Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:27445-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FA(MAT) No. 72 of 2024 Judgment reserved on : 26.03.2025 Judgment delivered on : 24.06.2025 1 - K. Ravi Kumar, S/o K. Ramarao Aged About 41 Years R/o Amarkantak Road Gaurela, Tah. Pendraroad, Dist. Bilaspur (Now Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi), C.G. Digitally signed by RAMAKANT NIRALA versus Appellant 1 - K. Lekha W/o K. Ravi Kumar Aged About 35 Years, R/o-H-11-51, Sector-01, Pandit Dindayal Upadhyay Nagar, Raipur, Tah and Dist. Raipur, C.G. Respondent For Appellant For Respondent(s) : :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Pankaj Singh, Advocate Ms. Shrishti Upadhyay, Advocate Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput C A V Judgment Per Rajani Dubey J. 1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment and decree dated 23.01.2024 passed by the learned 1st Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur (C.G.) in Civil 2 Suit HMA No.488/2018, whereby the appellant’s application for grant of divorce has been rejected. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the marriage between the parties took place according to Hindu rituals on 03.03.2014 at Agrasen Bhawan, Pendra and out of their wedlock, one male child Surya was born on 19.01.2015. The appellant had filed the suit seeking relief for decree of divorce before the Family Court with averment that the respondent wife started troubling after 15 days of the marriage and started living with her paternal house knowing the fact that the parents of the appellant are suffering from several disease. The mother of the appellant was seriously ill and she died on 02.12.2014 at Vellure Karnataka. The respondent was not serious in taking care during her treatment. She came to his house after the death of his mother for two days only and returned to her paternal house. The act of the respondent was not co-operative and sympathetic towards the appellant. She never resided for more than one month with the appellant. The appellant has been deprived from his conjugal right. She even lodged various false complaints against him and his family members but despite the the same, the learned Family Court has rejected the application of the appellant for grant of divorce, hence the present appeal has been filed by the appellant. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned judgment and decree is erroneous in law and facts both and the 3 same is liable to be set aside. The learned Family Court while passing the impugned judgment and decree has failed to appreciate the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties. The learned Family Court has wrongly held that the appellant has failed to prove the ground of cruelty. The learned Family Court has failed to appreciate the evidence regarding denial of non applicant to live with appellant. The act of the non applicant living separately without reasonable cause in her parental house amounts to desertion and the appellant has been deprived of his conjugal right as the non applicant was living in her parental house which amounts to cruelty. The learned Family Court has also failed to appreciate the complaints against the appellant and his father subsequent to the filing of divorce petition. Reliance has been placed on the judgment rendered by this Court in the matter of Smt. Duleshwari Sahu vs Ramesh Kumar Sahu, passed in FA(MAT) No.81/2019 vide judgment dated 23.01.2023. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court and submits that the learned Family Court has minutely appreciated the oral and documentary evidence available on record and rightly dismissed the application of the appellant. The impugned judgment and decree is well merited and does not require any interference by this Court. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 4 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. It is not disputed before the learned Family Court that the marriage of both the parties was solemnized on 03.03.2014 and out of their wedlock, one son Surya was born on 19.01.2015. It is also not disputed that since 2016 both the parties have been living separately. It is also admitted position that on the compliant of the respondent wife, a criminal case under Sections 294 & 206 was pending against the appellant husband before the learned Trial Court. 7. The learned Family Court framed following issues on the basis of the pleadings of both the parties:- वा(cid:2)द ्ቚश्न निनष्क्ቧ(cid:12) 1. 2. क्या(cid:2) अन(cid:2)वा(cid:16)निदक(cid:2) क(cid:16) . ले(cid:16)खा(cid:2) न(cid:16) निवावा(cid:2)ह क(cid:16) अन(cid:20)ኋ(cid:2)पन "अ्ቚमा(cid:2)नि्ቓत्" क(cid:16) पश्चा(cid:2)त्(cid:25) आवा(cid:16)दक क(cid:16) रनिवा क(cid:16) सा(cid:2)थ ቅ(cid:31) रत्(cid:2)प(cid:31)्ቓ(cid:12) बत्(cid:2)(cid:12)वा क", यानिद ह(cid:2)# त्$ ्ቚभा(cid:2)वा ? साह(cid:2)यात्(cid:2) एवा# व्याया ? "क# नि)क(cid:2)-31 क(cid:16) अन(cid:20)सा(cid:2)र" 8. The respondent wife admitted in her cross-examination that when her mother-in-law was admitted at Gujrat Hospital, then she did not go with her. She also admitted that at the time of death of her mother-in-law, she was not there. She self stated that she wanted to reside with the appellant husband but the appellant and his 5 family members forbaded her. She also admitted that her father lodged a complaint before the Superintendent of Police and in the office of the appellant. She also admitted that in counselling proceedings, she refused to go with the appellant. She also admitted that since November, 2016, she is living in her parental home and also admitted that she did not file any application for restitution of conjugal rights or she did not give any notice in this regard. The father of the respondent wife also admitted signature of his daughter on Ex-P/1 and also admitted that his daughter is living with him since 2016 and she did not file any application to go with the appellant. The appellant husband filed this appeal on this ground that his wife is not willing to live with him and is trying to prosecute him in false cases. It is also admitted by the respondent wife that when divorce case was filed by the appellant, then she filed criminal complaint against the husband. 9. During pendency of this appeal, the appellant filed judgment of Criminal Court dated 16.12.2024 passed by the learned JMFC, Kawardha in Criminal Case No.826/2018, whereby the appellant has been acquitted of the charges under Sections 294, 506 Part- II of IPC and in alternate Section 498-A of IPC. 10. This Court in the matter of Smt. Duleshwari Sahu (supra) held in paras 12, 13 & 14 as under:- “12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of K.Srinivasa Rao Vs. D.A. Deepa reported in (2013) 5 SCC 226 wherein it has been held at paragraphs 30 and 31, which read as under: 6 “30.It is also to be noted that the appellant-husband and the respondent-wife are staying apart from 27/4/1999. Thus, they are living separately for more than ten years. This separation has created an unbridgeable distance between the two. As held in Samar Ghosh, 2007 4 SCC 511, if we refuse to sever the tie, it may lead to mental cruelty. 31. We are also satisfied that this marriage has irretrievably broken down. Irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not a ground for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. But, where marriage is beyond repair on account of bitterness created by the acts of the husband or the wife or of both, the courts have always taken irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a very weighty circumstance amongst others necessitating severance of marital tie. A marriage which is dead for all purposes cannot be revived by the court’s verdict, if the parties are not willing. This is because marriage involves human sentiments and emotions and if they are dried-up there is hardly any chance of their springing back to life on account of artificial reunion created by the court’s decree.” (13) In the matter of Smt. Vijaya Laxmi Soni vs. Raj Kuma Soni reported in 2009(2) CGLJ 72 (DB), this Court held that when re-union or restitution of conjugal rights becomes impossible between the parties, dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce is the only effective remedy for the welfare of the parties, rejected the appeal and marriage between the parties dissolved by decree of divorce. (14) Further it has been held by the Apex Court in the matter of Raj Talreja Vs. Kavita Talreja (Civil Appeal No. 10719 of 2013, decided on 24.04.2017), that a false complaint was registered against the husband by the wife and in criminal proceedings, the husband had been acquitted. On this account, the husband was held entitled to decree of divorce, on the ground of cruelty. Further, in the matter of Rani Narsmiha Sastry Vs. Rani Suneela Rani (Civil Appeal No.8871 of 2019) it has been held by the Apex Court that : “when a person undergoes a trial in which he is acquitted of the allegation of offence under Section 498- A IPC, levelled by the wife against the husband, it cannot be accepted that no cruelty has meted on the husband. As per pleadings before us, after parties having been married on 14.08.2005, they lived together only for 18 months and thereafter they are separately living for more than a decade now. In view of the 7 foregoing discussion, we conclude that appellant has made a ground for grant of decree of dissolution of marriage on the ground as mentioned in Section 13 (i)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.” 11. In light of the above, it is clear that the respondent wife is living separately since long and she also admitted that in counseling proceedings she refused to go with the appellant. The wife levelled certain allegations against the appellant after filing of divorce case by the husband, but she did not prove the same except filing criminal case against the husband and she did not file any oral and documentary evidence that what type of cruelty was done by the appellant with her. 12. In Ex-P/1, the respondent wife stated that she does not want to live with her husband, as her husband has sent divorce papers. The husband told that he wants to keep her wife but she lodged false criminal case of domestic violence against him. At the time of counseling, she did not tell about maarpeet committed by the appellant with her, but the learned Trial Court did not appreciate the oral and documentary evidence properly and gave wrong finding. Thus, the finding recorded by the learned Family Court is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 13. We are of the considered opinion that the appellant husband successfully proved this fact that the respondent wife committed cruelty against him and his family members. The Criminal Court also acquitted the appellant husband from the charges under 8 Sections 294 & 506 Part-II read with Section 498-A of IPC, as such the appellant husband is entitled for decree of divorce. 14.
Decision
Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The marriage solemnized between the appellant husband and respondent wife on 03.03.2014 is hereby dissolved. 15. As regards permanent alimony, considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the income of the appellant husband, Rs.15 Lakhs is directed to be paid by the appellant husband to the respondent wife as permanent alimony within 6 months from today. 16. Let a decree be drawn accordingly. Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) Judge Nirala Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge