Vishvnath v. Smt. Anjani) whereby learned trial Court has dismissed the
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:25144 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Order Reserved on 10.06.2025 Order Pronounced on 18.06.2025 FAM No. 185 of 2018 1 - Vishwanath S/o Shyamram Aged About 40 Years Occupation Service, R/o Village Unchdih, Police Station And Tahsil Surajpur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. (Plaintiff), District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant/Plaintiff versus 1 - Smt. Anjani W/o Vishwanath Rajwade Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Unchdih, Police Station And Tahsil Surajpur, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. Presently At Village Kanchanpur, Patelpara, Post - Kakna, Police Station Dhourpur, Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondent/Defendant (Cause tittle is taken from Case Information System) For Appellant For Respondent : :
Legal Reasoning
13. Having considered evidence available on record as discussed above, grounds of cruelty raised by the plaintiff against respondent/defendant – Anjali Rajwade has not been proved by him. However, both the parties are residing separately since 2015, but decree of divorce cannot be granted merely due to long separation for a number of years, if no valid grounds for the divorce are proved by the plaintiff / husband. 14. In the case of K. Srinivas Vs. K. Sunita (supra) cited by counsel for the appellant/husband, decree of divorce was granted by the Supreme Court on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage, but the same was granted by the Apex Court by exercising its plenary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, which is not available to this Court. 15. In the case of C. Sembiam Sivakumar (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that marriage was never consummated by the parties and 7 after granting decree by the trial Court, respondent/wife has accepted Rs. 5 lakhs as permanent alimony and appellant/husband was not interested to prosecute any litigation for recovery of gold and other articles worth more than Rs.5 lakhs. In such situation of the case, Hon’ble Apex court granted decree of divorce, but facts situation of the instant case is not similar to the aforesaid cases, therefore, that case is not helpful for the appellant in the fact situation of the instant case. 16. In the instant case, it has not been proved by the appellant/husband that any criminal case was lodged by defendant/ wife against him or she has made any false complaint alleging reckless/indecent defamatory allegations against him, therefore, case of K. Srinivas Rao Vs. D.A. Deepa (supra), Raj Talreja vs. Kavita Talreja (supra) and Rani Narasimha Sastry vs. Rani Suneela Rani (supra) are also not helpful to the appellant, as in those cases wife had launched criminal case against husband and family members levelling false allegations and had made reckless/indecent defamatory complaint against her husband, but in the instant case, nothing has been proved by the appellant / plaintiff in this regard. 17. Having considered the facts and evidence available on record, which has been discussed by learned trial Court in detail while dismissing the civil suit, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the judgment impugned warranting interference of this Court, hence the same is hereby affirmed. 18. Accordingly, the first appeal (M), being devoid of substance, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 19. A decree be drawn up accordingly. AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2025.06.19 10:31:59 +0530 Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge 8
Arguments
Mr. Ashok Kumar Shukla, Advocate. Mr. R.V. Rajwade, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi C A V Order 1. The appellant / husband has filed instant appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (henceforth, ‘Act, 1955’) against the impugned judgment & decree dated 14.03.2018 (Annexure A-1) passed by District Judge, Surajpur, District Surajpur (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 60-A/2015 (Vishvnath v. Smt. Anjani) whereby learned trial Court has dismissed the 2 civil suit filed by the appellant / plaintiff for grant of decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty. 2. Facts of the case, as projected by the appellant/plaintiff, is that his marriage was performed with respondent/defendant on 23.05.2000 as per Hindu customs and rituals and they have been blessed with two child. It is allegation of the husband / plaintiff that his wife/respondent frequently used to go her maternal place without informing him and she also used to wander with various persons and made physical relation with them. She used to allege husband that he did not satisfy her physically and threat him to implicate in dowry case. The husband has also alleged that the respondent/wife has got done Tubectomy (T.T.) operation without his consent. Social meeting was also convened for settling their dispute, despite that conduct of respondent / wife did not improve , therefore, husband filed civil suit seeking decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty. 3. Respondent / wife filed her written statement stating inter alia that She went for a tubectomy (TT) operation with her husband's aunt Tapeswari Rajwadi, who was a ‘Mitanin’, with the consent of her husband. appellant/husband used to doubt her character without any reason. She also runs grocery / hardware shop in their house, which was opened by husband himself. In the said shop, she used to deal with the customers with cheerful / jocular manner, therefore, husband used to doubte her character. She did not harass the husband in any count, rather he himself has illicit relation with other females. She has further pleaded that husband wants to perform second marriage, therefore, he has ousted her from her matrimonial house and levelled various false and baseless allegations against ther. 3 4. On the basis of pleading of both the parties, learned trial Court framed as many as four issues, recorded evidence adduced by both the parties and after considering the same, civil suit filed by the appellant/husband for decree of divorce, has been dismissed vide impugned judgment & decree, which has been challenged by the appellant/husband by filing instant first appeal. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant / plaintiff would submit that though respondent/wife is mother of two children of appellant, despite that she did not carry her chastity and has developed physical relation with various persons namely Mukhtar, Naderuddin and Nasiruddin @ Lallu. Even at once, appellant/husband had also found condom in her vagina. He further stated that several efforts were made to convince the wife and various social meeting were also convened, despite that there was no change in her behaviour. It is further submitted that instead of taking care of house & children, respondent/wife used to go her maternal place without consent or informing the appellant. Even she also underwent tubectomy operation without consent of husband. Thus, she (wife) mentally harassed the appellant on various counts and leaving apart from him since 2015, as such, there is an irretrievable breakdown in the marital life of both the parties, but learned trial Court without considering evidence adduced by the plaintiff/husband in its true perspective, has dismissed the civil suit, which is perverse and illegal, hence, he prayed that appeal may be allowed and decree may be granted in favour of appellant/husband. He placed reliance upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in the matter of K. Shrinivas Rao vs. D.A. Deepa 1 , K. Shrinivas vs. K. Sunita 2 , C. Sembiam 1 2 (2013) 5 SCC 226 (2014) 16 SCC 34 4 Sivakumar vs. V. Sivachitra Devi 3 , Raj Talreja vs. Kavita Talreja 4 and Rani Narasimha Sastry v. Rani Suneela Rani 5 in support of his submission. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent would submit that impugned judgment passed by learned trial Court is based on well appreciation of evidence, hence, it does not call for any interference by this Court. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of trial Court including judgment & decree of the trial Court. 8. Plaintiff/husband has sought decree of divorce mainly on the ground of cruelty meted out to him by respondent/wife. In this regard, he has stated in his deposition that without obtaining his permission, wife/defendant underwent Tubectomy operation, she also used to go her maternal place without his permission and also wanders with various persons namely Mukhtar, Naderuddin and Nasiruddin @ Lallu by making illicit physical relation with them. It has further been deposed by appellant/husband in his deposition that respondent / wife used to threat him to implicate in false cases and since June, 2015, she has left his company and residing at her parental place. 9. Aforesaid deposition of plaintiff – Vishwanath (PW-1) has also been supported by his witnesses namely Mohd. Musafir Ansari (PW-2) and Nanhi Ram (PW-3), but plaintiff Vishwanath (PW-1) on one hand he states that his wife has elicit relation with said persons but on the other hand he denied in his cross-examination that neither he known to Mukhtar, Naderuddin and 3 4 5 (2016) 16 SCC 545 (2017) 14 SCC 194 (2020) 18 SCC 247 5 Nasiruddin @ Lallu nor he has ever seen them. He has also admitted that neither he has seen his wife (defendant) with said persons nor he has seen or heard defendant in talking with those persons. He has also admitted that those persons have never threatened to kill him. Aforesaid admission of plaintiff – Vishwanath Rajwade (PW-1) shows that alleging chastity of defendant / wife is based on suspicion only, as has been stated by defendant – Smt. Anjai Rajwawade (DW-2) that her husband doubted her character, as she deal with the customer in her grocery shop with cheerful (jocular) manner. 10. Shivchand Ram (DW-3) & Sakal Ram (DW-4), who are also resident of village Unchdeeh, District Surajpur, have supported the deposition of defendant/wife stating that husband used to doubt character of his wife. The fact also get support from document (Ex.P-1), whereby copy of enquiry report submitted by Police Chowki Basdai, Thana Surajpur to Superintendent of Police, Surajpur, District Surajpur in respect of complaint made by plaintiff / husband against his defendant / wife, which was supplied to the plaintiff himself vide covering memo (Ex.P-1). In this enquiry report also, it has been reported that the plaintiff/husband not only doubted character of his wife, rather he used to quarrel in respect of trivial issues with her. Plaintiff – Vishwanath Rajwade (PW-1) has admitted in paragraph 24 of his cross-examination that except petty dispute, no quarrel had taken place between them. Though in examination-in-chief Mohd. Musafir Ansari (PW-2) and Nanhi Ram (PW-3) have supported the version of plaintiff, but in cross-examination, they have rebutted their substantive statement of examination-in-chief. 6 11. Though, plaintiff Vishwanath Rajwade (PW-1) has stated in his deposition that without his consent / permission, defendant / wife had undergone Tubectomy operation, but respondent/wife (DW-2) herself has stated that she underwent Tubectomy operation with the consent of her husband and she had gone for the said operation along with Tapeshwari Rajwade (DW-1) [ Mitanin], who is aunt of plaintiff. This fact has also been supported by Tapeshwari Rajwade (DW-1). 12. Though from the evidence adduced by both the parties, it is found that defendant/wife is living apart from her husband/plaintiff since 2015, but defendant – Smt. Anjani Rajwade has specifically deposed that since they have two children, therefore, she wanted to carry her marital life with the plaintiff/husband, but plaintiff himself is not interested in this regard.