1 2025:CGHC:3149-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FA(MAT) No.74 of 2022 Judgment reserved on : 09.12.2024 Judgment delivered on : 17.01.2025 1 - Smt. Hemlata Sahu W/o Churaman Sahu, Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Pandri Pathra, Tahsil Chhuriya, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh Appellant versus 1 - Churaman Sahu (Constable) S/o Shri Kartikram Sahu, Aged About 40 Years, Permanent Address- Village Pandri Pathra, Tahsil Chhuriya, District Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh) at Present R/o Thana Salhewara, Tahsil Chhuikhadan, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Anirudh Shrivastava, Advocate on behalf of Mr. S. S. Baghel, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Hon’ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru C A V Judgment Per Rajani Dubey J. 1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment and decree dated 11.10.2021 passed by the learned Family Court, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in Civil Suit No.134-A/2013, Digitally signed by RAMAKANT NIRALA 2 whereby the respondent’s application seeking divorce has been allowed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the marriage of appellant and respondent was solemnized on 27.04.2012. The respondent filed a petition under Section 13(1) of Hindu Marriage Act for grant of decree of divorce before the learned Family Court, Rajnandgaon, stating therein that after marriage, the respondent came to know that the appellant used to talk with other person through mobile and on being asked, she stated that she used to talk with her parental family members, but on enquiry, the respondent came to know that the appellant is having relation with other person and she admitted that she is having relation with other persons. The respondent asked for divorce, but the appellant refused to give divorce to the respondent, therefore he filed petition for decree of divorce, thereafter he filed application for divorce before the learned Family Court, in which the appellant filed her written statement and denied the allegations except the admitted fact and submitted that the respondent is already married person and a daughter has been born from the wedlock of respondent and his first wife. The respondent has not obtained divorce from his first wife and performed marriage with the appellant by suppressing the said fact. The respondent wants to live with his first wife and children, therefore he is making allegations against the appellant and doubting upon the character of appellant to somehow get divorce from the appellant. On the basis of 3 pleadings of parties and evidence available on record, the learned Family Court dissolved the marriage between the parties. Hence the present appeal has been filed by the appellant wife. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned judgment and decree is erroneous in law and facts both and the same is liable to be set aside. The learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the appellant is ever ready and willing to live with the respondent and she does not want to dessert the respondent and she wants to perform the matrimonial obligations. The learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the respondent has not made effort to take back the appellant in her matrimonial house, which itself indicated that the respondent somehow wants to dissolve the marriage. The learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the respondent wants to live with his first wife and children, therefore he is making allegations against the appellant and doubting upon her character to somehow get divorce from the appellant. The learned Family Court has committed serious error of law in not allowing permanent alimony in favour of the appellant. Therefore, the impugned judgment deserves to be set aside. Reliance has been placed on the judgment passed by the High Court of Madras dated 30.10.2024 passed in CRP (MD) No.2362/2024 and another connected case in the matter of R. vs B. and another. 4 4. Learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned judgment and decree 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 passed the decree of divorce in favour of the respondent. The judgment is well merited and does not call for any interference. Reliance has been placed on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of K. Srinivas Rao vs D. A. Deepa, reported in (2013) 5 SCC 226 and this Court’s order dated 18.08.2022 passed in FAM No.8/2020 in the matter of Smt. Nalini Mishra vs Surendra Kumar Patel. 5. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material available on record. 6. It is not disputed before the learned Trial Court that the marriage was solemnized between the parties on 27.04.2012 according to Hindu rituals and customs and they have no children and in the year 2012, they separated to each other. 7. The learned Family Court framed following important issues on the basis of pleadings of the parties:- okn iz’u fu"d"kZ 1 D;k izfrokfnuh us oknh ds lkFk fookg ds mijkar fookg ds iwoZ nks O;fDr;ksa ds lkFk laca/k gksus ds rF; dks Lohdkj dj ekufld Øqjrk dkfjr dh \ ^^izekf.kr^^ 2 D;k oknh izfrokfnuh ds lkFk fnukad 27-04-2012 dks laiUu gq, fookg dks foPNsfnr dj fookg foPNsn dh vkKfIr izkIr ^^gkWa ^^ 5 djus dk vf/kdkjh gS \ 3 D;k oknh Lo;a izfrokfnuh ds lkFk nkaiR; thou dk fuokZg u dj rykd gsrq ncko Mky jgk gS \ ^^izekf.kr ugh ^^ 4 vU; lgk;rk ,oa okn O;; \ ^^dafMdk 23 ds vuqlkj ^^ After appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, the learned Family Court found that the appellant wife committed cruelty upon the respondent husband and he is entitled for decree of divorce. It was also held that the appellant wife has failed to prove that the respondent husband is pressurizing her for divorce. 8. Before the learned Family Court, the respondent husband examined himself and one witness Man Das Sahu and the appellant wife also examined herself and one witness Jivan Lal Sahu. 9. The respondent husband Churaman Sahu stated in his examination-in-chief that his wife was talking on mobile phone with some other person. The letter written by her is Ex-P/1, CD of mobile recording is Article-1 and memo record isArticle-2, whereas whatsapp chats are Ex-P/3 to Ex-P/7. He also stated that the wife had filed application under Section 125 of CrPC and her statement is Ex-P/9 in that case. In cross-examination, he stated that his first wife ran away with another person and out of their wedlock, one daughter was born and she, aged about 14 years, is residing with her mother. He further stated that 6 marriage with the appellant wife was solemnized in the year 2012 and he got called one village meeting regarding talking of his wife with another person on mobile phone. He admitted this fact that he inserted memory card without her knowledge and recorded her conversation. He also admitted that all whatsapp chats are from his mobile and he himself stated that he forwarded the same to his mobile from wife’s mobile. 10. Man Das Sahu supported the case of the respondent husband and stated that the respondent had told him that the appellant does obscene talk with someone on mobile phone and on 11.06.2013, a meeting was called in this regard and the appellant wife accepted admitted the fact of her recording. In the meeting, Hemlata’s big father and Chura Man’s brothers were present. The appellant denied all allegations of appellant but she admitted that she wrote Ex-P/1 letter to her husband and she admitted signatures on A to A part. She also admitted that in Ex-P/1, she used abusive language and she herself stated that because of anger she has written the said letter. She denied her statement in the deposition sheet (Ex-P/10). She also admitted this suggestion that she sells ayurvedic medicine and earns Rs.1000-2000/- per month. The witness of respondent Jivan Lal Sahu (NAW-1) stated that respondent husband left her wife. In cross-examination, he admitted that he does not know about their dispute and he did not trying to find the solution of the dispute. 7 11. The respondent wife admitted that she wrote letter (Ex-P/1) and she also admitted that in this letter, she used abusive language and she self stated that because of anger, she did that. Ex-P/10 is the deposition sheet of appellant wife and in this deposition sheet, she stated that she used to talk with some other boy on mobile phone. In her affidavit, the appellant wife alleged that the respondent husband has relation with his first wife and he pressurized the appellant wife for divorce. The learned Trial Court also minutely appreciated the oral and documentary evidence available on record. 12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of (2013) 5 SCC 22 held in paras 29 & 30 as under:- “29. In our opinion, the High Court wrongly held that because the appellant-husband and the respondent- wife did not stay together there is no question of the parties causing cruelty to each other. Staying together under the same roof is not a pre-condition for mental cruelty. Spouse can cause mental cruelty by his or her conduct even while he or she is not staying under the same roof. In a given case, while staying away, a spouse can cause mental cruelty to the other spouse by sending vulgar and defamatory letters or notices or filing complaints containing indecent allegations or by initiating number of judicial proceedings making the other spouse’s life miserable. This is what has happened in this case. 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, if we refuse to sever the tie, it may lead to mental cruelty.” 8 13. This Court in Smt. Nalini Mishra (supra) held in para 14 as under:- “14. In a matter of extra marital affair allegation, the Hon'ble Supreme Court dealing with the said issue in the matter of Narendra Vs. K. Meena, reported in AIR 2016 SC 4599 redirected the view taken in the matter of Vijay kumar Ramchandra Bhate V. Neela Vijay kumar Bhate, reported in AIR 2003 SC 2462 and held that when the assassination of character is made by either of the parties it would constitute a mental cruelty for which a claim for divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 would be sustainable. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held thus at para 13 : 13.....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 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 statement or suggested in the course of examination and by way 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 the reformulated concept of cruelty in matrimonial law causing profound and lasting disruption and driving the wife to feel deeply hurt and reasonably apprehend that it would be dangerous for her to live with a husband who was taunting her like that and rendered the maintenance of matrimonial home impossible.” 14. In light of the above, it is clear that the appellant wife alleged that her husband pressurized her for divorce and also admitted that they are living separately since 2012. In Ex-P/1, she used 9 abusive language for her husband and also in Ex-P/10, statement under Section 125 of CrPC proceedings, she admitted suggestions of her husband, which shows that she is in relation with another person. The learned Trial Court also minutely appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and found that the wife committed cruelty upon her husband thereby granted decree of divorce in favour of the respondent husband. We are also of the opinion that wife committed cruelty upon her husband, as such the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court in Issue Nos.1 to 3 are based on proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, which is neither perverse nor contrary to the record, as such the same does not call for any interference by this Court. 15. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. 16. As regards permanent alimony, it is clear that the respondent is working as constable and wife stated that her earning is only Rs.1000-2000/- per month, as such looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to award Rs.5 Lakh as permanent alimony to the appellant wife, which shall be paid by the respondent husband within 3 months from the date of this order. 17. A decree be drawn accordingly. Sd/- Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Judge Nirala