father's house situated at Gandhi Nagar. Out of their wedlock she gave birth to a son namely Naman Kumar, who is aged about 10 years at present.
4. In course of time the interference from the respondent's parents' side in their life started gradually increasing and the behaviour of the O.P. got adversely changed. She used to leave her child at home and went out of the house as per her own whim and used to return after 2-3 days. If the appellant/husband asked her as to where she had gone, she used to abuse and insult him.
5. The respondent has continued with her same behaviour and treatment of the appellant for almost 7 years. The O.P./Nitu Devi neither talk with her husband nor she ever serve him food, and when the petitioner asked for the reason behind her such behaviour, she used to abuse him and his parents. Consequently, the Petitioner has under treatment from Ranchi. Nitu Devi lives separately at her in-law's house. Some outsiders used to come and visit her house and they give various types of threats. About this 2 F.A. No. 42 of 2024 2025:JHHC:14998-DB matter, a Sanha was filed in the court of S.D.O. Godda dated 02.05.2017 bearing number 84/2017.
6. The respondent filed an application at Mahila Thana Godda in the month of May, 2017, against her husband, mother-in-law, father-in-law and Nanad, in said case notice was received by the appellant and at Thana, after hearing both sides, Nitu Devi was found at fault and hence after resolution, compromise has been affected between them.
7. She continued to live separately and the outsiders continued to visit her house. There is no improvement in the health of the appellant and the illness of the appellant is not getting cured. Appellant and opposite party does not have any relation as a husband and wife for last 7 years. When appellant tries to talk with his wife, she abuses him and also threatens him.
8. Due to the aforesaid reasons the appellant/petitioner had a motion by filing a petition for decree of divorce.
9. The learned Family Judge has called upon the respondent-wife. The wife appeared and has filed her written statement.
10. The learned Family Court after hearing both the parties had altogether framed six issues which are as follows:
(i) Whether the suit as framed is maintainable?
(ii) Whether the petitioner/husband has valid cause of action for the
suit?
(iii) Whether the respondent/Opposite Party, has after the solemnization of marriage, treated the petitioner with Cruelty? 3 F.A. No. 42 of 2024
2025:JHHC:14998-DB
(iv) Whether respondent/Opposite Party-wife has deserted the plaintiff/petitioner-husband for a continuous period of not less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of this petition, and thus committed 'Desertion' of her husband (plaintiff/petitioner)?
(v) Whether the plaintiff/petitioner-husband Mukesh Kumar is entitled for relief of "Dissolution of his Marriage with respondent/Opposite Party-wife Nitu Devi by passing the Decree of Divorce under section 13(1)(i-a) or/and section 13(1)(i-b) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on "grounds of Desertion or/and Cruelty."
(vi) To what other relief or reliefs the plaintiff is entitled to?
11. The evidences have been led on behalf of both the parties. Thereafter, the judgment has been passed decreeing the suit filed under Section 13(1)(i-a)(i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for a decree of divorce by the appellant with a direction that the appellant shall pay a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- as permanent alimony under Section 25 of the Act, 1955 to the respondent wife.
12. The appellant husband being partly aggrieved with the Judgment dated 21.12.2023 to the extent of the direction whereby appellant has been directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- as permanent alimony under Section 25 of the Act, 1955 to the respondent out of which Rs.5,00,000/- shall be paid to the respondent within four months from the date of decree and remaining Rs. 10,0000/- will be paid in two 4 F.A. No. 42 of 2024 2025:JHHC:14998-DB installments within next eight month, which is the subject matter of the present appeal.
Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant
13. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that the factual aspect which was available before the learned Family Judge supported by the evidences adduced on behalf of the appellant/petitioner has not properly been considered and as such, the judgment impugned is perverse, so far as it relates to a direction to the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- as permanent alimony under Section 25 of the Act, 1955 to the respondent and also the direction by which appellant has been directed to pay regular payment of Rs. 4000/- to his son namely Naman till his attaining, majority and further direction with respect to returning the alleged stri-dhan, hence, it is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
14. It has been submitted that appellant is suffering from mental depression and he is in severely disordered state of mind and therefore he himself requires nursing and care. Further the direction with respect to returning the alleged stri-dhan and other gifts is wholly justified as all the belonging of the respondent wife have been taken by her.
15. It has further been submitted that the learned trial Court has not taken in to consideration that the Appellant himself is dependent on his old parents and further there is no evidence on record on the basis of which the appellant has been directed to pay permanent alimony to the respondent as well as monthly maintenance to the child. 5 F.A. No. 42 of 2024
2025:JHHC:14998-DB
16. It has further been contended that the respondent wife herself is a working lady and due to appellant's mental condition the appellant's parent who are the grand parent's of the child are paying the monthly maintenance amount to the child, thus the learned Family Court without taking in to consideration the aforesaid facts has passed the order impugned as such same is not fit to be acceptable.
17. Learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellant, 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:
18. Per contra, Mr. Rupesh Singh, learned counsel for the respondent- wife, while defending the impugned judgment, has submitted that there is no error in the impugned judgement. The learned Family Judge has considered the entire issue and on the basis of evidence as led by the parties has passed the order impugned, as such, the same may not be interfered with.
19. It has been contended that the husband appellant himself has contended that the relationship between them became dead wood and the learned Family Judge taking in to consideration the evidence led by the respondent wife has fixed the maintenance under section 25 of the Act, 1955 as such same cannot be said to be improper.
20. It has also been submitted that the learned Family Court after taking in to consideration the material available on record has found that the conduct of the appellant/ husband has never been towards salvaging the 6 F.A. No. 42 of 2024 2025:JHHC:14998-DB institution of marriage as it is he who has come for dissolution of the marriage, therefore on the pretext of the aforesaid categorical finding of the Family Court, the impugned order requires no interference. Analysis
21. 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.
22. The case has been heard at length. The admitted fact herein is that the suit for divorce has been filed by the appellant on the grounds of cruelty and desertion, i.e., by filing an application under Section 13(1) (i-a) (i-b) of the Act, 1955 and accordingly, issues have been framed wherein primarily issue nos. III, IV and V pertains to cruelty, desertion and dissolution of marriage.
23. The evidence has been led before the learned Family Court on behalf of both the parties. For ready reference, the evidences led on behalf of the parties are being referred as under:
P.W.-1 Naval Kishore Thakur, has deposed in his examination-in-
chief that Mukesh Kumar's marriage has been solemnized with O.P./Nitu Devi on 18.04.2008. After marriage she lived at Gandhinagar, Godda with her husband. There was no dowry transaction of any kind in the marriage.
Out of their wedlock, a male child was born, namely, Naman Kumar.
After birth of son, Nitu Devi's parents started visiting the place of Mukesh Kumar. Nitu Devi's behaviour started changing and she started making quarrel with her in-laws and she also abused her husband and in-laws. The 7 F.A. No. 42 of 2024 2025:JHHC:14998-DB O.P. started living separately in this house on the insistence of her family.
But all the expenses were borne by her in-laws. Her son Naman Kumar got admitted in Ram Krishna Public School and his all expenses were borne by her in-laws. Mukesh Kumar does not do any type of job. Nitu Devi has not talked to the petitioner for about 7-8 years and she does not cook food for the petitioner. His mental condition has deteriorated and gone wrong and he is under-going treatment. When Mukesh Kumar wants to talk with his child, then, Nitu Devi and Naman Kumar used to abuse him. Due to that reason, his mental condition is not improving.
In his cross examination, he has stated that this case has been filed by the petitioner for divorce. Petitioner and O.P.'s marriage has been solemnized on 18.04.2004. Petitioner lives at Gandhinagar and this witness used to frequently visit his house. O.P.'s child was born at Bhagalpur on 17.03.2009. He was present at the time of their marriage.
Nitu Devi does not cook food. she lives separately from her in-laws. Out of their wedlock, a child was born who lives with his mother. O.P./wife does not live at her father-in-law's house since 2019, she lives separate at Godda. He does not know the name of any person where the petitioner resides. Petitioner's father is his cousin brother. Petitioner's father has five brothers and two sisters. Petitioner's father is a retired Supply Officer. He does not know whether petitioner was ever selected in Bank examination.
At present, petitioner does not do any work, he is only son of his parents.
He has two and half bigha land at Lukluki and Ghat Pathariya.
He denied the suggestion that he does not know about this case. He does not know that O.P. has been assaulted by her in-laws. He heard that 8 F.A. No. 42 of 2024 2025:JHHC:14998-DB govt. officer came for inspection to the house of the petitioner but in which case the officer made inspection he does not know. He denied the suggestion that O.P. has been assaulted and he concealed this fact.
P.W.-2 Ram Bilas Sah, has deposed in his examination-in-chief as PW-1. He has deposed that in the year 2008, the marriage of Mukesh Kumar got solemnized with Nitu Devi and both started living at his father's house. Out of their wedlock, they blessed with a son, namely, Naman Kumar who is aged about 11 years old. The educational expenses of Naman Kumar are borne by the petitioner/father Mukesh Kumar. Her parents used to abuse the petitioner's parents. She is living separately from her husband/petitioner in the very same house but all her expenses including educational expenses of the child was borne by father of the petitioner.
Mukesh Kumar does not do any job. Mukesh Kumar told him that his wife used to abuse and insult him, for last 7-8 years. The petitioner wants to talk with his son but O.P./wife and his son used to abuse him.
In his cross-examination, he has deposed that he was present at the time of marriage. Marriage has been solemnized in the year 2008. He frequently visits the house of the petitioner because he is his class-mate. He does not know in which subject petitioner did his graduation. Petitioner's ancestral house is situated at Lukluki, he has two bigha land. Earlier, petitioner appeared in the competitive examination but he did not get success. His mental condition is not well. Earlier, petitioner used to give tuition by which he maintained himself. He does not earn anything for last five years. Petitioner's father is a retired teacher he has a house at Mission Chowk and he has also under constructed house at Lukluki. Naman lives 9 F.A. No. 42 of 2024 2025:JHHC:14998-DB with his mother. O.P. lives separately from the petitioner. He did not know when the O.P. left the work of giving tuition. Petitioner is under treatment at Ranchi. He denied the suggestion that he concealed a lot of things. He denied the suggestion that petitioner assaulted the O.P./wife.
P.W.3 Subhash Chandra Jha, has stated in his examination-in-chief likewise P.W.1 and P.W.2.
P.W.- 4 Giriwar Kumar Sah, has deposed in his examination-in-
chief likewise PW-1, 2 & 3.
In his cross examination, he has deposed that both husband and wife are living separately. Nitu lives in a rented house with her son. Both lives separate for about 9-10 years. This case has been filed by Nitu Devi. After marriage she lived for 2-3 years properly, thereafter, Mukesh started having mental problems. After marriage Mukesh used to give tuition. After 4-5 years since marriage, Mukesh ceased to have any earning. Mukesh's father bears the expenses of his food and clothes. Mukesh's father was a Govt.
Employee and he has retired now. He gets pension. Mukesh's younger sister is a teacher she used to visit her maike frequently. Naman Kumar studies in Mission School. He knows that he studies in Class IV or V. He has seen Mukesh taking medicine from Ranchi. Mukesh writes homeopathic medicine. Mukesh is capable to maintain his wife and child. Mukesh has ancestral property at mouza- Lukluki. Mukesh has also house at Gordhi. He denied the suggestion that he has no knowledge about the case.
P.W.- 5 Vivekanand Thakur, has deposed in his examination-in-
chief likewise PW-1, 2, 3 & 4. He has deposed that petitioner scared by his 10 F.A. No. 42 of 2024 2025:JHHC:14998-DB wife's behaviour lodged a Sanha in the Court of S.D.O. Godda on 02.05.2017, vide no.84/17. The O.P. filed an application at Mahila Thana alleging bad behaviour of the family members of petitioner. But the P.S. found Nitu Devi guilty and a compromise was held but even after the compromise there is no change in her behaviour. She is not having any talk or relation with her husband for last 10 years. On 16.04.2019, an application was filed at Collectorate Office in Welfare Department in which the parties appeared but she was bent upon leaving her sasural. Thereafter on 19.06.2019, she started living separately. Mukesh Kumar's mental illness treatment is going on so he does not do any work. While Nitu Devi is a teacher in Mission School Godda. Mukesh Kumar wants to keep his wife but she does not live with him.
In his cross examination, he has deposed that petitioner Mukesh is his son. He has two sons and one daughter. Mukesh Kumar is his elder son he is aged about 49-50 years. His son filed a divorce case against his wife. Mukesh Kumar lives with him. After marriage Nitu Devi lived at his house. She is living separately since 2019. He denied the suggestion that they forced the O.P. to live separate. Her younger daughter Aradhana is working in Malini Middle School, Godda, since, 7-8 years. Nitu Devi has filed application in the office of S.D.O. Godda, D.C. Godda. He was retired from service in the year 2008. His ancestral house is in village Lukluki, Godda. He has four bigha land in his share. He has 10 katha land at Mouza Pathariya. He has lodged FIR in the year 2017. His daughter-in-law (Putohu) does not talk to his son. After marriage of two years, there is no any conversation between both wife and his son. His son is suffering from 11 F.A. No. 42 of 2024 2025:JHHC:14998-DB mental depression. There was no any dowry demand at the time of marriage. Four photographs have been shown to the witness by the learned Advocate of the O.P. in which three photographs identified by the witness and told that this is the same photographs which was taken during the marriage of Mukesh and Nitu. All the three photographs exhibited as Ext. A, A/1, A/2 and 4th photograph exhibited as Ext. A/3 with objection. He denied the suggestion that Mukesh is healthy and they have deliberately declared him ill.
Re-examination on recall, he has deposed that receipt of District Mental Health Centre, Jharkhand has been attached on the record he identified which is exhibited as Ext.-1. Outdoor receipt of petitioner Mukesh Kumar from Dumka District dated 27.02.2015 is attached on the record, he identified, which is exhibited as Ext.- 1/1. Pathology report of Mukesh Kumar from Dumka District dt. 27.02.2015 he identified which is marked as Ext.-1/2. Objection petition of O.P.'s lawyer vide petition no. 84/2017 which is on record he identified which is marked as Ext.-2. Prescription of Dr. Sunil Kumar dt. 23.12.2018 he identified which is marked as Ext.-1/3. CITI Scan of Mukesh Kumar dt. 24.12.2018 he identified which is marked as Ext.-1/4. Receipt of school fee of Naman Kumar son of Mukesh Kumar he identified which is marked as Ext.- 3 to 3/21. With objection to the Advocate 1" tree and bushes, 2nd land and 3rd house which is exhibited as Ext.- 4 to 4/2. Xerox copy of report of Bal Vikash Pariyojna Padadikari which is marked as Mark-X. In his cross examination has stated that which doctor has signed in Ext.-1 he does not identify. He does not know that in which doctor's name 12 F.A. No. 42 of 2024 2025:JHHC:14998-DB in Ext/- 1/1. There is no any Pathology doctor signed in Ext.-1/2. Exhibit 1, ½, 1/3, 1/4, 2, 3 to 3/21 is not prepared in his presence. He did not read the prescription of doctor which is Ext.-1/3. Exhibit ¼ is correct. Ext.- 3 to 3/21 receipt of school fee from August 2014 to January 2016. All the receipt signed by the same headmaster. He has not signed in Ext.-4 & 4/1. Katib has not signed in Ext.-4/2.
P.W.- 6 Mukesh Kumar (Plaintiff himself), has deposed in his examination-in-chief that his marriage has been solemnized with Nitu Devi on 18.04.2008 and after marriage he began to live with her at his father's house. Out of their wedlock a son was born namely Naman Kumar at present he is aged about 13 years. Gradually the intervention of Nitu Devi's parents started and his wife Nitu Devi's behaviour started changing. Nitu Devi used to leave her child and go away and she used to return back after 2-3 days. When he asked about this then she abuses him. Gradually she stopped talking to him and even giving him food and drink. After asking something she started misbehaving with his family members. Due to that reason he started living under mental pressure then he started treatment from Ranchi. She started to live separately in her own house but her all expenses was borne by his father. Naman Kumar's all education expenses are borne by the petitioner. O.P. lives separate in the house of the petitioner. In that situation an information petition was filed in the court of S.D.O. Godda on 02.05.17. The O.P. filed an application at Mahila Thana Godda alleging false allegation, there the petitioner appeared, the police found the O.P. guilty. A few days after coming back to her sasural she started behaving like before and again started to live separate. She made false 13 F.A. No. 42 of 2024 2025:JHHC:14998-DB allegation against the father, mother and sister of the petitioner. The petitioner has no any relation with his wife since 10 years. Petitioner wants to keep his son with him.
In his cross examination he has stated that an affidavit was prepared by him on 07.07.2022 and he made his signature thereon. He has completed his graduation in the year 1994. Naval Kishore Thakur is his uncle and Vivekanand Thakur is his father. He has filed this case for divorce. He also gives tuition. His son studies in Mission School Godda in Class-VII. The O.P. got separated from him since then she bears all the expenses of his son. When they used to live jointly then he used to bears all expenses of his son. Four photographs attached on the record which was taken at the time of marriage which he identifies. He has filed an application in the office of S.D.O. on 02.05.2017 that his wife used to go out of the home without any information. His father has five brothers, nobody lives at Lukluki. He has not filed any case against his wife in the court of C.J.M. Godda. When his wife lived in his house then she had gone 3-4 times to the P.S. for making complaint that her husband tortured her. But after 2009 he has no any physical relation with his wife. His wife told him that she will not live with him she wants divorce. He denied the suggestion that all of them assaulted his wife. That his child was born on 17.03.2009. His son was born in Veena Clinic at Bhagalpur. His ancestral land is in the name of his father Vivekanand Thakur. He does not know that in which class his son studies. They had given a separate room to the O.P. in that room electricity and water facilities were available. When his mother became ill then he cooked food. He denied the suggestion that he is a medical practitioner. He denied 14 F.A. No. 42 of 2024 2025:JHHC:14998-DB the suggestion that on the instigation of his sister and bahnoi he did not care his wife and child. He denied the suggestion that he ousted his wife from the house. At present his wife lives at Godda but where she lives he does not know.
The respondent-wife has been examined as O.P.W.-1, Nitu Devi (wife). For ready reference, her evidence is being referred as under:
O.P.W.-1, Nitu Devi (wife) has stated in her examination-in-chief on affidavit dated 04.02.2023 that the petitioner and his parents started torturing the O.P. since the birth of Naman. The O.P. had to stay hungry for several days. Even Naman used to cry with hunger, yet no one feels pity. Her Father-in-law and husband despised the food prepared by the O.P. then she stopped cooking food. Her father-in-law used to cook food in day time and her husband used to cook food at night but they did not provide food to the O.P. and her criminal activities that's why her father-in-law and husband considered themselves boss and they insulted the parents of the O.P. The O.P. filed Sanha in the court of S.D.M. Godda vide petition no. 371/2016 on 14:09.2016 which was sent to the P.S. The O.P. also filed an application at Mahila Thana Godda in the month of April 2017 in which both parties were called for and a compromise was held in the year 2017 and petitioner accepted that he will keep Nitu Jha with him and he will not torture her. But after few days she has been separated by him then she has filed an application at Mahila Kosang, Godda but there is no hearing. Again, she has filed an application on 05.05.2019 then her in-laws told that they would not let her remain in the house. Then she left the house with her belongings in the presence of Probation Officer. When she lives at her sasural no outsider 15 F.A. No. 42 of 2024 2025:JHHC:14998-DB ever came to the O.P. only her relatives used to come. O.P. never goes outside without any information. Sometimes the O.P. used to go to her neighbourers house. All the allegations alleged are false and fabricated.
Always O.P. has been tortured by the petitioner. So the O.P. accepted the petition of the petitioner. O.P. wants to live her life by herself and she wants money for the maintenance of her and her child.
In her cross examination she has stated that at present she lives at Ramnagar, Godda is at the distance of ½ km from her sasural. She lives separate since 19th June 2019 at rented house. When she left her sasural at that time Mahila Kosang Officer was present. Her devar Brajesh Thakur died before her marriage. When she was living at her sasural at that time Naman was small. That time he studied in Ramkrishan School in L.K.G./U.K.G. She teaches in the school. She does not know whether child's fee was charged or not. He does not know whether her husband used to pay the school fee or tuition fee. At present she teaches in St. Thomas School. She has a Scooty Activa but she does not remember her vehicle number. She received her salary she gets 7-8 thousand rupees. She denied the suggestion that her parents came to her sasural and they used to live for many days. She lives at her sasural's house in a room and she prepared food separate. She denied the suggestion that when she lives at her sasural then her husband bore her expenses. At the time of her marriage, she has been gifted jewelery. Her husband is mentally disturbed and he is under treatment. She does not know that her husband is unemployed or not. When she lives at her sasural then her husband gives tuition and does homeopathic practice. Whatever he earns he gives it to his mother and his sister. She denied the suggestion that her 16 F.A. No. 42 of 2024 2025:JHHC:14998-DB husband did not work because his mental condition was not good. She does not want to live with her husband. She denied the suggestion that her husband is unemployed, he has no income and his marriage has been solemnized without any dowry.
24. The learned Family Judge has gone into the interpretation of the word "cruelty" and "desertion" and assessing the same from the evidences led on behalf of the parties as also the submission made in the pleadings, i.e., plaint and written statement, has allowed the dissolution of marriage with direction upon the appellant to give permanent alimony to the respondent wife in the tune of Rs.15,00,000/-.
25. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the evidence in relation to permanent alimony, has not properly been considered and as such, the impugned judgment to that extent suffers from perversity, hence, not sustainable in the eyes of law.
26. While on the other hand, argument has been advanced on behalf of the respondent that the issue of permanent alimony has well been considered and as such, the impugned order requires no interference.
27. In the aforesaid context, it would be apt to refer section 25 of the Act, 1955, which reads a under:
25. Permanent alimony and maintenance.--(1) Any court exercising jurisdiction under this Act may, at the time of passing any decree or at any time subsequent thereto, on application made to it for the purpose by either the wife or the husband, as the case may be, order that the respondent shall 70[* * *] pay to the applicant for her or his maintenance and support such gross sum or such monthly or periodical sum for a term not exceeding the life of the applicant as, having regard to the respondent's own income and other property, if 17 F.A. No. 42 of 2024 2025:JHHC:14998-DB any, the income and other property of the applicant 71[, the conduct of the parties and other circumstances of the case], it may seem to the court to be just, and any such payment may be secured, if necessary, by a charge on the immovable property of the respondent.
(2) If the court is satisfied that there is, a change in the circumstances of either party at any time after it has made an order under sub- section (1), it may at the instance of either party, vary, modify or rescind any such order in such manner as the court may deem just. (3) If the court is satisfied that the party in whose favour an order has been made under this section has remarried or, if such party is the wife, that she has not remained chaste, or, if such party is the husband, that he has had sexual intercourse with any woman outside wedlock, 72[it may at the instance of the other party vary, modify or rescind any such order in such manner as the court may deem just].
28. Thus, from the aforesaid, it is evident that Section 25 of the Act 1955 is an enabling provision. It empowers the court in a matrimonial case to consider facts and circumstances of the spouse applying and decide whether or not to grant permanent alimony or maintenance. Sub-section (1) of Section 25 provides that a matrimonial Court exercising the jurisdiction under the Hindu Marriage Act may at the time of passing a decree or at any time subsequent thereto on an Application made to it, order to pay maintenance. Thus, a power is conferred on the Matrimonial Court to grant permanent alimony and maintenance on the basis of a decree of divorce passed under the Hindu Marriage Act even subsequent to the date of passing of the decree on the basis of an application made in that behalf. Sub-section (2) of Section 25 confers a power on the Court to vary, modify or rescind the order made under Sub-section (1) of Section 25 in case of change in circumstances. The power under Sub-section (3) of Section 25 is an independent power. The said power can be exercised if the Court is satisfied that the wife in whose favour an order under Subsection (1) of Section 25 of 18 F.A. No. 42 of 2024 2025:JHHC:14998-DB the Hindu Marriage Act is made has not remained chaste. In such event, at the instance of the other party, the Court may vary, modify or rescind the order under Sub-section (1) of Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Reference in this regard kay be made to the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kalyan Dey Chowdhury vs. Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy, (2017) 14 SCC 200.
29. We may note here that an amendment has been brought to Sub-section (3) of Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act by the Act No. 68 of 1976 with effect from 27th May 1996. Earlier, it was provided under Sub-section (3) of Section 25 that if the Court was satisfied that the party in whose favour an order has been made has not remained chaste, it shall rescind the order. The words "it shall rescind the order" appearing in Sub-section (3) of Section 25 were replaced by the said amendment by the words "it may at the instance of the other party vary, modify or rescind any such order .....". The legislature in its wisdom by the said amendment has provided that after the facts stated in Sub-section (3) of Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act are established, the Court may vary, modify or rescind any such order under Sub-section (1) of Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Thus, after 1976, there is a discretion conferred on the Court by Sub-section (3) of Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act of declining to rescind, vary or modify the order under Sub-section (1) of Section 25 thereof, even if on an Application made by the husband, it is established that the wife has not remained chaste after the decree of maintenance is passed under Sub-section (1) of Section 25.
30. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vinny Parmvir Parmar v. Parmvir Parmar, (2011) 13 SCC 112 while appreciating the core of Section 19 F.A. No. 42 of 2024 2025:JHHC:14998-DB 25 of the Act 1955 has observed that for permanent alimony and maintenance of either spouse, the respondent's own income and other property, and the income and other property of the applicant are all relevant material in addition to the conduct of the parties and other circumstances of the case, for ready reference the relevant paragraph of the aforesaid judgment is being quoted as under:
"12. As per Section 25, while considering the claim for permanent alimony and maintenance of either spouse, the respondent's own income and other property, and the income and other property of the applicant are all relevant material in addition to the conduct of the parties and other circumstances of the case. It is further seen that the court considering such claim has to consider all the above relevant materials and determine the amount which is to be just for living standard. No fixed formula can be laid for fixing the amount of maintenance. It has to be in the nature of things which depend on various facts and circumstances of each case. The court has to consider the status of the parties, their respective needs, the capacity of the husband to pay, having regard to reasonable expenses for his own maintenance and others whom he is obliged to maintain under the law and statute. The courts also have to take note of the fact that the amount of maintenance fixed for the wife should be such as she can live in reasonable comfort considering her status and mode of life she was used to live when she lived with her husband. At the same time, the amount so fixed cannot be excessive or affect the living condition of the other party. These are all the broad principles courts have to be kept (sic keep) in mind while determining maintenance or permanent alimony."
31. It needs to refer herein that no arithmetic formula can be adopted for grant of permanent alimony to wife. However, status of parties, their respective social needs, financial capacity of husband and other obligations must be taken into account. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of U. Sree vs. U. Srinivas, (2013) 2 SCC 114 has observed that while granting permanent alimony, no arithmetic formula can be adopted as there cannot be 20 F.A. No. 42 of 2024 2025:JHHC:14998-DB mathematical exactitude. It shall depend upon the status of the parties, their respective social needs, the financial capacity of the husband and other obligations. For ready reference the relevant paragraph is being quoted as under:
"33. We have reproduced the aforesaid orders to highlight that the husband had agreed to buy a flat at Hyderabad. However, when the matter was listed thereafter, there was disagreement with regard to the locality of the flat arranged by the husband and, therefore, the matter was heard on merits. We have already opined that the husband has made out a case for divorce by proving mental cruelty. As a decree is passed, the wife is entitled to permanent alimony for her sustenance. Be it stated, while granting permanent alimony, no arithmetic formula can be adopted as there cannot be mathematical exactitude. It shall depend upon the status of the parties, their respective social needs, the financial capacity of the husband and other obligations. In Vinny Parmvir Parmar v. Parmvir Parmar [(2011) 13 SCC 112 : (2012) 3 SCC (Civ) 290] (SCC p. 116, para 12) while dealing with the concept of permanent alimony, this Court has observed that while granting permanent alimony, the court is required to take note of the fact that the amount of maintenance fixed for the wife should be such as she can live in reasonable comfort considering her status and the mode of life she was used to when she lived with her husband. At the same time, the amount so fixed cannot be excessive or affect the living condition of the other party."
32. In the case of Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324 the Hon'ble Apex Court has extensively dealt with the issue of granting interim/permanent alimony and has categorically held that the objective of granting interim/permanent alimony is to ensure that the dependent spouse is not reduced to destitution or vagrancy on account of the failure of the marriage, and not as a punishment to the other spouse. There is no straitjacket formula for fixing the quantum of maintenance to be awarded. The Hon'ble Apex Court further held that the Court while considering the issue of maintenance, 21 F.A. No. 42 of 2024 2025:JHHC:14998-DB should consider the factors like the status of the parties; reasonable needs of the wife and dependent children; whether the applicant is educated and professionally qualified; whether the applicant has any independent source of income; whether the income is sufficient to enable her to maintain the same standard of living as she was accustomed to in her matrimonial home; whether the applicant was employed prior to her marriage; whether she was working during the subsistence of the marriage, for ready reference the relevant paragraph of the aforesaid judgment is being quoted as under:
"77. The objective of granting interim/permanent alimony is to ensure that the dependent spouse is not reduced to destitution or vagrancy on account of the failure of the marriage, and not as a punishment to the other spouse. There is no straitjacket formula for fixing the quantum of maintenance to be awarded.
78. The factors which would weigh with the court inter alia are the status of the parties; reasonable needs of the wife and dependent children; whether the applicant is educated and professionally qualified; whether the applicant has any independent source of income; whether the income is sufficient to enable her to maintain the same standard of living as she was accustomed to in her matrimonial home; whether the applicant was employed prior to her marriage; whether she was working during the subsistence of the marriage; whether the wife was required to sacrifice her employment opportunities for nurturing the family, child rearing, and looking after adult members of the family; reasonable costs of litigation for a non- working wife. [ Refer to Jasbir Kaur Sehgal v. District Judge, Dehradun, (1997) 7 SCC 7; Refer to Vinny Parmvir Parmar v. Parmvir Parmar, (2011) 13 SCC 112 : (2012) 3 SCC (Civ) 290]
79. In Manish Jain v. Akanksha Jain [Manish Jain v. Akanksha Jain, (2017) 15 SCC 801 : (2018) 2 SCC (Civ) 712] this Court held that the financial position of the parents of the applicant wife, would not be material while determining the quantum of maintenance. An order of interim maintenance is conditional on the circumstance that the wife or husband who makes a claim has no independent income, sufficient for her or his support. It is no answer to a claim of maintenance that 22 F.A. No. 42 of 2024 2025:JHHC:14998-DB the wife is educated and could support herself. The court must take into consideration the status of the parties and the capacity of the spouse to pay for her or his support. Maintenance is dependent upon factual situations; the court should mould the claim for maintenance based on various factors brought before it.
80. On the other hand, the financial capacity of the husband, his actual income, reasonable expenses for his own maintenance, and dependent family members whom he is obliged to maintain under the law, liabilities if any, would be required to be taken into consideration, to arrive at the appropriate quantum of maintenance to be paid. The court must have due regard to the standard of living of the husband, as well as the spiralling inflation rates and high costs of living. The plea of the husband that he does not possess any source of income ipso facto does not absolve him of his moral duty to maintain his wife if he is able-bodied and has educational qualifications.
[Reema Salkan v. Sumer Singh Salkan, (2019) 12 SCC 303 : (2018) 5 SCC (Civ) 596 : (2019) 4 SCC (Cri) 339]
81. A careful and just balance must be drawn between all relevant factors. The test for determination of maintenance in matrimonial disputes depends on the financial status of the respondent, and the standard of living that the applicant was accustomed to in her matrimonial home. [Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai, (2008) 2 SCC 316 :
(2008) 1 SCC (Civ) 547 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 356] The maintenance amount awarded must be reasonable and realistic, and avoid either of the two extremes i.e. maintenance awarded to the wife should neither be so extravagant which becomes oppressive and unbearable for the respondent, nor should it be so meagre that it drives the wife to penury. The sufficiency of the quantum has to be adjudged so that the wife is able to maintain herself with reasonable comfort."
33. In the backdrop of the aforesaid settled legal position, this Court is re- adverting to the impugned judgment of the learned Family Court. For ready reference, the relevant part of impugned judgment so far it relates to the issue of permanent alimony is being quoted as under:
33. Re: ISSUE No. VI (contd.):-
(a) Re: Custody of child (Contd.):-
Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in Rajnesh vs Neha reported in 2021(1) JLJR page 1 (SC) have been pleased to hold that "Education 23 F.A. No. 42 of 2024 2025:JHHC:14998-DB expenses of the children must be normally borne by the father- if the wife is working and / earning sufficiently, the expenses may be shared proportionately between the parties."
Further Hon'ble the Court have been pleased to hold that "the living expense of the child would include expenses for food, clothing, residence, medical expenses, education of the children-extra coaching classes or any other vocational training courses to complement the basic education must be factored in while awarding child support- it should be a reasonable amount to be awarded for extracurricular/coaching classes and not an overly extravagant amount which may be claimed."
[Rajnesh vs Neha reported in 2021(1) JLJR. page 1 (SC) Applying the above case low to the fact of this case, it is being held that the petitioner father of the child has to share and bear the cost of maintenance and education of this child till his attaining majority as this being his incumbent liability.
So far the capacity of the Petitioner Mukesh Kumar to bear the expenses of the child and his wife is concerned, it is found that he has himself brought this suit for dissolution of marriage, he has engaged Ld. Advocate for the same and borne all the expenses of litigation, he has claimed in his cross-examination that he used to bear expenses of education of his child [PW6 in para 18) in support he has submitted the school fee receipts marked as Ex 3.0 3/21, he has given consistent answers to all questions, he has admitted that he has ancestral land [PW6 in para 40], his father is a retired government servant drawing pension [PW5 in para 23), he (father of petitioner) has stated that he has land in his share [PW5 in para 25), the father of the petitioner has himself stated that petitioner is not mad rather he suffers from mental depression only [PW5 in para 30). All these facts go to show that petitioner has sufficient means to bear he expenses of is child and his wife.
Thus, it is held that the petitioner Mukesh Kumar shall share and bear the cost of maintenance and education of this child till his attaining majority as this being his incumbent liability. Thus,it is held that petitioner/father shall pay to his son Naman Kumar till his attaining majority, maintenance and education allowance @ Rs. 4,000/- per month from the date of this application dated 04.04.2019.
34. Re: ISSUE No. VI (contd.):-
Re: Permanent Alimony to the Op wife; It has been prayed for on behalf of OP/ Nitu Devi that in case the Court orders decree for the dissolution of their marriage, then she should be granted sufficient permanent alimony/maintenance as she has very little source of income and she is only dependent upon her husband, she has prayed for Rs. 30 lacs for herself and Rs. 15 Lacs for her son [Para 22 of WS). Ld. Advocate for the OP has prayed for than by her written statement dated 01.07.2019 she has made such specific prayer, which is a prayer under section 25 of Hindu Marriage Act. It is further 24 F.A. No. 42 of 2024 2025:JHHC:14998-DB submitted by Ld. Advocate that petitioner is only son of his father who is a retired government servant drawing pension and be has good ancestral property. it is also submitted on behalf of OP that in her written statement dated 01.07.2019 she has annexed list of her 'Stridhan' at page 15 which was given to her at the time of her marriage and which has not been opposed by petitioner and which is to be returned to her by the petitioner. In support, the photographs have been submitted marked as Exhibit A, A1, A2 & A/3 showing the ornaments being given at the time of marriage, further a photocopy of photo marked as X and photo copy of bank-draft worth Rs. 2 lacs in name of Girjananad Thakur marked as X/1 has been submitted. Of-
course the photographs etc have not been proved as per strict rule of evidence, however these photographs have been admitted by the father of the petitioner and he has stated that all these photos are of said marriage [PW5in para 33].The petitioner has himself stated that he does not have any objection to what his wife has stated in her written statement and he wants divorce[PW6.in para 36].
A look to above materials on the record, it emerges established that list of articles at page 15 of written statement dated 01.07.2019 submitted by the OP mentioning ornaments etc of gold and silver are certainly the 'stri-dhan' given at the time of marriage and which has to be returned to the OP. So far utensils items are concerned, the petitioner should return whatever utensils etc they have received in marriage with the OP. However so far items like fridge, TV, cash and draft are concerned it has not been sufficiently proved and hence there cannot be any order as regards their return.
35. Re ISSUE No. VI (contd.)-
Re: Permanent Alimony to the OP/wife (contd) Now as regards the permanent alimony to OP Nitu Devi, having heard both sides 1 seek guidance from case law reported in 2019 (195) AIC 105 (SC) wherein it has been ruled that in order to ensure that parties may live peacefully in future, the husband was directed to pay his wife permanent alimony.
In the case law reported in (2012) 7 SCC 288 (Vishwanth Agarwal vs Sarla Vishwanth Agarwal) and Sujit Kumar Pandey vs Anjali Devi 2015 (1) JCR 165, Hon'ble the Court have been pleased to hold that "permanent alimony is to be granted taking into consideration the social status, the conduct of the parties, the way of living of spouse and such other ancillary aspects and the wife is entitled for permanent alimony keeping view of fact like status of husband, social needs, and the maximum amount fixed for wife should be such which will be enough for her to lead a reasonable and comfortable life considering her status and the standard of living, she would have enjoyed had the parties led the conjugal life in normal circumstances." In summary, while granting relief as permanent alimony following things have to be considered by the court (1) Husband's own income (ii) Income of husband's other property 25 F.A. No. 42 of 2024 2025:JHHC:14998-DB
(iii) Income of the applicant (iv) Conduct of the parties Now looking to the fact of this case it is found that petitioner/husband is an educated person, of course he is suffering from some mental depression undergoing treatment but he has support of his family being only son of his parents and having ancestral property. The petitioner has himself claimed that he used to bear all the expenses of the wife and child. On the other hand, OP/wife is a house wife, doing work in some school as teacher but drawing very meagre salary not sufficient enough for her maintenance. It is also found that conduct of the petitioner also has never been towards salvaging the institution of marriage as it is he who has come for dissolution of his marriage, whereas the OP although, had her own grievances as well but she did not think of such step.
Having considered all the above facts, this Court finds that justice requires that the OP/wife who is a middle aged woman having a long future life to lead, no her own house to live in, must be given Rs. 15,00,000/- (Rs. Fifteen Lacs only) as one-time permanent alimony by petitioner.
36. Having given thoughtful consideration to the above facts and findings, It is therefore ORDERED That the suit be and same is hereby DECREED on contest. The marriage solemnized on 18.04.2008 as per Hindu customary rites and ceremonies between the plaintiff/petitioner- MUKESH KUMAR and Respondent/OP-NITU DEVI is hereby DISSOLVED under section 13(1)(i-a)(i-b) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Plaintiff MUKESH KUMAR is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/-(Rs. Fifteen Lacs) as Permanent Alimony (under section 25 of Hindu Marriage Act) to the Respondent NITU DEVI, out of which Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rs. Five Lacs) shall be paid to Respondent/OP by plaintiff/petitioner in lump-sum within Four months from the date of the decree and remaining Rs.10,00,000/- (Rs. Ten Lacs) will be paid in two instalments within next Eight months that is, within Twelve months from the date of decree with further direction to plaintiff/petitioner Mukesh Kumar to return all 'STRI-DHAN' and belongings, gifts of respondent to her as mentioned in the list at page no.15 of written statement dated 01.07.2019 (Gold and silver ornaments as per above referred list and utensils only vide para 33 of this judgment) and both parties shall return all the respective such gifts to each other within three months. It is further ordered that CUSTODY of child Naman Kumar, aged about 14 years (born on 17.03.2009) shall remain with her custodial parent, that is, his mother- Nitu Devi, who is OP/Respondent here, since non-custodial parent plaintiff/father is not very much inclined to take his custody and also the interest and welfare of the child would be better served in his living with his mother/OP with whom he has been living since his birth and naturally most comfortable with her, however, the plaintiff shall be at liberty to exercise his Visitation Right to this minor 26 F.A. No. 42 of 2024 2025:JHHC:14998-DB child but with consent of OP [vide para 32 of this judgment). The plaintiff shall pay the maintenance allowance @ Rs. 4,000/- per month to minor child Naman Kumar till his attaining majority as his share for welfare, education and maintenance of this child from the date of the filing of this case, that is 04.04.2019, with direction to make payment of the arrears amount of child maintenance-allowance within four months from date of this judgment and to ensure making regular payment @ Rs.4,000/- pm before 10th day of every calendar month through her mother. It is made clear that if the ordered amount to OP or child is not paid within stipulated time, plaintiff husband shall pay simple interest @ 9 % per annum on the unpaid amount till its realization. The respondent/OP shall be at liberty to realize the unpaid amount in accordance with law.
The dissolution of marriage shall take effect from the date of decree.
34. Thus, it is evident that learned Family Judge has taken in to consideration the ratio of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh vs Neha (supra) has categorically held the petitioner father of the child has to share and bear the cost of maintenance and education of this child till his attaining majority as this being his incumbent liability. It has further been observed that so far the capacity of the Petitioner/appellant to bear the expenses of the child and his wife is concerned, it is found that he has himself brought this suit for dissolution of marriage, he has engaged Ld. Advocate for the same and borne all the expenses of litigation, he has claimed in his cross-examination that he used to bear expenses of education of his child [PW6 in para 18) in support he has submitted the school fee receipts marked as Ex 3.0 3/21, he has given consistent answers to all questions, he has admitted that he has ancestral land [PW6 in para 40], his father is a retired government servant drawing pension [PW5 in para 23), he (father of petitioner) has stated that he has land in his share [PW5 in para 25), the father of the petitioner has himself stated that petitioner is not mad rather he suffers from mental depression only [PW5 in 27 F.A. No. 42 of 2024 2025:JHHC:14998-DB para 30). All these facts go to show that petitioner has sufficient means to bear he expenses of is child and his wife.
35. On the basis of the aforesaid the learned Family Judge has directed that the petitioner/appellant shall share and bear the cost of maintenance and education of child till his attaining majority and the petitioner/father shall pay to his son Naman Kumar till his attaining majority, maintenance and education allowance @ Rs. 4,000/- per month from the date of this application dated 04.04.2019.
36. On the point of Permanent Alimony to the respondent wife, the learned Family Judge while taking in to consideration the materials available on the record that the 'stri-dhan' given at the time of marriage has to be returned to the OP. Further taking in to consideration the ratio rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vishwanth Agarwal vs Sarla Vishwanth Agarwal and Sujit Kumar Pandey vs Anjali Devi (supra), the learned Family Judge has found that appellant/husband is an educated person, of course he is suffering from some mental depression undergoing treatment but he has support of his family being only son of his parents and having ancestral property and the petitioner has himself claimed that he used to bear all the expenses of the wife and child. On the other hand, OP/wife is a house wife, doing work in some school as teacher but drawing very meagre salary not sufficient enough for her maintenance. The learned Family Judge has found that conduct of the petitioner also has never been towards salvaging the institution of marriage as it is he who has come for dissolution of his marriage, whereas the OP although, had her own grievances as well but she did not think of such step. 28 F.A. No. 42 of 2024
2025:JHHC:14998-DB
37. Further, it is evident that the learned Family Court having considered all the above facts, has held that the OP/wife who is a middle-aged woman having a long future life to lead, no her own house to live in, must be given Rs. 15,00,000/- (Rs. Fifteen Lacs only) as one-time permanent alimony by petitioner/appellant.
38. Thus, in the backdrop of the aforesaid facts and legal proposition as discussed and referred hereinabove, this Court has considered view that learned Family Court has after meticulous examination of all the evidences has properly dealt with the issue involved in this case.
39. Further, this Court, while appreciating the argument advanced on behalf of the plaintiff/appellant on the issue of perversity, needs to refer herein the interpretation of the word "perverse" as has been interpreted by the Hon'ble Apex Court which means that there is no evidence or erroneous consideration of the evidence. 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.29 F.A. No. 42 of 2024
2025:JHHC:14998-DB
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."
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.""
40. This Court, based upon the aforesaid discussion, is of the view that the plaintiff/appellant has failed to establish the element of perversity in the impugned judgment as per the discussion made hereinabove so far as it relates to issue of permanent alimony and maintenance to his minor child.
30 F.A. No. 42 of 2024
2025:JHHC:14998-DB
41. Further, this Court is conscious with the settled proposition of law as has been settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. v. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha, (1980) 2 SCC 593 that "an appellate power interferes not when the order appealed is not right but only when it is clearly wrong decision".
42. Thus, this Court, on consideration of the finding arrived at by the learned Family Judge and based upon the aforesaid discussion and settled legal proposition as referred and discussed hereinabove, is of the view that the judgment passed by the learned Family Judge is not coming under the fold of the perversity, since, the conscious consideration has been made of the evidences, both ocular and documentary, as would be evident from the impugned judgment.
43. This Court, therefore, is of the view that the Judgment dated 21.12.2023 (decree drawn up on 07.02.2024) passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Godda in Original Suit No. 55 of 2019, needs no interference.
44. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands dismissed.
45. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) I Agree (Rajesh Kumar, J.) (Rajesh Kumar, J.) / Rohit A.F.R. 31 F.A. No. 42 of 2024