1 Reserved on : 06.03.2025 Delivered on 07.04.2025 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FA (MAT) No. 192 of 2022 Smt. Rampyari W/o Bhuvneshwar Prasad Sahu, D/o Khorbahara Sahu Aged About 28 Years Resident Of Village Chhirra, Police Station And Tahsil Bilaigarh, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara , At Present Resident Of Village Turma , Tahsil Nawagarh, Police Station Sheorinayaran, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus Bhuvneshwar Prasad Sahu S/o Sukhdev Sahu Aged About 34 Years Resident Of Village Chhirra, Police Station And Tahsil Bilaigarh, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara., District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Ajay Kumar Chandra, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Trevenee Shankar Sahu, Advocate DB : Hon’ble (Smt.) Justice Rajani Dubey & Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput C A V Judgment Per Sachin Singh Rajput,J The instant appeal under Section 19 (1) of the Family Court Act, 1984 has been filed by the appellant/wife being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree dated 22.09.2021 (Annexure A/1) passed by Learned Family Court, Baloda Bazar, District Baloda Bazar, CG in H.M.A. No. 182-A/2019 whereby the suit filed by the respondent/husband under Section 13 (1a)(1b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short the “Act of 1955”) for dissolution of marriage between the parties, has been decreed. 2. The admitted facts of this case are that marriage of the respondent- 2 husband with the appellant-wife was solemnized on 07.05.2009 as per the Hindu rites and rituals and that out of their wedlock two sons namely Yuvraj (10) and Hitesh (7) were also born, who as of now are living with the respondent/husband. 3. As per the pleadings of the respondent/husband, after the birth of first son, the appellant/wife started quarreling with the respondent/husband, stopped cooking, always indulged in abusive verbal transaction, as a result of which the respondent/husband suffered mental cruelty. However, he continued to bear all this in the hope that one day or the other it would all be set right. Not only this, she stopped giving food to the old parents of the respondent/husband and started behaving rudely with them also, and after sometime without there being any adequate reason she left for her maternal home in the absence of the respondent/husband. The case of the respondent/husband is that though he made several attempts to bring back the appellant/wife, she and her parents threatening him to be jailed and also hurling abuses at him, did not send the appellant/wife with him. It is also stated that after being persuaded by a decision taken in the meeting of elderly people of the society, she came to the house of the respondent/husband but her behavior towards him and his family members worsened and on trivial matters she used to threaten him of being sent to jail. After living for 2-3 days in the house of the respondent/husband she again went to her maternal home and lodged a report against him and other members of his family for the offence under Sections 498-A, 494/34 IPC. It is stated that on account of this cruel act on the part of the appellant/wife it would not be possible for him to continue with the matrimonial obligations with her. Appellant/wife is stated to be living in her maternal home from the year 2016 3 and since then there is no cohabitation between them. 4. The appellant/wife except the admitted facts, has denied all other averments of the respondent/husband. She has stated that after marriage the respondent/husband and his family members started demanding dowry and harassing her for that mentally and physically but still she managed to live with him. She has averred that the respondent/husband had an affair with one girl Babita whom he had taken to Delhi and kept her there as his wife. When this came to the notice of his family members, he brought that girl to village Chharra and kept her there also. On being opposed by the appellant/wife, the respondent/husband started ill-treating her. Report to this effect, is stated to be lodged by the appellant/wife in Bilaigarh Police Station. Respondent/husband is also alleged to have driven the appellant/wife out of his house keeping the children with him, and that he did not permit her to meet them. Even he used to beat children and threatened them to set there hand and leg on fire. From the second wife the respondent/husband is alleged to have begotten an issue as well, but in midst of all this, she is trying to keep the marital ties intact. She is alleged to have been harassed by Babita and in-laws also, and though she is living in her maternal home for last one year, nobody made an effort to bring her back. It is stated that on account of desertion by the respondent/husband, it is not possible for her to live with him. She thus sought for rejection of the application filed by the respondent/husband under Section 13(1) of the Act of 1955. 5. Learned Family Court, on the basis of the pleadings of the respective parties, framed the following issues:- (i) Whether the cruelty on the part of defendant after marriage 4 deprived the plaintiff of performance of matrimonial obligations? (ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage to the defendant solemnized on 07.05.2009? (iii) Relief and cost? 6. As per the provisions of Section 9 of the Family Courts Act, an endeavour was made for reconciliation between the parties but having that failed, recording of evidence followed. 7. After hearing the parties and considering the evidence of the witnesses, learned Family Court decided the issue Nos.1 and 2 in positive and while deciding the issue No.3, decreed the suit of the respondent/husband filed under Section 13(1) of the Act of 1955. Decree of divorce is thus directed to be drawn accordingly. Hence this appeal. 8. Counsel for the appellant/wife submits that the judgment and decree passed by learned Family Court is perverse and not sustainable in law. He submits that the Family Court has committed an error in granting the decree of divorce in favour of the respondent/husband without there being any proof of cruelty by the appellant/wife. He submits that learned Family Court has also not considered the fact that it is the respondent/husband and his family members who subjected the appellant/wife to cruelty, and that before granting the decree of divorce, the Family Court did not make any effort for restitution of conjugal rights between the parties. He submits that the respondent/husband did not make any effort to take back the appellant/wife to her matrimonial house which itself is indicative of the fact that he was interested in dissolution of marriage. He further submits that from the marital wedlock of the parties two children was born and thus it is established that the appellant/wife never subjected the respondent/husband to cruelty. According to the counsel for the 5 appellant/wife, the findings recorded by learned Family Court are baseless, perverse, erroneous and contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case and therefore are liable to be set aside. It is submitted that the respondent/husband had love affair with another girl Babita and therefore, he used to misbehave the appellant/wife as he did not like her and wanted to get rid of her by dissolution of marriage. The respondent/husband is also argued to have harassed the appellant/wife mentally and physically for demand of dowry. It is submitted that after birth of the children, respondent/husband kept Babita as his second wife and therefore intentionally moved an application for divorce from the appellant/wife without there being any fault on her part. In these circumstances, it is submitted that the decree of dissolution of marriage granted in favour of the respondent/husband is liable to be set aside by allowing this appeal. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/husband submits that after the birth of first son, the appellant/wife started picking up quarrel with the respondent/husband over trivial matters; did not cook food; did not do any household work; misbehaved with his old parents; left for her maternal home without there being any reason, and thus harassed him mentally. He submits that after a decision taken in the village meeting by the elderly people, the appellant/wife did come to her matrimonial house, but after living for just 2-3 days she again left for her maternal home and made a complaint against him and his family members under Section 498-A, 494/34 IPC. He submits that looking to all this act of the appellant/wife, the decree of dissolution of marriage is fully justified and does not call for any interference in this appeal. 10. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 11. The evidence of the respondent/husband goes to show that his marriage 6 with the appellant/wife was solemnized in the year 2009 and since then up to the year 2016 there did not occur any dispute between them and barring stray instances, love and affection between them continued to exist. Appellant/wife in cross-examination has admitted that in the year 2017 a report was lodged against the respondent/husband for the offence under Sections 498-A and 494/34 IPC, meaning thereby, prior to 2017 i.e. for a period of about 8 years from the date of marriage no report for demand of dowry was made by her. This leads to an inference that the respondent/husband did not harass the appellant/wife for the period 2009 to 2016 and that because of the fact that respondent-husband kept Babita as his second wife, the appellant/wife made a false complaint against him for harassing her for demand of dowry. Thus the finding recorded by the Family Court that the marriage between parties has irretrievably broken down and there seems to be no reason for restitution of the conjugal rights between them, appears to be based on just and proper appreciation of the evidence of the witnesses. This Court does not find any illegality or irregularity in the decree passed by the Family Court dissolving the marriage between the parties. 12. Being this, the judgment and decree impugned do not seem to be contrary to the material available on record and therefore no other view than the one so taken, is required by this Court. Appeal thus being without any merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Decree be drawn accordingly. 13. The parties have filed their affidavits disclosing their income, assets & liabilities. The appellant has also filed an application under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The affidavit of the appellant is silent about her income. Rather it reflects that father of the respondent has 0.496 hectare, 1.135 7 hectare, 0.097 hectare land in village Chhirra, P.H. No. 08, Revenue Circle Beliagarh, District Saranggarh, CG. Affidavit of respondent indicates that he is a daily wager and his monthly income is Rs. 10,000-. Custody of two children (sons) aged about 15 & 11 years is with him. His annual expenditure is Rs. 1,00,000/-. He has no self acquired properly. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in mind the interest of justice, the appellant is entitled to have the permanent alimony of Rs. 04,00,000/- from the respondent/husband. Accordingly, the application (IA No.03/2024) is hereby disposed of with a direction that the respondent/husband shall pay a sum of Rs. 04,00,000/- to the appellant/wife by way of demand draft. If one time payment is not possible for the respondent/husband, he may pay the same in two equal installments. The first installment shall be paid within a period of six months from today to be followed by the other within the next six months thereafter. Sd/- Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Judge Jyotishi