SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Jhk) 384

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Sujit Narayan Prasad, Arun Kumar Rai, JJ.
Smt. Champa Kumari @ Sampa - Appellant
Versus
Saheb Mahakud, son of Sri Ushakar Mahakud - Respondent
F.A. No.142 of 2024
Decided On : 05-02-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Anurag Kashyap, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. P.A.S. Pati, Advocate

Family court divorce decree on cruelty ground set aside as perverse for failing to scrutinize counter-allegations and evidence properly; appellate re-appreciation requires preponderance-based reasoning, not abrupt presumptions.

Headnote:(A) Family Courts Act, 1984 - Section 19(1) - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Sections 13(1)(ia) & (ib) - Divorce - Grounds of cruelty and desertion - Appeal against family court decree granting divorce to husband - Family court failed to properly appreciate evidence of counter-allegations of cruelty by wife including physical assault and dowry harassment, medical documents, and willingness to resume conjugal life - Abrupt finding of cruelty by wife without scrutinizing veracity of mutual allegations held perverse - Appellate court, re-appreciating evidence on preponderance of probabilities, set aside decree as findings defied logic, ignored relevant material, and lacked cogent reasoning. (Paras 22, 37, 55-66)

(B) Matrimonial Appeals - Scope - High Court as first appellate court to re-appraise facts and law, reverse perverse findings ignoring evidence or based on no evidence - Cruelty requires grave, weighty conduct causing reasonable apprehension of harm, not trivial irritations; sustained pattern rendering cohabitation impossible - No straitjacket formula, context-specific considering social milieu. (Paras 27-30, 38-51)

(C) Evidence - Preponderance of probabilities governs matrimonial proceedings - Grave cruelty allegations demand primary evidence; mere presumption insufficient without material scrutiny. (Paras 28-29, 57-58)

Facts of the case:
Husband filed suit for divorce alleging wife's cruelty through quarrels, abuse, demands for separate rented house in town despite his meager income, self-harm pretenses, threats of false cases, and desertion since 2020. Wife countered with allegations of physical assaults by husband, dowry harassment post-marriage, supported by medical records, photos of injuries, police complaints, and pending criminal case under cruelty provisions. Family court granted divorce on husband's mental cruelty claim without costs; wife appealed.

Findings of Court:
Impugned judgment perverse for non-appreciation of wife's consistent testimony, documents, and counter-claims; husband's evidence hearsay-based, uncorroborated; no sustained cruelty pattern by wife proved.

Issues: Whether family court properly appreciated evidence to hold wife guilty of cruelty on preponderance of probabilities; whether findings perverse warranting reversal in appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: Family court erred in abruptly concluding husband's cruelty case without verifying counter-allegations, wife's evidence, or establishing grave mental cruelty beyond normal marital discord; perverse as against evidence weight, ignoring relevant materials like medical exhibits and wife's readiness for reconciliation.

Result: Appeal allowed; divorce decree quashed and set aside.

Table of Content
1. husband claims cruelty by wife's demands, quarrels. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
2. family court grants divorce on cruelty ground. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)
3. wife contends trial court ignored her evidence. (Para 19)
4. husband defends cruelty proof sufficiency. (Para 20)
5. conflicting witness testimonies on mutual cruelty. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27)
6. documents support respective cruelty claims. (Para 28 , 29 , 30)
7. perversity from ignoring or misappreciating evidence. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36)
8. cruelty requires grave, contextual mental harm. (Para 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50)
9. lower court abruptly concluded cruelty without analysis. (Para 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56)
10. judgment perverse lacking evidence appreciation. (Para 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66)
11. appeal allowed; decree quashed for perversity. (Para 67 , 68 , 69)

JUDGMENT :

Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

1. The instant appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellant under Section19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 against the order/judgment dated 30.03.2024 [decree signed on 08.04.2024] passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Seraikella-Kharsawan, in Original Suit No. 54 of 2021, whereby and whereunder, the said Suit filed by the respondent- husbandwas allowed on contest but without cost, holding that marriage of the petitioner (respondent herein)Saheb Mahakud with the respondent Smt. Champa Kumari (Appellant herein) solemnized on 28.4.2019 is hereby dissolved.

2. The brief facts of the case, which required to be enumerated, needs to be referred as under:

3. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 28.04.2019as per Hindu rites and customs at the parent’s house of the respondent(appellant herein) and the parties started residing together at the house of the petitioner (respondent herein).

4. It is stated that marriage was solemnized without any demand of dowry and after consummation of marriage, soon after it was realized by the petitioner/respondent/husband that respondent/appellant wife is not very much interested in staying in her matrimonial home but to stay at her parent’s house to lead a luxurious life and for this reason her behaviour became very rude with the petitioner and his family members and even refused to cohabit.

5. Further she started making fight and quarrel, abusing entire family members with filthy languages and the respondent/wife in order to pressurize regularly insists the applicant to take a house on rent at Baridih in Jamshedpur and even after efforts to convinced the respondent about his inability to arrange a house on rent due to his meager income as driver of an auto, the respondent did not agree and continued her irrational behaviour and sometimes used to hit her head on wall with intend to injure and putting blame upon the applicant and his family members with threatening to implicate in false criminal cases.

6. This fact has also been stated that considering the aforesaid conduct of the respondent the petitioner made a written complaint to Mukhiya and Gram Pradhan of village Bara Sijulata on 04.09.19 where mother and relative of the respondent came and in the panchayati respondent assured not to repeat her previous behaviour but went to her maike with her parents and returned after 3 months on several requests of the petitioner but again her similar conduct and behaviour continued.

7. It has further been stated that on 14.10.2020 again a panchayati was held in presence of members of both the sides and again even after assurance given by respondent/wife, she after coming from her maike did not amend her behaviour. On 16.01.2020 respondent/wife again made quarrel for arranging rented house at Jamshedpur near her parents house but on refusal she called her parents and went to Rajnagar P.S. giving threatening lodged complaint against applicant and his family members and on her complain they were calle

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top