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

2025 Supreme(Jhk) 2241

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Sujit Narayan Prasad, Arun Kumar Rai, JJ.
Srishti Kumari, aged about 30 years, wife of Shri Shantanu Jaiswal – Appellant  
Versus
Shantanu Jaiswal, son of late Ashok Prasad Jaiswal, resident of village Jalka, PO and PS: Ghagra, District - Respondent
F.A. No. 20 of 2024
Decided On : 18-12-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Sumit Prakash, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Ashutosh Ranjan Kumar, Advocate

Appellate courts must intervene when trial court findings show perversity, such as ignoring material evidence. In matrimonial law, cruelty and desertion are established by assessing the cumulative impact of a spouse's conduct, and 'desertion' includes being forced to leave due to persistent, intolerable abuse.

Headnote:(A) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Sections 13(1)(i-a) and 13(1)(i-b) - Divorce - Cruelty and Desertion - Findings of fact recorded by trial court based on disregard of material evidence or failure to appreciate consistent testimony constitute perversity - Appellate court possesses full jurisdiction to reappraise evidence in a first appeal to prevent miscarriage of justice. (Paras 45, 54, 75)

(B) Appellate Jurisdiction - High Court acting as first appellate court entitled to re-evaluate entire oral and documentary evidence, both on fact and law, to rectify errors of the court below. (Paras 44, 45)

(C) Desertion - Concept defined - Requires factum of separation and 'animus deserendi' - Where a spouse is compelled to abandon the matrimonial home due to repeated acts of physical and mental abuse, the departing spouse is not the deserting party; rather, such conduct constitutes constructive desertion. (Paras 63, 66, 73)

Facts of the case:
The appellant sought dissolution of marriage on grounds of cruelty and desertion, alleging persistent physical abuse, infidelity, and intoxication. The trial court dismissed the suit, arguing that the accounts of cruelty lacked specific dates, despite consistent testimony from witnesses. The respondent denied these allegations and contended that the separation was initiated by the appellant.

Findings of Court:
The appellate court concluded that the trial court's findings were perverse because it failed to account for corroborated oral evidence and consistent documentation regarding the instances of physical harm. The court observed that the appellant was effectively forced out of the matrimonial home due to an environment of constant aggression and abuse, establishing grounds for both cruelty and desertion.

Issues: Whether the trial court’s dismissal of the divorce petition suffered from perversity due to incorrect appreciation of evidence and whether the grounds of cruelty and desertion were substantiated.

Ratio Decidendi: A finding is perverse when it is against the weight of evidence or ignores material testimony. In matters of matrimonial cruelty, courts must look at the overall conduct and the resulting apprehension of harm rather than seeking a clinical timeline for every instance of abuse. Constructive desertion is established where the respondent's intolerable conduct forces the petitioner to leave the matrimonial home.

Result: Appeal allowed. Impugned order set aside.

Table of Content
1. case history, factual matrix, and framing of issues. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
2. parties' contentions regarding matrimonial cruelty and desertion. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)

JUDGMENT :

1. The instant appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 is directed against the order/judgment dated 08.01.2024 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Lohardagain Original Suit No. 15 of 2023, whereby and where under, the Suit filed by the appellant under Sections 13 (1) (i-a) (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, has been dismissed.

Factual Matrix

2. The brief facts of the case, leading to filing of the petition filed under Section 13(1) (i-a) and (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, by the appellant/plaintiff, needs to be referred herein which are as under:

3. The plaintiff's [the appellant herein] case, in brief, is that marriage of plaintiff-appellant and defendant-respondent was solemnized on 25.06.2011 at Dewaki Mandir, Ghaghra, District-Gumla. After that they started living together as husband and wife at Ghaghra. Out of their wedlock one daughter was born. It is alleged that the defendant-respondent was addicted to liquor and playing gamble and under the influence of liquor he used to torture the plaintiff-appellant regularly. It is further alleged that the defendant-respondent has extra-marital relation with another girl. On several occasions, the defendant-respondent assaulted her with belt, shoes and abused the plaintiff-appellant without any rhyme and reason. The defendant-respondent does not want to live with the plaintiff-appellant. It is alleged that he is very offensive in nature and does not respect her as wife and always used to assault and abuse her. The plaintiff-appellant lived in her matrimonial house at Devi Mandap Road, Ranchi.

4. It is stated that the defendant-respondent on one occasion while assaulting plaintiff-appellant entered the key of scooty in her arm due to which the plaintiff-appellant received injury for which she has taken treatment in hospital. The defendant-husband used to assault the plaintiff-appellant with fists and slaps which compelled her to return to her maike on 02.12.2018 and since then she is living in her maike. The defendant- husband refused to live with plaintiff-wife. The appellant had no source of income. Therefore, she has filed a Suit under sections 13(i)(i-a)(i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for a decree of divorce on the ground of extra-marital relation, cruelty and desertion.

5. The learned Family Judge has issued notice upon the respondent-husband, who appeared and filed written statement admitting the factum of marriage with the plaintiff-appellant.

6. It is pleaded that the suit of plaintiff-appellant is not maintainable. She has filed the suit suppressing the material fact. The plaintiff-appellant has willfully deserted the defendant-respondent and she was never subjected to any cruelty. His marriage was solemnized with plaintiff on 25.06.2011. Since the marriage, defendant-respondent used to stay in the State of Orissa for livelihood and he used to visit his own house in Ranchi on frequent basis, but after few months, plaintiff-appellant started quarreling with her in-laws and pressurized the defendant-respondent to provide a separate rented house. Then he started living in a rented house in Ranchi.

7. Out of their wedlock one child Bhavya Jaiswal was born on 15.09.2014 when they lived in rented house. On request of defendant-respondent, the appellant agreed to return to her matrimonial house on the condition that she will not be participating in any household work and she will be residing in her maike in every weekend, to which the defendant-respondent agreed for the sake of saving relationship.

8. It is stated that the father of defendant-respondent died on 22.10.2015, after death of her father-in-law, plaintiff-appellant never stayed in her matrimonial house rather she started living on the 3rd floor of h

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