1 Reserved on 13/01/2025 Delivered on 25/03/2025 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FA(MAT) No. 10 of 2023 1 - Madhu Prema Tirkey W/o Ramkumar Chouhan Aged About 40 Years Caste - Uranw, Occupation - Government Service, R/o Village And Tahsil Farsabahar, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh, At Present Address - Government Higher Secondary School Pandripani, Tahsil Farsabahar, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1 - Ramkumar Chouhan S/o Jaldheer Ram Chouhan Aged About 43 Years Caste - Cheek, Occupation - Government Service, R/o Farsabahar, Tahsil Farsabahar, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Ratnesh Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent : None. DB: (Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput) C A V Judgment Per, Sachin Singh Rajput, J. 1. In this appeal the parties shall be known as appellant/wife and the respondent/husband. 2. This appeal has been filed by the appellant/wife under Section 19 (1) of the Family Court Act, 1984 (in short ‘Act of 1984’) read with Section 39 of Special Marriage Act, 1954 (in short ‘Act of 1954’) being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 13.12.2022 passed by the Judge, Family Court Jashpur, District Jashpur (herein after referred as ‘Family Court’) C.G. in Civil Suit 2 No.10-A/2019 (Ramkumar Chouhan Vs. Madhu Prema Tirkey) by which the learned family Court has granted a decree of divorce terminating the marriage solemnized between the appellant/wife and respondent/husband on 15.09.2006 and as a result of which the same stood dissolved w.e.f. 13.12.2022. 3. Facts of the present case in nutshell are that, an application was filed by the respondent/husband under Section 27 of Act of 1954 read with Section 10 of Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (in short ‘Act of 1869’) for dissolution of marriage solemnized between the appellant/wife and respondent/husband on 15.09.2006 in Ambetikara Temple situated at District Raigarh. As per pleadings of the application, the respondent/husband is Hindu and appellant/wife is Christian by faith. The respondent/husband was working in B.R.P. and appellant/wife was working on the post of Sikhsha Karmi Grade-I at Village Pandripani. 4. After marriage, both the parties lived well together till the year 2012 and a son Shikhar Chauhan aged 12 years, was born out of their wedlock on 19.08.2007. The respondent/husband is residing with his son in Farasbahar. His son is studying in class 7 in Aparna World School, Jharsuguda, whose care is taken by the respondent/husband. On 16.02.2014, the respondent/husband visited the workplace of the appellant/wife, Mudapara, along with his son but the appellant/wife asked them to leave and also threatened to get them beaten up by other people. Since 2012, the appellant/wife has severed all relations with the respondent/husband and she has not come to live with him. The respondent/husband thereafter withdrew the application for divorce submitted earlier on 29.11.2016. At the same time, on 03.09.2016 a case was registered against the respondent/husband at Farasbahar police station under Sections 294, 506 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 by the appellant/wife, which is pending in Kunkuri Court. The respondent/husband’s mother Budhmani was even kicked by the 3 appellant/wife. The respondent/husband also made a report against the appellant/wife on 24.02.2015 and on 05.09.2016 at Farasbahar police station but no action was taken on the same. The appellant/wife is alleged to have kept the police station in-charge under her control and many men used to visit and stay overnight in her hostel at Mudapara. When the hostel attendant (Kalashree) complained about this, he too was beat up by the appellant/wife. In this regard, a departmental enquiry has been conducted against her by the District Panchayat Jashpur and an order dated 09.08.2016 was issued. The appellant/wife has lodged a false case against Joseph Kujur, posted in Mudapara hostel when he stopped her from doing illegal activity, which is also pending in Pathalgaon. The appellant/wife sent her witnesses, namely Shaniram Bhagat and Asha Bhagat to the respondent/husband’s house and got him trapped under the charges of IT Act. Said case is also pending in Kunkuri Court. On 03.03.2017, the appellant/wife took abortion medicine from Shashi Bhagat claiming to be his wife. The appellant/wife has an illicit relationship with Shashi Bhagat and that they lived as husband and wife. Similarly, the appellant/wife has illegal relationship with Constable Tripathi and Inspector Sharma also. The appellant/wife threatened to kill the respondent/husband and implicate him in a false case. The respondent/husband has given a piece of written information about this to the Block Education Officer on 02.09.2014. The respondent/husband is deprived of marital happiness since 2012 and that there is no mutual understanding between the parties. Hence, the judgment and decree for divorce and dissolution of the marriage was passed. 5. The reply submitted by the appellant/wife on the said application is that the respondent/husband follows Hindu religion and have faith in it. The respondent/husband who is a Shiksha Karmi class 01 is said to have been suspended from the post of B.R.P. in Govt. High School, Pandripani on the complaint made by one Asha Bhagat. After marriage, both the parties with 4 son are said to have resided in the respondent/husband’s house. There has been marital relationship between them. The appellant/wife has been posted as Superintendent in Kasturba Gandhi Residential School, Mudapara from September 2010 to October 2015 and she used to stay with the respondent/husband during vacations. The respondent/husband has an illicit relationship with a woman named Holika Chauhan. The expenses of his son's education are being borne by the appellant/wife herself. She has never refused the respondent/husband and their son to come to her. It was further pleaded that appellant/wife has never beaten his mother-in-law and that the respondent/husband has lodged a false complaint against her. It is stated that as the earlier suit filed by the respondent/husband was withdrawn, the instant suit is not maintainable. The appellant/wife was molested by Joseph Kujur and the case is still pending in this regard. The respondent/husband had a grudge against Shaniram Bhagat and Asha Bhagat, and that she had no illicit relationship with Shashi Bhagat, Constable Tripathi and Inspector Sharma. She denied to have taken any abortion pill/medicine from Ranchi. The appellant/wife has not threatened to kill the respondent/husband and to implicate him in a false case. In over all factual background of the case she prayed for dismissal of the application. 6. On the basis of the above pleadings, the family Court has framed the issues which are required to be quoted herein below:- Sn. Issues Conclusion 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to obtain a decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage solemnized with the defendant on 15.09.2006 at Ambatikara Mandir Dharamjaygarh District Raigarh? Proved 2. Relief and Cost? Suit decreed 5 7. Respondent/husband has examined himself as PW-1 as well as Suresh Yadav as PW-2 whereas the appellant/wife examined herself as DW-1 and one Deepak Ekka as DW-2. 8. Trial Court on the basis of evidence and material available on record allowed the application and granted the decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage between the parties solemnized on 15.09.2006 w.e.f. 13.12.2022, which is assailed before this Court in this Appeal. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant/wife submits that the trial Court has committed an error of law in allowing the said application/suit of the respondent/husband and dissolved the marriage solemnized between the parties by granting decree of divorce. He further submits that the family Court has not appreciated the evidence in its proper perspective. He further submits that the respondent/husband could not prove the pleading by any cogent and prudent evidence, therefore, the finding of trial Court on Issue No.1 is bad in law. He would further submit that this appeal may be allowed and the impugned judgment and decree may be set aside. 10. None appeared on behalf of the respondent/husband when this case was taken up for hearing. However, after the appeal was reserved for judgment, a written submission was filed by him. In the written submission, the respondent/husband has supported that judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and further prays for dismissal of this instant appeal. 11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 12. Respondent/husband (PW-1) has deposed in the line of pleadings of application. He has deposed that he is Hindu whereas the appellant/wife follows Christianity. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 15.09.2006 at Ambetikara Temple, District Raigarh. Both of them are in Government Jobs. After marriage till 2012 they lived well and were blessed with a son on 19.08.2007 who is studying in Orissa. The appellant/wife has 6 severed all relationship respondent/husband and his son from 2012. He had earlier filed a divorce petition which was withdrawn by him 29.11.2006. During the pendency of the petition, appellant/wife registered a case against him under section 294, 506, 323 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 on 03.09.3016 which is pending in Kunkuri Court. On 24.02.2015 respondent/husband went to police station Farasbahar to lodge report against appellant/wife but no action was taken thereon. His mother Budhmani was assaulted by appellant/wife by kicks which was reported in police station on 05.09.2016 but no action was taken by police. He leveled allegations that many male members used to visit her when she was posted at Mudpara Residential School. He also deposed that she had taken pregnancy termination pills at Ranchi showing her to be wife of one Shashi Bhagat. He has stated that appellant/wife has implicated him in false cases and still threatens to implicate him in false cases. In his cross examination he deposed that after marriage they lived together till 2012 and thereafrter they are living separately. He has further deposed that many cases are pending against him in the Kunkuri Court. He however is stated to have not seen the appellant/wife living with constable Tripathi, inspector Sharma and Shashi Bhagat. Suresh Yada PW-3 has also deposed in the same line. 13. Appellant/wife has examined herself as DW-1 and deposed that after marriage she follows the Hindu faith and that the respondent/husband is suspended from services. After marriage both of them lived in the house of respondent/husband with their son. At present he son is studying in class 7th in Sambalpur. She is bearing the expenses of education of her son. Her work place is 3 kilometer and used to go there by Scooty. From September 2010 to October 2015, she was posted as Superintendent at Kasturba Gandhi Residential School, Mudpara. On holidays she lived with respondent/husband. He is said to have relationship outside the marriage with one Holika Chauhan. She is stated tohave no relation with Shashi 7 Bhagat, Constable Tripathi and Inspector Sharma. She has not take any pregnancy termination pills. She however admits to have lodged a report against respondent/husband in police station Farasbahar. She further admits to have made a complaint against respondent/husband in the Woman’s Commission, Raipur. Deepak Ekka DW-2 supports the version of appellant/wife who examined herself as DW-1. 14. On the basis of above pleadings and evidence of the witnesses, learned Family Court gave a finding that the relationship between the parties was strained for many years. The learned Family Court further held that the possibility of resumption of marital obligations between the parties has come to an end, therefore, the decree of divorce was granted. 15. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Shobha Rani vs Madhukar Reddi (1988) 1 SCC 105 held “…The word "cruelty" has not been defined. Indeed it could not have been defined. It has been used in relation to human conduct or human behaviour. It is the conduct in relation to or in respect of matrimonial duties and obligations. It is a course of conduct of one which is adversely affecting the other. The cruelty may be mental or physical, intentional or unintentional. If it is physical the court will have no problem to determine it. It is a question of fact and degree. If it is mental the problem presents difficulty. First, the enquiry must begin as to the nature of the cruel treatment. Second, the impact of such treatment in the mind of the spouse. Whether it caused reasonable apprehension that it would be harmful or injurious to live with the other. Ultimately, it is a matter of inference to be drawn by taking into account the nature of the conduct and its effect on the complaining spouse….”. Further in case of V Bhagat vs. D Bhagat (1994) 1 SCC 337 it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court “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 other. In other words, mental cruelty must be of 8 such a nature that the parties cannot reasonably be expected to live together. The situation must be such that the wronged party cannot reasonably be asked to put 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 accusations and allegations, regard must also be had to the context in which they were made.” 16.Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Vijay Kumar Ramchandra Bhate v. Neela Vijay Kumar Bhate (2003) 6 SCC 334 observed as under:- “7. The question that requires to be answered first is as to whether the averments, accusations and character assassination of the wife by the appellant husband in the written constitutes mental cruelty for sustaining the claim for divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Act. The position of law in this regard has come to be well settled and declared that leveling 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, honor, 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 by this Court. On going through the relevant portions of such allegations, we find that no exception could be taken to the findings recorded 9 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.” 17.In a recent judgment in case of Shri Rakesh Raman vs Smt. Kavita (2023) 17 SCC 433 it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that “In our considered opinion, a marital relationship which has only become more bitter and acrimonious over the years, does nothing but inflicts cruelty on both the sides. To keep the facade of this broken marriage alive would be doing injustice to both the parties. A marriage which has broken down irretrievably, in our opinion spells cruelty to both the parties, as in such a relationship each party is treating the other with cruelty. It is therefore a ground for dissolution of marriage under Section 13 (1) (ia) of the Act.” 18.In light of the above pronouncement, the facts of the present case needs to be examined. The main thrust for seeking divorce by the respondent/husband is the relationship of the appellant/wife with one Shashi Bhagat, Constable Tripathi and Inspector Sharma. Parties in the case have leveled allegations of adultery against each other. Appellant/wife in her written statement and evidence before the learned Family Court has leveled allegations against the respondent/husband that he has adulterous relationship with on Holika Chauhan. She has also admitted that she has lodged a complaint against the respondent/husband in Women’s Commission and enquiry was held. She also lodged report against the respondent and 4- 5 cases are pending against him at her instance. Respondent/husband has projected a case that for long period of time there is no marital relationship between him and the appellant/wife whereas the appellant/wife tried to establish before the learned Family Court that they are living together. In the 10 written statement and in the evidence the appellant/wife has leveled allegation of relationship outside marriage against the respondent/husband. From the evidence on record it is established that the relationship between the parties are stained for a long time. The faith and trust between the spouses has broken down miserably. They have leveled serious allegation involving the element of chastity against each other. If the spouses don’t trust each other, the relationship between them cannot remain cordial and will always be looked upon with distrust, and to continue with the bond of marriage would be difficult for them in such a pathetic situation. Mutual trust is the foundation of marriage between the spouses, which in this case appears to have broken down irreparably. Forcing them to continue with this meaningless dead relationship would amount to mental cruelty to both of them, and therefore, they must be allowed to come out of this marital knot and start living their lives in the way they want to without any un-necessary burden of an unhappy marriage. Thus, in light of this factual and legal discussion, this Court finds no merit in the appeal and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed. Order accordingly. 19. In result, the appeal fails and is dismissed. Decree be drawn accordingly. No cost. Sd/- Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Judge Saxena/Pawan/J