JUDGMENT : Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. The instant appeal under section 19(1) of the FAMILY COURTS ACT , 1984 is directed against the judgment dated 15.07.2023 and the decree dated 27.07.2023 passed in Original Suit No.04 of 2022 by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Koderma (in short, Family Judge) whereby and whereunder the petition filed under section 27(1) (d) of the SPECIAL MARRIAGE ACT , 1954 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 22.12.2020 before Sub-Registrar-cum-Marriage officer, Koderma and after the marriage they lived together as husband and wife for only 10 days. (ii) It is alleged that during that period the defendant has not established physical relationship with the petitioner and they are living separately since 01.01.2021 and have never cohabited with each other. (iii) It is alleged that from the very beginning the behaviour of defendant towards petitioner was not good and she denied to live with petitioner’s family and pressurized him to live separately and bring money for her higher education. The petitioner opposed the wrongful demand of defendant on which he was threatened by defendant and her mother and they told him that earlier they implicated him in rape case and now they will send the petitioner and his whole family members in jail in the case of Dowry Act and will ruin the future of petitioner. (iv) It is alleged that the prior to marriage, the defendant had filed a criminal case being Telaiya P.S Case No. 139 of 2020 against the petitioner and his family members under sections 376/34 of IPC, but the police after investigation submitted Final Form which was accepted by the learned C.J.M, Koderma on 07.06.2021 but the petitioner and his family members faced mental torture due to the act of defendant. The petitioner faced all types of cruelties because he wanted to save his married life but defendant was adamant to spoil the life of petitioner. She is continuously torturing the petitioner and his family and defendant has been committing cruelty with petitioner. She is also not giving any pleasure and comfort to the petitioner in their conjugal life. The petitioner faced all types of cruelties because he wanted to save his married life but defendant was adamant to spoil the life of petitioner. She is continuously torturing the petitioner and his family and defendant has been committing cruelty with petitioner. She is also not giving any pleasure and comfort to the petitioner in their conjugal life. (v) It is alleged that the plaintiff tried his best to live with the defendant but she is not willing for the same and in the circumstances, there is no possibility to maintain further conjugal life between the petitioner and the defendant. 3. On the aforesaid ground of cruelty, the appellant-husband has prayed for a decree of dissolution of the marriage between him and the respondent-wife, accordingly, the suit being Original Suit No.04 of 2022 for dissolution of marriage has been preferred. 4. It needs to mention herein that in Original Suit No.04 of 2022, 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. It has been stated that the suit has been filed on false, frivolous and concocted grounds and is fit to be dismissed. She has admitted that her marriage was solemnized with the petitioner but denied that she belongs to Hindu religion as she is Sikh by religion and governed by Hindu law. She admitted that their marriage was solemnized on 22.12.2020 under SPECIAL MARRIAGE ACT , 1954 before Marriage Officer, Koderma and the certificate was issued under section 13 of the SPECIAL MARRIAGE ACT , 1954 on 22.12.2020. Thereafter, the petitioner took her to Dhawajadhari Mandir, Koderma and performed his marriage with her under Hindu customs and law. 5. It is stated that prior to this, petitioner took the defendant in a Mandir situated at Bahu Bazar, Ranchi on 28.06.2020 and put vermilion and started leading a married life and continued establishing physical relationship with her. She has denied the fact that she lived only for 10 days with the petitioner and didn’t allow him to establish physical relationship with her rather she has lived with the petitioner as husband and wife in matrimonial house and marriage has been consummated. It has also been stated that the assertion of the petitioner is false that since 01.01.2021 he is living separately from the defendant and has not cohabited with her. It has also been stated that the assertion of the petitioner is false that since 01.01.2021 he is living separately from the defendant and has not cohabited with her. The real fact is that after marriage petitioner and defendant lived together as husband and wife and he always cohabited with her till March, 2022. The allegations of the petitioner that she misbehaved with him and pressurized him to live separately with her is also false, misconceived and concocted. She always behaved well with the petitioner and his parents and never asked him to live separately. She has also never asked the petitioner to give money for her higher education. It is stated that she belongs to a respectable family and studied up to B. Com and now she is a student of Chartered Accountancy (C.A). It is stated that she and her mother have never threatened the petitioner and his family members to implicate them in false case under Dowry Act and these allegations have been falsely made by the petitioner. It is stated that she has no brother and she was being pressurized by the petitioner to transfer land and house to him otherwise he will divorce her, but the demand could not be fulfilled as defendant has got one unmarried sister, her father is suffering from cancer and mother is a housewife. 6. It is alleged that petitioner and his parents at the time of marriage had taken cash of Rs. Two lakhs besides marriage expenses from the parents of the defendant but due to non-fulfillment of demand of house and land, petitioner and his parents committed torture and cruelties on the defendant and drove her out from matrimonial house after snatching her ornaments of worth Rs. 1.50 lakhs. The petitioner prior to his marriage with the defendant took her in good faith and pretended to be in love with her and established physical relationship since the year 2018, but petitioner refused to marry with the defendant but on her pressure, he took her in the Temple of Bahu Bazar, Ranchi on 28.06.2020 and put vermilion on her head and thereafter started leading married life with her. It is further stated that subsequently parents of the petitioner settled his marriage with another girl and for that reason she filed a petition with Telaiya PS for instituting the case against him and his family members. 7. It is further stated that subsequently parents of the petitioner settled his marriage with another girl and for that reason she filed a petition with Telaiya PS for instituting the case against him and his family members. 7. The petitioner thereafter in presence of his parents and others accepted that he has married with Raman Preet Bedi in a Mandir on 28.06.2020 and will get the marriage registered, but the parents of the petitioner drove away the petitioner from Jhumri Telaiya and marriage was not registered. Thereafter on the application of this defendant Telaiya PS Case No. 139 of 2020 was registered on 20.08.2020 against petitioner and his family members, then he solemnized marriage with her under SPECIAL MARRIAGE ACT , before Marriage Officer, Koderma on 22.12.2020. 8. It is alleged that the petitioner also took her to Dhawajadhari Mandir, Koderma and solemnized marriage as per Hindu rites and customs. The police thereafter submitted Final Form, so that both parties may lead happy married life. It is also stated that she has never tortured the petitioner and she is a student of C.A and doing her internship at Jamshedpur and residing in a Girls Hostel. The petitioner even after filing of this case has been in regular contact with the defendant and he reached Jamshedpur on 26.03.2022 after filing of this suit and lived with her in a Hotel namely Green Park, Near Railway Station and established physical relationship with her on 26.03.2022 and 27.03.2022. The petitioner didn’t tell her about the suit filed by him and the entire allegation made by him in the petition is false and frivolous. 9. It is stated that the defendant has great respect for her husband and his family members and she is still ready to reside with him in his house but the parents of the petitioner are not ready to keep her without fulfillment of additional dowry of land and house. It is alleged that the petitioner has filed this suit with ulterior motive and bent upon to marry with another girl. This defendant has been betrayed by petitioner and he has played fraud with her. 10. Learned Family Judge, after institution of the said case, taking in to consideration of the pleading of the appellant has formulated the issues and has decided the lis by refusing to grant divorce to the petitioner/appellant. 11. This defendant has been betrayed by petitioner and he has played fraud with her. 10. Learned Family Judge, after institution of the said case, taking in to consideration of the pleading of the appellant has formulated the issues and has decided the lis by refusing to grant divorce to the petitioner/appellant. 11. The aforesaid judgment by which divorce has not been granted is under challenge by filing the instant appeal. Submission of behalf of the appellant-husband: 12. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-husband has taken the following grounds: (i) There is an error in the impugned judgment, since, each and every aspect of the matter has not been taken into consideration based upon the documentary evidences as well as ocular evidences. (ii) That the learned Family Judge has failed to consider that the marriage of the appellant and the respondent was solemnized on pressure and, as such, the impugned judgment and decree suffers from an error. (iii) It has been contended that the learned Family Judge has failed to consider that the respondent had filed a false case of rape against the appellant being Telaiya P.S. Case no.139 of 2020 and, thereafter, he was forced to marry with the respondent, but the same has not been taken into consideration. (iv) It has been contended that the learned Family Judge has failed to consider that the appellant has lived with the defendant only for ten days and during that period he could not even start cohabiting with her as she flatly refused to establish physical relationship with him. (v) It has been contended that the learned Family Judge has failed to consider that the respondent was pressurizing the appellant to get separated from his family and live separately. (vi) It has been contended that the learned Family Judge has failed to consider that the respondent always quarreled with the appellant and never gave comfort of marriage to the appellant and she had also given threatening to implicate him and his family members in a false dowry case. (vii) It has been contended that the learned Family Judge has failed to consider that the appellant tried his level best to restore normal matrimonial life with the respondent, but she never agreed for the same and finally she separated herself from the appellant and living separately in Jamshedpur since 1.1.2021. (vii) It has been contended that the learned Family Judge has failed to consider that the appellant tried his level best to restore normal matrimonial life with the respondent, but she never agreed for the same and finally she separated herself from the appellant and living separately in Jamshedpur since 1.1.2021. (viii) It has been contended that the learned Family Judge has failed to consider that the respondent was pressurizing to take money from his family and to give her for higher education and the marriage was solemnized to grab his money. 13. The learned counsel, based upon the aforesaid ground, has submitted that the impugned judgment and decree, therefore, needs interference said to be perverse. Submission of behalf of the respondent-wife: 14. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent-wife has taken the following grounds: (i) There is no error in the impugned judgement. The learned Family Judge has considered the entire issue and on the basis of evidence as led by the parties has passed the order impugned as such same may not be interfered with. (ii) The appellant has sought divorce on the ground that the behaviour of the respondent-wife is cruel, and has deserted the appellant without any valid ground but the learned Family Court, after taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence, has held that the entire allegations levelled in are absolutely illegal, uncalled for and has rightly dismissed the suit. (iii) It has also been submitted that the learned Family Court after taking into consideration the material available on record has found that the conduct of the appellant-husband has never been towards salvaging the institution of marriage as it is he who has come for the dissolution of the marriage, therefore on the pretext of the aforesaid categorical finding of the Family Court, the impugned order requires no interference. 15. Learned counsel, based upon the aforesaid grounds, has submitted that if on that pretext, the factum of cruelty has not been found to be established, hence, the impugned judgment cannot be said to suffer from an error. Analysis: 16. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, gone through the Trial Court Records, the impugned judgment, as also the testimonies of the witnesses and the documents exhibited therein. 17. Analysis: 16. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, gone through the Trial Court Records, the impugned judgment, as also the testimonies of the witnesses and the documents exhibited therein. 17. The learned Family Judge has formulated altogether six issues, for ready reference the same are being quoted hereinbelow: i) Whether plaintiff and defendant belong to different religions and guided by SPECIAL MARRIAGE ACT , 1954? ii) Whether the present suit for divorce is maintainable? iii)Whether the defendant wife has committed cruelty against plaintiff-husband ? iv) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of divorce by dissolution of marriage between the parties? v) To what relief or reliefs the petitioner is entitled for? 18. The issue pertaining to ground for divorce is by formulating a specific issue whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of divorce by dissolution of marriage between the parties as issue no.IV. 19. But first of all, the learned Family Judge has taken into consideration the issue no.(iii) i.e., the ground of cruelty. The learned Family Judge has considered the evidence adduced on behalf of the parties for deciding the issues involved in Original Suit No.04 of 2022. 20. This Court in order to appreciate the aforesaid rival submission before entering into the legality and propriety of the impugned judgment needs to discuss herein the relevant part of the evidences adduced on behalf of the parties wherein the element of cruelty has been shown by the plaintiff-husband. 21. During the trial, three witnesses have been examined on behalf of the appellant-husband who himself has been examined as PW3. 22. On the other hand, the defendant-wife has also examined three witnesses in support of her contention including herself as DW1. 23. In addition, thereto, both the parties have filed several documents in support of their contention. The plaintiff-husband has filed the following documents which have been marked exhibits: (i) The certified copy of FIR of Telaiya PS Case No. 175/21 has been marked as Exhibit-1. (ii) The certified copy of final form of Telaiya PS Case No. 175/21 has been marked as Exhibit-2. (iii) The certified copy of final form of Telaiya PS Case No. 139/20 has been marked as Exhibit-2/1. (iv) The certified copy of order dated 07.06.21 passed in Telaiya PS Case No. 139/20 by Ld. CJM, Koderma has been marked as Exhibit-3. (ii) The certified copy of final form of Telaiya PS Case No. 175/21 has been marked as Exhibit-2. (iii) The certified copy of final form of Telaiya PS Case No. 139/20 has been marked as Exhibit-2/1. (iv) The certified copy of order dated 07.06.21 passed in Telaiya PS Case No. 139/20 by Ld. CJM, Koderma has been marked as Exhibit-3. (v) The certified copy of cognizance order passed by Ld. CJM, Koderma in G.R Case No. 1141/21 arising out of Telaiya PS Case No. 175/21 has been marked as Exhibit-3/1. (vi) The certified copy of petition of Complaint Case No. 830/22 has been marked as Y for identification with objection. 24. The defendant-wife has also filed the following documents: (i) Xerox copy of Bond on which petitioner and defendant have put their signature has been marked as X for identification. (ii) Five photographs of petitioner and defendant have been marked as X/1 to X/5 for identification. (iii)Signatures of petitioner and his father on xerox copy of Ekrarnama have been marked as X/6 for identification. (iv)Xerox copy of application dated 16.08.20 given by defendant Raman Preet Bedi to Telaiya PS has been marked as X/7 for identification. (v) Xerox copy of application dated 19.08.20 given by defendant Raman Preet Bedi to S.P, Koderma has been marked as X/8 for identification. (vi)Xerox copy of receipt of Dhawajadhari Temple, dated 22.12.20 has been marked as X/9 for identification. (vii)Xerox copy of medical papers of father of defendant have been marked as X/10 for identification. (viii) Xerox copy of Marriage Certificate dated 22.12.20 issued by Marriage Officer, Koderma regarding marriage of petitioner and defendant has been marked as exhibit-A with consent. 25. In his examination on oath as PW3, the appellant-husband has narrated entire things as pleaded in the plaint about his marriage with the respondent. He has stated on oath that he has filed this divorce case against his wife Raman Preet Bedi whose nick name is Riya. He solemnized registered marriage with her on 22.12.2020 before Marriage Officer, Koderma and after marriage his wife lived with him for 10 days only, but during this period she refused to establish physical relationship with him, she quarreled with him and went to her Maika on 01.01.2021. She insisted to leave his parent’s house as she doesn’t want to live with them. She insisted to leave his parent’s house as she doesn’t want to live with them. He has deposed that she was also saying to bring money from his parents for pursuing her course of Chartered Accountancy. She also said to him that she doesn’t want to lead conjugal life with him and she can’t give him comfort of marriage. He further deposed that as he could not fulfill the demand of defendant-wife so she threatened him to implicate in the false case of Dowry Act. It is due to the cruel behaviour of defendant his matrimonial life was suffering and he tried his best to save his matrimonial life with a hope that in future things will improve. He also deposed that he several times tried to keep the defendant with him but she was not ready to live with him as his wife and presently she is doing the course of Chartered Accountant in Jamshedpur. He has further deposed that his wife has trapped him in her love affairs with an intention to extort money from him and has made his life a hell. He has further deposed that his wife has deprived him to cohabit with her and acted cruelly with him. He has deposed that he is having no alternative, he filed this divorce case. In cross-examination, he admitted that he has friendship with the defendant-Raman Preet Bedi since January 2018 and they had love affairs with each other and they have spent time together. He denied the suggestion that he had physical relationship with defendant prior to marriage but admitted that a case under section 376 IPC was filed by her against him and his family members. He has identified the bond paper executed by him on 17.08.2020 in Telaiya P.S which has been marked as X on admission. He has also identified his photographs with Raman Preet Bedi which has been marked as X/1 to X/5 for identification and further identified an agreement dated 21.01.2020 on which there is his signature and signature of his father which has been marked as X/6 for identification. He also stated that after marriage he kept the defendant in Agrasen Dharamshala Telaiya for 10-11 days, thereafter she went to her Maika and he went to Kolkata for doing job. He further stated that the behaviour of his wife is not good from the date of marriage. He also stated that after marriage he kept the defendant in Agrasen Dharamshala Telaiya for 10-11 days, thereafter she went to her Maika and he went to Kolkata for doing job. He further stated that the behaviour of his wife is not good from the date of marriage. He also stated that his wife trapped him in her love affairs but he made no complaint about this to anywhere. He has further stated that he does not want to keep his wife as there is too much tension. He denied the suggestion that he has filed the divorce case on false grounds and with a purpose to harass her. At para- 29, he has admitted that he has not treated her wife of her cruel behaviour. At para-32, he has admitted that he has not made any complaint regarding the fact that her wife had trapped him in a love affair. At para-35 he has admitted that since his wife used to talk in her Maika in spite of his objections, so he doesn’t want to keep her. At para-41 he has denied the suggestion that he established physical relationship with defendant in Green Park Hotel, Jamshedpur on 26.03.2022 and 27.03.2022 after filing of this divorce case. He has further stated that it is false to say that he has made false allegation against his wife. 26. P.W1-Mukesh Kumar is a neighbour and friend of the petitioner. He has stated that the petitioner-Rohit Kumar was married with defendant Raman Preet Bedi and their marriage was registered before Marriage Officer, Koderma on 22.12.2020, Both of them after marriage started living as husband and wife but they could live together for ten days only. He further stated in his affidavited examination-in-chief that during this period defendant refused to establish physical relationship with petitioner and on 01.01.2021 she went to her Maika. The behaviour of defendant towards petitioner was not good from very beginning, she used to say to him to leave his parents as she doesn’t want to live together. She also pressurized him to bring money for her higher education. She said to him that she wants to do C.A and doesn’t want to lead matrimonial life with him. The petitioner protested on the demand of defendant on which she threatened him to implicate them in false Dowry Act Case and send them to Jail. She also pressurized him to bring money for her higher education. She said to him that she wants to do C.A and doesn’t want to lead matrimonial life with him. The petitioner protested on the demand of defendant on which she threatened him to implicate them in false Dowry Act Case and send them to Jail. He also stated that due to cruel behaviour of defendant the matrimonial life of petitioner was suffering and he tried his best to save his matrimonial life with a hope that things will get better. The petitioner several times told his wife to live with him but she was not ready to lead matrimonial life with petitioner. She deprived the petitioner to consummate the marriage and it is due to her cruel behaviour petitioner has filed this divorce case. In cross-examination he stated that Rohit and Raman Preet were studying together, they had love affairs and earlier they lived together in Ranchi and he can’t say that prior to marriage they had physical relationship or not. He also stated that earlier Rohit was living with his parents but after marriage he lived with defendant for 8-10 days in a Dharamshala and thereafter he left his wife and went for doing job. He also categorically stated that he can’t say that on which dates Rohit and Raman Preet established physical relationship. ?? has also stated that he can’t say that when Raman Preet asked Rohit to live separately from his parents. He has no knowledge that when Raman Preet behaved in a cruel manner with petitioner. He further stated in his cross-examination that he convinced Rohit to live with Raman Preet but he never asked Raman Preet about the same. 27. P.W.2- Raj Kumar Lal is a friend of father of petitioner. He has stated in his affidavited examination-in-chief that he knows both parties. Rohit Kumar has filed this case for divorce from his wife. Their registered marriage took place on 22.12.2020 and after marriage they lived together for 10 days as husband and wife, thereafter defendant quarreled with the petitioner and went away to her Maika on 01.01.2021. The behaviour of wife of petitioner was not good since inception as she pressurized him to leave his parents and asked him to bring money for her higher education. The behaviour of wife of petitioner was not good since inception as she pressurized him to leave his parents and asked him to bring money for her higher education. He has deposed that she also asked him that she can’t lead matrimonial life with him and can’t give him comfort of wife. When the petitioner objected the demand of defendant, she and her mother threatened him to implicate in false Dowry case. He has further stated that due to cruel behaviour of defendant the matrimonial life of petitioner suffered and he tried to save his matrimonial life even after being physically and mentally tortured. He has deposed that the petitioner asked his wife several times to live together but she was never ready for the same and presently she is living alone in Jamshedpur. She has deprived the petitioner from comfort of marriage and behaved in a cruel manner with him. The petitioner due to cruel behaviour of defendant has filed this divorce case. In cross-examination, he has stated that he knows Rohit Kumar and his family but does not know Raman Preet Bedi. He has stated that the wife of the petitioner lived with him in his house for 10 days after marriage, but he cannot say that during this period what happened between them. At para-13 of his cross-examination, he has stated that he does not know Raman Preet Bedi and at para-14 he has stated that the marriage of the petitioner was solemnized with a girl named ‘Riya’ who is a resident of Taratand. He has further stated that he does not know the name of father of ‘Riya’. He has stated that he was not present at the time of marriage of the petitioner but after marriage, he went to the house of the petitioner where he met with his wife but she did not wish him by touching his feet. He has further stated in PARA-15 that the girl named ‘Riya’ is the opposite party in the case against whom the petitioner has filed the divorce suit. 28. The defendant-wife has examined herself as DW1. She has stated that her marriage with petitioner was solemnized on 22.12.2020 before Marriage Officer, Koderma and at Dhawajadhari Mandir, Koderma. He has further stated in PARA-15 that the girl named ‘Riya’ is the opposite party in the case against whom the petitioner has filed the divorce suit. 28. The defendant-wife has examined herself as DW1. She has stated that her marriage with petitioner was solemnized on 22.12.2020 before Marriage Officer, Koderma and at Dhawajadhari Mandir, Koderma. She has also stated that petitioner on 28.06.2020 took her to a Mandir situated at Bahu Bazar, Ranchi and applied vermilion and made her his wife and started leading conjugal life with her and also established physical relationship. She has further stated that on 22.12.2020 after her legal marriage with the petitioner he took her to his house and established physical relationship. 29. She has further deposed that the petitioner developed friendship with her when he was attending Coaching classes in which she was also studying. He trapped her in his love affair and from the year 2018 he used to call her on mobile and pressurized her for marriage and took her to Ranchi and started establishing physical relationship with her. She has deposed that he used to give her contraceptive pills to avoid her pregnancy. She has further deposed that the petitioner applied vermilion on her head in a Mandir at Booty More also and kept her in a Hotel and established physical relationship with her. She further deposed that in January, 2020 she came from Ranchi and learnt that marriage of Rohit Kumar has been settled by his family which was to take place on 28.06.2020 but he kept himself in touch with her and on 24.06.2020 he took her to Ranchi and kept her as a wife in a rental house and on 28.06.2020 he again applied vermilion on her head in Shani Mandir, Bahu Bazar, Ranchi. He took photographs of the same and sent to various places and brought her to Jhumri Telaiya on 24.07.2020 and left her in her parent’s house, but later on he refused to accept her as his wife. 30. The defendant-wife has deposed that thereafter she made a complaint in Telaiya PS on 16.08.2020 where Rohit Kumar and his family members were called by police and he accepted her as his wife and gave a bond paper on 17.08.2020 in which there is signature of Rohit and his family members. 30. The defendant-wife has deposed that thereafter she made a complaint in Telaiya PS on 16.08.2020 where Rohit Kumar and his family members were called by police and he accepted her as his wife and gave a bond paper on 17.08.2020 in which there is signature of Rohit and his family members. Thereafter she was sent with Rohit by police and case was not registered, but on the advice of his parents, brothers and sisters, he left her in Taratand Mohalla. Thereafter, she informed to Telaiya Police about this but police took no action so, she gave an application on 19.08.2020 to S.P., Koderma and thereafter on 20.08.2020 Telaiya P.S Case No. 139/2020 dated 20.08.2020 under section 376(1)/34 IPC was registered against Rohit Kumar and his family members. 31. She has further stated that subsequently with a view to settlement of the case, he legally married with her on 22.12.2020, thereafter police ended the case and the petitioner filed this case for divorce against her. She also stated that petitioner is pressurizing her to get transferred her ancestral land and house in his name and when same was not acceptable to her parents he filed this divorce case. She also stated that she lived with the petitioner in Jhumri Telaiya till March, 2021 and thereafter she is living in Jamshedpur for pursing her Chartered Accountancy and in Jamshedpur petitioner came and lived with her in Green Park Hotel on 26.03.2022 and 27.03.2022 and established physical relation with her. She also stated that she has never misbehaved or ill-treated the petitioner and his family members. She is willing to lead her conjugal life with Rohit Kumar and this case has been filed by the petitioner with an intention to get separated from her and solemnize his marriage at another place. She has identified the xerox copy of her application dated 16.08.2020 given to Telaiya PS which has been marked as X/7, the xerox copy of undertaking dated 17.08.2020 given by Rohit Kumar has been identified by her which has earlier been marked as X for identification. She has also identified the xerox copy of her application dated 19.08.2020 addressed to S.P, Koderma which has been marked as X/8 for identification. She has also identified the xerox copy of her application dated 19.08.2020 addressed to S.P, Koderma which has been marked as X/8 for identification. She identified the marriage registration certificate dated 22.12.2020 which has been marked as exhibit-A. She also identified xerox copy of receipt dated 22.12.2020 issued from Dhawajadhari Mandir, Koderma and marked as X/9 for identification. She identified the xerox copy of cancer treatment papers of her father which has been marked as X/10 for identification. In cross-examination, she has stated that she was married with the petitioner in accordance with SPECIAL MARRIAGE ACT and the marriage was solemnized in the Mandir also. She has also stated that she has left applying vermilion and is also not wearing ’Mangal Sutra’ as the same has been taken back by the petitioner. She has stated in her cross-examination that she was married four times with the petitioner, i.e., he married with her in Bahu Bazar Mandir, Ranchi and in the Mandir situated at Booty More, Ranchi and before Marriage Officer, Koderma and at Dhawajadhari Mandir, Koderma. She has also stated that the marriage in Bahu Bazar Mandir took place on 28.06.2020 and in Booty More Mandir on 19.12.2020 and after this marriage she went to his house. She denied the suggestion that she had no physical relationship with the petitioner after marriage. She has also admitted that after marriage they lived together in Agarwal Dharmashala, Telaiya for one month. She has stated that the petitioner married with her after institution of the case under section 376/34 of IPC against him. She denied that she used to say to the petitioner to first get partition of his property and then establish physical relationship with her. She has also stated that before marriage she had once conceived with the petitioner. She has also denied that after marriage she went to her own house and petitioner gave information about the same to Gurudwara Manager for her ’Bidai’, thereafter she gave an application to S.P, Koderma. 32. D.W.2- Paramjeet Kaur is the mother of defendant. She has stated that she has two daughters and had one son, who was murdered in the year 2017. She has stated that defendant-Raman Preet Bedi is her elder daughter and the petitioner during her private tuition trapped her in his love. 32. D.W.2- Paramjeet Kaur is the mother of defendant. She has stated that she has two daughters and had one son, who was murdered in the year 2017. She has stated that defendant-Raman Preet Bedi is her elder daughter and the petitioner during her private tuition trapped her in his love. Her daughter in the year 2018 went for her education to Ranchi where the petitioner went and applied vermilion in a Mandir on her head and started establishing physical relationship with her. He kept her in a rental house and in the year 2020 when parents of the petitioner started searching another girl for his marriage and this fact came to the knowledge of her daughter thereafter, she filed an application on 16.08.2020 in Telaiya P.S where the petitioner and his family members were called and he accepted that he has solemnized marriage with her daughter in a Mandir in Ranchi and established physical relationship with her. The petitioner gave a bond in police station which is signed by him, his parents, her daughter and others and he promised to keep her daughter with him so the case was not registered. She has deposed that thereafter the petitioner left her on way and when information was given to S.P, Koderma on 19.08.2020, then he got his marriage registered before Marriage Officer, Koderma on 22.12.2020 and again married with her daughter in accordance with Hindu customs at Dhawajadhari Mandir, Koderma. He took her to his house and started leading conjugal life with her. But after 3 days of marriage Rohit Kumar and his parents came to her house and asked to transfer three Kathas land and a house at Jhumri Telaiya in their favour on which they refused. The petitioner thereafter started keeping her daughter away under a conspiracy and pressurized them to transfer the land and house in their name. She has further stated that he kept her in Dharamshala and then in a rental house and during her stay he fled away and her daughter came to her house. She has also stated that her daughter is living in Jamshedpur for the purpose of studying Chartered Accountancy course where the petitioner went and lived with her in a Hotel and established physical relationship with her. She has also stated that her daughter is living in Jamshedpur for the purpose of studying Chartered Accountancy course where the petitioner went and lived with her in a Hotel and established physical relationship with her. She has also stated that her daughter is willing to lead her conjugal life with the petitioner but the petitioner has filed this divorce case on false grounds. In cross-examination, she has stated that she cannot say that when petitioner married with her daughter for the first time and for the second time. She has also stated that after institution of the case under section 376 of IPC the marriage of her daughter was solemnized. She has denied that after marriage her daughter came to their house where Rohit came for her ’Bidai" and they forbade him to not send her, then he made a complaint about this in Gurudwara. She has also denied that her daughter has deprived the petitioner from leading a happy conjugal life. She has again reiterated that Rohit and his family members were saying to her to transfer 3 Katha land of Telaiya in their name. She has also stated that if Rohit keeps her daughter properly, then they can live together. 33. D.W3-Amarjeet Kaur is aunt of defendant. She has stated that the petitioner Rohit Kumar was married with the defendant-Raman Preet Bedi on 22.12.2020 in Registry Office, Koderma and in Dhawajadhari Mandir, Koderma. She has stated that prior to marriage both were studying in Ramlakhan Singh Yadav College, Jhumri Telaiya and were also doing coaching where the petitioner trapped her in his love and promised her to lead his life with her and established physical relationship. She has also stated that marriage of petitioner Rohit Kumar took place after institution of case against him by the defendant-Raman Preet Bedi. She has also stated that prior to their marriage on 22.12.2020 the petitioner solemnized marriage with defendant in Temples of Ranchi and established physical relationship. The petitioner after marriage took the defendant to his house at Taratand where he and his family members after 3-4 days asked her to transfer land and house in their name and when the demand was not fulfilled they started torturing her and under conspiracy Rohit brought Raman Preet Bedi in a Dharamshala and then in a rental house and from where he fled away. The defendant is presently studying in Jamshedpur where petitioner has gone several times and spent several nights with her. She has deposed that the allegations made by the petitioner regarding cruelty committed by defendant is completely false and he without any reason wants to take divorce from her and solemnize second marriage. The defendant is still willing to lead her conjugal life with the petitioner. In cross-examination, she has stated that she had gone with Raman Preet Bedi and her mother to police station also. She has also reiterated that after marriage Rohit kept her in Agrasen Dharamshala and from there he fled away. She has denied that she has given evidence in collusion with the mother of the defendant. 34. The learned Family Judge has appreciated the entire facts and evidence and has come to the conclusion that the appellant-husband has failed to make the ground either cruelty and, as such, has dismissed the suit which is under challenge in the instant appeal. 35. It needs to refer herein that the fact about filing of suit on the ground of cruelty is admitted one as per the evidences adduced on behalf of the appellant. The appellant-husband has tried to establish the element of cruelty upon him at the hands of the respondent-wife. 36. The appellant-husband all along has alleged the issue of cruelty which he was subjecting to by his wife and in order to establish the same the evidences has been laid as has been referred hereinabove. 37. This Court while appreciating the argument advanced on behalf of the appellant on the issue of perversity needs to refer herein the interpretation of the word “perverse” as has been interpreted by the Hon’ble Apex Court which means that there is no evidence or erroneous consideration of the evidence. 38. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Arulvelu and Anr. vs. State [Represented by the Public Prosecutor] and Anr., (2009) 10 SCC 206 while elaborately discussing the word perverse has held that it is, no doubt, true that if a finding of fact is arrived at by ignoring or excluding relevant material or by taking into consideration irrelevant material or if the finding so outrageously defies logic as to suffer from the vice of irrationality incurring the blame of being perverse, then, the finding is rendered infirm in law. Relevant paragraphs, i.e., paras-24, 25, 26 and 27 of the said judgment reads as under: “24. The expression “perverse” has been dealt with in a number of cases. In Gaya Din v. Hanuman Prasad [ (2001) 1 SCC 501 ] this Court observed that the expression “perverse” means that the findings of the subordinate authority are not supported by the evidence brought on record or they are against the law or suffer from the vice of procedural irregularity. 25. In Parry’s (Calcutta) Employees’ Union v. Parry & Co. Ltd. [ AIR 1966 Cal 31 ] the Court observed that “perverse finding” means a finding which is not only against the weight of evidence but is altogether against the evidence itself. In Triveni Rubber & Plastics v. CCE [1994 Supp (3) SCC 665 : AIR 1994 SC 1341 ] the Court observed that this is not a case where it can be said that the findings of the authorities are based on no evidence or that they are so perverse that no reasonable person would have arrived at those findings. 26. In M.S. Narayanagouda v. Girijamma [AIR 1977 Kant 58] the Court observed that any order made in conscious violation of pleading and law is a perverse order. In Moffett v. Gough [(1878) 1 LR 1r 331] the Court observed that a “perverse verdict” may probably be defined as one that is not only against the weight of evidence but is altogether against the evidence. In Godfrey v. Godfrey [106 NW 814] the Court defined “perverse” as turned the wrong way, not right; distorted from the right; turned away or deviating from what is right, proper, correct, etc. 27. The expression “perverse” has been defined by various dictionaries in the following manner: 1. Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English, 6th Edn. “Perverse.—Showing deliberate determination to behave in a way that most people think is wrong, unacceptable or unreasonable.” 2. Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, International Edn. Perverse.—Deliberately departing from what is normal and reasonable. 3. The New Oxford Dictionary of English, 1998 Edn. Perverse.—Law (of a verdict) against the weight of evidence or the direction of the judge on a point of law. 4. The New Lexicon Webster’s Dictionary of the English Language (Deluxe Encyclopedic Edn.) Perverse.—Purposely deviating from accepted or expected behavior or opinion; wicked or wayward; stubborn; cross or petulant. 5. 3. The New Oxford Dictionary of English, 1998 Edn. Perverse.—Law (of a verdict) against the weight of evidence or the direction of the judge on a point of law. 4. The New Lexicon Webster’s Dictionary of the English Language (Deluxe Encyclopedic Edn.) Perverse.—Purposely deviating from accepted or expected behavior or opinion; wicked or wayward; stubborn; cross or petulant. 5. Stroud’s Judicial Dictionary of Words & Phrases, 4th Edn. “Perverse.—A perverse verdict may probably be defined as one that is not only against the weight of evidence but is altogether against the evidence.” 39. In the instant case, the ground for divorce has been taken on the pretext of cruelty. 40. The “cruelty” has been interpreted by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dr. N.G. Dastane vs. Mrs. S. Dastana , (1975) 2 SCC 326 wherein it has been laid down that the Court has to enquire, as to whether, the conduct charge as cruelty, is of such a character, as to cause in the mind of the petitioner, a reasonable apprehension that, it will be harmful or injurious for him to live with the respondent. 41. This Court deems it fit and proper to take into consideration the meaning of ‘cruelty’ as has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi , (1988)1 SCC 105 wherein the wife alleged that the appellant-husband and his parents demanded dowry. The Hon’ble Apex Court emphasized that “cruelty” can have no fixed definition. 42. According to the Hon’ble Apex Court, “cruelty” is the “conduct in relation to or in respect of matrimonial conduct and in respect of matrimonial obligations”. It is the conduct which adversely affects the spouse. Such cruelty can be either “mental” or “physical”, “intentional” or “unintentional”. For example, unintentionally waking your spouse up in the middle of the night may be mental cruelty; intention is not an essential element of cruelty but it may be present. Physical cruelty is less ambiguous and more “a question of fact and degree.” 43. The Hon’ble Apex Court has further observed therein that while dealing with such complaints of cruelty it is important for the Court to not search for a standard in life, since cruelty in one case may not be cruelty in another case. Physical cruelty is less ambiguous and more “a question of fact and degree.” 43. The Hon’ble Apex Court has further observed therein that while dealing with such complaints of cruelty it is important for the Court to not search for a standard in life, since cruelty in one case may not be cruelty in another case. What must be considered to include is the kind of life the parties are used to, “their economic and social conditions”, and the “culture and human values” to which they attach importance. 44. The nature of allegations need not only be illegal conduct such as asking for dowry. Making allegations against the spouse in the written statement filed before the court in judicial proceedings may also be held to constitute cruelty. 45. In V. Bhagat vs. D. Bhagat (Mrs.), (1994)1 SCC 337 , the wife alleged in her written statement that her husband was suffering from “mental problems and paranoid disorder”. The wife’s lawyer also levelled allegations of “lunacy” and “insanity” against the husband and his family while he was conducting a cross-examination. The Hon’ble Apex Court held these allegations against the husband to constitute “cruelty”. 46. In Vijaykumar Ramchandra Bhate v. Neela Vijay Kumar Bhate , (2003)6 SCC 334 the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed by taking into consideration the allegations levelled by the husband in his written statement that his wife was “unchaste” and had indecent familiarity with a person outside wedlock and that his wife was having an extramarital affair. These allegations, given the context of an educated Indian woman, were held to constitute “cruelty” itself. 47. It needs to refer herein that it is settled position that a proceeding under Hindu Marriage act is not criminal proceeding where proof beyond reasonable doubt is required rather preponderance of probability" is enough. The accepted rule, therefore, is that circumstantial evidence is all that can normally be expected in proof of charge; However, the circumstances must be such as to lead to fair inference, as a necessary conclusion. 48. The accepted rule, therefore, is that circumstantial evidence is all that can normally be expected in proof of charge; However, the circumstances must be such as to lead to fair inference, as a necessary conclusion. 48. Further it requires to refer herein that the Hon’ble Apex Court in Joydeep Majumdar v. Bharti Jaiswal Majumdar , (2021) 3 SCC 742 , has observed that while judging whether the conduct is cruel or not, what has to be seen is whether that conduct, which is sustained over a period of time, renders the life of the spouse so miserable as to make it unreasonable to make one live with the other. The conduct may take the form of abusive or humiliating treatment, causing mental pain and anguish, torturing the spouse, etc. The conduct complained of must be “grave” and “weighty” and trivial irritations and normal wear and tear of marriage would not constitute mental cruelty as a ground for divorce. 49. It is evident from the interpretation of the word cruelty that the same is to be considered on different parameters depending upon the material, if available on record. 50. Now re-adverting to the factual aspect, it is evident from the impugned order that the allegations specific to the ground of alleged cruelty has been made by petitioner/plaintiff-Husband vide paras- 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9 and 10 of his examination-in-chief. 51. However, it is evident from the testimony of the Husband/appellant that nothing substantial has come in his testimony in order to substantiate the cruelty meted to him by hand of the respondent/wife. Further no cogent evidence has been produced on behalf of the plaintiff’s side that there was any grave and weighty circumstances was arose which compelled the husband/appellant to pullout himself from matrimonial obligation, rather it is evident from the testimony of witnesses that the substances which have been stated is only related to normal wear and tear of life. 52. Further it is evident from the impugned order that the learned Family Court has examined each and every aspect of the instant case and found that husband/appellant has miserably failed to establish the element of cruelty. For ready reference the relevant paragraph is being quoted as under: ----To constitute cruelty, the conduct complained of should be grave and weighty so as to come to the conclusion that petitioner spouse can’t be reasonably expected to live with other spouse. For ready reference the relevant paragraph is being quoted as under: ----To constitute cruelty, the conduct complained of should be grave and weighty so as to come to the conclusion that petitioner spouse can’t be reasonably expected to live with other spouse. It must be something more serious than ordinary wear and tear of married life. The Court is required to assess as to whether the facts pleaded and proved would constitute cruelty sufficient to severe the matrimonial relationship. In the instant case cruelty as alleged by petitioner, there is no such circumstances from which it can be inferred that it is not possible for the petitioner to lead his matrimonial life with the defendant. There is also no such evidence available on the record from which it could be inferred that defendant is not willing to cohabit with the petitioner and has denied access of petitioner with her 1 find that petitioner has himself trying to avoid with the defendant and not performing his matrimonial obligation. The Ld. Lawyer of petitioner emphasized that cruelty of the defendant can be inferred from the fact that she filed a case u/s 376/13/34 of IPC against the petitioner & his family, but it appears from the evidence & documents available on the record that the petitioner after solemnizing marriage with the defendant in Temples of Ranchi established physical relationship with her and subsequently he refused to accept the defendant as his wife. In such circumstances the legal recourse adopted by defendant can’t come within the definition of cruelty. The petitioner has claimed in his petition that defendant refused to establish physical relationship after registration of their marriage before Marriage Officer, Koderma and solemnization of marriage in Dhawajadhari Mandir, Koderma. But this assertion has been denied by the defendant and she has come out with a case that she is still willing to lead conjugal life with petitioner and he even after filing of the case went to Jamshedpur and lived with her in Green Park, Hotel on 26.03.22 & 27.03.22 and established physical relationship. This fact also falsifies the version of petitioner that defendant refused to lead conjugal life with him. The other claims made out by petitioner has also not been conclusively proved and I find that petitioner has grossly failed to establish the cruelty of defendant for seeking relief of dissolution of his marriage with her. 53. This fact also falsifies the version of petitioner that defendant refused to lead conjugal life with him. The other claims made out by petitioner has also not been conclusively proved and I find that petitioner has grossly failed to establish the cruelty of defendant for seeking relief of dissolution of his marriage with her. 53. Thus, it is evident that the appellant-husband although has taken the ground of cruelty meted to him by his wife but, in course of trial he has failed to establish the element of cruelty meted out to him at the hands of the respondent-wife as discussed hereinabove. 54. This Court after discussing the aforesaid factual aspect along with the legal position and adverting to the consideration made by the learned Family Judge in the impugned judgment has found therefrom that the issue of element of cruelty has well been considered by the learned Family Judge. 55. On consideration of the evidence, the learned Family Judge has come to conclusion that the appellant-husband has miserably failed to establish the ground of cruelty against the respondent-wife, rather it is the appellant-husband, who himself has committed cruelty upon the respondent by demanding dowry in the shape of land and house. 56. The aforesaid reason has led the learned Family Judge to dismiss the suit. 57. This Court, on consideration of the finding arrived at by the learned Family Judge and based upon the aforesaid discussion, is of the view that the judgment and decree passed by the learned Family Judge is not coming under the fold of the perversity, since, the conscious consideration has been made of the evidences, both ocular and documentary, as would be evident from the impugned judgment. 58. This Court, therefore, is of the view that the judgment dated 15.07.2023 and the decree dated 27.07.2023 passed in Original Suit No.04 of 2022 by the learned Family Judge need no interference and, accordingly, the instant appeal stands dismissed. 59. Pending I.As, if any, stands disposed of. I Agree. (Rajesh Kumar, J.)