Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Jhk) 2582
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Sujit Narayan Prasad, Sanjay Prasad, JJ
Manoj Kumar Hansda – Appellant
Versus
Varsha Monigini Hembrom – Respondent
First Appeal No.64 of 2023
Important Points
Subject
Family Law - Matrimonial Matters
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Appellate Jurisdiction - Scope and Ambit - A finding of fact by the trial court is not to be interfered with unless it is perverse - A judgment is considered perverse if it ignores relevant material, relies on irrelevant material, or defies logic such that no reasonable person would arrive at such a conclusion. (Paras 33, 34, 75)
Facts of the case:
An appeal was filed against the dismissal of a divorce petition initiated by the husband. The appellant alleged that the respondent deserted him and subjected him to cruelty. The respondent contested these claims, asserting that the appellant had extra-marital relations and effectively abandoned his marital obligations. The lower court examined evidence regarding prior legal proceedings, claims of unchastity, and the absence of any genuine attempt at reconciliation by the appellant.
Findings of Court:
The court noted that the appellant failed to produce evidence of consistent efforts to resume matrimonial life. It further found that the appellant had levelled serious, unsubstantiated allegations of unchastity against the respondent, which themselves qualified as mental cruelty. The court observed that the respondent had valid reasons for living separately due to the appellant's admitted extra-marital associations.
Issues: Whether the appellant proved the grounds of desertion and cruelty by the respondent to merit a decree of divorce under the relevant statute.
Ratio Decidendi: Divorce cannot be granted on the grounds of cruelty or desertion when the petitioner fails to meet the burden of proof and lacks genuine animus or evidence of efforts to maintain the matrimonial bond. Unjustified accusations of unchastity and extra-marital conduct by the petitioner undermine his own case for relief, as they constitute acts of cruelty rather than justification for separation.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Gautam Kumar, Ashutosh Kr. Sinha, Savita Kumari
For the Respondents: Pankaj Srivastava, Ashish Gautam
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. summary of factual background and procedural history of the divorce petition. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 2. summary of opposing contentions regarding cruelty and desertion. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. analysis of evidence and witness testimony regarding marital breakdown. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 4. definition and scope of perverse findings in judicial orders. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34) |
| 5. legal standard for establishing mental and physical cruelty. (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56) |
| 6. essential requirements for proving desertion in matrimonial cases. (Para 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68) |
| 7. application of legal principles to facts justifying dismissal of appeal. (Para 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78) |
Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
Prayer
The instant appeal is directed against the judgment dated 23.02.2023 passed in Original Suit No.284 of 2018 by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Sahibganj, whereby and whereunder, the petition filed under section 27(1)(b) and (d) of the Special Marriage Act by the appellant-husband against the respondent-wife has been dismissed.
Factual Matrix
2. The brief facts of the case, as pleaded in the plaint having been recorded by the learned Family Judge, needs to be referred as under:
(i) It is the case of the plaintiff-husband (appellant herein) that the parties solemnized marriage on 25.06.2008 under the provisions of Special Marriage Act. After marriage, the defendant (respondent herein) went to her matrimonial house and live there for some time.
(ii) After some time of marriage, the respondent-wife instituted a false criminal case on 10.11.2009 against the plaintiff-husband at Rajmahal and went to her parental house and never came to the plaintiff. The plaintiff requested several times to the defendant for leading happy conjugal life with the plaintiff but she refused. The plaintiff thereafter filed a case for restitution of conjugal rights before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Sahibganj vide Matrimonial Suit No. 62/2009 which was dismissed. The defendant also filed a maintenance case before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Sahibganj and the learned Court has been pleased to allow maintenance to the tune of Rs. 2,000/-per month to defendant wife and Rs. 1,000/- per month to her child.
(iii) The cause of action arose on 26.10.2018 when the defendant refused to come to the plaintiff at Sahibganj.
(iv) It has further been alleged that there is no cohabitation with the plaintiff-husband and defendant-wife for about ten years which amounts to cruelty on the part of the defendant -wife. The defendant has also deserted the plaintiff and there is no chance of reunion between them and now it is impossible to lead marital life with the defendant and therefore, the original suit being Original Suit No.284 of 2018 has been filed.
3. On the aforesaid ground of cruelty and desertion, the appellant husband has prayed for a decree of dissolution of the marriage between him and the respondent-wife, accordingly, the aforesaid suit for dissolution of marriage has been preferred.
4. It needs to mention herein that in Original Suit No.284 of 2018, after issuance of notice, the respondent-wife appeared and contested the suit by filing her written statement denying all the allegations levelled against her by the plaintiff-husband. On appearance, the defendant filed her written statement refuting most of the allegation of the plaintiff made in the plaint and stated that the plaint is not maintainable being false, bogus, imaginary, baseless and the plaintiff having no valid cause of action. She admitted that the parties knew each other and that they had fallen in love with each other. She has further stated that that the plaintiff established physical relation with her on assurance of marriage and
