Divorce on grounds of cruelty requires proof of conduct so grave that living together becomes impossible. Trivial disagreements do not constitute cruelty. The burden of proof lies on the petitioner, and appellate courts will not interfere unless the lower court's finding is proven to be perverse or illegal.

C.A.V on 27.01.2026 Pronounced on 03/02/2026 Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

The instant appeal under section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 is directed against the judgment dated 07.05.2024 and the decree dated 16.05.2024 passed in Original (Matrimonial) Suit No.295 of 2017 by the learned Addl. Principal Judge, Addl. Family Court-I, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur (herein referred as Family Judge) whereby and whereunder the petition filed under section 13(1) (i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 by the appellant-husband against the respondent-wife has been dismissed.

2. The brief facts of the case as pleaded in the plaint having been recorded by the learned Family Judge, needs to be referred herein as:

(i) The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 22.02.2016 at Hotel Alcor Bistupur, Jamshedpur according to Hindu Rites and Custom.

(ii) Thereafter, the respondent remained in her matrimonial home for two days only and did not allow the petitioner/appellant to consummate the marriage by cohabitation on the ground that she was one of the disciples of Satsang and prior permission was required for the consummation of marriage and unless she was permitted by her Satsang Philanthropy, Deoghar, she could not consummate the marriage.

(iii) After two days, she went to her parent's house at Joda, Dist. Keonjhar, Odissa on 25.02.2016.

(iv) It has been stated that before the marriage, on, parents of both the parties met at Dhanbad where the respondent was interviewed by the petitioner and his parents in presence of her parents and they all repeated that she is qualified as MBA from BHU and she is serving as Manager in Citi Bank at Mumbai. Further, the respondent and her parents submitted that after the marriage she will get her transferred to CITI Bank, Singapore where the petitioner is working.

(v) It is the case of the petitioner that at the time of marriage, the facts of her being a disciple of the Satsang Philanthropy, Deoghar was concealed by her brother Lal Mani Singh as well as the middle man, namely, Bablu Singh and they intentionally settled the marriage by concealing such facts from the petitioner and his family members.

(vi) When the respondent returned back to her matrimonial house in the month of July, 2016, respondent took all her ornaments which were presented at the time of marriage by petitioner and relatives and started insisting that the petitioner/appellant should also become member of Satsang by taking Diksha, otherwise she would not allow him to perform sexual intercourse with her. The petitioner refused to accept the demand of respondent because he had no knowledge about such religious order in which she was involved for so many years.

(vii) The respondent again made demand to the petitioner for living separately from his old aged parents, but he was not in a position to accept such demand because he was the eldest son of his family and had responsibility of maintaining and supporting his parent's need. It has been asserted that on his refusal to accept the demand of the respondent, she refused to cooperate and perform her matrimonial obligation and also refused to have sexual relation with the petitioner.

(viii) The respondent barel