1 2025:CGHC:15826-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Judgment reserved on : 04-03-2025 Judgment delivered on : 04-04-2025 FA(MAT) No. 47 of 2023 Smt. Deepika Goyal W/o Shri Amit Kumar Agrawal D/o Premchand Singhal Aged About 36 Years R/o Raigarh Road Pathalgaon, Tehsil Pathalgaon, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant/Defendant versus Amit Kumar Agrawal S/o Shri Suresh Kumar Agrawal Aged About 38 Years R/o Raigarh Road Pathalgaon, Tehsil Pathalgaon, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent/plaintiff For Appellant : Ms. Kavita Bansal, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Rishikant Mahobia, Advocate. Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, & Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput, JJ C A V Judgment Per Rajani Dubey, J Challenge in this appeal is to the legality and validity of the judgment and decree dated 28.7.2022 passed by Family Court, 2 Jashpur in Civil Suit No.11A/2018 whereby the application filed by the respondent/plaintiff under Section 13(1)(1)(1-A) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has been allowed and consequently marriage between the parties stands dissolved. 02. The respondent/plaintiff filed an application under Section 13(1) (1)(1-A) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short “the Act of 1955”) with the averments that his marriage was solemnized with the appellant on 25.4.2008 as per Hindu customs and rituals at Village- Patthalgaon, Distt. Jashpur and from their wedlock son Arth Goyal, 09 years, and daughter Adwika Goya, 04 years, were born. After one year of the marriage, behaviour of the wife towards the husband and his family members became very rude and indecent. Instead of doing household work she would indulge in amorous chat with other person on Facebook. It was further pleaded that on 27.12.2017 the plaintiff along with the defendant, his children, sister Payal, brother-in-law Ashish Agrawal and their children went to Maihar Devi for Darshan. However, the defendant called his male friend Nitin Singh there behind the back of the plaintiff and went with him to roam around. Upon missing report being lodged by the plaintiff at Police Station – Maihar, Distt. Satna, offence under Crime No.274/17 under Section 363 of IPC was registered and on 2.1.2018 at around 21:30 hours the defendant was recovered from a rented accommodation at the instance of said Nitin Singh. She along with her daughter was then given in the custody 3 of her brother Rahul Singhal on 3.1.2018 and since then she had been living at her parental house at Vishrampur. However, upon much persuasion in the social meeting held on 13.2.2018 at Patthalgaon, the plaintiff took back the defendant and his daughter on 9.3.2018 and started living in a rented house but even thereafter there was no change in her behaviour and she continued to torture him physically and mentally. She is in relation with other person. Therefore, a decree of divorce may be granted. 03. The appellant/defendant in her written statement denied all the adverse averments and contended that after marriage, the plaintiff and his parents started treating her in an indecent manner, they tortured her for bringing Rs.8 lacs from her father and that Ashish Agrawal, who is husband of her sister-in-law, made may attempts to have illicit relation with her. Her father has already given Rs.25 to 30 lacs to the plaintiff. In fact, the plaintiff has an extramarital affair. On 27.12.2017 when they went to Maihar, Ashish Agrawal tried to commit rape on her in the room of hotel Deep Palace and when this incident was narrated to the plaintiff, he forcibly sent her along with her daughter to the house of her female friend and did not come to take them back. Then she with the help of her friend started living in a rented accommodation with her daughter in Banaras. When her father came to know about missing report being lodged by the plaintiff, he and her brother informed about the same to SP, Surajpur and thereafter, the plaintiff informed Maihar 4 police. The defendant is living in Patthalgaon and the maintenance of her children and herself is being done by her parents. On 12.11.2018 the plaintiff also attempted to have illicit relation with her daughter Adwika Goyal which was reported at PS-Patthalgaon. Therefore, she also wants divorce from him on the condition that he would return Rs.1.5 crores given as dowry, give Rs.50 lacs towards compensation for mental harassment, the gold and silver ornaments, bear the whole expenses of their maintenance including education and make arrangement of their accommodation at Patthalgaon. 04. Based on the pleadings of the respective parties, learned Family Court framed three issues and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record allowed the application of the respondent/husband under Section 13 of the Act of 1955 by the impugned judgment and decree. Hence this appeal by the appellant/wife. 05. Learned counsel for the appellant/wife would contend that the impugned judgment and decree are perverse and not sustainable in law. Learned Family Court overlooked the material facts and considered the content of the plaint as gospel truth without appreciating the fact that the so-called adulterer was never made a party in the case. The appellant/wife was not afforded with proper opportunity to put forth her evidence as her statement was recorded during pandemic situation and her statement was not recorded 5 properly. She also made complaint to the Court in this regard vide letter dated 26.2.2022 and filed her response to the letter dated 25.7.2022 (Annexure A/2). In this regard a complaint was also made to the police vide Annexure A/3. She submits that non-compliance of Section 22 of the Act of 1955 has caused serious prejudice to the appellant. Learned Family Court miserably failed to appreciate the fact that it was on account of misbehavior and attempt to rape by brother-in-law of the respondent which forced the appellant to leave Maihar. The husband without any proof has leveled serious allegation on her character which itself amounts to cruelty. The respondent is a disgruntled husband who in order to satisfy his ego and lust is willing to remarry another girl of his own choice and therefore is avoiding performance of his marital obligations and duties. Learned Court below is also unjustified in rejecting the application filed by the wife seeking permanent alimony and stridhan. Therefore, the present appeal deserves to be allowed. 06. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/husband supporting the impugned judgment and decree submits that learned Family Court properly appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record and conduct of the appellant/wife rightly granted decree of divorce in favour of the husband. The allegation made by the wife of sexual assault by the husband on his four years daughter was duly inquired into by the Additional Superintendent of Police, Jashpur and in his report dated 25.12.2018 it was mentioned that this allegation is 6 totally baseless and not proved. Such an allegation amounts to a mental cruelty of highest degree. So far as permanent alimony is concerned, learned counsel for the respondent submits that initially vide order dated 14.12.2018 the appellant and the children were allowed interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- pm in the domestic violence case but in the final order dated 28.10.2024 learned JMFC, Patthalgaon observed that the wife has failed to prove any cruelty by the husband and she is earning sufficient income by teaching in school, through tuition and other things and therefore, granted monthly maintenance of Rs.7,000/- to son and daughter only which is being paid regularly as admitted by the wife in her cross-examination. The said order has attained finality for want of any challenge by the wife. She is getting salary of Rs.10,000/- pm from Goyal Kindergarten School, Patthalgon whereas as per ITR acknowledgment of Assessment Year 2024-25, the monthly income of the husband is Rs.14,000/- only. As regards the affidavit filed by the wife wherein she claimed that there are certain properties belonging to the husband, it is absolutely incorrect and no supporting document has been filed by her. In view of above, the present appeal lacks any substance and is thus liable to be dismissed. 07. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7 08. It is an admitted position in this case that marriage of both the parties was solemnized on 25.4.2008 and from their wedlock one son Arth Goyal and one daughter Adwika Goyal were born. The respondent/husband filed an application under Section 13(1)(1)(1-A) of the Act of 1955 against the appellant/wife on the ground of cruelty and desertion. 09. The appellant/wife in her written statement leveled several allegations against the respondent/husband and stated that she also wants divorce from him as she is fed up with his cruel and promiscuous conduct. However, she expressed her willingness for divorce on the condition that the husband would return Rs.1.5 crores given as dowry, give Rs.50 lacs towards compensation for mental harassment, the gold and silver ornaments, bear the whole expenses of their maintenance including education of children and make arrangement of their accommodation at Patthalgaon. 10. The respondent/husband filed inquiry report (Art. A/1), newspaper cuttings (Art.A/2 to A/11) and medical treatment paper of wife (Art. A/12). The appellant/wife in cross-examination denied the suggestion of the husband that on 2.1.2018 she was recovered from the custody of Nitin Singh in Banaras at 9.30 pm and thereafter refused to go to her husband. She then volunteers that she was not caught with Nitin, in fact her brothers Rishi and Ravi came with police at 5.30 pm at the place in Banaras where she stayed. She also denied preparation of 8 recovery panchanama and supurdgi panchnama by the police and her signature thereon. 11. Learned Family Court minutely appreciated the oral and documentary evidence adduced by both the parties and found that they have leveled allegations and counter allegations against each other in respect of mental and physical cruelty as also leveled allegations on the character of each other and that they are living separately since 9.3.2018. Looking to the nature of dispute between the parties, their conduct and behaviour towards each other, there is no possibility of their reunion and the possibility of any untoward incident taking place cannot be ruled out. Thus, the Family Court found dissolution of marriage the only option and granted a decree of divorce in favour of the husband. Learned counsel for the appellant/wife before this Court also submits that he is not challenging the judgment of the Family Court to the extent granting decree of divorce but challenging the same whereby permanent alimony has been denied to the wife. 12. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the overall evidence on record and conduct of the appellant/wife during several proceedings held between the parties where she made contradictory statements, we are of the view that learned Family Court was justified in allowing the application under Section 13(1)(1)(1-A) of the Act of 1955 of the husband and granting a decree of divorce in his 9 favour. In view of the oral and documentary evidence on record, we also find no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and decree denying permanent alimony to the wife. 13. In the result, the appeal being without any substance is hereby dismissed. Let a decree be drawn up accordingly. Sd/ Sd/ (Rajani Dubey) (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Judge Khan MOHD AKHTAR KHAN Digitally signed by MOHD AKHTAR KHAN Date: 2025.04.05 10:05:36 +0530