1 2025:CGHC:54743-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Judgment reserved on: 14.08.2025 Judgment delivered on: 11.11.2025 FA(MAT) No. 33 of 2021 1 - Smt. Sarita, W/o Hemlal Kaiwart, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Village - Charched (Chanchi), Post Office Kasdol, District - Baloda Bazar - Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1 - Hemlal Kaiwart, S/o Late Derharam Kaiwart, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Village - Charched (Chanchi), Post Office Kasdol, District - Baloda Bazar - Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Deepak Kumar Jain, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shikhar Sharma, Advocate Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad CAV Judgment 2 Per Rajani Dubey, J. 1. This appeal filed under Section 19 (1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 has been preferred by the defendant/wife against the judgment and decree dated 30.03.2021 passed by learned Family Court, Baloda Bazar, District- Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) in H.M.A. No. 54-A/2019 whereby the learned Family Court while partly allowing the application preferred under Section 13(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 by the plaintiff/ husband, dissolved the marriage which was solemnized between the parties on 30.04.2004. The parties to this appeal shall be referred herein as per their description before the learned Family Court. 2. Before learned trial Court, it is an admitted fact that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 30.04.2004 as per Hindu rites and rituals at Village- Amaldih, Police Station- Bilaigarh, District- Baloda- Bazar (C.G.). After marriage, the appellant/wife started residing in village Chharchhed, the original residence of the respondent/husband and from their wedlock, a son namely Bhupesh was born on 03-09-2006. 3. Plaintiff/husband filed application under Section 13(1) (a) of Hindu Marriage Act seeking decree of divorce before the Family Court on the ground that the plaintiff and the defendant got married on 30-04-2004 in accordance with Hindu rites and rituals in village Amaldih, Police Station Bilaigarh, District Baloda Bazar, Chhattisgarh. After marriage, the defendant/wife resided with the plaintiff/husband in his native village. From their wedlock, a son, 3 Bhupesh was born on 03-09-2006. The defendant treated the plaintiff well for a few days after the marriage. The relationship between the two parties remained cordial and they lived happily for approximately nine years. Thereafter, the defendant's temperament suddenly changed. The defendant began arguing with the plaintiff over trivial matters, claiming that she would only live with him if he lived separately from her mother and sisters. While the plaintiff was accompanied by his widow mother, two unmarried sisters, a minor brother, an abandoned sister and her children reside there and all are dependants on the plaintiff. The defendant started torturing the plaintiff and his family mentally day by day. The defendant is a working lady and believes in living as a nuclear family. The plaintiff's family is financially weak and lives as a joint family. The defendant kept creating an environment in many ways to separate the plaintiff from his family, but the plaintiff, in order to save his marital life and to live happily with the defendant, took the defendant with him to Rohtak (Haryana) where the plaintiff worked and started living there in the year 2004 itself. From time to time, when the plaintiff would visit the defendant's native village, Chharchhed on festivals, the defendant would start arguing with the plaintiff's mother, sisters, and brother without any reason. Time passed in this manner. The plaintiff continued to happily perform his marital duties with the defendant. While residing in Rohtak, Haryana, the plaintiff provided the 4 defendant with facilities commensurate with her income and enrolled her son, Bhupesh, in an English-medium school. The defendant's father who is working in Coal Mines (Jharkhand), took the defendant and her son Bhupesh along with him to Jharkhand during summer holidays in 2013. After the summer vacation ended, he contacted the defendant and requested her to return. However, she refused. When the plaintiff asked her for the reason of not returning to his house, she offered no satisfactory answer. The plaintiff lived a solitary life in Rohtak for approximately four months, waiting for the defendant. When the defendant refused to return with the plaintiff, the plaintiff took her belongings, relieved himself of his duties, and returned to his native village, Chharchhed (Chhanchi). In 2013, the plaintiff's father suffered a prolonged illness, and as the only adult son, he felt it was his moral responsibility to care for his ailing father and ensure proper treatment. However, the defendant refused to stay with the plaintiff and his family. Ultimately, the plaintiff's father died, but the defendant attended the funeral only after considerable effort and persuasion. During this time, the defendant stayed for a week and started assaulting the plaintiff's mother and sisters physically. Without the permission and consent of the plaintiff, she went back to her parental home with her brother. After the defendant/wife went back to her maternal home, the plaintiff/husband several times, tried to bring her back through personal, family and social means and requested her to maintain 5 their marital life, but the defendant kept thwarting all the plaintiff's efforts without any reason. In the year 2015, due to the social efforts made by the plaintiff, the defendant agreed to come back and made various baseless allegations against the plaintiff among the social people and expressed her consent to live with the plaintiff on the basis of a mutual agreement. The plaintiff, willingly accepting all the conditions of the defendant for maintaining their marital life, signed an agreement written on paper on 03-07-2015, but after the execution of the said agreement, the defendant went to her parental home on the same day. The defendant did not return for a year after the execution of the agreement, then the defendant's parents brought the defendant back to the plaintiff in the last week of July, then the defendant started living with the plaintiff in Chharchhed. The defendant kept threatening the plaintiff to implicate him and his family in false cases, then on 05- 08-2016, without any reason, the defendant/wife submitted an application against his mother and sisters at Police Station- Kasdol on which, after being persuaded by family members, the plaintiff was pressured into signing a mutual agreement on August 19, 2016. The plaintiff, in order to preserve his marital life, signed the agreement. Thereafter, the defendant withdrew the application submitted to the Police Station- Kasdol. Based on the agreement held between the defendant and the plaintiff, the plaintiff arranged a separate house for the defendant in Village- Chharchhed, where she lived alone. The 6 plaintiff occasionally visited the defendant to provide her with essential household items and to see his son. Even then, the defendant's behavior toward the plaintiff was not cordial. There has been no sexual intercourse between the plaintiff and the defendant since 2013. Whenever the plaintiff attempted to contact her, the defendant refused. Thus, the defendant's behavior constitutes cruelty. On 09-09-2016, the defendant began assaulting the plaintiff and her mother without any reason, resulting in serious head injuries to the plaintiff's mother. Distressed by the plaintiff's behavior, the plaintiff informed the defendant's parents and community members about the defendant's cruel behavior. Thereafter, a social meeting was held on 09.09.2016 and in the said meeting, the defendant openly declared that she would not live with the plaintiff and wanted a divorce. The plaintiff, a young man from a poor but well-off family, is a simple and straightforward person who works on contract in the government education department. He has a good reputation in the department and society, and he also has young children. Considering his reputation and the future of his children, the plaintiff brought the defendant back on the defendant's assurance that she would not repeat her actions, but there was no change in her actions. This clearly shows that a marital life between the plaintiff and the defendant is not possible, and they have no other option but divorce. After filing this plaint by the plaintiff, the cause of action arose through an agreement dated 03-07-2015 and a 7 mutual settlement document dated 19-08-2016. Despite the agreement, there was no change in the nature of defendant. On 09-09-2016, the defendant beat up the plaintiff and mentally tortured him by making torturous allegations against him in a social meeting and this has been going on since then till today. There is no ill-will between the plaintiff and the defendant. The plaintiff and the defendant were married in village Amaldih and their last residence was village Chharchhed in District- Balodabazar, due to which the Court has the jurisdiction to hear the matter. Therefore, the plaintiff/husband is entitled to get a decree of divorce from the defendant/wife and marriage of the plaintiff and the defendant solemnized on 30.04.2004 may be dissolved. 4. In her written statement, wife/defendant denying the adverse allegation levelled by the husband/plaintiff, stated that the plaintiff and the defendant got married on 30-04-2004 at Village Amaldiha, Police Station Bilaigarh, as per Hindu rites and rituals. After marriage, the defendant and the plaintiff resided at Village Chharchhed and performed their marital duties. From their wedlock, a child, Bhupesh, was born, who is currently living with the defendant. The plaintiff, under the influence of her mother, sisters and brother, used to abuse the defendant obscenely and beat her. In the said beating, the plaintiff sustained injuries. Even then the defendant/wife was forced to stay with her minor children in a shed situated next to the cattle shed and the plaintiff avoided 8 all responsibility for her. The room where the defendant and her child lived in the village Chharchhed lacked electricity and a door. She lived in a thatched room (house) without electricity and a door, earning her living by working as a daily wage laborer. The defendant and her child are still willing to live with the plaintiff. With the help of her father, the defendant enrolled her minor child in an English medium school. After being harassed by the plaintiff and his family, the defendant came to Police Station- Kasdol with her minor son and complained about the actions of the plaintiff and his family. The Kasdol police called the plaintiff and counseled him. The plaintiff signed a written agreement with the defendant and her minor son at the police station. He took her to his native village, Chharchhed, where he kept her well for three to four months. Thereafter, he used to come to Kasdol for work and would not go home for many days, due to which the family members of the plaintiff used to harass and taunt the defendant. They did not talk to the defendant and her child. The plaintiff had given an agreement that he would keep the defendant and the child with him in the village Chharchhed, which the plaintiff did not fulfill. The defendant is financially weak and unable to support herself and is living at her father's house. The plaintiff is employed as a computer operator in the Government Education Department, Kasdol. Therefore, the application filed 9 under Section 13(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 by the plaintiff, may be dismissed. 5. On the basis of pleadings made by both the parties, learned Family Court framed the issues and after appreciating oral and documentary evidence, by its judgment and decree dated 30.03.2021 partly allowed the application filed by the plaintiff/husband. Hence, this appeal has been filed by the defendant/wife. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/wife submits that the impugned judgment and the decree passed by the learned family Court are perverse, illegal, arbitrary, and unwanted to the evidence available on record, hence liable to be set aside. Both parties were residing together and had a son named Bhupesh Kumar but the respondent/plaintiff used to beat the appellant/wife and forced her out of the house along with her son. A compromise deed was executed between both the parties on 19.08.2016 but the respondent/husband suddenly applied for divorce on 12.09.2016. The family Court ignored the fact that the appellant/wife was living with respondent/husband when he applied for the divorce. The findings recorded by the family Court are perverse and liable to be set aside. The learned family Court has acted beyond the principles of law and based on own imagination, passed the judgment and approved the application for divorce. Thus, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. 10 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/husband supports the impugned judgment and submits that the learned Family Court minutely appreciated oral and documentary evidence and rightly passed the decree of divorce in favour of the husband. The impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned Family Court are well merited and do not call for any interference by this Court. 8. Heard counsel for the parties and perused material available on record. 9. It is not disputed before the learned Family Court that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 30.04.2004 in accordance with Hindu rites and rituals in village Amaldih, Police Station- Bilaigarh, District- Baloda Bazar, Chhattisgarh. From their wedlock, one son namely Bhupesh was born on 03.09.2006. 10. Respondent/husband filed application under Section 13 (1)( क ) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on the ground of cruelty and desertion. On the basis of pleadings of both the parties, the learned Family Court framed total 5 issues and out of which, significant issues are as under:- :: द न :: 2. दन, द क थ ह क न क द घर - क कर द कर हए द थ उनक प"रजन क थ द कर न$क %प & कर हए '( रप() * हर क+ ह,? ह- 11 3. दन क .र द क ए- हन क द कर हए रप कर /र"रक %प & कर हए 0र प1 क थ '( रप() * हर क+ ह,? नह2 11. Respondent/husband pleaded in his application that the wife has been residing separately since 2015 and on 03.07.2015, an agreement was executed between the parties however, after executing the said agreement, appellant/wife did not reside with him and went to her parental home. He further pleaded that the appellant/wife assaulted his widowed mother and sisters. Further in para 15 of his cross-examination, he admitted that the appellant/wife was residing with him in September, 2016. He voluntarily stated that she would leave occasionally. In para 16, he admitted that the appellant/wife filed a complaint against him at Police Station- Kasdol in August, 2016. Thereafter, both the parties entered into compromise and an agreement was written on stamp paper vide Ex.D/1 and he admitted his signature on it from A to A part. 12. In para 11 of her examination-in chief, appellant/wife stated that her sister-in-law and mother-in-law had arguments with her over trivial matters. She voluntarily stated that her sister-in-law and mother-in-law used to fight with her. She further stated that the argument escalated to a point where a social gathering was needed. She admits that she went to her parental home after the 12 argument and did not return on her own. She voluntarily stated that the respondent/husband along with four members of her community went to drop her off at her maternal home. Further in para 12, she admits that some members of the community agreed to separate from her husband and provide her a maintenance allowance of Rs.3,000/-. Thereafter, she returned to her matrimonial home. In para 13, she admits that she lived alone but her husband performed his duties to the fullest and also admits that she had no complaints from him. In para 15, she admits that when she used to live alone at Village Chhanchhi, the respondent/husband used to come from time to time to bring necessary items and to see their son. She further admits that whenever her husband used to come to see their son, she used to argue with him on some issues. In para 17, she denied that she has been living at her parental home since 2016. in para 18, she denied that she has not had cohabitation with the respondent since 2016. further, she voluntarily states that it has not been for two or three years. She admits that there is no communication between her and her husband. 13. From the evidence of both the parties, it is an admitted fact that on 19.08.2016, a social meeting was called to compromise the matter between them. 14. It is evident from the admission of the appellant/wife that she has been residing separately from the respondent/husband since the 13 year 2016. The appellant has further admitted that she has filed only an application seeking maintenance against the respondent and has not instituted any proceedings for restitution of conjugal rights. 15. In the matter of Dr. Nirmal Singh Panesar Vs. Paramjit Kaur Panesar alias Ajinder Kaur, Hon’ble Supreme Court held in paras 12 and 13 as under:- 12. Similarly, the law is also well settled as to what could be said to be "desertion" in the divorce proceedings filed under Section 13 of the said Act. The expression "desertion" had come up under the judicial scrutiny of this Court in Bipinchandra Jaisinghbai Shah v. Prabhavatis [1956 SCC OnLine SC 15], which was again considered in Lachman Utamchand Kirpalani v. Meena [1963 SCC OnLine SC 32]. This Court collating the observations made in the earlier decisions, stated its view as under (Lachman Utamchand Kirpalani case, SCC OnLine SC para 40) "40. Collating the aforesaid observations, the view of this Court may be stated thus: Heavy burden lies upon a petitioner who seeks divorce on the ground of desertion to prove four essential conditions, namely, (1) the factum of separation; (2) animus deserendi, (3) absence of his or her consent, and (4) absence of his or her conduct giving reasonable cause to the deserting spouse to leave the matrimonial home." 13. Recently, in Debananda Tamuli v. Kakumoni Kataky [(2022) 5 SCC 459], the Court referring the decision in Lachman Utamchand Kirpalani observed as under (Debananda Tamuli case 10, SCC p. 462, paras 7-8) "7. We have given careful consideration to her submissions. Firstly, we deal with the issue of desertion. The learned 14 counsel appearing for the appellant relied upon the decision of this Court in Lachman Utamchand Kirpalani which has been consistently followed in several decisions of this Court. The law consistently laid down by this Court is that desertion means the intentional abandonment of one spouse by the other without the consent of the other and without a reasonable cause. The deserted spouse must prove that there is a factum of separation and there is an intention on the part of deserting spouse to bring the cohabitation to a permanent end. In other words, there should be animus deserendi on the part of the deserting spouse. There must be an absence of consent on the part of the deserted spouse and the conduct of the deserted spouse should not give a reasonable cause to the deserting spouse to leave the matrimonial home. The view taken by this Court has been incorporated in the Explanation added to sub- section (1) of Section 13 by Act 68 of 1976. The said Explanation reads thus. ‘13. Divorce.- (1) Explanation. In this sub-section, the expression "desertion" means the desertion of the petitioner by the other party to the marriage without reasonable cause and without the consent or against the wish of such party. and includes the wilful neglect of the petitioner by the other party to the marriage, and its grammatical variations and cognate expressions shall be construed accordingly.’ 8. The reasons for a dispute between husband and wife are always very complex Every matrimonial dispute is different 15 from another Whether a case of desertion is established or not will depend on the peculiar facts of each case. It is a matter of drawing an inference based on the facts brought on record by way of evidence.” 16.Upon careful perusal of the pleadings and evidence available on record, it emerges clearly that the appellant/wife has failed to substantiate any allegation of cruelty or ill-treatment against the respondent/husband. It is evident from the record that the appellant/wife did not initiate any complaint or legal proceedings against the respondent/husband, but only against her mother-in- law and sister-in-law. This conduct indicates that the appellant/wife harbored no grievance directly attributable to the respondent/husband but nonetheless chose to withdraw from the matrimonial home of her own volition. Further, the materials on record reveal that the appellant/wife is not inclined to resume cohabitation with the respondent/husband and has persistently refused to reside with him despite opportunities for reconciliation. Such conduct, coupled with her unwarranted separation, amounts to intentional and willful desertion without any reasonable cause or justification. The learned Family Court has duly appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence on record and has rightly recorded a finding that the appellant/wife subjected the respondent/husband to mental cruelty by her persistent indifferent behaviour and by abandoning the marital relationship without sufficient cause. The Family Court has also correctly held that the 16 appellant/wife has deserted the respondent/husband for a considerable period, thereby causing him mental agony and depriving him of marital companionship. Thus, the finding of the learned Family Court that the appellant/wife has committed cruelty and deserted the respondent/husband is fully borne out by the evidence on record and, therefore, the judgment and decree of divorce granted in favour of the respondent/husband are just, proper, and calls for no interference. Thus, this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the judgment and decree of the learned Family Court, warranting interference. 17. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands dismissed. 18. Now coming to grant permanent alimony to appellant/wife, considering the circumstances of the case, the duration of marriage, and the financial status of both the parties, this Court deems it just and proper to grant a one-time permanent alimony to the appellant/wife. Accordingly, the respondent/husband is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lacs only) as full and final settlement towards permanent alimony and maintenance to the appellant/wife. 19. Let a decree be drawn up accordingly. Sd/- Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Judge Ruchi 17 The date when the judgment is reserved The date when the judgment is pronounced The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website Operative Full 14.08.2025 11.11.2025 -- 11.11.2025 RUCHI YADAV Digitally signed by RUCHI YADAV