Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
1. The instant appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 is directed against the order/judgment dated 17.05.2025 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family court, East Singhbhum in Misc. Civil Application No. 05 of 2025, whereby and whereunder, the learned court has dismissed the application filed under Section 7 explanation (c)(d)(g) of the Family Court Act and Section 151 of C.P.C. and Contempt of Court Act for pending matters between the divorced parties as well as the matter arising out regarding non-compliance of order and judgment dated 09.09.2022 passed in Original Suit No.88 of 2022 disposed on 09.09.2022.
Factual Matrix
2. The brief facts of the case which lead to filing of the present appeal needs to be referred herein which is as under.
2.1 The marriage of the appellant with the respondent was inter caste love marriage solemnized on 08.08.2007 at Patna and registered on 06.12.2007 at Purulia. H/L Maxgain of Rs.90.75 lakhs plus Suraksha 3.80 Lakhs, total Rs.94.55 lakhs were sanctioned on 29.08.2016 on the basis of joint income of petitioner and Dr. Purnima, the respondent. After payment of the rest amount for full consideration value Rs.1,21,74,248/- and stamp duty by the petitioner on 27.03.2017 the Duplex No. 304 situated at Vijaya Garden was registered in the name of the petitioner and the respondent. The total amount of money deposited by the petitioner and his parents in the Maxgain account No.36139465725 is Rs.73,28,712/- but the respondent withdrew money from this account to prepay car loan in her name and for purchase of other property, hence, petitioner also transferred money from this account to individual account of the respondent. The respondent developed objectionable contact with Dr. Ravi Ranjan and she started demanding division of properties and divorce. To save money the petitioner transferred the money from the said account to his own saving account but his saving account was put on hold by the bank on behest of the respondent and she lodged a criminal case against him regarding transfer of money under section of forgery, fraud, cheating and dowry demand and he was detained for six days and he got bail on condition of redepositing money in the maxgain overdraft account. The respondent filed bail cancellation petition as he could not deposit money due to the hold. In jail he was pressurized by the respondent to sign on mutual divorce petition but he did not sign it, the respondent filed a petition for divorce u/s 13 (i-a) of Hindu Marriage Act. The respondent captured house at Duplex No. 304 and clinic at Bhalubasa, Jambo Tower by sending the petitioner to jail and after release from jail, the respondent with the help of police did not allow him to stay in his own house or practice in his own clinic at Jambo Tower, Bhalubasa and though earning at the clinic did not pay the EMI of the house loan. Further, the respondent denied access of kids to the petitioner and passed complaint against Court to prevent passing of custody order. The petitioner filed a writ petition W.P.(Cr.) No. 241 of 2019 before the High Court regarding illegal capture of his clinic and house but during pendency of the writ petition the respondent managed to obtain an ex- parte order even without notice to the petitioner under Domestic Violence Act on the basis of self-drafted arrangement and restricted entry of the petitioner in his clinic at Jambo Tower, Bhalubasa. As per the arrangement put before the learned Magistrate, the opposite party had to pay 70 % of loan EMI for the maxgain overdraft loan account and she had to pay 30% of the income proceeds from clinic at Bhalubasa Jambo Tower to the petitioner but the respondent never paid a single penny towards the proceeds of the clinic at Bhalubasa Jambo Tower". Even after order to SSP to look into the matter from the High Court regarding illegal capture of house and clinic by the respondent, the police and SSP did not take any action.
2.2 On failure of petitioner to stop blatant abuse of process of law by the respondent and failure to get relief from any Court or stop illegal support of the respondent by the police administration, bank etc., incapacitated by capture of his clinic by the respondent, hold on his individual savings account, emotionally tormented by his loss of reputation and devoid of company of his kids, the petitioner was compelled to sign for filing a mutual divorce petition dissolve the marriage dated 10.12.2007 and also gave statement on oath.
2.3 Further, before judgment and order of divorce, the petitioner prayed before the Additional Family Court to keep order of divorce in abeyance until all pending issues are settled between the parties so that he can give free consent for the mutual divorce but in spite of the objection of the petitioner, the learned Additional Family Court passed judgment dated 09.09.2022 and passed decree of divorce on mutual consent. Further, the statement of the parties was recorded on 23.08.2022 and the respondent unilaterally stated that the responsibility to loan related to property at Duplex No. 304, Vijaya Garden Baridih vide Maxgain account no. 36139465725 at SBI personal Banking branch, Bistupur, shall be on the petitioner but the present petitioner never made any such statements on oath regarding repayment of loan singly by him.
2.4 The issue of payment of the said loan amount regarding the maxgain overdraft was never dealt with in the mutual agreement of the settlement between the parties or through the mediation process initiated by the Family Court. The individual savings account of the petitioner was put on hold by the bank on behest of the respondent and the bank refused to remove hold from the savings account of petitioner without legal documents of separation of petitioner from opposite party. In the meantime, bank deducted money from the individual savings account of the petitioner from the account which was put on hold on behest of the respondent
2.5 Further, on 07.09.2022 the petitioner filed a petition in Original Suit No. 88 of 2022 that the bank denied to give loan liability to him, subject to his submission of requisite income and eligibility documents and prayed before the Court to not close statement by parties unless and until the issue of pending joint loan liability is addressed and the title deed is not made in favour of him singly or relinquishment deed for the said property is made by the first party and further prayed not to pass any order regarding grant of divorce between the parties till the issue of pending joint loan liability is not settled by the parties and the bank. The respondent opposed the prayer of the present petitioner in the Court and stated that as per amicable settlement, she is fully cooperating with the present petitioner by visiting in person and signing the relevant deeds before the authorities as well as registering authorities as well as in her statement on oath and subsequently learned Additional Family Court find no reason to further delay the order and decree by mutual consent u/s 13 B of the Hindu Marriage Act.
2.6 Further, in the mediation process although the property of the parties were divided but the loan related to property were never divided and also the intellectual property of the parties viz the brand name/brand value of the clinic at Jambo Tower, Bhalubasa of the parties and their proceeds as well as the clinics at Jambo Tower, Bhalubasa named as "32 Smile Station" were also not divided as the respondent had been already enjoying the ex-parte order on behalf of the arrangement. She has put before the learned Magistrate Court; she was expected to follow the arrangement. The petitioner was provided the certified copies of order and judgment dated 09.09.2022 only by 10th April, 2023 and the petitioner could not file any complain of Court before the authorities as he was fearful of harmful repercussions. However, he visited Court, or copying section for getting the certified copies, but it was not provided and he was made to mark not required over his requisition for the copies by the Court and his requisition was returned to copy section by the Family Court on 23.01.2023. The petitioner also filed First Appeal No.208 of 2023 before the High Court challenging the legality and propriety of judgment passed on 09.09.2022 and decree passed on 15.09.2022 by the learned Additional Family Court 1, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur but the respondent opposed it through counter affidavit dated 25.06.2024 and the appeal was dismissed on 02.07.2024 on the ground of limitation.
2.7 The petitioner again filed a petition before the bank on 27.11.2024 for alteration of loan account No.36139465725 for conversion of Housing Loan into single name and deletion of name of the respondent from the said loan account and other modifications in changed circumstances but the Branch Manager did not allow his request and did not remove hold after quashing of the criminal case against the on the petitioner and removed hold accounts of the petitioner only on 27.09.2022 after getting a letter from the I.O. of Birsanagar of P.S. Case No.25 of 19 on petitioner's request. The petitioner through his notice dated 21.12.2024 requested the respondent to revise/alter the loan agreement for loan account number 36139465725 to delete her name from the said account, but despite receiving the notice, the respondent did not comply the order of the Court and affidavit dated 09.09.2022 came true and the pending issues remained unsettled due to non-compliance of statement on oath by respondent. The petitioner through M.C.A. No.01 of 25 against the bank and respondent filed petition before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court for issuing direction the opposite party to comply the order of the learned Additional Family Court dated 09.09.2022 and judgment dated 09.09.2022 in letter and spirit and alternatively proceeding under the contempt of Courts Act after due enquiry on the failure of the opposite party but the Court observed it as not maintainable but as advised by the Court, the petitioner approached the higher authorities of the bank i.e. Regional Manager and submitted that as per statement on oath by the respondent and order of the Additional Family Court and joint application of the respondent dated 29.08.2022, the petitioner has submitted application before the Branch Manager PB Branch, Bistupur, Jamshedpur on 02.08.2023 and further on 27.11.2024 for making him the single loanee and deletion of name of the respondent from the said account and in furtherance of his request, he submitted the application with his ITR for the last two financial years but the bank responded that in order to relinquish the liability of the respondent, an amount of Rs.86.01 lakhs to be deposited in loan account and thereafter submit a fresh application.
2.8 Further, to comply the judgment and order dated 09.09.2022 based on statement on oath of the respondent dated 23.08.2022 regarding the single responsibility for payment of loan with respect to property situated at Duplex No. 304 Vijaya Garden, Jamshedpur could not be made possible unless and until there is deletion of the name of the respondent from HL Maxgain account no. 36139465725 and to relinquish the liability of the respondent, an amount of Rs.86.01 lakhs has to be deposited in loan account and until that the liability of the loan cannot be passed single to the petitioner and the order and judgment dated 09.09.2022 cannot be complied with a letter and spirit. Further, as per judgment dated 09.09.2022 both the children shall ordinarily can live with the respondent and the petitioner shall have right of visitation and temporary custody and in the presence of both parents shall be there during school visiting, holidays on Saturday and Sunday, Festivals, birthdays and other special family occasions, but the respondent is not allowing the petitioner for temporary custody of the children and his visitation right is denied.
2.9 In this background, the appellant, Dr. Vikash Kumar Singh Deo filed the M.C.A. No. 05 of 2025 with prayer to pass necessary order directing the respondent to deposit Rs.86.01 lac to the joint loan account to relinquish herself of the loan liability and comply the order of the learned Additional Family Court dated 09.09.2022 and judgment dated 09.09.2022 in letter and spirit which was passed as per her statement on oath dated 23.08.2022 but the learned Family Court has dismissed the said application vide order dated 17.05.2025 which is the subject matter of the present appeal.
3. It is evident from the factual aspect as referred above that the marriage between the parties was a love marriage solemnized on 08.08.2007 at Patna and registered on 06.12.2007 at Purulia. H/L Maxgain of Rs.90.75 lakhs plus Suraksha 3.80 Lakhs, total Rs.94.55 lakhs were sanctioned on 29.08.2016 on the basis of joint income of petitioner and Dr. Purnima, the respondent. After payment of the rest amount for full consideration value Rs.1,21,74,248/- and stamp duty by the petitioner on 27.03.2017 the Duplex No. 304 situated at Vijaya Garden was registered in the name of the petitioner and the respondent. The total amount of money deposited by the petitioner and his parents in the Maxgain account No.36139465725 is Rs.73,28,712/- but the respondent withdrew money from this account to prepay car loan in her name and for purchase of other property, hence, petitioner also transferred money from this account to individual account of the respondent. To save money the petitioner transferred the money from the said account to his own saving account but his saving account was put on hold by the bank on behest of the respondent and she lodged a criminal case against him regarding transfer of money under section of forgery, fraud, cheating and dowry demand and he was detained for six days and he got bail on condition of redepositing money in the maxgain overdraft account. The respondent filed bail cancellation petition. Thereafter, the respondent filed a petition for divorce u/s 13 (i-a) of Hindu Marriage Act. Further, the respondent denied access of kids to the petitioner and passed complaint against Court to prevent passing of custody order. The petitioner filed a writ petition W.P.(Cr.) No. 241 of 2019 before the High Court regarding illegal capture of his clinic and house but during pendency of the writ petition the respondent managed to obtain an ex-parte order even without notice to the petitioner under Domestic Violence Act. As per the arrangement put before the learned Magistrate, the opposite party had to pay 70 % of loan EMI for the maxgain overdraft loan account and she had to pay 30% of the income proceeds from clinic at Bhalubasa Jambo Tower to the petitioner but the respondent never paid a single penny towards the proceeds of the clinic at Bhalubasa Jambo Tower. Even after order to SSP to look into the matter from the High Court regarding illegal capture of house and clinic by the respondent, the police and SSP did not take any action.
4. Thereafter, the petitioner was compelled to sign to for filing a mutual divorce petition dissolving the marriage dated 10.12.2007 and also gave statement on oath. Further, before judgment and order of divorce, the petitioner prayed before the Additional Family Court to keep the order of divorce in abeyance until all pending issues are settled between the parties so that he can give free consent for mutual divorce but in spite of the objection of the petitioner, the learned Additional Family Court passed judgment dated 09.09.2022 and passed decree of divorce on mutual consent. Further, the statement of the parties was recorded on 23.08.2022 and the respondent unilaterally stated that the responsibility to loan related to property at Duplex No. 304, Vijaya Garden Baridih vide Maxgain account no. 36139465725 at SBI personal Banking branch, Bistupur, shall be on the petitioner but the present petitioner never made any such statements on oath regarding repayment of loan singly by him.
5. Further, on 07.09.2022 the petitioner filed a petition in Original Suit No. 88 of 2022 that the bank denied to give loan liability to him, subject to his submission of requisite income and eligibility documents and prayed before the Court to not close statement by parties unless and until the issue of pending joint loan liability is addressed and the title deed is not made in favour of him singly or relinquishment deed for the said property is made by the first party and further prayed not to pass any order regarding grant of divorce between the parties till the issue of pending joint loan liability is not settled by the parties and the bank.
6. The respondent opposed the prayer of the present petitioner in the Court and stated that as per amicable settlement, she is fully cooperating with the present petitioner by visiting in person and signing the relevant deeds before the authorities as well as registering authorities as well as in her statement on oath and subsequently learned Additional Family Court find no reason to further delay the order and decree by mutual consent u/s 13 B of the Hindu Marriage Act.
7. The petitioner was provided the certified copy of the order and judgment dated 09.09.2022 only by 10th April, 2023. Thereafter, the appellant also filed First Appeal No.208 of 2023 before the High Court challenging the legality and propriety of judgment passed on 09.09.2022 and decree passed on 15.09.2022 by the learned Additional Family Court 1, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur but the respondent opposed it through counter affidavit dated 25.06.2024 and the said appeal was dismissed on 02.07.2024 on the ground of limitation.
8. The said order dated 02.07.2024 passed in F.A. No. 208 of 2023 was challenged by the petitioner/appellant before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by filing S.L.P. being Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No.75407 of 2025 which also stood dismissed.
9. The petitioner/appellant also filed M.C.A. No.01 of 25 against the bank and respondent before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court and prayed for issuing direction upon the opposite party to comply the order of the learned Additional Family Court dated 09.09.2022 and judgment a dated 09.09.2022 in its letter and spirit.
10. The aforesaid M.C.A. No.01 of 25 has been disposed by the Family Court by observing that the said M.C.A. No.01 of 25 is not maintainable. The said observation has been given by the learned Family Court by recording the finding that “Now, the decree of divorce has been passed on the basis of mutual consent of the petitioner and Dr. Purnima. Now, no issue regarding said Original Suit No. 88/22 is pending before Court for consideration and if the present petitioner has any grievance from bank authority, then he should approach to higher authority of the bank but nothing to do by this Court in said disposed case record.”
11. In this background, the appellant filed the M.C.A. No. 05 of 2025 with prayer to pass necessary order directing the respondent to deposit Rs.86.01 lac to the joint loan account to relinquish herself of the loan liability and comply the order of the learned Additional Family Court dated 09.09.2022 and judgment dated 09.09.2022 in letter and spirit which was passed as per her statement on oath dated 23.08.2022 but the learned Family Court has dismissed the said application vide order dated 17.05.2025 which is the subject matter of the present appeal.
Submission of the appellant appeared in-person:
12. It has been contended by the appellant that the factual aspect which was available before the learned court supported by the evidences adduced on behalf of the appellant/petitioner has not properly been considered and as such, the judgment impugned is perverse, hence, not sustainable in the eyes of law.
13. It has been submitted that the learned family court has not appreciated the fact that there are still pending issues between the parties as long as the home loan exists in joint name of the parties.
14. It has been contended that to comply the judgment and order dated 09.09.2022 based on statement on oath of Dr. Purnima/respondent dated 23.08.2022 regarding the single responsibility for payment of loan with respect to property situated at Duplex No. 304 Vijaya Garden, Jamshedpur could not be made possible unless and until there is deletion of Dr. Purnima name from HL Maxgain account no. 36139465725 and to relinquish the liability of Dr. Purnima, an amount of Rs.86.01 lakhs has to be deposited in the loan account and until the liability of the loan cannot be passed singly to the petitioner, the order and judgment dated 09.09.2022 cannot be complied with in its letter and spirit.
15. Further, it has been submitted that as per judgment dated 09.09.2022 both the children shall ordinarily live with Dr. Purnima/respondent and the petitioner/appellant shall have right of visitation and temporary custody and in the presence of both parents shall be there during school visiting, holidays on Saturday and Sunday, Festivals, birthdays and other special family occasions, but Dr. Purnima/respondent is not allowing the petitioner/appellant for temporary custody of the children and his visitation right is denied.
16. The appellant, based upon the aforesaid grounds, has submitted that the judgment impugned suffers from perversity, as such, not sustainable in the eyes of law.
Submission of the learned counsel for the respondent:
17. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent, while defending the impugned judgment, has submitted that there is no error in the impugned judgement. The learned Family Judge has considered all the issues raised in right perspective and after appreciating all the evidence and material placed on record, has rightly dismissed the misc. civil application.
18. It has further been contended that the decree of divorce passed on mutual consent and marriage between the parties has been dissolved amicably vide order dated 09.09.2022 passed by the learned Additional Family Court, Jamshedpur. The legality and propriety of the aforesaid judgment dated 09.09.2022 and decree signed on 15.09.2022 by the learned Family Court, Jamshedpur was challenged by the present petitioner before the High Court vide F.A. No. 208 of 2023. The Court had been pleased to dismiss the aforesaid appeal.
19. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent has submitted that in view of the fact that all disputes between the parties stand amicably settled, the learned Family Court, taking note of the said settlement, has rightly passed the impugned order. It is, therefore, contended that the order under challenge does not warrant any interference by this Court.
20. Learned counsel, based upon the aforesaid ground, has submitted that the impugned judgment cannot be said to suffer from an error, as such, the present appeal is fit to be dismissed.
Analysis:
21. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the finding recorded by the learned Family Judge in the impugned order/judgment dated 17.05.2025.
22. This Court while appreciating the argument advanced on behalf of the parties 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. 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. 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.””
23. In the backdrop of the aforesaid settled position of law, this Court has examined the impugned judgment as well as the merits of the case.
24. From the factual reference as made hereinabove and depicted in the present appeal it is evident that decree of divorce has been passed on mutual consent and marriage between the parties has been dissolved amicably vide order dated 09.09.2022 passed by the learned Additional Family Court, Jamshedpur in Original Suit No. 88 of 2022.
25. The legality and propriety of the aforesaid judgment dated 09.09.2022 and decree signed on 15.09.2022 by the learned Family Court, Jamshedpur was challenged by the present petitioner before this Court vide F.A. No. 208/2023. The said appeal has been dismissed by this Court vide order dated 02.07.2024.
26. Against the said order dated 02.07.2024 the present appellant has preferred an application being Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(S). 75407 of 2025 before the Hon’ble Apex Court and the same was also dismissed vide order dated 13.02.2026. For ready reference the order dated 13.02.2026 is being quoted as under:
“O R D E R
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. Delay condoned.
3. Having gone through the material on record and considering the matter in its entirety, we don't find any reason to interfere in the order impugned.
4. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed.
5. However, we make it clear that if there is any cause of action available to the petitioner which can be agitated before a Court in accordance with law, it is open to him to avail of such remedy.
6. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.”
27. The present appeal has been preferred against the order/judgment dated 17.05.2025 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family court in M.C.A No. 05 of 2025, whereby the learned court has dismissed the application filed under Section 7 explanation (c)(d)(g) of the Family Court Act and Section 151 of C.P.C. and Contempt of Court Act for pending matters between the divorced parties as well as the matter arising out regarding non- compliance of order and judgment dated 09.09.2022 passed in Original Suit No.88 of 2022.
28. It needs to refer herein that the order/ judgment dated 09.09.2022 had been passed in Original Suit No.88 of 2022 by which marriage between the parties has been dissolved under Section 13 B of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 on the basis of amicable settlement arrived at between the parties and the aforesaid order/ judgment dated 09.09.2022 has not been interfered with by the Hon’ble Apex Court.
29. The petitioner has preferred M.C.A No. 05 of 2025 for compliance of order dated 09.09.2022 in its letter and spirit.
30. The appellant who appeared in-person has contended that to comply the judgment and order dated 09.09.2022 based on statement on oath of Dr. Purnima/respondent dated 23.08.2022 regarding the single responsibility for payment of loan with respect to property situated at Duplex No. 304 Vijaya Garden, Jamshedpur could not be made possible unless and until there is deletion of Dr. Purnima’s name from HL Maxgain account no. 36139465725 and to relinquish the liability of Dr. Purnima, an amount of Rs.86.01 lakhs has to be deposited in loan account and until that the liability of the loan cannot be passed singly to the petitioner, the order and judgment dated 09.09.2022 cannot be complied with in its letter and spirit.
31. Further, it has been contended that as per judgment dated 09.09.2022 both the children shall ordinarily live with Dr. Purnima/respondent and the petitioner/appellant shall have right of visitation and temporary custody and in the presence of both parents shall be there during school visiting, holidays on Saturday and Sunday, Festivals, birthdays and other special family occasions, but Dr. Purnima/respondent is not allowing the petitioner/appellant for temporary custody of the children and his visitation right is denied.
32. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent has contended that decree of divorce passed on mutual consent and marriage between the parties has been dissolved amicably vide order dated 09.09.2022 passed by the learned Additional Family Court, Jamshedpur. The legality and propriety of the aforesaid judgment dated 09.09.2022 and decree signed on 15.09.2022 by the learned Additional Family Court, Jamshedpur was challenged by the present petitioner before the High Court vide F.A. No. 208 of 2023, and the said appeal has been dismissed by this Court and the SLP preferred against the order passed by this Court has not been interfered with by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
33. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent has submitted that in view of the fact that all disputes between the parties stand amicably settled, the learned Family Court, taking note of the said settlement, has rightly passed the impugned order. It is, therefore, contended that the order under challenge does not warrant any interference by this Court.
34. Although the appeal being F.A. No. 208 of 2023 stood dismissed, it is pertinent to record that the appellant, who appeared before this Court in person, has submitted that despite the decree of divorce having been passed on the basis of mutual consent, he has been deprived of access to his sons. It has further been stated that it was specifically agreed between the parties, and duly reflected in the order dated 09.09.2022, that the appellant would be entitled to visitation rights and temporary custody of the children, but the respondent wife has refused to permit the children to meet him, thereby frustrating the very terms of the consent decree.
35. This Court has taken into consideration the predicament of the appellant/party in-person and further taking into consideration the Court's "parens patriae" jurisdiction that empowers the Court to act as a guardian for the child, prioritizing their best interests above all else, has called the respondent-wife, along with the children, to remain physically present before this Court on 15.05.2026 in order to find that whether the children are willing to meet with the father. For ready reference the order dated 14.05.2026 is being quoted as under:
03/14.05.2026
Heard the party-in-person and the learned counsel for the Respondent-Wife.
2. The issue in question, i.e. the issue of custody in the judgment of Original Suit No. 88 of 2022, has attained its finality after dismissal of the First Appeal by this Court and in consequent upon dismissal of the related Special Leave Petition.
3. The party-in-person has submitted that benefit of the custody is not being extended as agreed upon between the parties.
4. In order to look into the matter, this Court thinks it proper to call upon the respondent-wife, along with the children, if possible, to remain physically present before this Court tomorrow, i.e. on 15.05.2026.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent-wife has agreed that the respondent-wife will remain physically present before this Court tomorrow, i.e. on 15.05.2026 at 3 p.m.
6. Put up this case tomorrow, i.e. on 15.05.2026.
36. Accordingly, both the sons, accompanied by the respondent-mother, have appeared before this Court. The respondent-wife has stated that she has no objection if the sons are willing to meet their father. However, both the sons have categorically refused to meet the appellant and have expressed that they do not wish to reside in the house where their father is living as he is cohabiting with another lady.
37. Since both the sons have unequivocally refused to meet their father, no order can be passed contrary to their wishes. This Court, although having made the aforesaid endeavour even after dismissal of the first appeal, is of the considered view upon ascertaining the stance of both the sons that there is no necessity to pass any further order on this issue.
38. Now this Court has delved upon the merit of the order impugned dated 17.05.2025 passed by the learned Family Court against which the instant appeal has been filed.
39. From the impugned order it is evident that the learned Family while passing the order impugned has taken note of the case record of Original Suit No. 88 of 2022 and based upon that it has been observed that decree of divorce was passed on basis of mutual consent vide order dated 09.09.2022 and the legality and propriety of the aforesaid judgment dated 09.09.2022 and decree signed on 15.09.2022 by the learned Family Court, Jamshedpur was challenged by the present petitioner before the High Court vide F.A. No. 208/2023 but the same has been dismissed.
40. The Learned Family Court has further found that the petitioner (appellant herein) has raised question on the legality and propriety of the aforesaid judgment and decree passed by the Court of Additional Family Court, Jamshedpur in Original Suit No. 88 of 22.
41. The learned Family Court regarding relinquishment of liability of Dr. Purnima (respondent herein) in the HL Maxgain Account No. 36139465725 has taken note of the fact that the essential condition has been well informed by the bank to the appellant/petitioner vide its letter dated 04.04.2025 as well as earlier on 29.08.2022.
42. Further, the learned family Court has also taken note of the fact that the appellant/petitioner has earlier filed W.P. (Cr.) No. 241 of 2019 before the High Court regarding alleged illegal capture of clinic and house by playing fraud upon the Court and filing false affidavit but the matter has already been considered by the High Court wherein the appellant was directed to approach SSP, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur and accordingly, the said petition stood disposed of.
43. The learned Family Court has observed that earlier the petitioner has filed Misc. Civil Application No. 01/25 which was disposed of after observing not maintainable and in the said petition (MCA 01/25) also with similar grounds the appellant/petitioner disapproved the order and judgment passed in O.S. No.88 of 22.
44. The learned Family Court categorically observed that the present petition has been filed after raising question on the proceeding and legality of the judgment and decree passed in Original Suit No. 88 of 22, while F.A. No.208 of 2023 has also been dismissed by the High Court which was filed by the appellant/petitioner before the High Court challenging the said judgment and decree.
45. The learned Family Court based upon the aforesaid reasoning has found that the filing of the said miscellaneous application by the petitioner/appellant is an abuse of legal system to file repetitive and meritless petition with baseless allegation.
46. In conclusion, the learned Family Court has found that there is no pending matter between the parties and accordingly the learned Family Court vide order dated 17.05.2025 which is impugned herein, has dismissed the Misc. Civil Application No. 05 of 2025 related with Original Suit No. 88 of 2022 by holding that the same is not maintainable.
47. Thus, from the aforesaid discussion it is evident that the learned Family Court while passing the order impugned dated 17.05.2025 has taken into consideration the entire material available on record particularly the order/judgment dated 09.09.2022 passed in Original Suit No. 88 of 2022 and has found that there is no pending matter between the parties.
48. Since the learned Family Court, while passing the impugned order dated 17.05.2025, has duly taken into account the entire factual matrix together with the settled legal position, this Court is of the considered view that, in light of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Arulvelu and Anr. vs. State [Represented by the Public Prosecutor] and Anr. (supra), the impugned order does not fall within the ambit of perversity.
49. Further from perusal of the order dated 09.09.2022 passed in Original Suit No. 88 of 2022 which has been annexed with the memo of appeal, it is evident that both the parties have amicably settled all their disputes and have decided to end all the 23 litigations pending between them as per the mediation settlement. Further, they have also amicably distributed the joint properties whose detail has been mentioned in their statement on oath and have also agreed to cooperate with each other in peaceful transfer of the properties to each other as agreed amongst them and based upon that the learned Family Court has passed the decree of divorce under Section 13 B of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955.
50. The petitioner/appellant also filed First Appeal No.208 of 2023 before the High Court challenging the legality and propriety of judgment passed on 09.09.2022 and decree passed on 15.09.2022 by the learned Family Court, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur but the appeal was dismissed on 02.07.2024 on the ground of limitation.
51. The said order dated 02.07.2024 passed in F.A. No. 208 of 2023 was challenged by the petitioner/appellant before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by filing S.L.P. being Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No.75407 of 2025 which also stood dismissed.
52. On the basis of the discussion made hereinabove, it is evident that the issues between the parties have been amicably settled.
53. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the order/judgment dated 17.05.2025 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Jamshedpur in Misc. Civil Application No. 05 of 2025 warrants no interference by this Court.
54. Accordingly, the instant appeal fails and is dismissed.
55. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
 |
This Product is Licensed to , |