Jharkhand High Court
Smt. Sunita Singh vs Sri Surendra Prasad Singh S/O Late ... on 1 August, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Rajesh Kumar
2025:JHHC:21426-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
F.A. No. 41 of 2020
1. Smt. Sunita Singh, W/o Sri Surendra Prasad Singh, D/o
D.N.Singh, aged about 44 years, residents of 25, O.C. Road,
South Park, P.O. & P.S.-Bistupur, Town-Jamshedpur,
District-East Singhbhum, Permanent residents of
H.No.23/69, Kamla Sadan, Rajendra Nagar, P.O.-Mango,
P.S.-Ulidih (Mango), District-East Singhbhum at
Jamshedpur. ... ... Appellant/Defendant
Versus
Sri Surendra Prasad Singh S/o Late Parsuram Singh, C/o
Bishweshar Thakur, residents of Mandir Path, Kadma, P.O.
& P.S.-kadma, Town-Jamshedpur, District-East
Singhbhum, Permanent rresidents of Village-Sinduria,
P.O.-Rambilash Nagar, P.S. Barun, District-Aourangabad,
Bihar. ... ... Respondent/Plaintiff
-------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
-------
For the Appellant : Mr. Jitesh Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Vishal Kumar Trivedi, Advocate
------
CAV on 08.07.2025 Pronounced on 01/08/2025
Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.:
1. The instant appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Court Act, 1984 is directed against the judgment dated 27.01.2020 and Decree dated 01.02.2020 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Jamshedpur in Original (Matrimonial) Suit No.582 of 2016, whereby and whereunder, the petition filed under Section 13(1)(i) & (i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 by the respondent/plaintiff seeking a decree of divorce against his wife (appellant herein), has been allowed.
1
2025:JHHC:21426-DB Factual Matrix
2. The brief facts of the case leading to filing of the divorce petition by the respondent/ plaintiff needs to be referred herein as under:
The case of plaintiff, in brief, is that plaintiff is legally married husband of defendant and their marriage was solemnized on 03.12.1992 according to Hindu rites and custom at H6/25, 0.C. Road, South Park, Bistupur, Jamshedpur and after marriage defendant went in her in-laws house at Flat No. A/37, Kadma Workers Flat, Jamshedpur.
After one and half year, they were blessed with a daughter and thereafter attitude of defendant changed against the plaintiff and his parents and she started creating problems everyday in his house because she never wanted to live with the parents and family members of the plaintiff rather she wanted to live with her husband and daughter separately and for peaceful life, plaintiff agreed for the same and he along with defendant and daughter shifted in a rented house at Sonari and started living there, thereafter in Farm Area Kadma and after allotment of quarter no. H6/25, 0.C. Road, South Park, P. O & P.S. Bistupur, Jamshedpur, in the year 2000, where, defendant is residing.
The further case of plaintiff is that in that quarter family members of defendant were also living and in the year 2003 the father of defendant purchased a house situated at 2 2025:JHHC:21426-DB Rajendra Nagar, Near Sal Maidan, Ulidih, Mango and shifted there, thereafter defendant became very arrogant and started misbehaving, ignoring the plaintiff and her daughter. She demanded full payment in her hand with a view to fulfill her unnecessary desire and high living standard and while the plaintiff refused to pay such money to the defendant, in the year 2005 on occasion of Holi, when he came home two hours before, after taking Gate Pass from his duty, he caught the defendant with a boy, who was her lover red handed and then informed her parents and when plaintiff tried to get identity from the boy, the defendant fled away from the back door of the house, to her parents house and she filed first time complaint application in C.D.S.W. Department of Tata Steel making allegation for torturing and demanding T.V., Fridge etc. and after enquiry, the allegation was found to be false and same was dismissed.
Thereafter on 13.05.2005 at about 6.30 P.M, plaintiff received a call on his mobile from mobile no. 9835381475 and the caller threatened him for dire consequences and false implication in a legal proceeding, then plaintiff filed an Information Petition bearing no. 138 of 2005 against the defendant, in the learned Court of C.J.M., Jamshedpur on 16.05.2005 hereafter, family members, relatives and friends of defendant reached to the house of plaintiff and requested to give one more chance and mother of defendant also requested then plaintiff and defendant lived together in the 3 2025:JHHC:21426-DB said quarter and blessed with a son in the year 2009.
Thereafter, defendant again started ignoring plaintiff and did not make meal and other requirements for him, but the plaintiff ignored it for about six months and lastly he started living separately in a room situated in front of the said quarter.
The further case of plaintiff is that in November, 2015 he deposited Rs.40,000/ and Rs.47,000/- for children fees but defendant grabbed the amount and it came to the knowledge of plaintiff that fees was not paid by the defendant, thereafter, he paid fees of his children by taking loan form E.P.F and L.I.C. Thereafter in March, 2016, defendant alongwith her father reached in the room of plaintiff with a petition u/s 13 (B) for divorce on mutual consent and threatened the plaintiff to sign on that petition otherwise go from their house, then plaintiff went in the house of his brother-in-law after taking his Safety Card, Shoes, Gate Pass and Helmet.
The further case of plaintiff is that after few days plaintiff's friend informed him that one EON Car bearing Registration No. JH05AR-1395 parked in from of his quarter and after search plaintiff found that the said car was of Shashi Ranjan Singh, R/o Or. No. A/111, Tayo Colony, P.S. Gamharia, Saraikela.
On 28.05.2016 at 7.30 A.M, plaintiff went to his quarter to take back his dress, defendant, her father and 4 2025:JHHC:21426-DB Shashi Ranjan Singh started assaulting and abusing him and thereafter plaintiff lodged FIR in Bistupur P.S, u/s 341, 323, 379, 497, 504/34 IPC against defendant, her father D.N. Singh and Shashi Ranjan Singh.
After his filing of the case, his father-in-law objected of his stay there, so he shifted to the house of his elder brother at Kadma. On 06.06.2016, he went to his quarter to take his car, PAN Card and Adhar Card which was required for KYC, then defendant filed a false case against him on 09.06.2016 as Bistupur P.S. Case No. 155 of 2016 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1718 of 2016, u/s 341, 323, 379/34 of the IPC.
Thereafter, defendant filed second time complaint before the Manager Urban Services, Tata Steel, against the plaintiff stating that plaintiff has illicit relation with his Bhabhi but after enquiry, same was dismissed and she filed Maintenance Case No. 146 of 2016 before the learned Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Jamshedpur, wherein it has been alleged that plaintiff had illicit relation with her younger sister.
It is the further case of the plaintiff that his wife has illicit relation with other persons and she did not take proper care of her son, even she visited anywhere leaving her son alone in the quarter or dropped him in school on holiday too.
The further case of plaintiff is that on 22.10.2016, plaintiff was anchoring the cultural programme of Swadeshi Mela organized in Gopal Maidan, Bistupur, Jamshedpur, 5 2025:JHHC:21426-DB defendant came there with Shashi Ranjan Singh and sit with him publicly just to damage his social status. Said Shashi Ranjan Singh has already filed a divorce suit against his wife bearing no. 118 of 2016 before the learned Family Court, Aurangabad, Bihar.
The further case of plaintiff is that defendant has sub-let the quarter and received Rs.5,000/- per month, by violating the quarter allotment agreement and as per said agreement, Tata Steel can terminate him from service.
Thereafter being aggrieved with the conduct of appellant-wife the respondent husband had preferred a suit being Original (Matrimonial) Suit No. 582 of 2016. In the divorce suit, the appellant-wife has appeared and filed her written statement denying all the allegations levelled against her by her husband.
The learned Family Court after taking into consideration the pleading had allowed the prayer for dissolution of marriage as prayed by the respondent/plaintiff. Against the aforesaid order, the instant appeal has been preferred.
3. It is evident from the factual aspect that the respondent/plaintiff had a motion by filing a petition under Section 13(1)(i) & (i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for decree of divorce on the ground of adultery and cruelty.
4. The learned Family Judge has called upon the appellant 6 2025:JHHC:21426-DB defendant/wife. The wife has filed written statement and altogether six issues have been framed which are as follows:
(i) Is the suit as framed maintainable?
(ii) Whether the plaintiff has valid cause of action?
(iii) Whether the defendant has meted out cruelty on the plaintiff sufficient for the purpose of divorce?
(iv) Whether the defendant has after marriage, made physical relationship with any person other than her husband?
(v) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of divorce?
(vi) To what other relief or reliefs of the plaintiff is entitled to?
5. The suit has been filed on the ground of adultery and cruelty, but the issue of adultery could not be proved. However, issue of cruelty has been answered in favour of the respondent- husband and accordingly, the judgment of dissolution of marriage has been passed and decree for the same has been prepared in favour of the respondent-husband which is the subject matter of the present appeal.
Submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/defendant:
6. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant/defendant that the factual aspect which was available before the learned Single Judge supported by the evidences adduced on behalf of the appellant/defendant has not properly been considered 7 2025:JHHC:21426-DB and as such, the judgment impugned is perverse, hence, not sustainable in the eyes of law.
7. The suit although has been filed on the ground of adultery and cruelty but no substantive evidence has come on the ground of adultery, therefore, learned Family Judge has observed that the respondent/plaintiff has failed to prove the ground of adultery.
8. The material which has come in evidence though is not sufficient to prove the cruelty but the same has been accepted and based upon that, judgment for dissolution of marriage of the parties has been passed.
9. The cruelty is to be established by the party by taking the ground of cruelty for the purpose of dissolution of marriage by making specific pleadings in the plaint, but in the instant case if the pleadings of the husband will be taken into consideration which is available on record that it would be evident that the ground has been taken of creating problems in the life of the plaintiff, which has been taken as a ground of cruelty.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned trail court erred in holding that defendant has treated the plaintiff with cruelty as the same court in O.M. (Misc.) Case No.146 of 2016 filed on behalf of defendant/appellant has held that evidence brought on record by the respondent 8 2025:JHHC:21426-DB to prove the allegation of cruelty is indirect evidence by which respondent drew inference that his wife has illicit relation.
11. Learned counsel has further submitted that the best evidence in this case would be Rajesh Singh, the neighbor, who provided photographs to the respondent but he has not been examined in this case hence adverse inference is required to be taken against the respondent, but the learned court below has misdirected holding that the plaintiff has been able to prove that defendant has treated the plaintiff with cruelty, hence Judgment and Decree under appeal is fit to be set aside by this Hon'ble Court.
12. The learned trial court erred in deciding about the permanent alimony and given liberty to the defendant to file separate petition for permanent alimony.
13. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned court below ought to have considered that the interim maintenance amount of Rs.6,000/- only which was granted during pendency of instant divorce case is not enough as in the present time the said amount is wholly insufficient for the appellant to maintain her entire life as such the learned court below ought to have granted permanent alimony while decreeing the suit.
14. The learned trial court without any discussion, appreciation, reasoning and categorical finding on the material issue such 9 2025:JHHC:21426-DB as financial earning capacity of the husband though it was pleaded and brought on record by the appellant that her husband is earning 70,000/- to 75000/- per month and it is duty of the court to see that wife lives with dignity and comfort and she should not be left to live in discomfort hence erred in deciding the suit without granting permanent alimony.
15. It has further been submitted that the Appellant after so much of tortures made by the Respondent/ Husband, she is still ready to live with the Respondent/Husband and has intention to restore marital relationship but the same has not at all considered by the learned Family Court and the learned Family Court has granted divorce to the Respondent/Husband on the ground of cruelty, which has been alleged by the respondent/husband without any basis.
16. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant, based upon the aforesaid ground, has submitted that the judgment impugned suffers from perversity, as such, not sustainable in the eyes of law.
Submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff:
17. Per contra, Mr. Vishal Kumar Trivedi, learned counsel for the respondent-husband, while defending the impugned judgment, has submitted that there is no error in the impugned judgment. The learned Family Judge has considered the issue of cruelty and having come to the 10 2025:JHHC:21426-DB conclusion that sufficient evidence has been adduced to establish cruelty, has allowed the petition.
18. It has been submitted that there is no error in the impugned judgment, since, the learned Family Judge by taking into consideration the evidence adduced by the parties has come to the conclusion that the defendant/appellant has treated the respondent/plaintiff with cruelty as she is moving with Shashi Ranjan Singh freely and her husband is suspicious of their relationship and the fact of her going to Swadeshi Mela was concealed in present proceeding but same surfaced in the proceeding of Misc Case 146 of 2016 that she went to Swadeshi Mela where Shashi Ranjan Singh was present and they had joint photograph and the relationship of plaintiff and defendant has reached at the stage of broken marriage or broken tie beyond repair and the same has been taken as a ground for dissolution of marriage of the parties, hence, the judgment impugned cannot be said to suffer from an error.
19. Learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff has further submitted that the learned Family Judge while deciding the Issue No.III (Whether the defendant has meted out cruelty on the plaintiff sufficient for the purpose of divorce?) has given a specific finding that the plaintiff has proved that conduct and character of defendant was not just to him and it was not possible for him in normal course of nature to live with the defendant and he is not mentally and physically secured it the 11 2025:JHHC:21426-DB company of defendant. Hence, it has been successfully proved that defendant has treated him with cruelty. Therefore, this issue is decided against the defendant
20. Learned counsel, based upon the aforesaid grounds, has submitted that if on that pretext, the factum of cruelty has been found to be established, based upon which the decree of divorce has been allowed to be granted, the impugned judgment cannot be said to suffer from an error. Analysis:
21. We have heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties, gone through the Trial Court Records, as also the impugned judgment, the testimonies of the witnesses and the documents exhibited therein.
22. This Court before considering the legality and propriety in the impugned judgment needs to refer herein that one of the issues have been formulated by the learned family Court as to whether the defendant has meted out cruelty on the plaintiff sufficient for the purpose of divorce can be said to be the proper consideration based upon the testimony available before the learned Family Judge, but before consideration of the aforesaid fact it needs to refer herein the admitted fact related to the pleadings.
12
2025:JHHC:21426-DB
23. The admitted fact herein is that the suit for divorce has been filed on the ground of cruelty and desertion, i.e., by filing an application under Section 13(1) (i) & (i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and accordingly, issues have been framed wherein primarily issue pertains to cruelty.
24. The evidence has been led on behalf of both the parties. For ready reference, the evidences led on behalf of the parties are being referred as under:
(i) PW-1 Surendra Prasad Singh is the plaintiff (respondent herein) himself. He has deposed in his examination-in-chief the same facts as stated in his plaint. He has proved the certified copy of Information Petition as Ext.1, certified copy of F.I.R of Bistupur P.S Case No. 155 of 2016 as Ext.2, certified copy of charge-
sheet of Bistupur P.S. Case No. 155 of 2016 as Ext.3, certified copy of deposition of defendant Sunita Singh in Misc. Case No.146 of 2016 as Ext. 4 and certified copy of FIR, Bistupur P.S. Case No. 134 of 2016 as Ext. 5.
He has admitted in his cross-examination that after marriage, they went in Kadma Workers Flat, where they lived for one year, thereafter, they shifted Bhatia Basti, Sonari Khuntadih and at last Qr. No. H6/25 O.C. Road, South Park, Bistupur.
He has deposed that he saw his wife with Shailendra Shukla and Shashi Ranjan Prasad Singh. He 13 2025:JHHC:21426-DB has further testified that his daughter was born on 25.62.1995 and his son was born on 24.10.2009 and at present his son is living with defendant, whereas, his daughter is working in Mumbai and his daughter Shreya visited in holidays to him and he is presently residing with his younger brother-in-law in Or. No. L-/70, Kashidih with the family members of his brother-in-law. The allegation petition filed by his wife was rejected by the Tata Steel and on the occasion of Holi, he caught red handed his wife and when he was making enquiry from the boy, his wife fled away from back door of his house and he would pay Rs.6,000/- per month to his wife after divorce and he did not know as to how joint account is usually converted into single Bank account.
He has further deposed that Shashi Ranjan Singh has filed a case of dissolution of marriage but has not filed document of the same. He has denied the suggestion that defendant has no illicit relation with Shashi Ranjan Singh and he intends to divorce so that he can marry with other woman.
He was further examined to prove the fact that Shashi Ranjan Singh was present in ganji and half pant and in course of cross-examination, he admitted that photograph was not snapped in his presence and he could not disclose the name of the person, who had 14 2025:JHHC:21426-DB snapped photograph and in that photograph his wife was not in objectionable condition and he denied that the person shown in the photograph in ganji and half pant was Anil Thakur not Shashi Ranjan Singh
(ii) PW-2 Shreya Singh is the daughter of the parties and deposed that in March, 2016, she was preparing to come to her house from hostel at Ranchi in holiday and all of a sudden her mother Sunita Singh came and informed that Shashi Ranjan Singh had come from Tata and was returning to Tata also, so he can accompany them and when she consented, her mother called Shashi Ranjan Singh and all came in Jamshedpur from Ranchi in the car bearing Registration No. JH05AR1395 driven by Shashi Ranjan Singh.
She has mentioned her address at present L- 4/70, Kashidih, Sakchi and when she was enquired about her address, she could not say anything, therefore, she was not subjected to cross-examination.
25. The appellant-defendant has adduced two witnesses including herself. For ready reference, the evidence adduced by the appellant-defendant and her father Dina Nath Singh is being referred as under:
(i) D.W. 1 Sunita Singh is defendant herself and she denied that she had any relation with Shashi Ranjan 15 2025:JHHC:21426-DB Singh or any unknown person and she did not know the holder of mobile no. 9835381475 and the Information Petition No. 138 of 2005 was filed by the plaintiff to save him because she was treated with physical and mental cruelty by him and he was under apprehension that she may file a case against him, so, he had filed Information Petition.
She has deposed that after birth of her son, they all lived happily and plaintiff had deserted them, so she had filed Maintenance Case No. 146 of 2016 and in order to tarnish her image, plaintiff has made false allegation against her and still she wants to live with the plaintiff.
In the cross-examination she has stated that her daughter Shreya Singh had come to depose in this case but she was not examined and she did not know why she was not examined. Shreya Singh has visited Jamshedpur and she stayed in the house of her Mama, her Nana and her house also and Shreya was working in Mumbai since 2018 in Upgrade company and at present she could not say the company where her daughter is working.
She has further deposed that she had filed a case against her husband making allegation of cruelty. She denied the suggestion that she got paper of divorce on ground of mutual consent from Advocate Vishnu 16 2025:JHHC:21426-DB Satpati and when her husband did not ready to pay one time permanent alimony, he did not put his signature and the same was not filed in the court. She was shown the photograph, in which, she admits that Two Karyakarta of BJP was in that photo and the person shown in ganji and pant, was Anil Thakur, the resident of Or. No. 26, O.C Road, South Park, Bistupur and she denied that it was Shashi Ranjan Singh, who was shown in ganji and half pant.
She has further deposed that she has filed Misc. Case No. 146 of 2016 to claim maintenance and in that case, she has disclosed the income of her husband between Rs.65,000/- to Rs.75,000/- per month and she has claimed for Rs.40.000/ per month. Initially, she denied that she deposed in that case but when she was shown certified copy of her deposition, she admitted that she has deposed in this case. She denied that her father- in-law gave N.S.C and after maturity, she recieved Rs.1,25,245/ on 12.04.2017 in her account from Post Office and she deposed that this money was given to her by her father and this fact was deposed in the maintenance case, in which, she has stated that her father would come to prove it but her father did not come in the maintenance case to depose as witness. She has denied that she is a lady of immoral character, therefore, 17 2025:JHHC:21426-DB her two brothers, her sister and her father were not coming to support her case.
DW-2 Dina Nath Singh is the father of defendant and he stated in his examination-in-chief that his daughter wanted to lead a happy conjugal life with plaintiff but plaintiff has always been suspicious to the character of defendant and he has made false allegation against his daughter and he knew the photographs filed on 11.06.2019 by the plaintiff and he identified all the four persons shown in the photographs, in which, his daughter Sunita Singh, Suranjan Rai, Prashant Banerjee and a person shown in half pant and ganji as Anil Thakur, were present and he claimed that Shashi Ranjan Singh was not present in the photograph. He has stated further that his wife treated the plaintiff as son and this fact was admitted by the plaintiff in his evidence also, so, the marital life of the parties be restored.
In his cross-examination he has deposed that he took E.S.S from Tata Steel in the month of November 1999 and he has two sons and two daughters. His both sons Manoj Kumar Singh and Kundan Kumar Singh are living separately with their family and he lives alone in Mango. He got published a notice that he has debarred his son Manoj Kumar Singh from his property and 18 2025:JHHC:21426-DB though he has claimed that he has good relation with his sons and daughters but at the age of 74 years, he is living alone.
He has further deposed that he knew Shashi Ranjan Singh and he usually meets him in the meeting of Chhetriya Samaj and organization of BJP. He has admitted that when he took E.S.S in the year 1999, there was none to whom he could transfer his points, so, he gave his points to the plaintiff and got the quarter allotted in his name and he could not bring Anil Thakur to depose in this case. He showed his ignorance that he got prepared a document of divorce on ground of mutual consent between his daughter and his damad and he did not know what was deposed by his daughter in maintenance case.
He has denied the suggestion that his daughter has illicit relation with Shashi Ranjan Singh and he protects his daughter, therefore, his both sons were annoyed with him and they were living separately. He has denied that due to relation between Shashi Ranjan Singh and his daughter, plaintiff had filed G.R. Case No. 1584 of 2016, which is pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur.
26. The learned Family Judge has gone into the interpretation of the word "cruelty" and assessing the same from the evidences 19 2025:JHHC:21426-DB led on behalf of the parties as also the submission made in the pleading, i.e., plaint and written statement, has found that the element of cruelty has been established.
27. The learned counsel for the appellant/defendant has argued that the evidence of cruelty has not properly been considered and as such, the judgment suffers from perversity, hence, not sustainable in the eyes of law.
28. While on the other hand, argument has been advanced on behalf of the respondent-plaintiff that the judgment is well considered.
29. This Court while appreciating the argument advanced on behalf of the parties on the issue of perversity needs to refer herein the interpretation of the word "perverse" as has been interpreted by the Hon'ble Apex Court which means that there is no evidence or erroneous consideration of the evidence. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Arulvelu and Anr. vs. State [Represented by the Public Prosecutor] and Anr., (2009) 10 SCC 206 while elaborately discussing the word perverse has held that it is, no doubt, true that if a finding of fact is arrived at by ignoring or excluding relevant material or by taking into consideration irrelevant material or if the finding so outrageously defies logic as so to suffer from the vice of irrationality incurring the blame of being perverse, then, the finding is rendered infirm in law. Relevant paragraphs, i.e., paras-24, 25, 26 and 27 of the said judgment reads as under: 20
2025:JHHC:21426-DB "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.21
2025:JHHC:21426-DB "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.""
30. Further, learned Family Judge has allowed the suit seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty.
31. It needs to refer herein that the "cruelty" has been interpreted by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dr. N.G. Dastane vs. Mrs. S. Dastana, (1975) 2 SCC 326 wherein it has been laid down that the Court has to enquire, as to whether, the conduct charge as cruelty, is of such a character, as to cause in the mind of the petitioner, a reasonable apprehension that, it will be harmful or injurious for him to live with the respondent.
32. This Court deems it fit and proper to take into consideration 22 2025:JHHC:21426-DB the meaning of 'cruelty' as has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi, (1988)1 SCC 105 wherein the wife alleged that the husband and his parents demanded dowry. The Hon'ble Apex Court emphasized that "cruelty" can have no fixed definition.
33. According to the Hon'ble Apex Court, "cruelty" is the "conduct in relation to or in respect of matrimonial conduct in respect of matrimonial obligations". It is the conduct which adversely affects the spouse. Such cruelty can be either "mental" or "physical", intentional or unintentional. For example, unintentionally waking your spouse up in the middle of the night may be mental cruelty; intention is not an essential element of cruelty but it may be present. Physical cruelty is less ambiguous and more "a question of fact and degree."
34. The Hon'ble Apex Court has further observed therein that while dealing with such complaints of cruelty it is important for the court to not search for a standard in life, since cruelty in one case may not be cruelty in another case. What must be considered include the kind of life the parties are used to, "their economic and social conditions", and the "culture and human values to which they attach importance."
35. The nature of allegations need not only be illegal conduct such as asking for dowry. Making allegations against the spouse in the written statement filed before the court in judicial proceedings may also be held to constitute cruelty. 23
2025:JHHC:21426-DB
36. In V. Bhagat vs. D. Bhagat (Mrs.), (1994)1 SCC 337, the wife alleged in her written statement that her husband was suffering from "mental problems and paranoid disorder". The wife's lawyer also levelled allegations of "lunacy" and "insanity" against the husband and his family while he was conducting a cross-examination. The Hon'ble Apex Court held these allegations against the husband to constitute "cruelty".
37. In Vijaykumar Ramchandra Bhate v. Neela Vijay Kumar Bhate, (2003)6 SCC 334 the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed by taking into consideration the allegations levelled by the husband in his written statement that his wife was "unchaste" and had indecent familiarity with a person outside wedlock and that his wife was having an extramarital affair. These allegations, given the context of an educated Indian woman, were held to constitute "cruelty" itself.
38. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Joydeep Majumdar v. Bharti Jaiswal Majumdar, (2021) 3 SCC 742, has been pleased to observe that while judging whether the conduct is cruel or not, what has to be seen is whether that conduct, which is sustained over a period of time, renders the life of the spouse so miserable as to make it unreasonable to make one live with the other. The conduct may take the form of abusive or humiliating treatment, causing mental pain and anguish, torturing the spouse, etc. The conduct complained of must be 24 2025:JHHC:21426-DB "grave" and "weighty" and trivial irritations and normal wear and tear of marriage would not constitute mental cruelty as a ground for divorce.
39. It is, thus, evident that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the recent judgment passed in Joydeep Majumdar v. Bharti Jaiswal Majumdar (supra) has been pleased to lay down that 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.
40. Further in the case of Vishwanath Agrawal v. Sarla Vishwanath Agrawal, (2012) 7 SCC 288, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as follows:--
22. The expression "cruelty" has an inseparable nexus with human conduct or human behaviour. It is always dependent upon the social strata or the milieu to which the parties belong, their ways of life, relationship, temperaments and emotions that have been conditioned by their social status.
25. After so stating, this Court observed in Shobha Rani case about the marked change in life in modern times and the sea change in matrimonial duties and responsibilities. It has been observed that : (SCC p. 108, para 5) "5. ... when a spouse makes a complaint about the treatment of cruelty by the partner in life or relations, the court should not search for standard in life. A set of 25 2025:JHHC:21426-DB facts stigmatised as cruelty in one case may not be so in another case. The cruelty alleged may largely depend upon the type of life the parties are accustomed to or their economic and social conditions. It may also depend upon their culture and human values to which they attach importance."
26. Their Lordships in Shobha Rani case referred to the observations made in Sheldon v. Sheldon wherein Lord Denning stated, "the categories of cruelty are not closed". Thereafter, the Bench proceeded to state thus:
(Shobha Rani case, SCC p. 109, paras 5-6) "5. ... Each case may be different. We deal with the conduct of human beings who are not generally similar.
Among the human beings there is no limit to the kind of conduct which may constitute cruelty. New type of cruelty may crop up in any case depending upon the human behaviour, capacity or incapability to tolerate the conduct complained of. Such is the wonderful (sic) realm of cruelty.
6. These preliminary observations are intended to emphasise that the court in matrimonial cases is not concerned with ideals in family life. The court has only to understand the spouses concerned as nature made them, and consider their particular grievance. As Lord Reid observed in Gollins v. Gollins : (All ER p. 972 G-H) '... In matrimonial affairs we are not dealing with objective standards, it is not a matrimonial offence to fall below the standard of the reasonable man (or the reasonable woman). We are dealing with this man or this woman.'"
41. In the case of Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh, (2007) 4 SCC 511 it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court as follows:--
99. Human mind is extremely complex and human behaviour is equally complicated. Similarly human ingenuity has no bound, therefore, to assimilate the 26 2025:JHHC:21426-DB entire human behaviour in one definition is almost impossible. What is cruelty in one case may not amount to cruelty in other case. The concept of cruelty differs from person to person depending upon his upbringing, level of sensitivity, educational, family and cultural background, financial position, social status, customs, traditions, religious beliefs, human values and their value system.
100. Apart from this, the concept of mental cruelty cannot remain static; it is bound to change with the passage of time, impact of modern culture through print and electronic media and value system, etc. What may be mental cruelty now may not remain a mental cruelty after a passage of time or vice versa. There can never be any straitjacket formula or fixed parameters for determining mental cruelty in matrimonial matters. The prudent and appropriate way to adjudicate the case would be to evaluate it on its peculiar facts and circumstances while taking aforementioned factors in consideration.
42. 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 Court in the impugned judgment.
43. Herein since appellate jurisdiction has been invoked therefore, before entering into merit of the case, at this juncture it would be purposeful to discuss the appellate jurisdiction of the High Court.
It needs to refer herein that under section 7 of the Family Courts Act, the Family Court shall have and exercise all the jurisdiction exercisable by any District Court or any 27 2025:JHHC:21426-DB Sub-ordinate Civil Court under any law for the time being in force in respect of suits and proceedings of the nature which are described in the explanation to section 7(1).
44. 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.
45. The law is well settled that the High Court in a First Appeal can examine every question of law and fact which arises in the facts of the case and has powers to affirm, reverse or modify the judgment under question. In "Jagdish Singh v. Madhuri Devi" (2008) 10 SCC 497 the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that it is lawful for the High Court acting as the First Appellate Court to enter into not only questions of law but questions of fact as well and the appellate Court therefore can reappraise, reappreciate and review the entire evidence and can come to its own conclusion. For ready reference the relevant paragraph of the said judgment is being quoted as under:
27. It is no doubt true that the High Court was exercising power as the first appellate court and hence it was open to the Court to enter into not only questions of law but questions of fact as well. It is settled law that 28 2025:JHHC:21426-DB 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.
46. Further, it requires to refer herein that under section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act a fact is said to be proved when the Court either believes it to exist or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man under the circumstances would proceed on the supposition that such fact really exists. Therefore, the normal rule of preponderance of probability is the rule which governs the civil proceedings like this.
47. 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.
48. In "A. Jayachandra v. Aneel Kaur" (2005) 2 SCC 22 the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that the concept, a proof beyond the shadow of doubt, is to be applied to criminal trials and not to civil matters and certainly not to matters of such delicate personal relationship as those of husband and wife. Therefore, the Court has to see what are the probabilities in the case and legal cruelty has to be found out, not merely as a matter of fact, but as the effect on the mind of the 29 2025:JHHC:21426-DB complainant spouse caused by the acts or omissions of the other.
49. Since this Court are exercising the power of appeal as referred hereinabove and as per the settled position of law which require the consideration of the appellate Court is that the order/judgment passed by the appropriate Forum, if suffers from perversity, the same is to be taken as a ground for its reversal.
50. This Court has considered the judgment passed by the learned Family Judge on the issue of perversity, since, perversity has been interpreted by the Hon'ble Apex Court as discussed in the preceding paragraph that if any material fact even though produced before the concerned adjudicator if not being considered or erroneously been considered then the same will come under the fold of perversity.
51. Herein, as per the pleading the ground of cruelty has been taken for dissolution of the marriage. The respondent/plaintiff who had been examined as P.W.1 had stated that defendant has treated him with cruelty as she is moving with Shashi Ranjan Singh freely, and he is suspicious of their relationship and the fact of her going to Swadeshi mela was concealed where Shashi Ranjan Singh, was present and they had joint photograph.
52. Thus, it is evident from the aforesaid statement of the 30 2025:JHHC:21426-DB respondent husband that he has alleged adultery against the defendant-wife but this allegation against appellant wife appears to be a bald allegation since in support of the aforesaid allegation plaintiff/husband has not filed any cogent evidence rather it appears that the same has been alleged without any basis only because the Respondent/Husband wants divorce from the appellant/wife.
53. Further from impugned order it is evident that the learned Family Court has come to the conclusion that since March, 2016, both parties are living separately and the approach of defendant as shown in Swadeshi Jagaran Manch Episode established the fact that her approach can be categorized as an act of cruelty. But, this Court has failed to understand that how learned Family Judge has arrived at such conclusion that moving with someone or going with someone to see Mela can be termed as an act of cruelty.
54. Further, apart from the plaintiff himself, only his daughter PW-2 Shreya Singh has been examined as witness but she has not supported the allegations leveled in the plaint and that is the reason she has not been cross-examined also.
55. Now coming to the testimony of the appellant wife who had been examined as D.W.1 wherein she had deposed that she was treated with physical and mental cruelty by him and he was under apprehension that she may file a case against him, so, he had filed Information Petition and after birth of her son, 31 2025:JHHC:21426-DB they all lived happily but when the plaintiff had deserted them, she had filed Maintenance Case No. 146 of 2016 and in order to tarnish her image, plaintiff has made false allegation against her. But still she wants to live with the plaintiff.
56. The aforesaid testimony of the appellant/wife has fully been substantiated by the D.W. 2 Dina Nath Singh who is father of the appellant/wife. He has deposed that his daughter wanted to lead a happy conjugal life with plaintiff but plaintiff has always been suspicious to the character of defendant and he has made false allegation against his daughter.
57. He had further deposed that he knew the photographs filed on 11.06.2019 by the plaintiff and he identified all the four persons shown in the photographs, in which, his daughter Sunita Singh, Suranjan Rai, Prashant Banerjee and a person shown in half pant and ganji as Anil Thakur, were present and he claimed that Shashi Ranjan Singh was not present in the photograph.
58. Thus, from the aforesaid testimony of the DW.2 who is father of the appellant-wife and even though he had supported the testimony of his daughter (appellant) but from impugned order it appears that the learned family judge has not taken note of the aforesaid evidence in proper manner because the allegation of relationship of the appellant-wife with Shashi Ranjan Singh was tried to be proved to take ground of mental cruelty by showing the photograph which was produced 32 2025:JHHC:21426-DB before the learned court to prove the adultery or mental cruelty, but DW-2 has identified all the persons in the photograph and specifically stated that Shashi Ranjan Singh was not in the photograph.
59. It further appears from the order impugned that the learned family Judge has not appreciated the aforesaid evidences particularly the fact that except the plaintiff-respondent no other witness has supported the narration of the respondent/husband and as such, the judgment has been passed only taking into consideration the testimony of the plaintiff-husband.
60. The learned Family Judge has concluded that the approach of defendant as shown in Swadeshi Jagaran Manch Episode established the fact that her approach can be categorized as an act of cruelty which fact has not come in the instant case, rather, learned Family Judge has taken it from Misc. Case No.146 of 2016 filed by the appellant-wife for maintenance.
61. Hence, this Court is of the view that the aforesaid consideration as has been given by the learned Family Judge cannot be said to be proper.
62. This Court, after going through the judgment in entirety, has found that consideration has been given in order to come to the conclusion of the ground of cruelty is not available to respondent/husband.
33
2025:JHHC:21426-DB
63. This Court, therefore, is of the view that it is a case where consideration is to be required to be there on the ground of perversity and, according to our considered view, the judgment impugned cannot be said to be well based upon the consideration of the element of cruelty as per the interpretation made by the Hon'ble Apex Court with respect to the element of cruelty in the judgment referred hereinabove.
64. This Court, therefore, is of the view that the impugned judgment cannot be said to be passed on proper consideration of the ground of divorce, i.e., the element of cruelty. As such, the impugned judgment needs interference and, accordingly, the judgment dated 27.01.2020 and Decree dated 01.02.2020 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Jamshedpur in Original (Matrimonial) Suit No.582 of 2016 is hereby quashed and set aside.
65. In the result, the instant appeal stands allowed. Decree accordingly.
66. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
I agree,
(Rajesh Kumar, J.) (Rajesh Kumar, J.)
/A.F.R.
Birendra
34