2026 Supreme(Jhk) 560

2026 JHHC 10398
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, SANJAY PRASAD, JJ.
Mr. Pawan Kumar Das, son of Sri Bulaki Rabi Das – Appellant
Versus 
Mrs. Fulmuni Marandi, wife of Pawan Kumar Das, d/o. Sukhalal Marandi – Respondent 
F.A. No. 223 of 2023 With F.A. No. 175 of 2023
Decided On : 10-04-2026
Advocates Appeared :
For the Appellant : Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Om Prakash, Advocate, Mr. Ritesh Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Aman Ali, Advocate

Matrimonial relief for cruelty requires evidence of conduct that is grave and weighty, rendering cohabitation impossible. Restitution of conjugal rights is granted when a spouse genuinely seeks cohabitation but is rejected without reasonable cause. Appellate courts shall not interfere unless the trial court’s findings are perverse.

Headnote:(A) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Sections 9 and 13(1)(i-a) & (1-A)(ii) - Family Courts Act, 1984 - Section 19 - Restitution of conjugal rights and dissolution of marriage - Cruelty - Proof required - Mere incompatibility or temperamental disharmony does not amount to cruelty - Appellate court's jurisdiction limited to reviewing for perversity in findings of fact - A finding is considered perverse if it is reached by ignoring relevant contradictory evidence, excluding material facts, or if it defies basic logic. (Paras 37-38, 47-51)

(B) Restitution of conjugal rights - Intent and Scope - The remedy is designed to preserve the marital institution and requires proof that one spouse withdrew from the society of the other without reasonable excuse - The burden of proving a reasonable excuse rests upon the withdrawing spouse - Bona fide attempts to maintain matrimonial relations and evidence of intermittent cohabitation negate allegations of desertion or intentional cruelty. (Paras 71-73, 77, 80-82)

Facts of the case:
Parties were married under local cultural rites and subsequently registered their marriage. The husband resided at his official posting while the wife maintained employment in another jurisdictional area. Following a series of matrimonial disputes, the husband filed for restitution of conjugal rights, which was initially decreed. The wife appealed, and subsequently, the husband filed for divorce alleging cruelty and desertion. The wife, in turn, sought a decree for restitution of conjugal rights. The trial court rejected the husband's petition for divorce due to lack of evidence regarding cruelty and granted the wife's petition for restitution.

Findings of Court:
The trial court carefully evaluated both oral and documentary evidence, including evidence of travel and leave applications provided by the wife to show persistent attempts to cohabit with the husband. The trial court concluded that the allegations of cruelty were unsubstantiated and that the husband failed to demonstrate that the wife had deserted him without reasonable cause. The appellate court affirmed that the lower court’s assessment was grounded in evidence and was free from perversity.

Issues: Whether the trial court’s findings were perverse or contrary to law, and whether the evidence established the necessary grounds for divorce based on cruelty, or in the alternative, whether the evidence supported a decree for restitution of conjugal rights.

Ratio Decidendi: Cruelty, in matrimonial law, must be of such a grave and weighty nature that it renders continued cohabitation unreasonable. Trivial irritations or ordinary wear and tear of marriage do not constitute grounds for divorce. Where the evidence indicates that the spouse seeking restitution has made genuine, documented efforts to cohabit and the other spouse has obstructed these efforts without valid justification, the court is entitled to grant a decree for restitution.

Result: Appeals dismissed. Judgments of the lower court confirmed.