Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Jhk) 3848
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
A decree for divorce on grounds of cruelty and desertion requires clear, cogent evidence of grave, weighty conduct or intentional permanent abandonment. Appellate courts will only intervene in trial court findings if the decision demonstrates perversity, acting against the weight of evidence or established legal logic.
Headnote:(A) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 13(1)(i-a) and (i-b) - Family Courts Act, 1984 - Section 19(1) - Divorce - Cruelty and Desertion - Appeal against dismissal - Petitioner seeking dissolution of marriage on grounds of mental/physical cruelty and desertion - Trial court finding that allegations of cruelty and desertion were not established by cogent evidence - Appellate court's jurisdiction limited to identifying perversity - Definitions of 'cruelty' and 'desertion' strictly construed requiring 'grave and weighty' conduct and 'animus deserendi' respectively - Failure of petitioner to prove essential elements of separation or intentional abandonment - No error found in trial court's assessment. (Paras 16, 23, 27, 30, 31, 33, 36)
(B) Appellate Practice - Scope and ambit - An appellate court should not interfere with a finding of fact unless the decision is perverse - A finding is perverse if arrived at by ignoring relevant material, taking into account irrelevant material, or if it defies logic or is unsupported by evidence - Mere possibility of a different view does not justify interference. (Paras 22, 43)
Facts of the case:
The appellant-husband filed a petition for divorce alleging cruelty and desertion by the respondent-wife. The appellant contended that the respondent demanded luxury household items, destroyed property, refused to perform domestic duties, and falsely accused him of physical incapacities. The respondent denied these allegations, asserting that she was willing to resume conjugal life and that the marriage was treated with mutual respect until the recent breakdown. The trial court dismissed the petition on the ground that the petitioner failed to substantiate the claims through credible evidence.
Findings of Court:
Upon reappraisal of the evidence, the court found no concrete proof of physical or mental cruelty that would render cohabitation impossible. The court noted that the petitioner could not provide specific dates or consistent details regarding the alleged misconduct. Furthermore, the essential elements of desertion, namely the 'factum of separation' and the 'animus deserendi' (intention to bring cohabitation to a permanent end), were not proven.
Issues: The central issues were: (i) whether the trial court erred in dismissing the divorce petition; and (ii) whether the evidence established sufficient grounds of cruelty and desertion under the law.
Ratio Decidendi: To secure a divorce on grounds of cruelty, the conduct must be grave and weighty such that the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with the respondent. For desertion, the petitioner must prove a permanent forsaking of the matrimonial state without consent or reasonable cause. As the appellant provided no conclusive evidence to satisfy these criteria, and because the trial court's findings were not perverse, the judgment at trial is upheld.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of legal history, factual matrix, and framing of issues. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. summary of party-specific contentions on cruelty and desertion. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 3. standard for reviewing factual perversity in trial court judgments. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 4. definition and contextual application of mental and physical cruelty. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 5. required elements of animus deserendi and factum of desertion. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36) |
| 6. application of legal principles to evidence resulting in dismissal. (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 th
