Jharkhand High Court
Krishna Kumar vs Kavita Kumari on 16 June, 2025
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Rajesh Kumar
2025:JHHC:15649-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
F.A. No. 06 of 2024
1. Krishna Kumar, son of Vishnu Sahu, aged about 33 years, resident of
Village-Argora Bye Pass Chowk, Near PNB, P.O. and P.S. Argora,
District-834002. UID No. 982655991452.
... ... Appellant
Versus
1. Kavita Kumari, wife of Krishna Kumar, daughter of Mahavir Ram,
resident of Khunti Upper Chowk, Dahaguttu, Khunti, P.O. and P.S.
Khunti, District Khunti, Jharkhand.
2. Deepak Patel @ Deepak Kumar Sahu son of Jagdish Sahu, resident of
village-Mohna Toli opposite Khunti, Upper Thana Chowk, P.O. and
P.S. Khunti, District-Khunti, Jharkhand.
... ... Opp. Parties/Respondents
-------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
-------
For the Appellant : Mr. Badal Vishal, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Afaque Rashidi, Advocate
Mrs. Aulia Begum, Advocate
----------------------------
05/Dated: 16th June, 2025
Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
1. The instant appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 is
directed against the order/judgment dated 25.11.2023 passed by the
learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court-II, Ranchi in
Original Suit No. 280 of 2019, whereby and whereunder, the learned court
has dismissed the suit in the light of Section 13(1)(i)(i-a) of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955.
2. The brief facts of the case as per the original matrimonial suit needs to be
referred herein as under:
As per the Original Matrimonial Suit, the story of the case is
that the appellant/petitioner Krishna Kumar married with opposite party
Kavita Kumari according to Hindu rites and customs at Village-Argora,
P.S.-Argora, Dist-Ranchi. After solemnization of the marriage,
appellant/petitioner and opposite party No. 1 started living at village1 F.A. No. 06 of 2024
2025:JHHC:15649-DBArgora, P.S.-Argora, Dist-Ranchi in the house of appellant/petitioner.
After some time of the marriage, with instigation of the other person, the
opposite party No. 1 gave an application to the Mahila Police Kotwali,
Ranchi which has withdrawn by the opposite party No. 1 after giving
written withdrawal application. Thereafter, having quarrel with
appellant/petitioner, OP No.1 started saying that she already has a lover,
her parents forcibly performed her marriage to the appellant/petitioner and
left her in-laws house in the Month of June, 2016. The appellant/petitioner
ignoring the version of his wife Kavita Kumari and after one week, he
went to his in-laws house for bringing his wife but wife alongwith her
parents refused to see off to her husband. Again after fortnight, the
appellant/petitioner went to her in-laws house to bring his wife but again
she refused to come with her husband’s house. Thereafter the
appellant/petitioner did not go to his in-laws house at Dahuguttu, Khunti.
During this period, she sustained pregnancy for about 4 months and
after few months, the opposite party No.1 came to Ranchi and got
admitted in Astha Hospital for delivery. From the hospital, the elder sister
of opposite party No. 1 contacted with the father of the
appellant/petitioner on telephone/mobile and gave information that Kavita
is coming in Astha Hospital for delivery then without late, the
appellant/petitioner along with his parents, relative went to Astha Hospital
and the appellant/petitioner seeing the mother and his wife/ opposite party
No. 1 having no money for depositing doctor’s fee as well as hospital
charges and medicine cost, appellant/petitioner’s father deposited the
entire expenses and purchased medicine approximately Rs. 60,000/-
altogether till discharge.
During treatment in Astha Hospital when the appellant/petitioner
touched his newly born child then the opposite party No. 1 started beating
with water bottle. After few days i.e. on 05.02.2017, appellant/petitioner
went to see opposite party No. 1 and his son and tried to bring his wife
Kavita Kumari to his house but the parents of opposite party No. 1 did not
see off his daughter to his son-in-law (Damad), then the
appellant/petitioner came back bare handed.
2 F.A. No. 06 of 2024
2025:JHHC:15649-DB
After two months 1.e. on 12.07.2017, appellant/petitioner again went
to his in laws house in noon where the appellant/petitioner saw that one
person namely Deepak Patel @ Deepak Kumar Sahu came his in-laws
house and talking with Kavita as a wife and husband. After some time,
after taking meal, the appellant/petitioner started taking some rest at his
in-laws house and at that time only the father-in-law and mother-in-law
were in the house and they also went to rest in their rooms. After some
hours, the appellant/petitioner woke up and heard some hissing sound
from the room of Kabita Kumari his wife then the appellant/petitioner
opened the door of the room of opposite party No. 1 then, he saw that
Kavita along with one person namely Deepak Patel sleeping together
naked, seeing this seen the appellant/petitioner immediately called his
father in-law but the father in-law of the appellant/petitioner instead of
scolding his daughter, quarreled with his son-in-law saying that “Meri beti
Randi hai jo karna hai karo ab hum apni beti ki isi se shadi kara denge,
aur tum kuchh bologe sale tumhe dahej magne, pratadit karne ke kes me
phasa denge”.
Thereafter, the appellant/ petitioner on 11.12.2017 filed an
informatory petition before C.J.M., Ranchi being Misc. Criminal
Application No. 314/2017 u/s 39 of the CrP.C. In the said information
petition, the appellant/petitioner tried to cover the incident, thinking that
now one son has born and his life will become hell and did not disclose
the adultery with Deepak Patel @Deepak Kumar Sahu. Opposite party
No. 1 and 2 both were/are lovers before the marriage of the
appellant/petitioner with Kavita and after marriage due to that reason
having quarrel with the appellant/petitioner the opposite party No. 2 had
gone to her maike again and again. Now they meet one another day broad
light having known that the opposite party No. 1 is the wife of another,
cohabit openly with Deepak Patel this fact is known by the mother and
father of the opposite party No. 1 also, but they remain mum.
The opposite party no. 1 made voluntary sexual intercourse with
opposite party No. 2, have broken heart and faith of the petitioner upon
the opposite party No. 1.
3 F.A. No. 06 of 2024
2025:JHHC:15649-DB
The cause of action arose first time on 28.04.2016, when their
marriage solemnized and on 12.07.2017 when his wife knowingly
intentionally and voluntary cohabit with Deepak Patel, and Lastly on
05.12.2017 when the opposite party flatly refused to live with the
appellant/petitioner and wanted to marry with Deepak patel.
Show cause has been filed by the Opposite Party No. 1 on 20.08.2019
but opposite party No.2 didn’t appear to contest the case. As per show-
cause, the marriage of Opposite Party Kavita Kumari with
appellant/petitioner Krishna Kumar was solemnized on 28.04.2016
according to Hindu Rites & Customs at Village-Dahuguttu, Khunti in
presence of relatives and friends. It is submitted that after marriage both
the parties lived together well for some days as husband and wife and out
of said wedlock Opposite Party gave birth to a child on 28.12.2016
namely Rajvir Sahu. After birth of child, appellant/petitioner, his parents
and her Sister-in-law (Nanad) started misbehaving with Opposite Party
No.1 and her son. They also started demanding dowry and in case of non-
fulfillment of demand, they stated threatening for dire consequences.
They started quarreling and assaulting her and stopped her
maintenance i.e. Khana-Khuraki and ousted from the Sasural. Opposite
Party/wife along with her newly born son went to her Maike at Dahuguttu
and since then she has been living separately in a rented house separate
from her parents. Petitioner is not helping her in any way. It has also been
stated that all the facts written in petition of the appellant/petitioner is
false and concocted and he has used unparliamentary language against her
/ Opposite Party No.1 due to which she has suffered a lot in her
reputation.
It has also been stated that she has no any connection with a person
with whom false allegation has been made against her. After marriage, she
came to know that father of the appellant/petitioner has kept two wives
first Parmila Devi and second Jyoti Beng who is working in Police
Department and from those wives, he has seven children (three sons and
four daughters). He had ousted his first wife /Sas and petitioner Krishna
4 F.A. No. 06 of 2024
2025:JHHC:15649-DB
Kumar and he again brought them to the house after 14 to 15 years. He
again ousted his second wife along with two daughters and one son in
2013 and a house has been built in 10 kattha land at Argora Chowk but he
has grabbed that house and has been living with his family.
The petitioner has also told to the Opposite Party No.1 that his
grand-father Late Govind Sahu had also kept two wives and he always
used to abuse and assault them and also used to take liquor. The elder
brother of petitioner namely Satya Narayan Kumar has also ousted his
wife Anjani Priya after abusing and beating her in 2016 and she has filed a
case u/s 498A I.P.C which is pending. The second wife Jyoti Beng has
also filed a case u/s 498A and SC & ST Act against Vishnu Sahu and his
family. Satya Narayan Kumar had also kept second wife namely Dipika
Shukla. The Opposite Party has also filed a case u/s 498A I.P.C against
her husband Krishna Kumar as well as her Sas and Sasur which is pending
in Khunti Civil Court and a separate maintenance case has also been filed
and petitioner has filed this divorce case to take revenge by making false
allegation which is not maintainable.
The present case was sent to the Mediation Centre but petitioner
did not appear. She also came to know that petitioner works as builder and
has good income. They have also vast land, shop and house and rented
income from that property is 2 to 3 lakhs per month. Opposite Party No.1
wants to live with her husband along with family and in this regard a
Panchayat was also held at Village-Argora in presence of respected
persons but in that Panchyat, petitioner and his family members insulted
Opposite Party No.1 saying that the child does not belong to him, so, he
cannot keep her. In this regard, three meeting were held but no result came
out.
3. It is evident from the factual aspect as referred hereinabove which led to
filing of the present appeal that, as per the Original Matrimonial Suit, the
appellant/petitioner Krishna Kumar married with opposite party Kavita
Kumari and started living together. After some time of the marriage, the
opposite party No. 1 gave an application to the Mahila Police Kotwali,
5 F.A. No. 06 of 2024
2025:JHHC:15649-DB
Ranchi which has withdrawn by the opposite party No. 1 after giving
written withdrawal application. Thereafter, having quarrel with
appellant/petitioner, OP No.1 left her in-laws house and went to her
maika, thereafter, the appellant/petitioner went to his in-laws house for
bringing his wife but the in-laws refused to send her. During this period,
the respondent no.1 got pregnant and delivered a child.
The appellant/petitioner again went to his in-laws’ house to bring the
respondent no.1 back to the matrimonial house but she did not come. It is
the case of the appellant/petitioner that his wife was having illicit
relationship with one Deepak Patel @ Deepak Kumar Sahu and he had
seen his wife along with the said person in a room.
Thereafter, the appellant/petitioner on 11.12.2017 filed an informatory
petition before C.J.M., Ranchi being Misc. Criminal Application No.
314/2017 u/s 39 of the CrP.C. stating that there is no possibility to live the
petitioner with opposite party No. 1 as a wife and husband.
Show cause has been filed by the Opposite Party No. 1 wherein she
has stated that the appellant/petitioner Krishna Kumar, his parents and her
Nanad started misbehaving with Opposite Party No.1 and her son. They
also started demanding dowry and in case of non-fulfillment of demand,
they stated threatening for dire consequences. They started quarreling with
the appellant/petitioner, assaulting her and stopped her maintenance i.e.
Khana-Khuraki and ousted from the Sasural. Opposite Party along with
her newly born son went to her Maike at Dahuguttu and since then she has
been living separate in a rented house separate from her parents. Petitioner
is not helping her in any way.
4. It is evident from the factual aspect that the appellant/petitioner had a
motion by filing a petition under Section 13(1)(i) and (i-a) of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955 for decree of divorce.
5. The learned Family Judge has called upon the respondent-wife. The wife
has filed written statement and altogether five issues have been framed by
the learned Family Court which are as follows:
6 F.A. No. 06 of 2024
2025:JHHC:15649-DB
(i) Whether the suit as framed is maintainable ?
(ii) Whether the plaintiff has valid cause of action for the suit?
(iii) Whether the Defendant No-1 (O.P. No.1) after solemnization of
marriage with plaintiff had voluntarily sexual intercourse with
Defendant No-2 (O.P. No.2) who is a third person not married to
her?
(iv) Whether the Defendant No-1 (O.P. No.1) has treated the plaintiff
with cruelty?
(v) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get any other equitable relief
or reliefs ?
6. The evidences have been made on behalf of both the parties. Thereafter,
the judgment has been passed dismissing the suit by holding that none of
the ground either of adultery or cruelty has been established by the
appellant/petitioner which is the subject matter of the present appeal.
Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner:
7. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant/petitioner that the factual
aspect which was available before the learned court supported by the
evidences adduced on behalf of the appellant/petitioner has not properly
been considered and as such, the judgment impugned is perverse, hence,
not sustainable in the eyes of law.
8. It has been submitted that the issue of adultery and cruelty has not been
taken into consideration in right perspective even though the fact about
living separately has well been established.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner, 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:
10. Per contra, Mr. Afaque Rashidi, learned counsel assisted by Mrs. Aulia
Begum, learned counsel for the respondent-wife, while defending the
7 F.A. No. 06 of 2024
2025:JHHC:15649-DB
impugned judgment, has submitted that there is no error in the impugned
judgement. The learned Family Judge has considered the issue of adultery
and cruelty and having come to the conclusion that no evidence has been
adduced to establish either adultery or cruelty, has dismissed the petition.
11. It has been contended that the allegation so far as alleged of commission
of adultery, the ground has been raised before the learned Family Judge
that the said allegation is totally false and concocted one since the
appellant/petitioner himself was having illicit relationship with other
women. The ground has also been taken that none of the witnesses have
stated that they have seen any act of adultery committed by the respondent
no.1/wife and if this be true, the same ought to have been brought to the
notice while filing informatory petition before the learned C.J.M., Ranchi
but the same had not been done. It has also been stated that no evidence
has been brought on record to prove the ground of adultery.
12. So far as the issue of cruelty is concerned, the learned counsel for the
respondent no.1/wife has submitted that there is no such act of cruelty on
behalf of the respondent, rather it is the respondent-wife who has been
subjected to cruelty since her husband, her nanad and in-laws always
demanded dowry and respondent-wife has also been subjected to torture
and harassment.
13. Learned counsel, based upon the aforesaid ground, has submitted that if
on that pretext, the factum of adultery and 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 an error,
as such, the present appeal is fit to be dismissed.
Analysis:
14. 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.
15. The case has been heard at length. The admitted fact herein is that the suit
for divorce has been filed on the ground of adultery and cruelty, i.e., by
8 F.A. No. 06 of 2024
2025:JHHC:15649-DB
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 nos.(iii) and (IV) pertains to adultery and cruelty.
16. The evidence has been led on behalf of both the parties before the Family
Court. For better appreciation, the evidences led on behalf of the
appellant/petitioner are being referred as under:
(i) P.W-1 Krishna Kumar i.e., appellant/petitioner has stated in his
evidence that his marriage with Opposite Party No-1 was
solemnized on 28.04.2016 according to Hindu Rites & Customs.
His wife was caught red-handed in illicit relationship with Deepak
Patel @ Deepak Kumar Sahu. His wife left his house in 2016
saying that she has lover and she loves him. Her parents forcibly
performed marriage with the petitioner. He ignored that facts and
went to his Sasural to bring his wife but she did not return,
thereafter, he again went to bring his wife after 15 days but she
refused to come. After some days, his wife became pregnant and
she came to Astha Hospital, Ranchi for delivery. After information,
he and his father went to Hospital and paid Rs. 60,000/- i.e. all
expenses of delivery. After discharge from the Hospital, he brought
his wife and child to his house at Argora where Chhatiyari ritual of
child was performed. In the night of Chhatiyarı his saas and his
relative forcibly tried to bring his wife. After some days, i.e.
05.02.2017, he came to see his wife and son and he became rigid to
bring his wife and son but parents of his wife did not agree to send
her, so, he returned after two months. He again went to his Sasural
on 12.07.2017 where he saw one person namely Deepak Patel who
was talking with his wife as husband and wife. After taking meal at
noon, he went to take rest in a room. He heard some hissing sound
(Ajib-Gajib Awaj) in another room and when he opened the door of
that room, he saw his wife and Depak Patel in compromising
position in nacked condition. He called his sasur and informed
about it but his sasur started scolding him, started saying that his
daughter will marry with that boy and if any protest is made by
9 F.A. No. 06 of 2024
2025:JHHC:15649-DB
petitioner, he will implicate the petitioner in false dowry case. In
this regard, he filed an Informatory Petition on 11.12.2017, bearing
Informatory Petition No-314/2017 which has been marked as ‘X’
for identification. The relatives of his wife also got filed a written-
application to the Mahila Police Station falsely implicating his
family members by inducing his wife. He identifies that petition,
xerox of the same has been marked as X/1. He concealed some
facts in Informatory Petition filed before the Learned C.J.M, Ranchi
for the reason that he will bring his wife after convincing her but
she refused to live with him and she became ready to marry with
Deepak Patel @ Deepak Kumar Sahu, thereafter, he got convinced
that his wife Kavita will not reside with him, so, he has filed this
divorce case u/s 13(1)(i) Hindu Marriage Act against his wife to
take divorce from her.
In his cross-examination vide Para-24 he has stated that he saw
Deepak Kumar Sahu making illicit relationship with his wife, so, he
has made party to Deepak Kumar Sahu in divorce Case. He has
admitted vide Para-25 that motor-cycle bearing registration No-JH-
01-BZ-4660 is in the name of his wife Kavita but at present he is
possessing that motor-cycle. He has admitted that in Maintenance
Case filed in Khunti Court, an order has been made in favour of
wife for payment of maintenance to her by Opposite Party/husband.
In Para-31 he has admitted that Rs. 1,20,000/- was to be paid to the
Opposite Party in the Court of Learned C.J.M but he has not paid
that amount, as he has filed Appeal against that Order. In Para-35,
he has admitted that when his wife refused to return in 2016, he did
not file any case to bring his wife in the Court. He has repeated the
fact of making illicit relationship by Deepak Patel with his wife on
12.07.2017, when he had gone to bring his wife Kavita Kumari but
he has not filed any case in this regard to the Police Station but he
filed this divorce case. In Para-43 he has stated that Deepak Patel @
Deepak Kumar Sahu has illicit relationship with his wife but he has
no any other proof except his knowledge. In Para-53, he has
10 F.A. No. 06 of 2024
2025:JHHC:15649-DB
admitted that an order of maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- was made in
favour of his wife and children in Maintenance Case No-06/2019
which is effective from 17.03.2022. In Para-59, he has admitted that
he has mentioned in Para-20 of his affidavit that he does not want to
live with his wife. In Para-64, he has denied that he and his family
members did not welcome Opposite Party when she came to his
house after marriage. In Para-68, he has stated that he has no
knowledge that divorce of his brother with his wife had taken place.
Mediation also held by the order of the Court but Mediation Failed.
He has admitted in Para-71 that he has responsibility to maintain his
wife and child till divorce takes place. However, his wife tells him
that the child is not of petitioner rather it is of someone else, so, he
has no responsibility to maintain the child.
(ii) P.W-2 Satya Narayan Kumar has stated in his evidence that the
Opposite Party No-1 is wife of his brother and Opposite Party No-2
is Deepak Patel @ Deepak Kumar Sahu. His brother had seen
making illicit relationship by Deepak Kumar Sahu with Opposite
Party No-1. In spite of that thing, his brother / Opposite Party No-1
tried to convince his wife and one child had born by that time. His
brother told his Sasur about the incident but his Sasur started
rebuking him and threatened him to implicate in false case, instead
of scolding his daughter. His brother had filed an Informatory
Petition on 11.2.2017 before the Learned C.J.M, bearing No-
314/2017 u/s 39 Cr.P.C. In that Informatory Petition, his brother
concealed the fact of illicit relationship of his wife with Deepak
Patel thinking that she will improve herself but his wife / Opposite
Party No-1 did not change her behaviour and started saying that she
will marry with Deepak and she will not have any connection with
petitioner. In spite of all these things, his brother tried to convince
his wife but he failed in his efforts then he filed this divorce case on
the ground of adultery.
In the cross-examination in Para-11, this witness has admitted
that he has not seen making illicit relationship by wife of his brother
11 F.A. No. 06 of 2024
2025:JHHC:15649-DB
rather his brother Krishna Kumar talked about this relationship. In
Para-20, he has stated that Jyoti Beng who was kept by his father
for taking care. She had filed SC & ST case against his father-(Late
Vishnu Sahu), mother-Parmila Devi and also upon him and his
brother Krishna Kumar. In Para-24, he has stated that he has
completed his law from Bangalore. In Para-25 he has admitted that
the fact of illicit relationship of wife of his brother has not been
disclosed by his brother in Informatory Petition filed on 11.12.2017
bearing No-314/2017. In Para-26, He has admitted that this divorce
case has been filed after two years of filing Informatory Petition.
His marriage with Anjani Priya was solemnized in 2011. He and his
brother live at Argora. On asking question that both live in the
house of Jyoti Beng, this witness has replied that it is the house of
his father namely Vishnu Sahu. He has also admitted that Jyoti
Beng has filed a case u/s 498A I.P.C against his father late Vishnu
Sahu. He has admitted that Kavita Devi has been living separately
from his brother for last 5 to 6 years and he has not paid any
maintenance to his wife. He has denied that he has filed this false
case against Kavita Devi.
(iii) P.W-3 Umesh Ram, the evidence of the said witness had been filed
on affidavit but the said witness didn’t turn up for cross
examination. On prayer of petitioner, evidence of this witness had
been expunged vide order dated 05.04.2023.
(iv) P.W-4 Rajiv Ranjan has also clearly stated in his evidence that
petitioner saw himself making illicit relationship by Deepak Patel
@ Deepak Sahu with wife of petitioner who is Opposite Party No-1
in this case. After this incident, petitioner came to him weeping
saying that how his marriage took place with such girl. Later on, he
tried to convince the girl saying to forget the earlier incident and to
see the future of the son but she became rigid to marry with Deepak
Patel and started saying that she will not live with Krishna Kumar.
When the girl did not become ready to live with Krishna Kumar
then he filed this divorce case against the girl.
12 F.A. No. 06 of 2024
2025:JHHC:15649-DB
In the cross-examination, he has admitted that he knows
Krishna Kumar Since 2014-2015. In Para-11, he has admitted that
he has deposed as per statement given by Krishna Kumar. He has
admitted that he had no personal knowledge about the case. He has
deposed before the Court what Krishna Kumar narrated him.
17. The evidences led on behalf of the opposite parties/respondents are being
referred as under:
(i) O.P.W 1 Kavita Kumari Opposite Party No-1 herself has stated in
her evidence that her marriage with petitioner was solemnized on
28.04.2016 according to Hindu Rites & Customs at Village-
Dahuguttu,, Besides both the parties to the marriage, other relatives
had also participated in the marriage. Her parents had also
performed her marriage in very well manner and at that time they
had given all the house-hold-articles, motorcycle, his father had
expended Rs. 10 to 15 lakhs. After marriage, she came to her
Sasural ie. in the house of her husband / Petitioner at Argora near
Byepass Chowk, Ranchi. They lived well for one year and
thereafter a son born at Argora who is aged about 5 to 6 years at
present. After some time, her husband Krishna Kumar, Sasur-
Vishnu Sahu, Sas-Parmila Devi and her two Nanad started torturing
her. They stopped supply of water-gas and electricity. In 2016, she
was ousted from Sasural. All the articles were kept by her Sasural’s
She has been wandering her and there since 2016. She has been
living inher Maike along with her son at Khunti. She has been
maintaining her son by working as Reja-Kuli. Petitioner has
relationship with two girls of his renter namely Mina and Pratima
and for that reason he has made false allegation of her relationship
with Deepak Patel for defaming her. This false divorce case has
been filed before the Court due to which she has suffered a lot in
her reputation. Petitioner Krishna Kumar and his family members
started torturing her again and again and they ousted from the house
and in this regard she has filed a written-application to Sahu Samaj
at Village-Argora but no settlement took place in that Panchayat
13 F.A. No. 06 of 2024
2025:JHHC:15649-DB
and he refused to keep her. She has stated that if her husband wants
to take divorce from her, he should handover all articles of the
marriage and jewellery and other house-hold-article, motor-cycle, 5
Kattha land and Rs. 10 lakhs. Her parents had performed her
marriage to settle her house and not to destroy it. She has admitted
that she has filed a maintenance case against her husband in Civil
Court, Khunti in which an order of Rs. 10,000/- per month was
passed by the Court but the Opposite Party still not paid a single
penny. She came to know that 20 to 25 cases are running against the
petitioner and his family members. She loves her husband and
wants to live with him but he does not want to keep her.
In the cross-examination, she has admitted that in Para-11, it
has been written that Krishan Kumar / petitioner brought her and
her Gotini Anjani Priya to Mahila Police Station and has filed false
case by inducing her. She did not want to contest any case, as she
obey her husband as God. She still wants to live with her husband.
The petitioner has not given any money or articles given by her
father to the petitioner rather Rs. 2 lakhs has been handed over to
her in bail, as petitioner does not want to go to Jail. It is false to say
that Rs. 2 lakhs was given to her, as she does not want to live with
her husband. She has repeated that she does not know Deepak Patel.
She has denied that in spite of making request again and again by
Krishna Kumar, she does not want to live with him. In Para-39, she
has stated that she has no knowledge that her husband, Sas, Sasur
had gone to see her in the Hospital on saying of Kalpana Kumari.
She has stated that the expenses of Hospital was not given by her
Sasur (father-in-law) rather it was given by her father. After
discharge, she was forcibly taken by Krishna Kumar and her Sasur
to Sasural. Chhathi was performed in normal manner not in pomps
manner. She has stated that Krishna Kumar assaulted her one day
prior to Chhathi but she has not made any complaint against him. In
Para-47, she has stated that she does not know Deepak Patel and
also does not know where he used to study. She has denied that she
14 F.A. No. 06 of 2024
2025:JHHC:15649-DB
demanded Rs. 10 lakhs for giving divorce to him. In Para-51, she
has stated that she has no knowledge that Rs. 2 lakhs which was
given to her at the time of bail by the order of Hon’ble High Court
in which it was written that the said amount will be adjusted in one
time settlement. In Para-52, she has denied that she and her parents
assaulted respondent at the time when they had gone to take articles
from the house of her husband. She has admitted in Para-51, that
what has been captured in C.C.TV footage regarding incident of
assault that was done by her parents in their self-defence. On asking
question that she was making physical relationship with Deepak
Patel during continuance of tie with her husband, she has replied
that she does not know Deepak Patel, so, no question arose of
making physical relationship with him. She has admitted that
Deepak Patel has also been made party in this case. She has no
knowledge why Deepak Patel did not appear in this Case.
(ii) O.P.W 2 Laxmi Narayan Mahto has stated in his evidence that the
marriage Kavita Kumari with Petitioner Krishna Kumar was
solemnized on 28.04.2106 according to Hindu Rites & Customs at
village-Dahuguttu, P.S & District-Khunti. After marriage, Kavita
Kumari started living in her sasural in the House of her husband at
bypass chowk Argora as husband and wife. They have one son out
of the said wedlock, aged about 4-5 years and lives with her mother
Kavita Kumari at Dahuguttu. Krishna Kumar and his Family
Members ousted Opposite Party / Kavita Kumari after keeping her
all articles in 2017 and at present, she has been living with her son
at Dahuguttu, Khunti. He came to know that petitioner has not been
paying any maintenance, fess of the son of the school, clothes etc.
Krishna Kumar does not want to keep his wife, so he has made false
allegation of having illicit relationship by Kavita Kumari with
Deepak Patel. Earlier grandfather of petitioner Late Govind Sahoo
and father Late Vishnu Sahoo and brother Satyanarayan Kumar had
also outstated their wives by keeping their articles. Krishna Kumar
also wants to leave his wife. They are in habits of leaving wives
15 F.A. No. 06 of 2024
2025:JHHC:15649-DB
after marrying Petitioner has field this case for taking divorce
against opposite party. In the cross examination, he has admitted
that he knows Kavita Kumari personally. He came to know from
Kavita Kumari that her sas, sasur, nanad and husband had come to
see Kavita Kumari in Ashta Hospital and after birth of child, she
was brought to her sasural by her parents. Chhatti of the child was
performed at Argora. All the expenses of delivery was borne by
parents of Kavita Kumari. Her relationship with members of the
sasural became worst after rituals of Chhatti. He has denied that
Kavita Kumari does not want to live with her husband as she has
illicit relationship with Deepak Patel. In Para-30 he has admitted
that he does, not know Deepak Patel and also does not know
whether Deepak Patel has any illicit relationship with Kavita
Kumari or not?. In Para 36, he has no knowledge that Kavita
Kumari works in Tejaswani Project as Filed Coordinator or not but
has admitted that she is in private job. He has no knowledge that
she is getting Rs. 17,800/- per month. In para 39, he has admitted
that he had performed marriage of his daughter with elder brother
of petitioner. Divorce of his daughter has taken place. He has
denied that he has been given false evidence to take revenge of his
daughter.
(iii) O.P.W 3 Renu Devi has stated in her evidence that the marriage of
her daughter Kavita Kumari with Petitioner Krishna Kumar was
solemnized on 28.04.2016, according to Hindu Rites & Customs at
village-Dahuguttu, P.S & District-Khunti. At the time of marriage,
all house-hold-articles including motor-cycle was given. The card
of marriage has been field on the record, the same has been marked
as Exhibit-A. After marriage, both husband and wife lived well
together and Krishna Kumar and his family member started
quarreling, misbehaving and torturing Kavita. The birth of son took
place at Harmu Hospital and all the expenses were borne by them,
the payment-receipt has been marked as Exhibit-B. Petitioner and
his family members started misbehaving Kavita and her son and
they stopped water, electricity etc. In this regard, a complaint was
16 F.A. No. 06 of 2024
2025:JHHC:15649-DB
filed to the Mahila Police Station but he did not change his
behaviour. In 2017, they quarreled with Kavita and ousted her from
matrimonial house and kept all gold-silver jewellery, utensils,
clothes and thereafter, she along with her son has been living in
Khunti. Petitioner and his family members do not pay any
maintenance to her and her child and also expenses of education.
Krishna has illicit relationship with other girls, so, he does not want
to keep Kavita and her son and he has making false allegation of
illicit relationship of Deepak Patel with Kavita and he has also
made party in this case due to which she has suffered in her
reputation. The family history of Krishna Kumar is that his grand-
father Govind Sahu had kept second wife (tribal), father of Krishna
Kumar had also kept a tribal lady who was in service and he has
three children from that lady, his brother Satya Narayan Kumar had
also kept Deepka Shukla prior to his marriage. The petitioner is also
behaving Kavita Kumari in same manner. Father of Krishna Kumar
Late Vishnu Sahu and his brother Satya Naryan Kumar had also
gone to jail and Krishna Kumar is in jail at present. Kavita Kumar
wants to live with her husband Krishna Kumar but seeing their
conduct, no woman can keep her life on risk, so, the divorce
petition filed by Krishna Kumar is false.
In the cross-examination, she has admitted that Kavita Kumari
is her daughter. In para 24 & 28, she has admitted that birth of her
nati took place on 28.12.2016 and they were present at the time of
birth of the chiLearned After admission of Kavita in the hospital,
mother and sister of Krishna, his Jija (Pundag Wale) and Krishna
himself had come there. She had not seen Bishnu Sahu there. In
para 35, she has denied that Rs. 60,000/- not deposited in the
hospital by them. She had participated in Chatthi of the child, after
Chatthi, the family members of Bishnu ousted their daughter in-law
from the matrimonial house. After Chatthi, they brought their
daughter with them. They didn’t send their daughter thereafter and
their demand didn’t come to take her. She has denied that her
17 F.A. No. 06 of 2024
2025:JHHC:15649-DB
daughter has illicit relationship with Deepak Patel so she doesn’t
want to live with her husband. She has denied that the bill of the
hospital was deposited by her samdhi so, she is unable to tell the
amount of the bill.
18. The learned Family Judge has gone into the interpretation of the word
“adultery” and “cruelty” and assessing the same from the evidences 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 adultery and
cruelty could not have been established.
19. The learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner has argued that the
evidence of adultery and cruelty has not properly been considered and as
such, the judgment suffers from perversity, hence, not sustainable in the
eyes of law.
20. While on the other hand, argument has been advanced on behalf of the
respondent has submitted that the judgment is well considered one and
merely by committing fraud, the suit for divorce has been filed.
21. 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 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 brought18 F.A. No. 06 of 2024
2025:JHHC:15649-DBon record or they are against the law or suffer from the vice of
procedural irregularity.
25. In Parry’s (Calcutta) Employees’ Union v. Parry & Co. Ltd. [AIR
1966 Cal 31] the Court observed that “perverse finding” means a
finding which is not only against the weight of evidence but is
altogether against the evidence itself. In Triveni Rubber &
Plastics v. CCE [1994 Supp (3) SCC 665 : AIR 1994 SC 1341] the
Court observed that this is not a case where it can be said that the
findings of the authorities are based on no evidence or that they are so
perverse that no reasonable person would have arrived at those
findings.
26. In M.S. Narayanagouda v. Girijamma [AIR 1977 Kant 58] the
Court observed that any order made in conscious violation of pleading
and law is a perverse order. In Moffett v. Gough [(1878) 1 LR 1r 331]
the Court observed that a “perverse verdict” may probably be defined
as one that is not only against the weight of evidence but is altogether
against the evidence. In Godfrey v. Godfrey [106 NW 814] the Court
defined “perverse” as turned the wrong way, not right; distorted from
the right; turned away or deviating from what is right, proper, correct,
etc.
27. The expression “perverse” has been defined by various
dictionaries in the following manner:
1. Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English, 6th
Edn.
“Perverse.–Showing deliberate determination to behave in a way
that most people think is wrong, unacceptable or unreasonable.”
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.””
22. Admittedly, the ground for seeking divorce has been taken on the basis of
adultery and cruelty.
23. The word “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
19 F.A. No. 06 of 2024
2025:JHHC:15649-DB
the petitioner, a reasonable apprehension that, it will be harmful or
injurious for him to live with the respondent.
24. 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.
25. 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.”
26. 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.”
27. 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.
28. 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”.
20 F.A. No. 06 of 2024
2025:JHHC:15649-DB
29. 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.
30. 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.
31. In the instant case it is evident therefrom that the ground of cruelty has
been taken by the appellant/petitioner by submitting that the respondent
no.1 used to have quarrel with him by saying that she already has a lover
and she has forcibly been married to the appellant/petitioner as also the
respondent no.1 used to threaten the appellant/petitioner of implicating
him in a false dowry case.
32. But in the aforesaid context , it is evident from record as well as from
impugned order that Petitioner/appellant has not made any specific
allegation of cruelty either physical or mental except allegation against the
OP No. 1 connected with her illicit relationship with Opposite Party No-2
and no any other concrete evidence on the aspect of cruelty has been
brought by the petitioner in his evidence and further in aforesaid context
even evidence is also not present in the testimony of other witnesses i.e.
P.W-2 & P.W-4.
21 F.A. No. 06 of 2024
2025:JHHC:15649-DB
33. Thus, from the aforesaid, it is also important to note here that though the
petitioner has made allegation of cruelty against his wife but he has failed
to prove it by cogent evidence. Further it is settled position of law that
every small dispute/quarrel can’t be viewed as cruelty for the purpose of
divorce otherwise many marriages would be on risk as being dissolved
even if no cruelty is actually caused by one spouse to the other.
34. The learned family court, taking into consideration the aforesaid factual
aspect as well as legal proposition as led by the Hon’ble Apex Court, has
held that though the petitioner has made allegation of cruelty against his
wife but he has failed to prove it by cogent evidence, accordingly, the
learned family court negated the claim of the cruelty as made by the
petitioner/husband against the respondent/wife.
35. On the basis of the discussion made hereinabove it is the considered view
of this Court that since no cogent evidence has been brought by the
appellant, therefore, the view as taken by the learned family judge requires
no interference.
36. So far as the ground of adultery is concerned, as has been taken by the
appellant/petitioner as a main ground for filing suit for dissolution of
marriage, the argument has been advanced that the respondent no.1 was
having illicit relationship with the respondent no.2 which was disclosed by
the respondent/wife herself while leaving her matrimonial house and the
major attention has been drawn by making submission that when the
appellant/petitioner went to his in-laws house for bringing his wife,
respondent no.1, back to his house, there he saw his wife, i.e., respondent
no.1 with the respondent no.2 in a compromising position which was
informed to the father of the respondent no.1 but he scolded the
appellant/petitioner and said that he will get his daughter married to the
respondent no.2.
37. This Court, taking into consideration the statutory provision as provided
under Section 13(1)(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act where the ground for
adultery has been provided to be taken as a ground for dissolution of
marriage but it is incumbent upon the party while taking the ground of
22 F.A. No. 06 of 2024
2025:JHHC:15649-DB
adultery for dissolution of marriage to substantiate the same on the basis
of cogent evidence. It is not available for a party concerned that by merely
making submission of adultery, the adultery will be said to be proved,
rather, the issue of adultery since belongs to the character assassination of
a party, is to substantiate with the cogent and valid evidence.
38. It needs to refer herein that according to (Encyc. 156) Cp.
FORNICATION adultery is “the offence of incontinence by married
persons”. Adultery has been defined in the following manner in Standard
Treatises, such as Rydon on Divorce, 10th Edition:–
“Consensual sexual intercourse between a married person and a
person of the Opposite sex, not the other spouse during the
subsistence of the marriage.”
39. The fact that adultery has taken place can be inferred from the
surrounding circumstances, such as undue familiarities, admissions,
suspicious circumstances, improper behaviour, inclination of the spouses
and the opportunities available. Adultery can rarely be proved by direct
evidence which is looked upon only with disfavour.
40. Further, the onus to prove this charge of adultery is upon the person
making it. He or she has to satisfy the court by leading sufficient and
proper evidence. The evidence must be clear, cogent and convincing. It
should admit only one inference before it can be accepted to infer
adultery. Circumstantial and presumptive evidence assumes importance in
the case of adultery because direct evidence is normally not possible. The
uncorroborated evidence supported by circumstantial evidence at times
can be considered sufficient, cogent and reliable.
41. It requires to refer herein that Court is required to be satisfied that the
offence is proved and this requires proof by a preponderance of
probability, but the degree of probability depends on the subject-matter, so
that in proportion as the offence is grave, so should the proof be clear.
Proof beyond reasonable doubt is not required and it is a misdirection for
the court to require itself to be satisfied with the same certainty as in a
23 F.A. No. 06 of 2024
2025:JHHC:15649-DB
criminal case. This is precisely the law prevailing in England after the
decision in Blyth v. Blyth (1966) 1 All ER 524.
42. The Full Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court was dealing with the
standard of proof required in case of a matrimonial offence in a petition
for divorce in the case of Prem Masih v. Mst. Kumudani Bai (AIR 1974
Madhya Pradesh 88), wherein the observation so made reads as under:–
“The case of Blyth v. Blyth (1966) 1 All ER 524 will, therefore, show’
that the view expressed in Preston-Jones’ case (1951 AC 391) that the
standard of proof in case of a matrimonial offence in a petition for
divorce is proof beyond reasonable doubt, does not now hold the field
and that the correct test in that matter-is that expressed by Dixon, J. in
(1948) 77 CLR 191 (Supra). In view of the mandate in Section 7 of the
Act that the principles and rules on which the Court of Divorce and
Matrimonial Causes in England for the time being acts and gives relief
should be applied by the Indian Courts, we feel that now the standard of
proof recommended in (1966) 1 All ER 524) (Supra) will have to be
applied by the Indian Courts also But the change in principle as to the
standard of proof will most often not make any difference in the result,
for even applying the civil, standard of proof to a divorce proceeding
based on adultery, a high standard of proof will be needed to satisfy the
Court that adultery has been committed.”
43. This Court, on consideration of the impugned judgment as also the
material available on record, has found that no such cogent evidence has
been produced by the husband to prove the ground of adultery except his
own narration.
44. The learned Family Judge has taken into consideration the aforesaid
aspects of the matter, had observed that the petitioner claimed that he
himself had seen the act of adultery on his own when he opened the door
of room of his wife but that story of adulterous act by wife/Opposite party
No. 1 is not reliable for the reason that no prudent man will be engaged in
adulterous act with wife of another person in the same house in which
husband of the lady is present and he had come to bring his wife.
45. Further, taking into consideration the version of the appellant as has been
stated by him that when he opened the door of the room where his wife
was, he saw his wife and Deepak Patel in a compromising position, the
learned family Court has observed that the same is beyond imagination of
a prudent man that both the opposite parties were engaged in making
24 F.A. No. 06 of 2024
2025:JHHC:15649-DB
physical relationship without locking the door of the room from inside and
that too when her husband is in the house.
46. Thus, from the aforesaid, it is evident that the learned Family Judge has
considered the fact that the appellant-husband has miserably failed to
establish the allegation of illicit relationship of the respondent-wife with
other person which also amounts to “cruelty’ upon the respondent-wife at
the hands of the appellant.
47. Here, in the given facts of the case, no any evidence has been brought on
record to substantiate the ground of adultery and this Court has also taken
into consideration that if the said fact was available with the
appellant/petitioner, then he ought to have informed the same while filing
informatory petition but the same was not done.
48. Thus, the learned Family Judge, on consideration of entire aspect, has not
found the ground for dissolution of marriage and therefore, dismissed the
suit.
49. This Court, on the premise of the interpretation of the word “cruelty” and
“adultery” has considered the evidences of the witnesses as has been
incorporated by the learned Court in the impugned judgment.
50. It is evident from the interpretation of the word cruelty that the same is to
be considered on different parameters depending upon the material, if
available on record.
51. The appellant-husband although has taken the ground of cruelty meted to
him by his wife but, in course of trial he has failed to establish the element
of cruelty at the hands of the respondent-wife as discussed hereinabove.
52. Thus, it is evident that the learned Family Judge has analyzed the
evidences available on record in threadbare manner by taking into account
each and every aspect of the matter, therefore, this Court is of the
considered view that the order impugned requires no interference.
53. This Court after discussing the aforesaid factual aspect along with the
legal position and adverting to the consideration made by the learned
25 F.A. No. 06 of 2024
2025:JHHC:15649-DB
Family Judge in the impugned judgment has found therefrom that the
issue of element of cruelty, has well been considered by the learned
Family Judge.
54. This Court, based upon the aforesaid discussion, is of the view that the
appellant/petitioner has failed to establish the element of perversity in the
impugned judgment as per the discussion made hereinabove, as such, the
instant appeal deserves to be dismissed.
55. Accordingly, the instant appeal fails and is dismissed.
56. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
I agree (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Rajesh Kumar, J.) (Rajesh Kumar, J.)
Saurabh /A.F.R.
26 F.A. No. 06 of 2024