1 2025:CGHC:10673-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FAM No. 13 of 2024 1 - Smt. Sunita Dewangan, W/o Shri Basant Kumar Dewangan, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Tree House Kamal Vihar, Pachpedi Naka, Through- (Miraj Construction) Rajesh Kumar Dewangan (Engineer), Raipur (C.G.) ... Appellant versus 1 - Basant Kumar Dewangan, S/o Shri Chandrika Prasad, Aged About 41 Years, R/o Ekta Nager, District Dhamtari (C.G.) ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Prem Shankar Dubey, Advocate For Respondent : Ms. Aditi Singhvi, Advocate Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Judgment on board Per Rajani Dubey, Judge 05.03.2025 1. The matter is listed today for orders on I.A. No. 01/2024, application for grant of stay. However, with the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2 2. The appeal filed under Section 19 (1) of Hindu Marriage Act has been filed by the appellant/ wife against the order dated 21.02.2024 passed by learned Family Court, Dhamtari (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 43-A/2022 whereby the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of CPC by the wife, has been rejected. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 11.02.2010 in accordance with Hindu rites and rituals in Raipur, Police Station- DD Nagar, Tehsil and District- Raipur (C.G.). After the marriage ceremony, the appellant/wife started living in her husband's house in village Salud, District Durg (Chhattisgarh) where they were living a happy life. After some time, the respondent and his family members became rude towards the appellant/wife. During this time, the respondent started living with the appellant in a rented house in Dhamtari district where he was employed. The respondent used to work in a poultry farm. Before marriage, he told her family members that he was the manager of the poultry farm and used to earn Rs. 30,000/- per month. But when she started living with the respondent in Dhamtari, she was informed by him that he works as a clerk in a poultry farm where his salary is Rs. 5,000/-. After some time, she got pregnant while living with the respondent. During her pregnancy, medical expenses and other expenses were being borne by her brother who works as a civil engineer in private construction work. Thereafter, she went to her parental home. Before the birth of the child, the respondent/husband had come to the appellant's maternal home with his mother and father to take her in the same condition, however he went back after being persuaded a lot. After the birth of the son, while the physical condition 3 of the appellant/wife was not good, the respondent/husband was talking about going back to Dhamtari. Looking at the physical condition, it was decided among the enlightened people of the society that after three months, the appellant/wife would go with her to her house, but before three months had passed, the respondent/husbnad, making various allegations, had submitted an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Family Court, District Dhamtari (C.G.) for restitution of conjugal rights. Without conducting a full hearing, he had submitted an application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Family Court, District Durg, which was rejected by the Family Court on 04.01.2016. Thereafter, under the application form submitted under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, till 17.06.2022, no information letter was sent by the respondent/husband regarding taking the appellant/wife with him, nor did he ever come to the house to take her, and in the meantime, he never came to see the child either. The appellant/wife has never refused to go to her in-laws' house and till date is trying to save her marital relationship. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant/wife submits that the respondent/husband filed application under Section 13(1-a)(1-b) of Hindu Marriage Act before the learned Family Court for decree of divorce. Before this application, the appellant/husband filed application which was registered as Civil Suit No. 99-A/2012 on same ground before learned Family Court which was rejected by learned Family Court on 04.01.2016 and now respondent/husband again filed application for divorce on same ground which is not maintainable. Therefore, the appellant/wife filed application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 of CPC for rejection of application of 4 plaintiff/husband on the ground of res judicata but the learned Family Court wrongly dismissed the application of the appellant/wife. The impugned order is arbitrary, illegal, bad in law as well as facts of the case. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be dismissed. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/husband supports the impugned order and submits that the learned trial Court minutely appreciated the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC and also after appreciating the arguments of both the parties and facts of previous and present case, dismissed the application of the appellant/wife. Therefore, the impugned order is well merited and do not call for any interference by this Court. 6. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. It is clear from the impugned order and record of learned trial Court that the appellant/husband filed application under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act on 02.05.2022 on the ground of cruelty and desertion. Appellant/wife filed application under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) read with Section 151 of CPC on the ground that previous application filed by the husband has already been dismissed by Family Court which was registered as Civil Suit No. 99-A/2012 and now husband filed application for divorce on same ground which is not maintainable. 8. Learned trial Court after hearing counsel for the parties, dismissed the application of the appellant/wife by impugned order. Operative paras of impugned order dated 21.02.2024 reads as under:- “09. ्ቚतिवातिनी की ओर से अपनी प्ቌ सेम्ቕनी म मनीनीय न्यय दृኋ᭘ ቦኍम शार शाम बनीम सेष शाम, 2007 (2) छቈኍसेगढ़ लॉ% जजमट 230 पशा तिकीय है), जिजसेम अजि+त्यजनी की आ+र पर तिवावाहै- तिवाच्छ चाहै 5 गय ्ቕ, तिवालॉब से तिवावाहै तिवाच्छ की यतिचाकी ्ቚस्1 तिकीय जनी की कीई स्पኋ᭘कीरण नीहै4 तिय गय ्ቕ- की वालॉ आवाकी की सेቌኚय की आ+र पर तिवावाहै तिवाघटनी की एकीप्ቌय तिनीणय एवा ति8ቅኍ तिवाचारण न्यय+शा ቛኋर परिर तिकीय गय वाहै गलॉ है)। पति की प्ቌ म परिर तिवावाहै तिवाघटनी की तिनीणय वा ति8ቅኍ की अपस् कीर तिय गय। इसे ्ቚकीरण म वा नी की1 ट1म्ब न्यययलॉ 1ग ቛኋर परिर आशा की ब ्ቚतिवातिनी की से्ቕ से1लॉहै ्ቕ म्पत्य जवानी से1चारू रूप से चालॉनी कीफी ्ቚयसे कीरनी ्ቕ तिवाफीलॉ हैनी की ब यहै ्ቚकीरण पशा कीरनी ब हैAय वा कीरण तिनीरर जर हैनी बय है), ऐसे ቝኌस््ቕति म उ्ሹ न्यय दृኋ᭘ की थ्य एवा परिरቝኌस््ቕतिय इसे ्ቚकीरण से तिG्ቐ हैनी से उ्ሹ न्यय दृኋ᭘ की लॉG ्ቚतिवातिनी की नीहै4 तिमलॉ है)। 10. फीलॉI उपर वातिण तिवावाचानी की आ+र पर वा नी ्ቚतिवातिनी ቛኋर ቅኍJ रपJण आचारण एवा अतिGत्यजनी है1 तिनी+रिर सेमयवाजि+ वाष की कीलॉवाजि+ से अतिGत्सेजनी की आ+र पर उतिचा वा कीरण की यहै ्ቚकीरण ्ቚस्1 तिकीय है), ज तिवाचारण की Lरनी से्ቇतिहै सेቌኚय से ग1णष की आ+र पर तिनीरकीरण तिकीय ज सेकी है) इसेजिलॉय इसे न्ययलॉय की म म आशा आशा 7 तिनीयम 11 (घ) जिसेतिवालॉ ्ቚतिቅኍय सेतिहै की अग वा प्ቔ की ग1णष पर तिवाचार तिकीय तिबनी वा तिनीरस् तिकीय जनी न्ययसेग ्ቚ नीहै4 हैनी ्ቕ वा की वा तिवाजि+ ቛኋर वाजिज नीहै4 हैनी से ्ቚतिवातिनी की ओर से पशा आवानी अग आशा 7 तिनीयम 11 (घ) जिसेतिवालॉ ्ቚतिቅኍय सेतिहै तिनीरस् तिकीय ज है)। 11. नी1सेर ्ቚतिवातिनी ቛኋर पशा आवानी अग आशा 7 तिनीयम 11 (घ) व्य.्ቚ.से. की तिनीरकीरण तिकीय ज है)।" 9. In view of above, it is clear from the impugned order that the learned trial Court rightly appreciated the provision contained under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC in accordance with the facts of the case and after 6 hearing the arguments of both the parties and considering the facts of previous case and present case, dismissed the application of appellant/wife. Hence, this Court finds that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is based on proper consideration of arguments of both the parties and need not be corrected. Hence, the appeal is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. The trial Court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial court concerned for compliance and necessary action. 11.Interlocutory application(s), if any, stands disposed of. Sd/- Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Judge Ruchi RUCHI YADAV Digitally signed by RUCHI YADAV