The court found that the trial court's decree of divorce based on cruelty was unsupported by evidence, emphasizing the need for proper attribution of actions and context in marital disputes.

JUDGMENT :

Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

1. The instant appeal under section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 is directed against the judgment dated 21.12.2021 and the decree dated 06.01.2022 passed in Original Suit No.24 of 2017 by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Latehar (in short-Family Judge) whereby and whereunder the marriage between the appellant-wife, namely, Shakuntala Devi and the respondent-husband, namely, Mahabir Prasad has been dissolved by a decree of divorce on contest with effect from the date of decree.

2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleadings made in the plaint having been recorded by the learned Family Judge, needs to be referred herein as:

(i) The marriage of the plaintiff, namely, Mahabir Prasad was solemnized with the defendant, namely, Shakuntla Devi in Jagarnath Mandir, Ranchi in the year 1987 as per Hindu Rites and Rituals. Both parties are administered by Hindu Law and Hindu Marriage Act. After marriage defendant lived in her matrimonial home with her husband/plaintiff and gave birth to two sons and one daughter. Out of them only two sons namely, Anmol Kumar, aged about 22 years and Ravi Kumar, aged about 20 years are alive. In order to meet out expenses of his family affairs and education of his children, plaintiff has opened and running a shop of electronic gadgets and goods in a rented small room. Nature and behavior of his wife/defendant became changed about the year 2012 towards plaintiff. She started abusing him blaming illicit relationship with another woman. She frequently stormed into his shop, vandalized and ransacked at all the working hours. She excruciating mental pain compelled him to leave his house and take shelter in a rented house about 4 years ago.

(ii) In the year 2015 despite the petitioner equanimity and stoical tolerance she persisted in vandalizing the shop, lowering his prestige in society and sharp decline of his business. He was forced to made complain to the Mahila Police Station but it was arrived at cryptic and iconic by the S.I. of Mahila P.S. Thereafter, on several occasions during last 4 years defendant lodged several complaints against her husband before authorities but no positive out turn has come out since it was made on false basis.

(iii) Out of such complaints, one complaint petition dated 02.12.2016 was filed by the defendant to the D.C., it is obvious that the plaintiff was forced to desert the society for 2 years until the condition remains the same which is appearing from the letter dated 08.01.2017 of the defendant sent to the Mahila Kalyan Ayog, Ranchi and complaint petition dated 13.01.2017 was sent by her to the Mukhya Mantri Jansanwad Kendra, Ranchi. Plaintiff when could not bear torture of his wife he filed a Complaint Case in the Court of Learned C.J.M, Latehar on 15.05.2015 registered as Complaint Case No. 162/2015, under sections 323, 324, 504, 506 and 380 of I.P.C which was sent to the concerned P.S. for investigation under the provisions of section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C.

(iv) In order to resolve their dispute a 'Panchayati' of respectable persons in locality was convened on 29.10.2017 but defendant never appeared before the 'Panchayati' and all efforts went in vain. Marital status between both the parties has become collapsed and conjugal relationship has been irretrievably broken. The defendant has withdrawn huge amount from joint account with her husband/plaintiff.

3. It is evident from the factual aspect as narrated hereinabove that the marriage in between the appellant and the respondent, the wife and the husband, respectively was solemnized sometime in the year 1987 as per Hindu rites and rituals. Out of the said wedlock two sons and one daughter were born to the couple out of whom only two sons are alive. Thereafter, some dispute arose in between the parties which ultimately lead to filing of several cases against each other and finally a suit under sections 13(1) (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 has been filed by the husband fo