Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Jhk) 3791
HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
Sujit Narayan Prasad, Arun Kumar Rai, JJ
Arvind Kumar Agarwal – Appellant
Versus
Rakhi Rani Agarwal – Respondent
F.A. No. 10 of 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Anand Kumar Pandey
For the Respondents: Pankaj Kr. Choudhary, Arya Suman
Divorce on grounds of cruelty and desertion requires clear evidence of grave, weighted conduct rendering cohabitation miserable and proof of animus deserendi to permanently abandon marital obligations. Appellate interference is permitted only if the lower court's findings are perverse, ignoring relevant evidence or defying reason.
Headnote:(A) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Sections 13(1)(i-a) and 13(1)(i-b) - Divorce - Cruelty and Desertion - Definition and standard - Cruelty involves conduct affecting a spouse’s life making it miserable; mere trivial irritations do not satisfy the threshold of grave and weighty conduct. Desertion requires both the factum of separation and animus deserendi (intention to abandon permanently) without reasonable cause or consent; the burden of proof rests on the petitioner to establish these elements. (Paras 23, 25, 30, 31, 32, 34, 36)
(B) Appellate Jurisdiction - Scope - Findings of fact by a trial court are not to be disturbed unless the conclusion is perverse, meaning it ignores relevant materials, considers irrelevant evidence, or defies logical reasoning to such an extent that no reasonable person would have reached the same conclusion. (Paras 22, 43)
Facts of the case:
The appellant-husband filed a petition for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, alleging cruelty and desertion by the respondent-wife. The appellant contended that the respondent demanded household appliances, caused damage to property, refused to perform domestic duties, and failed to resume conjugal life despite attempts. The respondent denied these allegations and expressed a willingness to resume marital relations. The trial court dismissed the suit, finding the evidence insufficient to substantiate the claims of cruelty or desertion.
Findings of Court:
The appellate court assessed the evidence and concluded that the appellant failed to prove specific instances of cruelty or the necessary animus deserendi for desertion. The evidence provided by the appellant’s witnesses was inconsistent and did not establish a permanent withdrawal from marital obligations by the respondent.
Issues: Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the divorce petition and whether the findings regarding the absence of cruelty and desertion were based on a perverse assessment of the evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The appellate court affirmed that the petitioner bore the burden of proving that the respondent engaged in conduct amounting to cruelty or committed desertion with the intent to permanently end cohabitation. Given the lack of substantive evidence, the trial court’s determination was found to be consistent with the material on record and not afflicted by perversity.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background and procedural history of the divorce petition. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. summary of rival contentions regarding cruelty and desertion. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 3. evaluation of evidence and standard for perversity in findings. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 4. definition and scope of mental and physical cruelty. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 5. elements required to establish desertion under section 13. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36) |
| 6. application of law to facts resulting in dismissal of appeal. (Para 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45) |
Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
Prayer
1. The instant appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 is directed against the order/judgment dated 20th December, 2023 (decree sealed and signed on 12th January, 2024) passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Hazaribagh in Original Suit No. 119 of 2023, whereby and whereunder, the petition filed under Section 13(1)(i-a)(i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 by the appellant/petitioner seeking a decree of divorce against his wife, has been dismissed.
Factual Matrix
2. The brief facts of the case leading to filing of the divorce petition by the appellant/petitioner needs to be referred herein as under:
It is the case of the appellant/petitioner that the marriage of the appellant/petitioner with the respondent-wife was solemnized on 27.04.2013 as per Hindu rites and custom at Agrasen Bhawan, Daltonganj, District-Palamau (Jharkhand). After marriage, the respondent-wife led conjugal life in her matrimonial house at Daltonganj, Palamau, till November, 2016. Now, the parties are not living together.
It is the further case of the appellant/petitioner that the respondent-wife had filed Maintenance Case No.217 of 2022 before the same Court, which was dismissed on contest, however, she had filed maintenance case only after acknowledgement of notice of divorce suit.
It is the further case of the appellant/petitioner that on the day of Chauthari, i.e., on 29.04.2013, she started demanding fridge and in default, she destroyed household articles and was asking for divorce. She never cooked meal and not discharged her household duties. She was blaming the appellant/petitioner as impotent. On several occasion, the appellant/petitioner and his father approached the respondent-wife and her family members for resumption of conjugal life but she refused.
He thereafter again approached her for resumption of conjugal life on 01.06.2022 at Hazaribag where she was running a Beauty Parlour under the name and style of “Lorial Professional Saloon” but she refused to resume conjugal life. She was insisting to live separately. Therefore, the appellant/petitioner has prayed for divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion.
After notice the respondent-wife appeared and had filed a written statement wherein she raised defences and she denied the case of petitioner-husband except filing of the said Maintenance case and submitted further that in the marriage, sufficient dowry etc. were given but in matrimonial house, she was treated with cruelty in demand of further dowry. It has further been submitted that She was visiting her matrimonial house but in December, 2021 she was refused to enter into the house of the petitioner/appellant. She never refused resumption of conjugal life and still willing to resume conjugal life. It has further been stated that the appellant/petitioner runs business of tobacco and earns Rs.70,000 to 80,000/- per month.
3. It is evident from the factual aspect that the appellant/petitioner had a motion by filing a petition under Section 13(1)(i-a)(i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion.
4. After taking into consideration the pleading of the both the parties the learned Family Court has framed altogether five issues which are as follows:-
(i) Whether the suit is maintainable in its pr
