Jharkhand High Court
Dinesh Kumar Thakur vs Sunila Thakur on 17 June, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Rajesh Kumar
( 2025:JHHC:16269-DB )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
First Appeal No. 01 of 2023
Dinesh Kumar Thakur, aged about 38 years, son of Sri
Mahendra Thakur, permanent resident of Kali Mandir
Road, Bekar Bandh, PO, PS & District-Dhanbad, at
present residing at B-1, Sector-73, Sarfabad, PO:
Sarfabad, PS: Sector 71, Noida, District-Goutam Budha
Nagar (Uttar Pradesh).
... ... Petitioner/Appellant
Versus
Sunila Thakur, aged about 34 years, wife of Dinesh
Kumar Thakur, daughter of Late Sidheshwar Tiwari,
resident of A-I, Nirmala Residency, Near Vivah Mandap,
Babudi, PO,PS & District-Dhanbad
... ... Respondent/Respondent
-------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
-------
For the Appellant : Mr. Rahul Kr. Gupta, Advocate
Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh, Adv
For the Respondent : Mr. Ajay Kumar Sah, Advocate
----------------------------
Order No. 09 : Dated 17th June, 2025
Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
Prayer:
1. The instant appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Court
Act, 1984 is directed against the order/judgment dated 21st
November, 2022 decree signed on 30th November, 2022
passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional
Family Court No. II, Dhanbad in Original Suit No. 760 of
2018, whereby and whereunder, the suit filed under Section
13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking a decree of
divorce by the appellant-husband against the respondent-
wife, has been dismissed.
1 F.A. No. 01 of 2023
( 2025:JHHC:16269-DB )
Brief facts of the case:
2. The brief facts of the case, as taken note in the impugned
order, needs to be referred herein, which reads as under:
3. The case of appellant-husband, in brief, is that the appellant
has solemnized marriage with the respondent on 24-06-2012
at Katras, Dhanbad, according with Hindu Rites and
Customs. After the marriage both the appellant and
respondent had been living together as wife and husband at
Babudih, Dhanbad. However, out of the wedlock, the couple
has no child.
4. It is alleged that after marriage the respondent used to
regularly fight with the appellant-husband‟s mother and
father, which caused mental pressure upon them and for
that the appellant‟s father had to undergo By-pass surgery
in 2015. After that from 21-11-2022 the appellant-husband
brought the respondent to Bekarbandh, Dhanbad and
started living with her. But after few days the respondent-
wife started fighting and abusing with the appellant.
5. It is further stated that the respondent used to scream and
shout at the appellant and behaved very rudely and she did
not like the appellant and she has no cordial relations with
his parents and other family members. The respondent used
to abuse the appellant and his family members specially his
old mother with filthy languages. This caused immense
mental agony and pain to the appellant time and over.
2 F.A. No. 01 of 2023
( 2025:JHHC:16269-DB )
6. It is stated that this act of the respondent amounts to
cruelty and the reasonable apprehension that cohabitation
with the respondent of the plaintiff would be harmful and
injurious.
7. It is further stated that the appellant has till date on several
occasion accommodated the respondent and given her
several opportunities to improve her behavior but the
respondent is turning violent and unbearable towards the
appellant. The appellant thought that the respondent needs
time to settle in the marriage and accommodate her to the
best of his capability but the respondent started torturing
the appellant physically and mentally and tried to dove the
appellant to lose his mental status or commit suicide.
8. In the aforesaid backdrop, the plaintiff-appellant prayed to
pass an order for dissolution of marriage by way of a decree
of divorce, on the grounds, as stated above.
9. Respondent appeared and contested the suit by filing the
written statement wherein she has stated that the instant
suit for grant of a decree of divorce filed by the petitioner-
appellant is not legally maintainable either in facts or in law.
10. It is stated that after marriage both parties started living at
Dhanbad as husband and wife. It is true that the couple is
issueless but due to negligence of the appellant. It is further
stated that it is totally false to say that prior to the marriage
the petitioner-appellant has narrated entire facts and his
3 F.A. No. 01 of 2023
( 2025:JHHC:16269-DB )
family affair before the respondent as alleged but on the
other hand at that point of time the appellant and his
parents have concealed lot of fact about his nature. It is
further stated that it is not out of place to mention here that
as per filthy demand of the appellant and his family
members etc. After marriage the respondent gave full
regards and respect to her in laws and equal love and
affection to the petitioner-appellant. It is false to say that the
version of the appellant that entire marriage expenses were
mostly met by the appellant and his family members. It is
further stated that the respondent became pregnant in the
year 2017 but her in laws openly told her that they did not
require any issue and asked the respondent to destroy the
pregnancy to which this respondent politely denied. It is
false to say that the respondent made any suspicion on her
husband or humiliated him or disturbed the peace of the life
of her husband at any point of time.
11. On the basis of the pleadings of both the parties, the learned
Additional Principal Judge -II framed the issue as to whether
the plaintiff, the appellant herein [husband] is entitled for a
decree of divorce.
12. The learned principal judge, family court, after appreciating
the evidence adduced on behalf of parties, and argument
advanced on their behalf, came to the conclusion that the
petitioner-husband, the appellant herein, has not succeeded
4 F.A. No. 01 of 2023
( 2025:JHHC:16269-DB )
to prove and establish the ground of cruelty against the
defendant, as such he is not entitled to decree as claimed for
and the suit was accordingly dismissed, against which, the
instant appeal has been preferred.
Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant-husband:
13. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that the
factual aspect which was available before the learned family
court supported by the evidences adduced on behalf of the
appellant has not properly been considered and as such, the
judgment impugned is perverse, hence, not sustainable in
the eyes of law.
14. That the learned court has not taken into consideration the
behavior of the respondent towards the appellant and his
parents that it was not cordial and she became rude,
arrogant and she developed a temperament of insulting the
appellant, which affected not only the appellant but also the
well-being of the family of the appellant.
15. Submission has been made that the impugned judgment is
vitiated on account of non-consideration of pleadings as well
as evidences adduced on behalf of parties in true
perspective.
16. Further submission has been made that the learned
additional family court has failed to appreciate that the
appellant has all along pleaded and proved that the
5 F.A. No. 01 of 2023
( 2025:JHHC:16269-DB )
respondent-wife has been throughout carrying neglecting
behavior towards the appellant and parents.
17. Submission has been made that because of ill-behavior of
the respondent, the appellant-husband had to leave the job,
which he was doing in Bansal Classes in the year 2014.
18. Furthermore, the learned additional family court did not
consider the fact that due to torturous behavior of the
respondent, the father of the appellant had to undergo by-
pass surgery in the year 2015.
19. It has been submitted that the appellant has been able to
prove the factum of cruelty towards the respondent-wife as
also the desertion but without appreciating the evidence
adduced by the appellant, the suit has been dismissed,
which requires interference by this Court.
20. It has been submitted that the issue of cruelty has not been
taken into consideration in right perspective even though the
fact about living separately has well been established.
21. Learned counsel for the appellant, based upon the aforesaid
ground, has submitted that the judgment impugned suffers
from perversity, as such, not sustainable in the eyes of law.
Submission of the learned counsel for the respondent:
22. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-
wife, defending the impugned judgment, has submitted that
there is no error in the impugned judgment. The learned
Additional Principal Judge has considered the issue of
6 F.A. No. 01 of 2023
( 2025:JHHC:16269-DB )
cruelty and thereafter came to the conclusion that no
evidence has been adduced to establish either and as such
has dismissed the suit.
23. It has been contended that the allegation so far of
commission of cruelty is considered, the ground has been
raised before the learned Principal Judge that the
respondent-wife is not taking care of the in-laws, which is
totally false and baseless.
24. It is submitted that at the time of marriage dowry was given
as per the capacity of their parents. But after 3-4 months of
marriage the in-laws started torturing, physically and
mentally, for fulfillment of dowry.
25. Learned counsel, based upon the aforesaid ground, has
submitted that if on that pretext, the factum of cruelty has
not been found to be established, based upon which the
decree of divorce has been refused to be granted, the
impugned judgment cannot be said to suffer from error.
Analysis:
26. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and
gone through the finding recorded by the learned Additional
Principal Judge in the impugned judgment.
27. The admitted fact herein is that the suit for divorce has been
filed on the ground of cruelty i.e., by filing an application
under Section 13 the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and
7 F.A. No. 01 of 2023
( 2025:JHHC:16269-DB )
accordingly, issues have been framed and decided against
the plaintiff-appellant.
28. 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:
29. P.W-Dinesh Kumar Thakur, the appelant himself, has
stated in his examination-in-chief that he was married with
respondent Sunila Thakur on 24-06-2012 at Katras,
Dhanbad as per Hindu Rites and customs. After marriage he
resided with his wife in Bikarbandh, Dhanbad and Noida.
However, out of the wedlock the couple was blessed with no
child. At the time of marriage petitioner was working as
Frenchise support Manager in Private firm Bansal Classes
Noida. It was known to the respondent and her family
members that he is single person to look after his family and
on being acquainted with all the facts the respondent and
her family members agreed to marry with him. Marriage was
solemnized without any dowry because he was against the
dowry customs. He has further stated that after marriage
respondent used to quarrel daily with his parents while
living in Dhanbad. Due to harassing by the respondent
mentally her parents fell ill and his father had to under-go
By-pass surgery in year 2015 and his mother was implanted
pacemaker in year 2014. Respondent also quarreled with
him. He was asked by the respondent to end all relationship
8 F.A. No. 01 of 2023
( 2025:JHHC:16269-DB )
with his parents. After 15 days of marriage he took his wife
in Noida but the behavior of respondent did not change and
her cruel behavior was continued towards his parent and
him. It is stated that the respondent is very rude and short
tempered lady. She used to quarrel with him on very trivial
grounds. He tried his level best to resolve the dispute but in
vain. Now all relationship as husband and wife have gone
ended due to cruel behavior of respondent. He was tortured
by the respondent for the last six years. Respondent got
pregnant in year 2017 but he was shocked when he came to
know that fetus got aborted without his permission. On
28.10.2018 the respondent and her family members abused
in filthy language and also assaulted upon him and due to
cruel behavior of respondent now there is no option left
except to give her divorce. In cross-examination, he stated
that marriage solemnized between both parties with consent
of both families. He came to house late due to which his wife
asked him the cause of delay and she suspiciously told that
he has extra marital affair with another lady. When his wife
went to her maika lastly has not been written in his affidavit
nor in his petition. His wife has filed a case for maintenance
and u/s 498A IPC against him. He cannot say the date and
day when he was assaulted upon by his wife rather she does
the same regularly. He has not produced the prescription of
doctor showing that he was beaten by his wife and scratched
9 F.A. No. 01 of 2023
( 2025:JHHC:16269-DB )
with her nail. In this regard he has not given any
information to police station or any other place. He has not
informed to his mother-in-law that he was treated with
cruelty by his wife. It is not true that he did not provide
maintenance to his wife and also did not fulfill the daily
basis need. He took drink occasionally. It is not true that he
used to assault upon his wife. Now he cannot restore the
conjugal life with his wife.
30. PW-2-Mahendra Thakur, is father of the petitioner who
supported the evidence of PW-1 in examination-in-chief. In
cross he stated that after marriage he had taken his
daughter-in-law in Noida where he resided for 20-25 days.
During the said period some altercation took place between
both the parties occasionally. From marriage since filing of
suit his daughter-in-law spent most of time in her maika.
When she came to Noida and thereafter to his house, he
cannot say the date and day. His elder son along with his
family resides with him in Dhanbad. Gall-bllader and uterus
was removed of his wife in year 1980. His wife is patient of
low blood pressure and he was patient of high blood
pressure and diabetes since year 2000. The averment made
in para-7 of his affidavit is Mistake of fact. He tried to resolve
the dispute between husband and wife. He does not want to
keep the respondent along with him as because she
demanded partition of his house. He has not submitted
10 F.A. No. 01 of 2023
( 2025:JHHC:16269-DB )
document of complaint made in Mahila Thana. Neither he
nor his son had provided maintenance to respondent. He
registered his shop in the name of elder son.
31. Pw-3-Md. Aarif, is an independent witness who supported
the evidence of PW-1 in examination-in-chief. In cross he
stated that he knows to Dinesh Thakur for last 9-10 years.
Dinesh Thakur is residing in Noida for last three years. The
distance between the houses of petitioner, the appellant
herein, and him is 12 Km. Dinesh Thakur is working in the
company in Factory in operational department. His
department is separate from the department of Dinesh
Thakur but they do the work same place. He used to go to
the house of plaintiff twice in the week. When he visited to
the house of Dinesh Thakur, he met his wife also who serves
him tea. He has not attended the marriage of the Dinesh
Thakur. The quarrel occurred between both parties was told
to him by plaintiff. He also has seen quarreling to both
parties in the night.
32. On behalf of respondent-wife also witnesses have been
examined.
33. DW-1-Sushila Thakur, is respondent herself who has stated
in the examination-in-chief that she was married with
Dinesh Thakur on 24-06-2012 as per Hindu Rites and
customs. At the time of marriage dowry was given as per
their capacity. After marriage in Sasural she resided
11 F.A. No. 01 of 2023
( 2025:JHHC:16269-DB )
peacefully only 3-4 months and thereafter due to demand of
dowry of rupees eight lakh her in-laws started torturing her
physically and mentally. In the year 2000 her brother gave
Rs. one lakh cash to the mother of petitioner-husband and
thereafter again Rs. 50,000/- was given to the account of
petitioner-husband by her younger brother Rakesh Kumar.
Compromise took place and thereafter in the month of
December 2016 she came to Noida along with husband. But
there also he was abused and tortured in drunken state by
the appellant-husband. In March 2017 she was pregnant
but in the state of pregnancy she was beaten which caused
miscarriage. In this regard she was treated in the clinic of
Dr. Asha Ray. She has further stated that on 20-08-2018 in
the night 10.30 PM after being beaten she was ousted by her
husband from his flat and she came to her maika alone from
Noida to Dhanbad. On 28th October, 2018 he came to her
sasural with her mother and Bhabhi but in sasural her in-
laws demanded rupees eight lakh as dowry and her mother
and Bhabi was there manhandled by her in laws. On 28-10-
2018 she gave written application in Mahila Thana Dhanbad
but no action was taken and then she filed the complaint
case bearing C.P. case no-210/19 which is pending in the
Court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad. She has
also filed maintenance case against her husband. In cross-
examination, she has stated that Rs. ten lakh cash and for
12 F.A. No. 01 of 2023
( 2025:JHHC:16269-DB )
furniture Rs. 1,50,000/- was given by his brother Rajesh
Tiwari. Her brother is Asstt. Engineer in BCCL. After
marriage she had gone to Noida with her husband. It is false
to say that her husband often remained out of station for his
work. His husband used to go to his office in the morning
and returned back in the evening. It is true that she has
filed a complaint case No-210/19 against her husband and
mother-in-law Gayatri Thakur which is pending in Dhanbad.
Complain case was filed by her after receiving the notice of
divorce case. She denied the allegation of quarreling with the
parents of husband daily. She has not filed any case against
her husband in any police station or court in Noida. It is
true that at the time of abortion her husband was not
present in Dhanbad. She has not made any complain for the
incident occurred on 20-08-2018.
34. DW-2 is brother of the respondent who has supported the
evidence of DW-1 in his chief examination. In cross-
examination he stated that he borne all the expenses of the
marriage of his sister. He is employee in BCCL and his
monthly salary is RS. 50,000/-. It is not true that after being
acknowledged of this case his sisters has filed C.P. case no-
210/19. At the time of the abortion of his sister neither
appellant nor his family members were present. It is not true
that without the consent of respondent got the fetus aborted.
He has no knowledge that his sister put upon pressure to
13 F.A. No. 01 of 2023
( 2025:JHHC:16269-DB )
her husband to reside separately from the family members of
her husband. His sister was treated but he cannot say the
name of doctor. It is not true that his sister has threatened
her in laws to implicate in false case by committing suicide.
35. This Court, in order to appreciate the argument advanced on
behalf of the parties on the issue of perversity, needs to refer
herein the interpretation of the word “perverse” as has been
interpreted by the Hon’ble Apex Court which means that
there is no evidence or erroneous consideration of the
evidence. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Arulvelu and Anr. vs.
State [Represented by the Public Prosecutor] and Anr.,
(2009) 10 SCC 206 while elaborately discussing the word
perverse has held that it is, no doubt, true that if a finding of
fact is arrived at by ignoring or excluding relevant material
or by taking into consideration irrelevant material or if the
finding so outrageously defies logic as to suffer from the vice
of irrationality incurring the blame of being perverse, then,
the finding is rendered infirm in law. Relevant paragraphs,
i.e., paras-24, 25, 26 and 27 of the said judgment reads as
under:
“24. The expression “perverse” has been dealt with in a
number of cases. In Gaya Din v. Hanuman Prasad [(2001) 1
SCC 501] this Court observed that the expression “perverse”
means that the findings of the subordinate authority are not
supported by the evidence brought on record or they are against
the law or suffer from the vice of procedural irregularity.
25. In Parry’s (Calcutta) Employees’ Union v. Parry & Co.
Ltd. [AIR 1966 Cal 31] the Court observed that “perverse
14 F.A. No. 01 of 2023
( 2025:JHHC:16269-DB )
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.
15 F.A. No. 01 of 2023
( 2025:JHHC:16269-DB )
“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.””
36. Appellant-husband has sought relief on the ground of
cruelty so first of all this Court is to consider on the point as
to what is cruelty and whether the same was proved by
appellant or not.
37. Cruelty- The concept of cruelty has been summarized in
Halsbury’s Laws of England (Vol.13, 4th Edition Para 1269)
as under :-
“The general rule in all cases of cruelty is that the entire
matrimonial relationship must be considered, and that
rule is of special value when the cruelty consists not of
violent acts but of injurious reproaches, complaints,
accusations or taunts.
38. Cruelty for the purpose of Section 13(1)(ia) is to be taken as
a behaviour by one spouse towards the other, which causes
reasonable apprehension in the mind of the latter that is not
safe for him or her to continue the matrimonial relationship
with the other. Mental cruelty is a state of mind and feeling
with one of the spouses due to the behaviour or behavioural
pattern by the other. Unlike the case of physical cruelty,
mental cruelty is difficult to establish by direct evidence. It is
necessarily a matter of inference to be drawn from the facts
and circumstances of the case. A feeling of anguish
disappointment and frustration in one spouse caused by the
16 F.A. No. 01 of 2023
( 2025:JHHC:16269-DB )conduct of the other can only be appreciated on assessing
the attending facts and circumstances in which the two
partners of matrimonial life have been living. The inference
has to be drawn from the attending facts and circumstances
taken cumulatively.
39. In case of mental cruelty it will not be a correct approach to
take an instance of misbehavior in isolation and then pose
the question whether such behaviour is sufficient by itself to
cause mental cruelty. The approach should be to take the
cumulative effect of the facts and circumstances emerging
from the evidence on record and then draw a fair inference
whether the petitioner in the divorce case has been
subjected to mental cruelty due to conduct of other.
40. It is true that the term “cruelty” has not been defined in the
Hindu Marriage Act and it will depend upon the facts and
circumstances of each case as to whether actually the
cruelty has been committed or not ?
41. It is well settled that the conduct should be so grave and
weighty as to come to the conclusion that the plaintiff
cannot reasonably be expected to live with the defendant. It
must be more serious than the ordinary wear and tear of
married life. The cumulative conduct, taking into
consideration the circumstances and background of the
parties has to be examined to reach conclusion the whether
the conduct, complained of amounts to cruelty or not?
17 F.A. No. 01 of 2023
( 2025:JHHC:16269-DB )
Ordinarily cruelty means danger to life and limb of a spouse
from other which makes it practically impossible to lead
conjugal life with other.
42. 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.
43. This Court deems it fit and proper to take into consideration
the meaning of „cruelty‟ as has been held by the Hon‟ble
Apex Court in Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi, (1988)1
SCC 105 wherein the wife alleged that the husband and his
parents demanded dowry. The Hon‟ble Apex Court
emphasized that “cruelty” can have no fixed definition.
44. 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.
18 F.A. No. 01 of 2023
( 2025:JHHC:16269-DB )
Physical cruelty is less ambiguous and more “a question of
fact and degree.”
45. 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.”
46. 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”.
47. 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
19 F.A. No. 01 of 2023
( 2025:JHHC:16269-DB )
educated Indian woman, were held to constitute “cruelty”
itself.
48. The Hon‟ble Apex Court in Joydeep Majumdar v. Bharti
Jaiswal Majumdar, (2021) 3 SCC 742, has been pleased to
observe that while judging whether the conduct is cruel or
not, what has to be seen is whether that conduct, which is
sustained over a period of time, renders the life of the spouse
so miserable as to make it unreasonable to make one live
with the other. The conduct may take the form of abusive or
humiliating treatment, causing mental pain and anguish,
torturing the spouse, etc. The conduct complained of must
be “grave” and “weighty” and trivial irritations and normal
wear and tear of marriage would not constitute mental
cruelty as a ground for divorce.
49. 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 while
judging whether the conduct is cruel or not, what has to be
seen is whether that conduct, which is sustained over a
period of time, renders the life of the spouse so miserable as
to make it unreasonable to make one live with the other. The
conduct may take the form of abusive or humiliating
treatment, causing mental pain and anguish, torturing the
spouse, etc. The conduct complained of must be “grave” and
“weighty” and trivial irritations and normal wear and tear of
20 F.A. No. 01 of 2023
( 2025:JHHC:16269-DB )
marriage would not constitute mental cruelty as a ground for
divorce.
50. It is settled that in order to prove cruelty appellant was
required to prove that the act of respondent-wife was of such
nature that it was improbable for him to live with defendant
and his life and limb was not safe in the company of
defendant and with a view to ascertain to untie the
matrimonial bond, it is required that marital life of the
parties is to be seen as a whole.
51. In order to come to such conclusion, this Court has
considered the evidences of the witnesses as recorded in the
impugned judgment.
52. As per evidence of witnesses it appears that that witnesses
produced on behalf of appellant-husband including himself
it is evident that after marriage was solemnized on 24-06-
2012 whereafter the respondent-wife came to her sasural
and she resided in Katras Dhanbad, Bekarbandh Dhanbad
and Noida where appellant-husband was doing job.
Witnesses have further deposed that from the very beginning
of marriage the behavior of respondent-wife towards
appellant and his family members was not good.
53. Her relations towards the parents of appellant were not
cordial. She misbehaved and shouted on a very flimsy
ground and due to cruel behaviour of respondent, the
parents of appellant had to undergo by-pass surgery. But all
21 F.A. No. 01 of 2023
( 2025:JHHC:16269-DB )
these allegations leveled against the respondent has been
denied rather she has deposed that she was subjected to
torture by the in-laws. The appellant in his testimony has
also accepted the fact that the respondent-wife has filed
complaint case, which also suggests that the respondent-
wife had complained of being tortured by her husband.
54. Further, as per the evidence available on record it appears
that there is general and omnibus allegation. Neither any
specific date has been mentioned as to when and in which
manner the family members of the appellant has been
tortured and so far allegation of insult by the respondent-
wife in public place is concerned, no independent witness
has been examined to prove this facts neither the name of
such persons or friends has been given in front of whom the
in-laws and husband has been insulted by respondent-wife.
The appellant in the petitioner has specifically stated that he
was beaten by his wife but no injury report has been
annexed to support such claim nor for which incidence he
has made any complaint before the police. Making bizarre
allegation upon the respondent-wife, the appellant-husband
has stated that due to ill-behaviour of the respondent-wife
his father has to undergo by-pass surgery of heart, however,
the father of the appellant in cross-examination has stated
that he is a patient of diabetics and blood-pressure since
1975, so this also has no leg to stand. The father of the
22 F.A. No. 01 of 2023
( 2025:JHHC:16269-DB )
appellant (PW 2) has deposed in this testimony he does not
want to keep his daughter-in-law with him. Therefore, from
the testimony of the witnesses, it is apparent that it is the
husband and father-in-law of the respondent-wife who does
not want to keep the respondent.
55. The respondent all along has denied the allegation leveled
against her rather she has consistent in deposing that she
was subjected to torture by her in-laws and husband for
fulfilling the demand of dowry for which she has filed
complaint against them and used to torture her, therefore,
she has to live at her parental house (maike).
56. Even though the respondent has stated that she is ready to
live with her husband but the appellant has refused to lead
conjugal life with her. Furthermore, the respondent-wife has
made allegation that in a drunken state her husband used
to beat her. The husband in cross-examination has admitted
the fact that occasionally he used to take drink.
57. The learned Principal Judge, Family Court has taken all
these facts into consideration and came to the conclusion
that appelant has not been able to prove his case against the
respondent of cruelty so as to grant the decree of divorce
and accordingly, dismissed the suit.
58. This Court, based upon the aforesaid discussion, is of the
view that since the appellant/petitioner has failed to
establish the element of perversity in the impugned
23 F.A. No. 01 of 2023
( 2025:JHHC:16269-DB )
judgment as per the discussion made hereinabove, as such,
this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the
order passed by the learned family court.
59. Accordingly, the instant appeal fails and is dismissed.
60. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands
disposed of.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
Alankar/A.F.R.
24 F.A. No. 01 of 2023