1 - Ghanshyam Singh Dewangan S/o Chhotelal Dewangan, Aged About 29 Years R/o Village v. 1
Case Details
1 / 17 2025:CGHC:44904-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Reserved for orders on : 07.08.2025 Order passed on : 03 .09.20 25 FAM No. 223 of 2016 1 - Ghanshyam Singh Dewangan S/o Chhotelal Dewangan, Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Saragaon, Post Saragaon, Police Station Kharora, Tahsil Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ..................Plaintiff, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - Smt. Damyanti Dewangan W/o Ghanshyam Singh Dewangan, Aged About 25 Years R/o Through House Of Nandkumar Chandrakar, In Front Of Patel Bada, Ayodhya Nagar, Tumgaon Road, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ...............Defendant, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title is taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Ms. Shivangi Agrawal, Advocate holding brief on behalf For Respondent : Ms. Anjali Pradhan, Advocate holding brief on behalf of of Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate Mr. Vikas Pradhan, Advocate Hon'ble Smt. Rajani Dubey, Judge Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge C A V ORDER Per Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge 1) The appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment of trial Court dated 19.09.2016, which dismissed his suit for dissolution of Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 / 17 marriage. He had sought divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, alleging that his wife deserted him in 2013 without sufficient reason and threatened to falsely implicate him in a
Legal Reasoning
criminal case. The trial court, after examining the evidence, held that the appellant failed to prove the allegations and establish grounds for divorce, leading to the dismissal of his petition. 2) Facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellant/plaintiff filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking a decree of divorce from the respondent on grounds of desertion and mental cruelty. According to the appellant, the marriage between him and the respondent was solemnized on 06.05.2009
Legal Reasoning
following Hindu rituals and customs. After the marriage, both parties began cohabiting as husband and wife at Mahasamund. At the time of marriage, the appellant was employed in a private institution. However, in the year 2013, he was appointed as a constable in the police department, which marked a significant change in his professional life. The appellant contended that during the subsistence of the marriage, the respondent, sometime in the year 2013, voluntarily left the matrimonial home without any just or reasonable cause and began living separately. He alleged that despite his repeated requests and efforts to bring her back and resume the marital relationship, the respondent remained adamant and made no attempt to return or restore conjugal ties. The appellant further alleged that the respondent not only abandoned the marital relationship but also used to threaten him with false 3 / 17 criminal allegations. According to him, she would often say that she would falsely implicate him in a criminal case, which caused him immense mental agony and stress. These circumstances, as pleaded by the appellant, amounted to cruelty and desertion, and therefore, he sought a decree for dissolution of marriage. In response, the respondent denied all the allegations levelled against her in the application of appellant. She filed a detailed written statement, wherein she refuted the claims of desertion and cruelty. According to her, the couple had led a reasonably cordial marital life initially, and within 2–3 years of marriage, they were blessed with two daughters. However, she alleged that after the birth of their children, the behavior of the appellant took a drastic turn. She stated that the appellant began to harass her mentally and physically for bringing inadequate dowry. The respondent alleged that he subjected her to continuous humiliation and ill-treatment on account of not fulfilling dowry demands. The respondent further asserted that it was not she but the appellant who had, in fact, deserted the matrimonial home. She accused the appellant of having an illicit relationship with another woman named Chitralekha Navrange, which, according to her, was the actual reason for the breakdown of their marital relationship. She contended that the appellant abandoned her and their children and failed to fulfill his responsibilities as a husband and father. She claimed that he neither maintained her nor their children and left them without any financial support, due to which she was facing severe hardships. 4 / 17 She also stated that she had no independent source of income to support herself and the children. The Trial Court, after hearing both parties, framing issues, and recording their respective evidence, analyzed the facts and concluded that the appellant had failed to establish a valid ground for the grant of divorce. The Trial Court held that the appellant could not prove that the respondent had deserted him without sufficient cause. It also observed that the appellant failed to discharge the burden of proof necessary to sustain the allegations of cruelty and desertion. Importantly, the Court noted that the appellant could not take advantage of his own wrong under Section 23 of the Hindu Marriage Act, and in the absence of sufficient evidence supporting his claims, he was not entitled to any relief. Consequently, the Trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the appellant for divorce by its judgment and decree dated 19.09.2016. Challenging the said judgment, the appellant contended that the order passed by the Trial Court was illegal, erroneous, and contrary to established principles of law. It was argued that the Trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence in its proper perspective and wrongly concluded that the appellant was at fault. On this basis, the present appeal has been filed, praying for the judgment and decree passed by the family court to be set aside and for the grant of divorce to be allowed in favor of the appellant. 3) Ms. Shivangi Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that the impugned judgment and decree dated 19.09.2016 passed by the Family Court, Mahasamund in Civil Suit 5 / 17 No. 30-A/2015 is illegal, perverse, and contrary to the settled principles of matrimonial law, and therefore deserves to be set aside. It was argued that the learned Trial Court has grossly erred in failing to appreciate the evidence available on record in its proper legal and factual perspective. The appellant had placed sufficient material and oral testimony before the Court to establish the grounds of desertion and cruelty, yet the Trial Court ignored the same, leading to an unjust dismissal of the divorce petition. 4) It is further contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the Family Court did not properly consider that the respondent/wife has been residing separately from the appellant for more than two years prior to the institution of the suit, without any reasonable cause or justification. It was further submitted that the appellant had made repeated efforts to bring back the respondent and restore the marital relationship, but the respondent remained adamant and unwilling to resume cohabitation. The learned Family Court failed to acknowledge the fact that despite this continued separation and the absence of any reconciliation, no evidence was produced by the respondent to show any effort on her part toward restitution of conjugal rights. It was a clear case of willful desertion under Section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act. Learned counsel for appellant drew the attention of this Court to the deposition of DW-1, Damyanti Bai (the respondent), wherein she admitted on oath that she had left the matrimonial home in July 2013. This categorical admission, according to the appellant, is vital and sufficient to prove the fact of 6 / 17 desertion. Despite this, the Trial Court failed to give proper weight to such a significant piece of evidence. Furthermore, no convincing explanation was provided by the respondent to justify her prolonged absence from the matrimonial home, nor was there any evidence to demonstrate that she was either ready or willing to rejoin the appellant. In fact, the complete absence of any initiative or step from the respondent toward reconciliation further strengthens the case of appellant. It was further submitted that the appellant had also successfully proved the ground of cruelty as envisaged under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The respondent not only abandoned the appellant but also treated him with mental cruelty by repeatedly threatening to implicate him in false criminal cases. Moreover, the respondent made baseless allegations regarding the character of appellant and accused him of having an illicit relationship, which, it was argued, caused serious mental trauma, defamed his public image, and amounted to cruelty in law. The learned Family Court failed to appreciate that such behavior of the wife, even as per her own pleadings and statements, amounts to mental cruelty of a grave nature. 5) Learned counsel for appellant also highlighted that the marriage between the parties had irretrievably broken down and was, for all practical and emotional purposes, dead. There was no affection, trust, or willingness to cohabit remaining between the parties. Forcing such parties to remain in a broken marital relationship would serve no useful purpose and would only prolong the agony of 7 / 17 both individuals. This was a classic case of emotional detachment and breakdown of matrimonial harmony, yet the learned Family Court refused to consider this aspect, which is a crucial factor under modern matrimonial jurisprudence. Further, it was submitted that the appellant had duly discharged his burden of proof by producing evidence to establish that the wife has been residing separately without just cause, whereas the respondent failed to discharge her burden to explain the reasons for her conduct or to demonstrate any bona fide attempt to preserve the marriage. The Trial Court also overlooked the legal position that a spouse who deserts the other without sufficient cause and fails to explain or justify the same cannot take the benefit of her own wrong. The learned counsel for
Decision
the appellant thus submitted that the impugned judgment is vitiated by non-application of mind, misreading of evidence, and legal infirmities. The trial Court failed to appreciate the conduct of the respondent, the admissions in her evidence, and the absence of any effort from her side to preserve the marital relationship. Moreover, the very allegations made by the respondent against the appellant, which were scandalous and unsubstantiated, in themselves constitute cruelty. In view of the above, it is prayed that this Court may be pleased to allow the present appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Family Court on 19.09.2016, and grant a decree of divorce in favour of the appellant/husband. 6) Ms. Anjali Pradha, learned counsel for the respondent/wife 8 / 17 submitted that the Family Court, Mahasamund, has rightly dismissed the petition filed by appellant for divorce, and the judgment and decree dated 19.09.2016 do not suffer from any illegality, perversity, or misappreciation of evidence. It was argued that the appellant has not approached the Court with clean hands and has deliberately suppressed material facts. The attempt to secure a divorce on baseless grounds of desertion and cruelty is a clear misuse of legal provisions, and the present appeal is nothing but an afterthought to avoid marital obligations and responsibilities. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the allegations of desertion made by the appellant are completely false, misleading, and unsubstantiated. In reality, it was the appellant who, after the birth of two daughters from the wedlock, changed his behavior drastically and began subjecting the respondent to mental and physical cruelty. The respondent was continuously harassed for bringing less dowry, and the appellant made repeated demands for additional dowry. When those demands were not fulfilled, his conduct became violent and intolerable. Due to the sustained cruelty and hostile environment, the respondent was compelled to leave the matrimonial home, not out of choice or wilful desertion, but due to the unbearable circumstances created by the appellant. The learned counsel also emphasized that the conduct of appellant throughout has been motivated by mala fide intentions. It was submitted that the appellant developed an illicit relationship with 9 / 17 another woman, one Chitralekha Navrange, and as a result, abandoned his marital responsibilities, including financial and emotional support to the respondent and their two minor daughters. The respondent, with no independent source of income, has been single-handedly taking care of the children and surviving under difficult circumstances, without any maintenance or assistance from the appellant. These facts clearly demonstrate the cruelty inflicted by the appellant on the respondent. With respect to the allegations of desertion, the learned counsel pointed out that mere separation does not constitute desertion under Section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act. There must be clear and convincing evidence of a wilful and intentional abandonment of the marital relationship by one spouse without reasonable cause and against the wishes of the other. In the present case, the separation was not wilful on the part of the respondent; rather, it was a forced outcome of the abusive and unsafe conditions in the matrimonial home. Moreover, the appellant has failed to produce any credible evidence showing that he genuinely attempted to bring the respondent back or made any effort for restitution of conjugal rights. On the contrary, the behavior of appellant indicated that he was determined to sever ties and push the respondent out of the marriage, which again disqualifies him from seeking divorce on the ground of desertion. 7) It was also contended that the Family Court has rightly held that the appellant cannot take advantage of his own wrong. Under Section 23(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, a party seeking relief must not 10 / 17 be guilty of his own misconduct. In this case, the evidence clearly shows that the appellant created such conditions that forced the respondent to live separately, and now he seeks to benefit from that very act. The Trial Court, after considering the pleadings and evidence in detail, came to a just conclusion that the appellant failed to prove either cruelty or desertion and thus rightly dismissed the divorce petition. On the issue of cruelty, the learned counsel submitted that the allegations levelled by the appellant are vague, unsubstantiated, and appear to be an afterthought. Mere allegations that the respondent threatened to implicate the appellant in false cases or questioned his character, without any corroborating evidence, do not constitute legal cruelty. On the contrary, the respondent has been subjected to continuous emotional and financial neglect, which amounts to cruelty inflicted by the appellant. The attempt to malign the character of respondent and portray her as aggressive and vindictive is not only baseless but also demonstrates the lack of respect on the part of appellant and responsibility towards the sanctity of the marriage and family. Further, the counsel submitted that the institution of marriage, especially where two minor children are involved, cannot be lightly dissolved merely because of temporary disputes or exaggerated allegations. The marriage, though strained, is not beyond repair, and no substantial effort has been made by the appellant to reconcile or provide support to the respondent and the children. The eagerness of appellant to secure a divorce without fulfilling his 11 / 17 duties as a husband and father reflects his abandonment of the matrimonial relationship and cannot be a basis for granting relief. In conclusion, the learned counsel for the respondent earnestly prayed that the Court may be pleased to uphold the judgment and decree dated 19.09.2016 passed by the learned Family Court, Mahasamund, as it is based on a fair and correct appreciation of evidence and in conformity with the law. It was submitted that the present appeal is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed. 8) We have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents enclosed along with the appeal with utmost circumspection. 9) It is admitted that the marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnized on 06.05.2009 as per Hindu customs. From the wedlock, two daughters were born. It is alleged by the appellant that the respondent deserted him in 2013 without any justifiable cause and began living separately despite repeated requests made by him for resumption of cohabitation. It is also alleged that the respondent used to threaten the appellant with false criminal charges and falsely accused him of having an illicit relationship with a lady constable, Chitralekha Navrange, which caused him grave mental agony and amounted to cruelty. The respondent, on the other hand, denied the allegations and claimed that the appellant started harassing her mentally and physically for dowry after the birth of their daughters. She contended that she was forced to leave the matrimonial home due to the cruelty 12 / 17 inflicted by the appellant and that it was he who abandoned the family due to his alleged illicit relationship. 10) From the perusal of the pleadings and the evidence on record, it appears that the wife had made repeated allegations of the appellant having an illicit relationship with one Chitralekha Navrange, a lady constable, both in her written statement and in complaints addressed to the Superintendent of Police, Mahasamund, where the appellant is employed. Upon inquiry into the complaint made by the respondent, the allegations were found to be vague and unsubstantiated. The appellant, in his evidence, has specifically averred that these false allegations seriously affected his mental peace and public image, particularly in his service where character and conduct bear immense significance. 11) In the matter of Vijaykumar Ramchandra Bhate vs. Neela Vijaykumar Bhate, reported in (2023) 6 SCC 334, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that that leveling disgusting accusations of unchastity and indecent familiarity with a person outside wedlock and allegations of extra marital relationship is a grave assault on the character, honour, reputation, status as well as the health of the other party. The Court further held that Such aspersions of perfidiousness attributed to the wife, viewed in the context of an educated Indian wife and judged by Indian conditions and standards would amount to worst form of insult and cruelty, sufficient by itself to substantiate cruelty in law, warranting the claim of the wife being allowed. That such allegations made in the written 13 / 17 statement or suggested in the course of examination and by way of cross- examination satisfy the requirement of law. Relevant paragraph of the said judgment is quoted below for ready reference: “7. The question that requires to be answered first is as to whether the averments, accusations and character assassination of the wife by the appellant husband in the written statement constitutes mental cruelty for sustaining the claim for divorce under section 13(1)(i-a) of the Act. The position of law in this regard has come to be well settled and declared that levelling disgusting accusations of unchastity and indecent familiarity with a person outside wedlock and allegations of extra-marital relationship is a grave assault on the character, honour, reputation, status as well as the health of the wife. Such aspersions of the perfidiousness attributed tothe wife, viewed in the context of an education Indian wife andjudged by Indian conditions and standards would amount to worst form of insult and cruelty, sufficient by itself to substantiate cruelty in law, warranting the claim of the wife being allowed. That such allegations made in the written statement or suggested in the course of examination and byway of cross examination satisfy the requirement of law has also come to be firmly laid down by this Court. On going through the relevant portions of such allegations, we find that no exception could be taken to the findings recorded by the Family Court as well as the High Court. We find that they are of such quality, magnitude and consequence as to cause mental pain, agony and suffering amounting to there formulated concept of cruelty in matrimonial law 14 / 17 causing profound and lasting disruption and driving the wife to feel deeply hurt and reasonably apprehend that it would bed angerous for her to live with a husband who was taunting her like that and rendered the maintenance of matrimonial home impossible.” 12) In the instant case, the respondent failed to prove her allegations during cross-examination or substantiate them through any cogent evidence. Filing a written complaint to the police authorities containing unverified and scandalous allegations against the spouse amounts to mental cruelty. Therefore, the conduct of the respondent in making baseless allegations against the appellant is sufficient to establish cruelty within the meaning of Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act. 13) The record reveals that the respondent left the matrimonial home in July 2013 and has been living separately since then. She admitted this fact during her cross-examination. Though the respondent alleged dowry harassment as the reason for separation, no sufficient evidence has been adduced by her to establish continuous cruelty or unsafe conditions in the matrimonial home that would justify permanent desertion. Furthermore, the allegations against the appellant regarding his relationship with another woman were not proven, and the inquiry report also did not support her claim. Therefore, the continued separation of respondent from the appellant without any reasonable cause, coupled with her failure to return despite the efforts of appellant, amounts to desertion within 15 / 17 the meaning of Section 13(1)(ib) of the Act. Desertion implies both factum of separation and animus deserendi. In the present case, both elements stand satisfied as the respondent has not made any attempt to resume cohabitation, and the reasons advanced by her for living separately have not been substantiated. The Trial Court erred in dismissing the divorce petition filed by the appellant. It failed to appreciate the evidence in its correct legal perspective, especially with respect to the false allegations made by the respondent and her prolonged separation from the appellant without reasonable justification. The Trial Court also overlooked binding precedents of the Hon’ble Supreme Court regarding cruelty arising from unproven allegations of infidelity and the settled interpretation of desertion under matrimonial law. 14) In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the appellant has successfully proved both grounds of cruelty and desertion as required under Sections 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The appeal is therefore allowed. The judgment and decree dated 19.09.2016 passed by the learned Family Court, Mahasamund, in Civil Suit No. 30-A/2015 is hereby set aside. The marriage between the appellant and the respondent is dissolved by a decree of divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. 15) So far as the issue of alimony is concerned, a perusal of the record reveals that it is an admitted fact that the appellant is employed as a Police Constable, whereas the respondent–wife is not gainfully 16 / 17 employed and does not have sufficient income to sustain herself. It is also undisputed that the respondent is taking care of two daughters born out of the wedlock, who are school-going children. Therefore, while determining the amount of permanent alimony, this aspect of the matter must be duly considered. Although, by order dated 11.07.2025, the counsel for the appellant sought time to file an affidavit in compliance with the directions laid down in Rajnesh v. Neha, AIR 2021 SC 569, no such affidavit has been filed on record. In contrast, the respondent–wife has filed her affidavit in accordance with the said directions. 16) Upon perusal of the affidavit filed by the respondent–wife, it is evident that two daughters, namely Nandini Dewangan (aged about 14 years) and Jyotsana Dewangan (aged about 12 years), were born out of the matrimonial relationship between the parties. Both daughters are currently attending school. The affidavit further affirms that the respondent is a homemaker and has no independent source of income, while the appellant–husband, who has been granted a decree of divorce, is employed as a constable. The respondent has claimed a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month towards the maintenance of herself and her two daughters, which, considering the circumstances, appears to be a reasonable amount. 17) In light of the above, this Court find it appropriate to direct the appellant–husband to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month to the respondent–wife towards the maintenance of herself and her two 17 / 17 daughters as permanent alimony. It is also clarified that in the event the maintenance amount is not deposited regularly by the appellant or if the respondent and her children are unable to sustain themselves adequately, they shall be at liberty to approach the appropriate forum by filing a proper application for further relief. 18) Accordingly, while decreeing the suit for divorce in favour of the appellant, he is directed to pay Rs. 15,000/- per month to the respondent–wife as permanent alimony for her maintenance as well as for the maintenance of their two daughters. 19) With the above directions, the appeal stands allowed. Sd/- (Rajni Dubey) Judge Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Shayna