1 - Amarprit Singh Malhotra, S/o Shri Avtar Singh Malhotra, Aged About 34 Years v. 1
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:33699-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Judgment reserved on: 30.04.2025 Judgment delivered on: 17.07.2025 FAM No. 230 of 2018 1 - Amarprit Singh Malhotra, S/o Shri Avtar Singh Malhotra, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Behind Gurudwara, Station Road, Mahasamund Tahsil and District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1 - Smt. Manprit Kaur @ Rashmi, W/o Amarprit Singh Malhotra, Aged About 31 Years, D/o Shri Uttam Singh Tuteja, R/o Behind Sai Mandir, Ward No. 14, Pithora, Tahsil Pithora, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellant For Respondent(s) : : Mr. P.K. Patel, Advocate Ms. Sharmila Singhai Sr. Advocate with Ms. Shivali Bansal and Ms. Kanchan Kalwani, Advocate Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput CAV Judgment Per Rajani Dubey, J. 2 1. The appeal has been filed by the appellant/husband against the judgment and decree dated 05.09.2018 passed by learned Family Court, Mahasamund (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 13-A/2017 whereby the application filed under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 by the appellant/husband seeking decree of divorce, was dismissed. The parties to this appeal shall be referred herein as per their description before the learned Family Court.
Legal Reasoning
2. Before the learned trial Court, it is an admitted fact that the marriage of the plaintiff and the defendant was solemnized on 29.11.2007 in Mahasamund, according to Hindu rites and rituals. From their wedlock, two daughters namely Satwindar Kaur aged about 08 years and Awani Malhotra aged about 02 years were born. 3. Plaintiff/husband filed the application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking decree of divorce before the learned trial Court on the ground that within a month of marriage, the defendant started pressuring the plaintiff to live separately from his family and started arguing and mentally harassing the plaintiff and his parents. The plaintiff tried to explain the defendant that he is the support of his aged parents and cannot leave them alone, but the defendant did not understand and she remained adamant on her stubbornness and kept arguing with the plaintiff and his parents. The plaintiff kept tolerating it but there was no change in the defendant's behavior and she started mentally harassing the plaintiff and his family. The plaintiff complained about the said harassment to the parents of the defendant, but the parents of the defendant advised the plaintiff to live separately from his parents. A social meeting was conducted by the plaintiff regarding the cruel behavior of the defendant towards the plaintiff and his family 3 members, in which the plaintiff and the family members of the defendant were present. In the said meeting, the defendant was advised to live in a joint family with the plaintiff and to take care of him but the defendant and her family did not listen the same and they walked out of the said social meeting and left the said social meeting. It is further pleaded by the plaintiff/husband that plaintiff runs business in Raipur and is responsible towards his family but the defendant is not ready to discharge her responsibility. The defendant has attempted to commit suicide twice without any reason, which was complained by the plaintiff before the Superintendent of Police, Mahasamund. The defendant has been living separately from the plaintiff for about one and a half years. The plaintiff tried to convince the defendant several times but she does not want to follow her duty or obligation. Hence, a request was made to declare the marriage of both the parties dissolved. 4. In her written statement, the respondent/wife, apart from admitting the undisputed facts, has denied the allegations and stated that she has been performing her family and moral duties with full devotion and dedication since marriage whereas the respondent has been harassed by the plaintiff and his family members. The respondent has two small daughters. She is tolerating the harassment of the plaintiff and his family members, she has never attempted suicide. The plaintiff and his family members harassed the respondent without any reason. The respondent wants to live together. After the birth of the second daughter of the respondent, behaviour of the plaintiff, his parents and his brother became rude towards her. The defendant/wife went to her maternal house on 25.12.2016 with the permission of her in-laws and 4 when she returned on 02.01.2017, she was beaten up by the plaintiff, his parents and brother and was not allowed to enter the house. Thereafter, on 29/03/2017, when the defendant/wife again came to the house of the plaintiff/husband, she was beaten up by the plaintiff in the night and the same night, the defendant's father-in-law left her at her maternal house. The defendant/wife wants to live in a joint family with the plaintiff/husband and his parents, but the defendant's in-laws have ousted her of their house without any reason and have falsely accused her of seeking divorce. Therefore, it is requested to dismiss the suit filed by the plaintiff. 5. On the basis of pleadings made by both the parties, learned trial Court framed the issues and after appreciating oral and documentary evidence, by its judgment and decree dated 05.09.2018, dismissed the application filed by the plaintiff/husband. Hence, this appeal.
Legal Reasoning
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned family Court are contrary to the facts and evidence on record. Learned trial Court overlooked the fact that after marriage, the respondent tortured and harassed the appellant and deserted him without any reasons. Learned trial Court failed to consider that from their wedlock, two daughters were born and the appellant is living with his minor daughters. Learned trial Court has failed to consider that the respondent has refused to live with the appellant and is living separately from him. Learned trial Court has failed to consider that the appellant tried to bring the respondent back for which, he conducted several social meetings but she refused to reside with him. Therefore, the husband has filed suit seeking decree of divorce. 5 Reliance has been placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Suman Kapur Vs. Sudhir Kapur passed in Civil Appeal No. 6582 of 2008 decided on 07.11.2008 and this Court’s judgment dated 13.03.2024 passed in FA(MAT) No. 61 of 2021 in the matter of Smt. Rashmi Kashyap Vs. Hemant Kumar Kashyap. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/wife supports the impugned judgment and decree and submits that the learned trial Court minutely appreciated oral and documentary evidence and rightly passed the judgment and decree in favour of the wife, therefore, no interference is required to be called for by this Court and this appeal is liable to be dismissed. 8. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. 9. It is not disputed in this case that marriage between the parties was solemnized on 29.11.2007, according to Hindu rites and rituals at Mahasamund and from their wedlock, two daughters were born. 10. On the basis of pleadings of both the parties, learned Family Court framed the following issues which read as under:- ्ቅाሰ(cid:3)(cid:4)क वा(cid:3)द्ቚश्न निनष्क्ቧ(cid:14) 1. क्या(cid:3) वा(cid:3)द(cid:17) से(cid:19) निवावा(cid:3)ह क(cid:19) पश्चा(cid:3)त्(cid:24) ्ቚनित्वा(cid:3)निदन(cid:17) न(cid:19) ्ቚाሰ(cid:3)नि(cid:30)त् नह(cid:31)" " वा(cid:3)द(cid:17) क(cid:19) से(cid:3)थ ्ቅ(cid:26) रत्(cid:3) क(cid:3) व्यावाह(cid:3)र निकया(cid:3) ह(cid:29) ? 2. क्या(cid:3) उ्ሹ आधा(cid:3)र पर उभयाप्ቌ क(cid:3) निवावा(cid:3)ह "नह(cid:31)" निवाघनि’त् घ(नि्ቧत् निकया(cid:19) जा(cid:3)न(cid:19) या(ग्या ह(cid:29) ? 3. सेह(cid:3)यात्(cid:3) एवा(cid:4) वा(cid:3)द व्याया ? क(cid:4) नि,क(cid:3) 29 " क(cid:19) अन.से(cid:3)र" 11. Appellant/husband (P.W.-1) stated that the defendant attempted to commit suicide and he also filed copy of complain letter to SP 6 Mahasamund vide Ex.P/1 and copy of crime information vide Ex.P/2 in this regard. She is living separately since 2016. In the year, a social meeting was held in which, the defendant/wife and her family demanded Rs. 30 lacs for divorce. 12. Mother of the plaintiff/appellant- Surindar Kaur (P.W.-2) also supported the statement of appellant/husband and stated that after one month of marriage, behaviour of defendant was changed. Further, she stated that her son Balvinder Singh lodged a report regarding the defendant throwing her off the wheelchair. She also stated that the defendant attempted to commit suicide once or twice. 13.Housemaid of the appellant- Deepa Manjhi (P.W.-3) also supported the case of husband and stated that she had told the plaintiff that the defendant had pushed his mother and made her fall from the wheelchair. She further stated that the defendant attempted to commit suicide by hanging herself. In para 11, she stated that, “ जाब ाሰ.झे(cid:19) वा(cid:3)द(cid:17) क(cid:19) घर क(cid:3)ाሰ करत्(cid:19) ह1ए ,(cid:19)ढ़ से(cid:3)ल ह( गया(cid:19) थ(cid:19). त्ब ्ቚनिवात्(cid:3)निदन(cid:17) अपन(cid:19) बच्चा(cid:19) क( ल(cid:19)कर अपन(cid:19) काሰर(cid:19) ाሰ6 जा(cid:3) रह(cid:17) थ(cid:17), त्ब ाሰ7न(cid:19) प(cid:26)छा(cid:3) थ(cid:3) निक बच्चा(cid:19) क( काሰर(cid:19) ाሰ6 क्या(cid:26) ल(cid:19) जा(cid:3) रह(cid:17) ह(cid:29), ऐसे(cid:3) कह(cid:3) त्ब त्क ्ቚनित्वा(cid:3)निदन(cid:17) अपन(cid:19) काሰर(cid:19) ाሰ6 पह1 (cid:4)चा गई थ(cid:17), त्ब ्ቚनित्वा(cid:3)निदन(cid:17) अपन(cid:19) काሰर(cid:19) ाሰ6 प(cid:4)खे(cid:19) ाሰ6 अपन(cid:17) चा.नर(cid:17) ल’क(cid:3) रह(cid:17) थ(cid:17) त्ब ाሰ7 निचाቤኋ(cid:3)ई, त्ब बलनिवा(cid:4)दर और उसेक(cid:19) निपत्(cid:3) ्ቚनित्वा(cid:3)निदन(cid:17) क(cid:19) काሰर(cid:19) क(cid:19) से(cid:3)ाሰन(cid:19) आया(cid:19) और ्ቚनित्वा(cid:3)निदन(cid:17) क(cid:19) काሰर(cid:19) क(cid:19) दरवा(cid:3)जा(cid:3) त्(ड़ निदया(cid:19)। ्ቚनित्वा(cid:3)निदन(cid:17) ቛኋ(cid:3)र(cid:3) प(cid:4)खे(cid:19) से(cid:19) ल’करकर आत्ाሰहत्या(cid:3) करन(cid:19) क(cid:19) ्ቚया(cid:3)से क(cid:19) से(cid:4)ब(cid:4)धा ाሰ6 ब(cid:3)द(cid:17) क(cid:19) छा(’(cid:19) भ(cid:3)ई बलनिवा(cid:4)दर िሺसे(cid:4)ह न(cid:19) थ(cid:3)न(cid:3) ाሰह(cid:3)सेाሰ.न्द ाሰ6 निDक(cid:3)यात् कE थ(cid:17), इसेकE ाሰ.झे(cid:19) जा(cid:3)नक(cid:3)र(cid:17) ह(cid:29)। ” 14. Defendant- Manprit Kaur (D.W.-1) admitted in para 15 that she used filthy language against her in-laws. She voluntarily stated that the plaintiff had taught her the said abusive language. 7 In para 16, she admitted that she had two daughters aged about 9 years and 3 years. Both daughters are living with the appellant/husband. She further admitted that she did not make any effort to keep her milk-fed daughter with her. She voluntarily stated that as she does not have a home, therefore, she did not make such efforts. She admitted that social meetings were held between them to resolve the dispute. She denied this suggestion that she demanded Rs. 30 lacs for divorce. She voluntarily stated that the people of the society had talked about getting her thirty lakh rupees from the plaintiff for the divorce. She admitted that she and her family members left the meeting in the middle. It is also an admitted fact by the defendant that on 06.05.2017, she went to her matrimonial home. She denied that she pushed off her mother-in-law and made her fall from the wheelchair. On 06.05.2017, she lodged the report (Ex.D/2) against only her father-in- law and brother-in-law and not against her husband. 15. Thus, it is clear from the statement of respondent/wife that she left the matrimonial home when her daughter was very little. Housemaid Deepa Manjhi (P.W.-3) also supported the version of the appellant/husband that the respondent/ wife attempted to commit suicide and to substantiate the said fact, the appellant/husband has filed the complain letters vide Ex.P/1 and P/2. 16. Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Suman Kapur (supra) held in paras 30 and 31 as under:- 30. Mental cruelty has also been examined by this Court in Parveen Mehta v. Inderjit Mehta (2002) 5 SCC 706 thus; "Cruelty for the purpose of Section 13 (1) (ia) is to be taken as a behavior by one spouse towards the other, which 8 causes reasonable apprehension in the mind of the latter that it is not safe for him or her matrimonial to continue the relationship with the other. Mental Cruelty is a state of mind and feeling with one spouses due to behavioral pattern of the behavior by the or the other. Unlike the case of physical cruelty, mental cruelty is difficult to establish by direct evidence. It is necessarily a matter of inference to be drawn from the facts and circumstances of the case. A feeling of anguish, disappointment and frustration in one spouse caused by the conduct of the other can only be appreciated on assessing the attending facts and circumstances in which the two partners of matrimonial life have been living. The inference has to be drawn from the attending facts and circumstances taken cumulatively. In case of mental cruelty it will not be a correct approach to take an instance of misbehavior in isolation and then pose the question whether such behavior is sufficient by itself to cause mental should be to cruelty. The approach take the cumulative effect of the facts and circumstances emerging from the evidence on record and then draw a fair inference whether the petitioner in the divorce petition has been subjected to mental cruelty due to conduct of the other. "31. In A. Jayachandra v. Aneel Kaur, (2005) 2 SCC 22, the Court observed as under: "The expression "cruelty" has not been defined in the Act. Cruelty can be physical or mental. Cruelty which is a ground for dissolution of marriage may be defined as wilful and 9 unjustifiable conduct of such character as to cause danger to life, limb or health, bodily or mental, or as to give rise to a reasonable apprehension of such a danger. The question of mental cruelty has to be considered in the light of the norms of marital ties of the particular society to which the parties belong, their social values, status, environment in which they live. Cruelty, as noted above, includes mental cruelty, which falls within the purview of a matrimonial wrong. Cruelty need not be physical. If from the conduct of the spouse, same is established and/or an inference can be legitimately drawn that the treatment of the spouse is such that it causes an apprehension in the mind of the other spouse, about his or her mental welfare then this conduct delicate amounts human one matrimony, to cruelty. relationship has to see In a like the probabilities of the case. The concept proof beyond the shadow of doubt, is to be applied to criminal trials and not to civil matters and certainly not to matters of such delicate personal relationship as those of husband and wife. Therefore, one has to see what are the probabilities in a case and legal cruelty has to be found out, not merely as a matter of fact, but as the effect on the mind of the complainant spouse because of the acts-or omissions of the other. Cruelty may be physical or corporeal or may be mental. In physical cruelty, there can be tangible and direct evidence, but in the case of mental cruelty there may not at the same time be direct evidence. In cases where there is no direct evidence, 10 Courts are required to probe into the mental process and mental effect of incidents that are brought out in evidence. It is in this view that one has to consider the evidence in matrimonial dispute." 17. Further, this Court in the matter of Smt. Rashmi Kashyap (supra) held in paras 11 and 12 as under:- 11. In the matter of V. Bhagat vs. D. Bhagat (Mrs.) reported in (1994) 1 SCC 337, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the Supreme Court held that mental cruelty in Section 13(1) (i-a) can broadly be defined as that conduct which inflicts upon the other party such mental pain and suffering as would make it not possible for that party to live with the Court of other misus other words, mental cruelty must be of such a nature that the parties cannot reasonably be expected to live together. The situation up with such conduct and continue to live with the other party. It is not necessary to prove that the mental cruelty is such as to cause injury to the health of the petitioner. While arriving at such conclusion, regard must be had to the social status, educational level of the parties, the society they move in, the possibility or otherwise of the parties ever living together in case they are already living apart and all other relevant facts and circumstances which it is neither possible nor desirable to set out exhaustively. What is cruelty in one case may not amount to cruelty in another case. It is a matter to be determined in each case having regard to the facts and circumstances of that case. If it is a case of 11 accusations and allegations, regard must also be had to the context in which they were made. 12. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of K.Srinivasa Rao Vs. D.A. Deepa reported in (2013) 5 SCC 226 held at paragraphs 30 and 31, which read as under: "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 Ved 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 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.” 18. In light of above, in the present case, it is also quite vivid from the evidence of respondent/wife that she used abusive language against 12 her in-laws. Upon perusal of the evidence of mother of the appellant- Surindar Kaur (P.W.-2) and housemaid- Deepa Manjhi (P.W.-3), it is clear that the respondent/wife attempted to commit suicide. It is further evident from the face of record that the respondent/wife left her two daughters in the matrimonial home and never made efforts to get them back with her and they are still living with the appellant/husband. Respondent/wife also admitted that she is living separately since 2016 from her husband/appellant. 19.Further, in the instant case, it is established that the wife is residing separately from the husband without any sufficient cause and it is an admitted fact in this case that she demanded a sum of Rs.30 lacs from the appellant for divorce. Thus, it is proved that the respondent/wife has committed cruelty against the appellant/husband and appellant/husband has been able to prove his case against the respondent/wife. However, the learned trial Court did not appreciate all these facts and dismissed the application filed by the appellant/husband for decree of divorce. Thus, the findings recorded by the learned trial Court are not based on proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence and are liable to be set aside. 20. Looking to the above discussion, the findings given by the learned Family court are not based on proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence nor according to law. Hence, the impugned judgment dated 05.09.2018 deserves to be and is hereby set-aside. The marriage solemnized between the parties on 29.11.2007 shall stand dissolved by a decree of divorce. 21. Now coming to the grant of alimony to the respondent/wife, considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the fact that 13 the respondent-wife is the legally wedded wife of the appellant-
Decision
husband, looking to the present day cost of living, we direct that the appellant-husband to pay an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lacs Only) within a period of two months as permanent alimony to the respondent/wife. 22. In the result, the appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. 23. Let a decree be drawn up accordingly. Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) Judge Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Ruchi RUCHI YADAV Digitally signed by RUCHI YADAV