1 2025:CGHC:293 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 1158 of 2024  Abhishek Singh Bharos S/o Ajay Singh Bharos Aged About 35 Years R/o Aanand Nagar Rajgharana, Ward No. 3 Uslapur, Thana And Tahsil Sakri, Dist- Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus  Mona Risha Paul W/o Abhishek Singh Bharos Aged About 37 Years R/o House No. A/35 Nature City, Thana- Sakri Tah And District- Bilaspur (C.G.). ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) Petitioner in person : Mr. Abhishek Singh Bharos Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 03 .01.2025 1. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the learned First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur in Civil Suit No. 21A of 2023 dated 27.09.2024, whereby, the application moved under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC has been rejected. 2. The facts of the present case are that the marriage between the parties was solemnized according to Christian law and tradition on 18.11.2022 at Bilaspur. There was some dispute between the parties; therefore, the wife filed a Civil Suit for dissolution of marriage according to the provisions of Section 10 of the Divorce Act, 1869 (for short “Act, 1869”) making allegations that the petitioner/husband acted with cruelty and there was reasonable apprehension in the mind of the wife that it would be harmful or 2 injurious for her to live with the husband. It is also stated that an FIR for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC was lodged. Another allegation was made with regard to the demand of Rs. 5,00,000/- and dowry etc. The husband appeared before the learned Family Court and moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC on 20.06.2024 inter alia on the ground that the marriage was solemnized on 18.11.2022 and the petition for dissolution of marriage was filed on 24.01.2023 before the expiry of two years, therefore, the Civil Suit is not maintainable. The wife filed a reply denying the contents made in the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. 3. The learned trial Court vide order dated 27.09.2024 rejected the application on the ground that the petition for dissolution of marriage has been filed making allegations with regard to cruelty, demand of dowry etc; therefore, the petition is maintainable. It is also held that the allegations made with regard to cruelty may be proved by leading evidence. The petitioner/husband has challenged the very order by filing the instant petition. 4. Mr. Abhishek Singh Bharos, petitioner in person, would submit that according to the provisions of Section 10 (1) (ix) of the Act, 1869, the petition for dissolution of marriage can be filed after the expiry of two years from marriage. He would further submit that as the petition for dissolution of marriage was filed on the 67th day of the date of marriage; therefore, it was not maintainable and the learned Family Court committed an error of law in rejecting the application. 5. I have heard Mr. Bharos at length and also perused the documents placed on the record. 6. Section 10 of the Divorce Act, 1869 reads as under :- 3 10. Grounds for dissolution of marriage.— (1) Any marriage solemnized, whether before or after the commencement of the Indian Divorce (Amendment) Act, 2001, may, on a petition presented to the District Court either by the husband or the wife, be dissolved on the ground that since the solemnization of the marriage, the respondent (i) has committed adultery; or (ii) has ceased to be Christian by conversion to another religion; or (iii) has been incurably of unsound mind for a continuous period of not less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition; or (iv) 20[ *** ] (v) has, for a period of not less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition, been suffering from venereal disease in a communicable form; or (vi) has not been heard of as being alive for a period of seven years or more by those persons who would naturally have heard of the respondent if the respondent had been alive; or (vii) has wilfully refused to consummate the marriage and the marriage has not therefore been consummated; or (viii) has failed to comply with a decree for restitution of conjugal rights for a period of two years or upwards after the passing of the decree against the respondent; or (ix) has deserted the petitioner for at least two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition; or (x) has treated the petitioner with such cruelty as to cause a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that it would be harmful or injurious for the petitioner to live with the respondent. (2) A wife may also present a petition for the dissolution of her marriage on the ground that the husband has, since the solemnization of the marriage, been guilty of rape, sodomy or bestiality. 7. A bare reading of Section 10 of the Act, 1869 would make it clear that a petition can be presented for dissolution of marriage on various grounds. Sub-section (ix) states that if either spouse has deserted the petitioner for at least two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition, the petition for dissolution of marriage can be filed. In case of desertion, there is a cap of two years to file the petition for dissolution of marriage. 8. Sub-Section (x) states that if either spouse has made an allegation with 4 regard to cruelty coupled with reasonable apprehension in mind that it would be harmful or injurious for the petitioner to live with the respondent, the petition for dissolution of marriage would be maintainable. 9. In the present case, the respondent wife has made serious allegations with regard to cruelty, demand of dowry etc., against the petitioner husband and it appears that the petition for dissolution of marriage has been filed according to provisions of Section 10 (x) of the Act, 1869. The allegations made in the petition for dissolution of marriage with regard to cruelty, dowry etc., may be proved by the wife by leading evidence. 10. As per provisions of Section 10(x) of the Act, 1869 the petition for dissolution of marriage can be filed at any stage and there is no stipulation to file such petition after the expiry of two years, thus, the instant petition filed by the petitioner is misconceived. The Learned Family Court rightly rejected the application moved by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC; therefore, I do not find any good ground to entertain this petition. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant