1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FA(MAT) No. 170 of 2024 Reserved on 18/07/2025 Delivered on 14/08/2025 1 - Smt. Shalu Dewangan W/o Shri Hemlal Dewangan Aged About 39 Years Resident Of C/o Jeevan Lal Dewangan Kanwar Para Ward No. 03, Near Bargad Ghat Cahmpa District Janjgir-Champa (Chhattisgarh) Pin - 495661,...(Plaintiff) ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Shri Hemlal Dewangan S/o Chattelal Dewangan Aged About 44 Years Resident Of Village Raksa Pali, Thana Bhupdevpur, Tehsil Kharsia, District Raigarh, (Chhattisgarh), Pin - 496661,...(Defendant) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ritesh Sharma, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manoj Kumar Jaiswal, Advocate (Division Bench) Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad C A V Order Per, Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J. 2 1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-wife being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Janjgir (C.G.) dated 09.04.2024 (Annexure A/1) in Civil Suit No.100-A/2022, whereby the Trial Court had dismissed the application of appellant-wife seeking divorce under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 2. In this case, it is an admitted fact that the marriage between both parties was solemnized on 05.05.2005 at Village Champa (Chhattisgarh) according to Hindu rites and rituals. It is also admitted that the appellant had filed a appeal under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 against the respondent- husband. However, the trial Court dismissed the said application stating that the appellant-wife has failed to prove the facts alleged by her. 3. Facts of the present case, in brief, is that the appellant has filed the instant appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 09/04/2024 (Annexure A/1), whereby the application preferred by the appellant under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking dissolution of marriage and grant of a decree of divorce, was dismissed by the learned Family Court, Janjgir. The appellant instituted the said petition before the Family Court on the ground that the marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnized on 05/05/2005 according to Hindu 3 rites and customs at Champa, Chhattisgarh. The parties cohabited as husband and wife for approximately 14 years, during which they were blessed with three children, namely two daughters and one son. Throughout the subsistence of the marriage, the appellant was subjected to continuous cruelty and mental harassment at the hands of the respondent. It is averred that the respondent habitually consumed alcohol and frequently physically assaulted the appellant. The respondent subjected the appellant to severe verbal abuse, accusing her of having an extramarital affair with her brother-in-law, criticizing her culinary skills, and alleging that her father had provided an inadequate dowry. 4. In addition, the respondent abused the appellant and her father using filthy and offensive language. Despite the appellant’s repeated complaints to her father and other family members, and counsel from elders, the respondent persisted in his abusive conduct. The appellant also lodged a complaint before the Dewangan Samaj, a local community forum, which admonished the respondent against repeating such acts of cruelty. Nevertheless, the respondent continued to physically assault the appellant. On 29/10/2019, in an attempt to seek protection, the appellant contacted the women’s helpline, following which police officials visited the matrimonial home. 4 5. At that time, the respondent was found intoxicated and verbally abused the appellant in the presence of the police. The respondent was arrested and taken to the police station. However, due to intervention by in-laws and members of the society urging reconciliation and offering the respondent a final chance, the appellant withdrew the complaint, and the respondent was released on that basis, as documented by the signatures of both parties in the police register. Further, on 10/12/2019, when the appellant requested the respondent to accompany her and their children to a local mela near Village Temar, Shakti, the respondent initially consented but subsequently refused, citing financial reasons, and again resorted to verbal abuse before leaving the matrimonial home. Subsequently, the appellant proceeded to the mela with her children. The respondent, intoxicated, followed them, verbally abused the appellant in public, questioned her character with allegations of infidelity, and declared, “I won’t keep you with me.” The appellant sought refuge at her sister Vandana Dewangan’s residence in Village Temar, who immediately informed the appellant’s father about the incident. Such conduct on the part of the respondent caused grave injury to the appellant’s reputation and dignity in the community and cannot be construed as ordinary matrimonial discord or trivial incidents. The continuous character assassination coupled with physical and mental cruelty amounted to grounds sufficient for seeking dissolution of 5 the marriage under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act. Subsequently, the appellant was forcibly removed from the matrimonial home and has been residing with her three minor children at her parental residence. The appellant started earning a meager livelihood through sewing work, barely able to sustain herself and her children. The respondent has neither visited nor made any effort to reconcile or bring back the appellant and the children to the matrimonial home. 6. The appellant formally filed the divorce petition on 02/07/2022 before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Janjgir, District Janjgir- Champa, seeking dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. During the initial hearings, up to 22/06/2023, the respondent was conspicuously absent. Upon court’s direction, the respondent acknowledged receipt of the summons and assured appearance on the subsequent date. The respondent filed his written reply on 13/09/2023. Thereafter, on 28/10/2023, the appellant examined herself and two other witnesses in support of her petition, whereas the respondent examined himself and one witness on 27/01/2024. Post- examination, the respondent again absented himself from Court despite repeated notices and calls, resulting in the learned Family Court proceeding ex parte against him and reserving judgment. The appellant’s pleadings and evidence detailed sustained physical and mental cruelty, including continuous 6 character defamation, verbal abuse, and forcible eviction from the matrimonial home, all of which remained unrefuted except by denial. No genuine effort at reconciliation was ever demonstrated by the respondent. However, notwithstanding the cogent and undisputed evidence placed on record, the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Janjgir, by the impugned judgment and decree dated 09/04/2024, dismissed the appellant’s application for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The dismissal of the petition is manifestly illegal, erroneous, and contrary to the settled principles of law governing matrimonial disputes, thus warranting interference by this Hon’ble appellate forum. Therefore, he has filed this instant divorce appeal. 7. In her written statement, the respondent-husband has denied all allegations except for the facts expressly admitted in the appellant-wife’s application. The appellant-husband contends that the appellant-wife and appellant-husband shared a cordial relationship following their marriage. The appellant-husband further states that, despite the couple having a son and a daughter, the appellant-wife became indifferent towards him and now seeks to dissolve the marriage. Therefore, this appeal is liable to be dismissed. 8. Learned Family Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence, the application for divorce filed by the present 7 appellant-husband under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, and the said application was dismissed by the trial Court. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant-wife submits that the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court is wholly erroneous, contrary to the settled principles of law. It is further contended that the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the appellant-wife in its proper legal perspective, resulting in a miscarriage of justice. The appellant-wife had placed on record sufficient evidence to establish that she was subjected to continuous mental and physical cruelty by the respondent-husband, compelling her to leave the matrimonial home. However, the Trial Court, without proper appreciation of this evidence, erroneously concluded that the appellant-wife had deserted the respondent-husband without sufficient cause. 10. It is further argued that the appellant-wife had specifically pleaded and deposed that the respondent-husband created a hostile and abusive atmosphere in the matrimonial home, and that such conduct by the respondent-husband drove her out of the shared household. The appellant-wife contends that the learned Trial Court failed to consider that a party cannot take advantage of his own wrong, and the respondent-husband’s conduct squarely falls within the ambit of "cruelty" under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Learned counsel for 8 the appellant-wife further pointed out that the Trial Court grossly erred in recording findings of cruelty against the petitioner herself, which are not supported by any credible evidence on record. It is submitted that the findings on Issues No.1 and 2 are perverse and unsustainable. It is also submitted that there was no effective cross-examination of the appellant-wife and her witnesses, as the respondent-husband failed to appear before the Trial Court during the crucial stages of trial. 11. Consequently, the appellant-wife’s evidence remained unchallenged and should have been given due weight. Moreover, it is argued that the appellant-wife and respondent- husband have been living separately for more than five years. During this period, the appellant-wife, left to fend for herself and her three children, suffered immense financial and emotional hardship. She was compelled to undertake menial work to support her family, and simultaneously, she faced social exclusion and ostracism from her community, particularly the Dewangan Samaj. These circumstances caused prolonged mental agony, thereby constituting cruelty in law. It is thus submitted that the matrimonial bond between the parties has irretrievably broken down and there exists no possibility of reconciliation. The petitioner is entitled to a decree of divorce, and the findings of the learned Trial Court deserve to be set aside. 9 12. To fortify his submissions, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-wife has placed reliance on several authoritative pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, including Vijay Kumar Ramchandra Bhate Vs. Neela Vijay Kumar Bhate 1 , Samar Ghosh Vs. Jaya Ghosh 2 and Shilpa Sailesh Vs. Varubn Sreenivasan 3 . 13. Learned counsel for appearing on behalf of the respondent- husband has categorically denied all allegations of cruelty and other claims made by the appellant, save and except those facts which are admitted as undisputed in the appellant’s application. He would further contends that immediately after solemnization of the marriage between the parties, a cordial and harmonious relationship subsisted between them. However, subsequent to the appellant establishing an acquaintance with a certain teacher from Village Naharpali, her attitude towards the respondent underwent a marked change, resulting in her reluctance to continue matrimonial cohabitation. 14. It is further stated by the respondent that after the birth of their two children, a son and a daughter, the appellant’s affection towards him diminished substantially, ultimately culminating in the appellant’s expressed desire to dissolve the marriage through a decree of divorce. Contrary to the appellant’s 1 AIR 2003 SC 2462 2 (2007) 4 SCC 511 3 (2023) SCC OnLine 544 10 allegations, the respondent asserts that he has never engaged in consumption of alcohol or exhibited any conduct amounting to cruelty or abuse. 15. The respondent emphatically denies any incident of physical or mental cruelty alleged by the appellant and avers that the so- called rift in the marriage arose on account of the appellant’s deliberate neglectful conduct. On returning to the matrimonial home, the respondent alleges that the appellant refused to provide him food and sustenance, choosing instead to prepare and consume meals separately, thereby sowing seeds of discord between the parties. 16. The respondent further submits that on several occasions, social gatherings were organized wherein both parties attended together, including two to three such meetings. Despite the appellant’s initial assurances regarding her attendance, she subsequently absented herself from the respondent’s parental home and ceased cohabitation with the respondent without any justifiable cause. 17. The appellant is stated to be engaged in gainful employment as a “funny maker,” earning a monthly income of approximately Rs. 20,000/-. She is presently residing separately in a rented accommodation at Champa. The respondent avers that despite his persistent and sincere efforts to reconcile the matrimonial 11 relationship and bring the appellant back to the matrimonial home, the appellant has stead fastly refused to return. It is the respondent’s earnest submission that he harbors no ill will and continues to desire amicable settlement of the dispute and reunion with the appellant and the children. However, the appellant’s unwillingness and refusal to resume matrimonial life have rendered such reconciliation impossible, thereby fracturing the marital relationship beyond repair. In light of the above facts and circumstances, the respondent prays that the instant application filed under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 by the appellant be dismissed with costs, as the appeal is bereft of merit and not maintainable in law. consequently, the Learned Family Court has rightly dismissed the application seeking divorce. 18. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 19. It is undisputed that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 05.05.2005 according to Hindu rites and customs at Champa, Chhattisgarh. The union has produced two daughters and one son. 20. The appellant-wife has alleged that she was subjected to cruelty by the husband, who repeatedly raised doubts about her chastity and subjected her to verbal abuse and physical assault. 12 On one occasion, both the wife and her father were assaulted by the husband while he was in a drunken state, resulting in serious injuries. On 10.12.2019, the appellant-wife was abused and assaulted by the husband on the grounds of suspected infidelity. Consequently, she was compelled to leave the matrimonial home and has since been residing separately. The husband has made no efforts to reconcile or bring her back. 21. While the appellant-husband denies the allegations of cruelty, he asserts that he made every effort to have his wife return to the matrimonial home, which was thwarted by her purportedly obstinate behavior. The appellant-wife, on the other hand, has specifically pleaded and substantiated the cruelty inflicted by the husband and has stood firm on this assertion during cross- examination. The respondent-husband has alleged in his evidence that the wife maintained an extramarital relationship with one ‘Raju Patel’ and neglected her marital duties due to this affair. 22. Although the husband filed evidence under Order 18 Rule 4 of the CPC, along with a witness named Bhagatram Satnami (DW- 02), neither was examined in-chief before the trial court, thereby precluding cross-examination. The allegations relating to the appellant-wife’s association with ‘Raju Patel’, including the FIR filed, were not supported by any cogent evidence. Importantly, an unsubstantiated suspicion cast on the wife’s chastity itself 13 amounts to mental cruelty under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (“the Act”). 23. The trial court failed to consider this crucial aspect and erroneously held that the appellant-wife had not proven cruelty. The application under Section 13 of the Act, on its face, does not expressly mention cruelty based on suspicion or doubt as to the wife’s character; however, the record shows otherwise. The appellant-wife explicitly averred doubt regarding her chastity in the application and confirmed this in cross-examination, maintaining her stance. The respondent-husband, through his affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 CPC, further confirmed these allegations. Therefore, this Court finds that the Family Court committed a legal error in concluding that cruelty was not established. 24. Accordingly, the Family Court erred in dismissing the appellant- wife’s petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty and gravely misdirected itself by holding that the appellant-wife failed to prove her case. This Court is satisfied that the respondent- husband committed cruelty by raising baseless doubts as to the appellant-wife’s character and chastity. 25. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the matter of Vishwanath Sitaram Agrawal Vs. Sau. Sarla Vishwanath Agrawal 4 , has 4 AIR 2012 Supreme Court 2586 14 held at paragraphs 39 and 40, which are reproduced herein below :- “39. At this stage, we may fruitfully reminisce a poignant passage from N.G. Dastane v. S. Dastane (1975) 3 SCR 967 : (AIR 1975 SC 1534) wherein Chandrachud, J. (as his Lordship then was) observed thus: - “The court has to deal, not with an ideal husband and an ideal wife (assuming any such exist) but with the particular man and woman before it. The ideal couple or a near- ideal one will probably have no occasion to go to a matrimonial court for, even if they may not be able to drown their differences, their ideal attitudes may help them overlook or gloss over mutual faults and failures” 40. Regard being had to the aforesaid, we have to evaluate the instances. In our considered opinion, a normal reasonable man is bound to feel the sting and the pungency. The conduct and circumstances make it graphically clear that the respondent-wife had really humiliated him and caused mental cruelty. Her conduct clearly exposits that it has resulted in causing agony and anguish in the mind of the husband.She had publicised in the newspapers that he was a womaniser and a drunkard. She had made wild allegations about his character. She had made an effort to prosecute him in criminal litigations which she had failed to prove. The feeling of deep anguish, disappointment, agony and frustration of the husband is obvious. It can be stated with certitude that the cumulative effect of the evidence brought on record clearly establish a sustained attitude of causing humiliation and calculated torture on the part of the wife to make the life of the husband miserable. The husband felt humiliated both in private and public life. Indubitably, it created a dent in his reputation 15 which is not only the salt of life, but also the purest treasure and the most precious perfume of life. It is extremely delicate and a cherished value this side of the grave. It is a revenue generator for the present as well as for the posterity. Thus analysed, it would not be out of place to state that his brain and the bones must have felt the chill of humiliation. The dreams sweetly grafted with sanguine fondness with the passage of time reached the Everstine disaster, possibly, with a vow not to melt. The cathartic effect looked like a distant mirage. The cruel behaviour of the wife has frozen the emotions and snuffed out the bright candle of feeling of the husband because he has been treated as an unperson. Thus, analysed, it is abundantly clear that with this mental pain, agony and suffering, the husband cannot be asked to put up with the conduct of the wife and to continue to live with her. Therefore, he is entitled to a decree for divorce.” 26. Further, in the case of Shyamveer Vs. Renu 5 decided by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi, the observations made in paragraphs 25, 36, and 38 are pertinent and are reproduced hereinunder for ready reference :- “25. The learned Judge, Family Court extensively considered the dence of both the parties and concluded that the appellant had made serious allegations against the character of the respondent; so much so, he even declined the parentage of his two children and admitted in his evidence that he did not want to reside with the children. The appellant made false claim of adultery, which was not supported by any evidence whatsoever. 5 2024 SCC OnLine Del 2982 16 36. Finally, it is pertinent to observe that the appellant has Onsistently and persistently, adamantly raised doubts about the character of the respondent and has made unsubstantiated and reprehensible allegations against the character of the respondent and has asserted that she was having illicit relationship not only with one Mr. T (whom he had at some places claimed to be the brother-in-law of the respondent) but also with many other persons. He, however, admits in his cross-examination that he had never seen the respondent with any person in an objectionable condition. 38. These false and completely unsubstantiated accusations of the appellant did not stop him in even blatantly denying the parentage of his own son and daughter when he deposed in his cross- examination that "I have no faith that the children belong to me". Such deplorable allegations and repudiation of the matrimonial bond and refusal to accept the children, who are innocent victims in the vile allegations made by the appellant, is nothing but the act of mental cruelty of the gravest kind.” 27. In view of the foregoing, this Court holds that the appellant-wife has successfully established grounds for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Consequently, the findings of the Family Court are unsustainable and must be set aside. 28. Resultantly, the appeal is allowed, and the impugned order is hereby quashed and set aside. The marriage solemnized between the parties on 05.05.2005 stands dissolved by a decree of divorce. 17 29. Each party shall bear their own costs. Decree be drawn accordingly. Sd/- Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Judge Saxena ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA