Divorce requires establishing specific evidence of cruelty or desertion. Mere separation is insufficient without proof of intent to permanently abandon. Appellate courts will only intervene if the trial court's decision is perverse, meaning it ignores evidence or lacks a logical legal basis for its conclusions.

JUDGMENT :

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 29.08.2018 and decree signed on 10.09.2018 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court, Dhanbad in Original Suit No. 174 of 2016, whereby and whereunder, the learned court has dismissed the suit in the light of Section 13(1)(i-a)(i-b) 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:

The marriage of the appellant/plaintiff was solemnized with the respondent/defendant on 15.03.2007 at Kandra, Sindri as per Hindu rites and customs. The couple were blessed with a son namely, Ayush Mandal, aged 5 years. It has been alleged that the respondent/defendant is an educated lady but did not have care of civilization and culture and never treat beastly with the appellant/plaintiff and she always abused the petitioner/plaintiff and his parents with filthy language and since very first day she was non-co-operative and her behaviour towards the family members of the appellant/plaintiff was unacceptable.

It has been stated that appellant/plaintiff is an employee of Indian Railway and he is working as a Trackman at Baraut, Dist. Baghbat (U.P). It has been alleged that respondent/defendant used to quarrel with the plaintiff over trivial matter and used to abuse the plaintiff and his son. It is also alleged that the respondent/defendant did not make food and appellant/plaintiff has to go his duty without taking meal and when the appellant/plaintiff return, respondent/defendant compel the appellant/plaintiff to remove all cloths, take bath, wash all the clothes and then he will be allowed to touch her or his son.

It has been alleged that in the year 2010 to ruin the martial life of appellant/plaintiff, father of the respondent/defendant instituted a case in Mahila Police Station, Dhanbad and Kanta Kumari, O.C. of Mahila Police Station, Dhanbad threatened the appellant/plaintiff with connivance of father of respondent/defendant but when the matter was investigated by the local police and found that respondent/defendant is peacefully living with appellant/plaintiff in her matrimonial home then the O/C Mahila P.S.Dhanbad failed to institute FIR against the appellant/plaintiff.

It has further been alleged that when respondent/defendant came to know the fact that the appellant/plaintiff has made nominee to the respondent/defendant in his service record and also knowing the fact that she will get the service of appellant/plaintiff in case of his death and other consequential benefit," she refused to cohabit with the appellant/plaintiff without any reasonable excuse.

It has further been alleged that on 08.02.2013 when appellant/plaintiff and respondent/defendant was at Baraut (U.P) railway quarter, in presence of her father, respondent/defendant made cruel behaviour with appellant/plaintiff, abused him with filthy language and also assaulted him with fist and slaps and threatened to kill him. After that incident, appellant/plaintiff reported the matter to the Baraut Bagpat (UP) Police Station and a case was instituted U/s 323/504/506 IPC against respondent/defe