1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FA(MAT) No. 208 of 2022 1 - Smt. Savitri Binjhwar W/o Shri Ganpat Singh Binjhwar Aged About 35 Years R/o Village- Barpali, Post- Tanakhar, Tahsil- Podi- Uporda ..............Non Applicant Wife., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - Ganpat Singh Binjhwar S/o Shri Teejram Binjhwar Aged About 37 Years R/o Village Amarpur (Bagdeva), Post- Sutarra, Police Station- Katghora Tahsil- Katghora ..........Applicant Husband., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title is taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. R. S. Patel, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Pritam Tiwari, Advocate (Division Bench) (Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Order on Board Per ; Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge 25.08.2025 1. The present appeal is filed under Section 19(1) of the Family Court Act, 1984 arising out of the Judgment and Decree dated 30.09.2022, passed by the learned Family Court, Camp Court Katghora, Distt. - Korba (C.G.), in Civil Suit No. 26A/2019, whereby the learned Court Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 has granted the decree of divorce to the respondent – husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 2. Facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that on 08.04.2019, the respondent, who is the husband in this matrimonial dispute, filed a Civil Suit for Divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The suit was instituted before the Learned Family Court, Camp Court Katghora, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. The petition filed by respondent outlined the genesis and subsequent breakdown of the marriage between him and the appellant (the wife). According to the respondent, the marriage was solemnized in the year 2004 following the customs and rituals practiced by their society, specifically at Bhagdeva- Tanakhar. Post-marriage, the couple commenced their conjugal life at the family residence of husband situated in Village Amarpur, Bhagdeva. From this union, three children were born, namely, Anjani aged approximately 12 years; Gautam, aged around 10 years; and Sudhir, who was about 6 years old at the time of filing the suit. However, despite the initial familial harmony, the respondent alleged that the marital relationship deteriorated, leading to complete cessation of conjugal life from 25.07.2017. According to the respondent, since 25.07.2016, the appellant had abandoned the matrimonial home and taken residence at the house of her father in Tanakhar, without any justified cause. The respondent further claimed that there had been no visits or interactions between the parties at each other’s homes since that date. The pleadings of respondent detailed a pattern of alleged harassment by the appellant towards his family members. It was also stated that due to the demands of appellant, the respondent had lived 3 separately from his own parents for over a decade, from 2004 until 2015. The respondent accused the appellant of repeatedly humiliating him by derogatory name-calling, labeling him as a drunkard, “Kalutha” (a pejorative term), and ugly. In addition, the respondent contended that the appellant maintained inappropriate communications with a certain Deepak Sahu, especially during late-night hours on her mobile phone. Moreover, the respondent claimed that the appellant had threatened to lodge false complaints against him. These tensions culminated in the appellant summoning her father on 25.07.2016, and leaving the matrimonial home, effectively estranging herself from her children and the respondent. 3. In response to these allegations, the appellant filed a written statement vehemently denying all the adverse claims made by the respondent. The defense advanced by appellant was grounded on a starkly different narrative. She asserted that since the inception of their marriage, the respondent had subjected her to verbal abuse, physical assault, and persistent harassment. According to her, the respondent had even thrown her out of the house after physically beating her. She alleged that the petition filed by the respondent for divorce was motivated by his desire to escape the consequences of his alcoholism, a habit that she had repeatedly tried to curb. The appellant claimed that in fits of anger stemming from her attempts to stop his drinking, the respondent kicked her out and threatened divorce. Furthermore, the appellant denied the charges impugning her character and emphasized her sincerity and responsibility as a wife. She also highlighted that neither the respondent nor his father participated in the functions or 4 meetings of the community society to which they belonged. She accused the respondent of manipulating members of the Rajbinjhwar Committee by bribery to procure a false certificate favoring his claims. The appellant elaborated on the domestic discord, alleging that the respondent argued unnecessarily with her and neglected her basic daily needs. She further accused the respondent of squandering money on the wife of his younger brother and, when confronted, he resorted to maligning her reputation. 4. Contrary to the allegations of respondent, the appellant stated that he never made any efforts to reconcile or bring her back home. Instead, he drove her away by defaming her. Additionally, the appellant claimed that excessive drinking of respondent drained the family resources, and he failed to provide any financial maintenance to her or the children. The appellant herself had filed a separate application seeking maintenance. On the whole, the appellant prayed that the suit filed by respondent for divorce be dismissed. 5. After considering the pleadings and arguments from both sides, the Learned Family Court at Camp Court Katghora, District Korba (C.G.), passed its judgment on 30.09.2022. The Court, however, ruled in favor of the respondent husband, allowing the Civil Suit for Divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Consequently, the Family Court granted a Decree of Divorce, officially dissolving the marriage between the parties. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the judgment and decree dated 30.09.2022, passed by the Learned Family Court, Camp 5 Court Katghora, District Korba (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 26-A/2019, is manifestly erroneous and liable to be set aside. the learned Family Court has egregiously failed to consider the inherent incredibility and contradictions in the evidence produced by the respondent - husband. The Court, instead of critically evaluating the veracity and reliability of the testimony and documents of respondent, accepted his version uncritically and without proper scrutiny. The evidence of respondent is riddled with inconsistencies, and yet, the learned Family Court proceeded to base its judgment solely on such unreliable evidence. This grave error has caused a miscarriage of justice and, therefore, the impugned order must be quashed. The learned Family Court did not take into account that the respondent had earlier filed an application under Section 7(1)(d) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, seeking relief. This previous application was withdrawn on 07.12.2018 with a clear statement by the respondent that he did not wish to proceed further with the matter at that time. This prior conduct of the respondent reveals an abuse of the legal process and raises questions about the maintainability and bona fides of the instant Civil Suit for dissolution of marriage. The failure of Court to appreciate this procedural history constitutes a fundamental error in law. Further, the learned Family Court overlooked significant discrepancies regarding the date of marriage as stated by the respondent. In his earlier application under Section 7(1)(d), the respondent had mentioned the year of marriage as 2003, whereas in the present Civil Suit for divorce, the marriage year is stated as 2004. This material contradiction indicates the attempt made by respondent to file vague, false, and fabricated contentions to suit his convenience. The failure of Court to highlight or weigh this 6 contradiction seriously undermines the credibility of the entire case of respondent. Moreover, there is a glaring inconsistency regarding the cause of action itself. In the previous application, the respondent claimed the cause of action arose from 25.02.2017, but in the current suit, he claims it began from 25.07.2016. This shifting timeline is a clear indicator of the mala fide intentions of respondent and attempts to manipulate facts to his advantage. The failure of Family Court to consider this discrepancy further exemplifies the lack of judicial diligence in the impugned judgment. 7. Additionally, the learned Family Court did not adequately consider that neither the respondent nor his father made any effort to involve the appellant in the meetings of the Society or inform her properly. The appellant was neither called nor notified for these important meetings, thereby depriving her of her rightful opportunity to participate. More seriously, it is submitted that the respondent - husband is alleged to have influenced members of the Rajbinjhwar Committee by offering money and obtaining false certificates in his favor. This manipulation of community records and undue influence cast serious doubts on the claims and character of respondent, which the learned Family Court failed to investigate or consider. It is also crucial to highlight that the respondent never made any genuine attempt to bring the appellant back to the matrimonial home. On the contrary, he drove her away by tarnishing her character and spreading slanderous allegations. The learned Family Court, unfortunately, did not consider this vital aspect, which reflects lack of bona fide and failure to perform on the part of respondent his marital obligations. Furthermore, the judgment was 7 evidently based on conjectures, surmises, and assumptions rather than solid evidence. The learned Family Court decided the case without adequate and reliable evidence to substantiate the alleged facts presented by the respondent. Such a decision is legally unsustainable and against the principles of natural justice, as it undermines the foundational requirement of proving claims beyond mere speculation. In light of the foregoing submissions, it is prayed that this Court may kindly be pleased to allow the present appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and decree dated 30.09.2022 passed by the Learned Family Court, Camp Court Katghora, District Korba (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 26-A/2019. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant and submits that Learned counsel for the respondent-husband submits that the judgment and decree dated 30.09.2022 passed by the learned Family Court, Camp Court Katghora, is just, proper, and based on a thorough appreciation of pleadings and evidence on record. It is submitted that the marriage between the parties had irretrievably broken down, and the appellant-wife, without any justifiable reason, left the matrimonial home on 25.07.2016 and has been living separately ever since, despite having three children from the wedlock. The respondent made sincere efforts to reconcile, but the appellant showed no inclination to resume cohabitation. The respondent was subjected to persistent mental cruelty, including verbal abuse, character defamation, and humiliation, and was even forced to live away from his parents for over a decade due to the appellant’s insistence. The learned Family 8 Court rightly found that the appellant failed to discharge her matrimonial obligations and had treated the respondent with cruelty. The decree of divorce granted under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, was based on cogent and reliable evidence and does not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference. Hence, the present appeal, being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents enclosed along with the appeal. 10. On perusal of the judgment rendered by Family Court, it becomes clear that credible oral evidence was adduced by the respondent in the form of his own testimony, Ganpat Singh Binjhwar (A.W.-1), his Aunt Basanti Bai (A.W.-2), his brother Rajkumar (A.W.-3) and Chandrabhusan Singh Binjhwar (A.W.-4). Whereas, appellant Savitri Binjhwar examined herself (N.A.W.-1), Jagmohan Singh (N.A.W.-2), Shakharam Binjhwar (N.A.W.-3) and Mehettar Singh (N.A.W.-4) as defence witness. 11. Ganpat Singh Binjhwar (A.W.-1) stated that his marriage with the respondent took place in 2004 as per social customs, and three children were born from the wedlock. He alleged that the respondent abandoned the matrimonial home on 25.07.2016 without any just cause and has since been residing at her parental home. He claimed the respondent had an illicit relationship with one Deepak Sahu, which caused frequent disputes. He also alleged cruelty, including verbal abuse and threats of false cases. Despite several efforts to bring her back, she refused. He further submitted reports to the police and 9 approached the community society, which issued a divorce certificate in his favor. In cross-examination, he accepted filing an earlier divorce case and funding the community meeting but denied having any extramarital affair or framing the respondent falsely. 12. Smt. Basanti Bai (A.W.-2) supported the version of respondent, stating that she witnessed the appellant talking and meeting with another man (Deepak). She admitted being brought by the respondent for testimony but denied giving a coached statement. In cross-examination, she acknowledged past quarrels between appellant and the respondent but insisted her testimony was based on her own knowledge. She affirmed that the appellant used to quarrel with the respondent and his family and had neglected her children. 13. Ramkumar (A.W.-3) corroborated claims of his brother, affirming that the appellant left the matrimonial home and did not return. He denied any abuse or violence by the respondent and asserted that the appellant was not forced out. He also confirmed the presence of his signature on the social meeting document (Exhibit P-03). While he admitted that the appellant and her father were not present at the community meeting, he denied that the meeting or its outcome was manipulated. 14. Chandrabhusan Singh Binjhwar (A.W.-4), as President of the Binjhawar community, stated that he issued a divorce certificate in favor of the respondent after multiple notices were served on the appellant and her father, who failed to attend the meetings. He brought the community register (Exhibit P-04) but admitted that the issuance of certificate and 10 meeting proceedings were not recorded in it. He confirmed that the signatures of the appellant and her father were missing on the register, suggesting their absence, although he denied any falsification or manipulation in the issuance of the certificate. He admitted in cross- examination that the certificate (Exhibit P-03), which allegedly proves the illicit relationship of appellant, does not contain the signatures of any community members. He denied that the certificate was fabricated or made falsely at the request of respondent. He confirmed that community meetings are called through written notices and presented Exhibit P-05 as proof of such a notice. He acknowledged that a notice was issued for a meeting on 19.01.2019, but no certificate was issued on that date. He claimed that, based on the information and the conduct of appellant, the community found the respondent eligible for divorce and accordingly issued the certificate. He denied the allegation that the certificate was issued under influence or false pretenses. 15. Savitri Binjhwar (N.A.W.-1) stated that she is legally married to the petitioner since 2004 and they have three children together. She alleged that her husband would beat her and threatened her with divorce when she tried to stop him from drinking. She denied having any illicit relationship with Deepak Sahu and claimed that false allegations were made against her character. She maintained that no community meeting was held on 17.03.2019, and neither she nor her father were invited. She acknowledged leaving her matrimonial home about six years ago with her father and has since lived in her parental home. She accepted that she never filed a complaint or attended any social or police meeting regarding character allegations. Although she 11 denied having any romantic relationship with Deepak, she admitted that her relationship with her husband has completely broken down and they no longer share a marital bond. 16. Jagmohan Singh (N.A.W.-2) (Father) confirmed that he brought his daughter back to his home on 26.02.2017 and admitted that the couple has lived separately for about six years. He denied that any notices for community meetings were served to him or his daughter and also denied attending any such meetings. He also denied the allegation that appellant refused to live with her in-laws or neglected her household responsibilities. However, he did admit that the respondent had filed a police complaint regarding an alleged affair between appellant and Deepak Sahu. He denied that his daughter was involved in any improper conduct. 17. Shakharam Binjhwar (N.A.W.-3) admitted that he is unaware of the exact date of the appellant and respondent’s marriage or the reasons behind their marital issues. He stated that the couple has been living separately for three to four years. He acknowledged that he does not know whether a police complaint was filed regarding the alleged affair between appellant and Deepak. He confirmed that respondent had arranged a community meeting to reconcile with the appellant. 18. Mehettar Singh (N.A.W.-4) affirmed that he knows both parties and that the appellant has been living separately from the respondent for about three years. He denied any knowledge of the community meetings or the police report involving Deepak. He stated that he was not invited to any community meeting and hence does not know what decisions were 12 taken. He denied refusing to attend any meetings and maintained that he had no personal knowledge of the situation between the couple. 19. Reverting back to the case, there is no dispute that the appellant has been living separately from the respondent since 25.07.2016. The testimony of the respondent and his witnesses, including his brother, aunt, and community president, consistently support the claim that the wife left the matrimonial home and refused to return, despite efforts made by the respondent. The appellant herself admitted during cross- examination that she has not cohabited with the respondent for the past several years and that their marital bond has irretrievably broken down. This clearly establishes prolonged separation without reasonable cause. 20. The allegations made by respondent of cruelty, including humiliation, verbal abuse, and threats of false cases, have been corroborated by his witnesses. The Family Court found the testimony of the respondent and his relatives credible. The case of respondent that he had to stay away from his parents for over a decade due to the pressure of appellant and that she repeatedly called him names was substantiated. On the contrary, the claim of appellant of physical assault was not supported by any complaint or medical records. No FIR or formal grievance was ever lodged by the appellant despite serious allegations, which significantly weakens her version. 21. While the allegation regarding an illicit relationship with Deepak Sahu is serious, the Family Court rightly did not base its conclusion solely on this aspect. However, the testimony of AW-2 (Basanti Bai) and AW-3 13 (Ramkumar) regarding inappropriate behavior raised legitimate doubts. Though not proven beyond doubt, these allegations cumulatively contributed to the breakdown of the marital relationship and the mental agony of the respondent. 22. The appellant questioned the authenticity and fairness of the divorce certificate issued by the Rajbinjhwar community. However, AW-4, the President of the community, testified about the notices issued and the non-participation of appellant. Though there were procedural lapses (such as absence of signatures), the certificate only had corroborative value and was not the sole basis for granting divorce. The Family Court rightly treated this as one piece of supporting evidence. The evidence indicates that the respondent attempted reconciliation, including through community forums and the police. However, no counter effort was made by the appellant to resume cohabitation or protect the marriage. The failure of the wife to return or express willingness to return to matrimonial life, even in court, demonstrates a complete breakdown of marital relations. 23. In matrimonial disputes, especially under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, a decree of divorce can be granted where there is clear and convincing evidence of cruelty or irretrievable breakdown of the marriage. In the present case, the Family Court, after careful evaluation of oral and documentary evidence, reached a correct conclusion. 24. Vide judgment dated 30.09.2011 passed in Civil Appeal No. 8402/2011 in the matter of Pankaj Mahajan Vs. Dimple @ Kajal; 14 reported in AIRONLINE 2011 SC 17, Hon’ble Apex Court held in para 23 as under:- “23. It is well settled that giving repeated threats to commit suicide amounts to cruelty. When such a thing is repeated in the form of sign or gesture, no spouse can live peacefully. In the case on hand, the appellant-husband has placed adequate materials to show that the respondent-wife used to give repeated threats to commit suicide and once even tried to commit suicide by jumping from the terrace. Cruelty postulates a treatment of a spouse with such cruelty as to create reasonable apprehension in his mind that it would be harmful or injurious for him to live with the other party. The acts of the respondent-wife are of such quality or magnitude and consequence as to cause pain, agony and suffering to the appellant-husband which amounted to cruelty in matrimonial law.” 25. Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Sanat Kumar Agarwal Vs. Smt. Nandini Agarwal; reported in AIR 1990 SC 594 held in para 7 as under:- “7. It is further important to note that the petition for divorce was filed on 6-2-1982 i.e. more than three years of leaving the matrimonial home by the respondent w.e.f. 9-12-1978. There is not an iota of evidence placed on record by the respondent nor any averment to show that any effort was made by her to go and join the matrimonial home with the appellant at Bhopal. Now it is more than ten years that the parties are living separately. Admittedly the respondent after passing B.Ed. examination has joined an employment as a school teacher and has an independent income and both the 15 parties have now adjusted to their new mode of life for more than a decade.” 26. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Debananda Tamuli vs. Kakumoni Kataky, reported in (2022) 5 SCC 459 has held as under : “12. Thus, in our considered view, the ground of desertion under clause (i-b) of sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the HM Act has been made out as the desertion for a continuous period of more than two years before the institution of the petition was established in the facts of the case. But, after having carefully perused the evidence on record, we find that no case is made out to disturb the findings recorded by the courts on the issue of cruelty.” 27. In the present matter, the factual matrix clearly establishes that the appellant-wife has been living separately from the respondent-husband since 25.07.2016 without sufficient cause, and despite multiple efforts made by the respondent to initiate reconciliation, the appellant neither returned to the matrimonial home nor expressed any intention to resume cohabitation. In view of prolonged desertion, breakdown of marital relationship, and mental cruelty suffered by the respondent, the decree of divorce granted under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, is in consonance with settled legal principles as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pankaj Mahajan (supra), Sanat Kumar Agarwal (supra) and Debananda Tamuli (supra). 28. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no merit in the present appeal. The appeal stands dismissed, and the judgment and 16 decree dated 30.09.2022, passed by the learned Family Court, Camp Court Katghora, District Korba (C.G.), in Civil Suit No. 26-A/2019, is affirmed. Consequently, the marriage solemnized between the parties in the year 2004 is dissolved. Sd/- Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Shayna Judge Judge