1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FA(MAT) No. 107 of 2020 Reserved On 09/10/2025 Delivered on 21/11/2025 1 - Rajkumar Pandey S/o Late Pashupatinath Pandey Aged About 55 Years (Now 60 Years), R/o Giri Singar 1367, Kurud Road, Saket Nagar Kohka, Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Smt. Kanti Pandey W/o Rajkumar Pandey Aged About 50 Years (Now 55 Years) R/o Giri Singar 1367, Kurud Road, Saket Nagar Kohka, Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hemant Kumar Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vipin Tiwari, Advocate (Division Bench) Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad C A V Order Per, Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J. 1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-husband, being aggrieved by the judgment dated 04.02.2020 (Annexure 2 A/1), passed by the 3rd Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, District Durg (C.G.), in Civil Suit No.73-A of 2014, whereby the Family Court had dismissed the application for divorce filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. 2. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the applicant and the non-applicant were lawfully married on 24.05.1983 in accordance with Hindu customs and traditions. The parties have two daughters born out of the said wedlock. The non-applicant was employed as a teacher at the Government High School, Kohka. Subsequently, the non-applicant instituted a petition for divorce against the applicant, registered as Case No. 144A/2010, in which a consent decree was passed on 18.02.2011. 3. Facts of the present case, in brevity, are that the marriage between the applicant and the respondent was solemnized on 24.05.1983 at Bhilai, District Durg, in accordance with Hindu customs and rituals. Out of the said wedlock, three children were born; two daughters, namely Ms. Mridula and Ms. Richa, and one son, Mr. Shashank Shekhar Pandey. The applicant extended substantial moral, financial, and educational support to the non- applicant, enabling her to pursue higher education and subsequently secure employment as a teacher in a government school. During her posting at the Government Higher Secondary School, Kohka, District Durg (C.G.), the non-applicant allegedly developed a close and inappropriate relationship with one Mr. 3 Rajesh Ojha, a fellow teacher. It is stated that thereafter, the behavior of the non-applicant towards the applicant drastically changed; she began to maintain distance and display indifference. On one occasion, she deceitfully informed the applicant that she was required to attend a departmental computer training program at Korba and proceeded to travel there with the said Rajesh Ojha, although no such official training was ever organized at that place. The applicant was allotted a BSP residential quarter in his name, where both parties resided along with their children. Subsequently, the non-applicant, in violation of government housing rules, managed to procure another government quarter in her own name, wherein she is alleged to have continuously maintained an illicit and immoral relationship with the said Rajesh Ojha. In the year 2004, the daughter of the parties, Ms. Richa Pandey, reportedly witnessed the non-applicant in a compromising position with Rajesh Ojha and immediately informed the applicant about the same, even providing a written declaration to that effect. Thereafter, the non-applicant began to ill-treat the applicant, subjecting him to physical and mental cruelty without just cause, including scolding, harassment, and threats. It is further submitted that since 19.12.2011, there has been a complete cessation of marital relations between the applicant and the non-applicant. The non-applicant has allegedly continued to insult and humiliate the applicant publicly and has even threatened to cause him harm. It is also alleged that the non- 4 applicant has illegally retained certain property-related papers and important official documents belonging to the applicant, which she may misuse to his detriment. Moreover, the non-applicant, while continuing her illicit relationship with Rajesh Ojha, has filed false and frivolous complaints against the applicant and his relatives, resulting in the registration of a case under Sections 107 and 116 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, thereby causing immense mental and physical distress to the applicant. Subsequently, by order dated 18.02.2011, the learned Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, granted judicial separation between the parties; however, despite the conditions laid down in clause 10 of the said order, the non-applicant failed to institute any proceedings under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Thereafter, the applicant issued a legal notice to the non-applicant seeking redressal, but upon receiving no satisfactory response, he was constrained to file a petition for divorce before the Family Court, Durg. The non-applicant, in her written statement, evasively denied the material averments of the plaint. After providing both parties with adequate opportunities to present their case, the learned trial court dismissed the divorce petition filed by the applicant. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said judgment and order of dismissal, the applicant has preferred the present appeal before this Court. 5 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the appellant filed an application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, registered as Civil Suit No. 73A/2014 Rajkumar Pandey vs. Smt. Kanti Pandey, before the learned Third Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg (Chhattisgarh), seeking dissolution of marriage on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. The said suit was, however, dismissed by the impugned judgment and decree dated 04.02.2020, against which the present appeal has been preferred before this Hon’ble Court. The admitted facts between the parties are that their marriage was solemnized on 24.05.1983 at Bhilai as per Hindu rites and rituals, and three children, two daughters, Mridula and Richa, and one son, Shashank, were born from the wedlock, all of whom are now married. The respondent-wife, as per her own affidavit, is a highly educated woman employed as a Lecturer (English) at Government Higher Secondary School, Kohka, drawing a monthly salary of ₹1,27,752/- besides earning rental income and possessing two residential houses. In contrast, the appellant- husband is a retired person drawing a modest monthly pension of ₹4,048/-, and he is constrained to reside in a jointly owned house where peaceful cohabitation has become impossible due to the respondent’s continued hostility. It is further submitted that prior to filing the present suit, the respondent herself had instituted two divorce proceedings, Civil Suit No. 144A/2010 and Civil Suit No. 126A/2011, before the Family Court, Durg. The first case was 6 disposed of on the basis of a mutual compromise dated 18.02.2011 (Annexure D/13, Page 108 of the Paper Book), whereby both parties agreed to live separately in the same house without maintaining conjugal relations, manage their affairs independently, and file a joint petition under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The second case filed by the respondent was dismissed for want of appearance. The said compromise, which recorded that the parties had been living separately since 2002, is clear evidence of an irretrievable breakdown of marriage. 5. It is further submitted that despite the compromise and the judicial separation order dated 18.02.2011, the parties have continued to live separately without any resumption of marital relations. The appellant has adduced both oral and documentary evidence to establish that the respondent has been maintaining an illicit relationship with one Mr. Rajesh Ojha since 2008, that she subjected the appellant to physical and mental cruelty, and that she even lodged false complaints under Sections 107 and 116 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, against the appellant and his relatives. The pleadings in paragraphs 6 and 8 of the plaint, alleging cruelty and abusive conduct by the respondent, were not specifically denied in her written statement and must, therefore, be deemed admitted in light of Order VIII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 7 Muddasani Venkata Narsaiah v. Muddasani Sarojana, (2016) 12 SCC 288. The appellant’s case finds further support from judicial precedents such as Satish Sitole v. Ganga, AIR 2008 SC 3093, and Takeshwar v. Smt. Jayanti Goswami (FAM No. 268/2018, Chhattisgarh High Court), which recognize that long and continuous separation coupled with allegations of cruelty constitutes sufficient ground for dissolution of marriage. The appellant has also established, through uncontroverted testimony and documents, that he facilitated the respondent’s higher education and employment as a government lecturer. Considering the respondent’s substantial income and the appellant’s limited means, the appellant has filed an application under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking permanent alimony of ₹25,00,000/- and monthly maintenance of ₹40,000/-, relying upon the principle recognized by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Bhagyashri w/o Jagdish Jaiswal v. Jagdish s/o Sajjan Lala Jaiswal, 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 694, wherein the Court acknowledged the entitlement of a financially dependent husband to claim maintenance. It is, therefore, humbly submitted that the impugned judgment and decree dated 04.02.2020 are contrary to the evidence and law and are liable to be set aside, and that the appellant is entitled to a decree of divorce and the reliefs sought. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents respectfully submitted that the marriage between the appellant 8 and the respondent was solemnized on 24.05.1983 as per Hindu rites and customs, and two daughters were born from the said wedlock. The respondent admits that she had earlier instituted divorce proceedings bearing Case No. 144A/2010 before the Family Court, Durg, which was disposed of on the basis of a mutual compromise between the parties. The respondent is employed as a teacher in the Government Higher Secondary School, Kohka, and a government residential quarter was allotted in her name in due course of service. Pursuant to a complaint lodged by the respondent, proceedings under Sections 107 and 116 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, were initiated by the police against the appellant. The respondent had also filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance, which she later withdrew. Denying the other allegations made by the appellant, the respondent specifically submits that the appellant never facilitated her higher education nor secured her employment as a teacher. The respondent further clarifies that Mr. Rajesh Ojha was known to her since childhood, as his father and her father were close friends, and any allegation of an illicit relationship is false and malicious. The appellant, with an intent to harass and defame the respondent, instigated multiple police inquiries into her bank accounts and filed numerous applications under the Right to Information Act, 2005, including false complaints before the Additional Director General of Police, Economic Offences Wing and Anti-Corruption Bureau, as well as 9 other government authorities. The appellant never informed the respondent about the government quarter allotted in his name, and the disputed quarter mentioned by him was not allotted to the respondent in 2004 as alleged. The respondent denies being in possession of any property-related or contractual documents belonging to the appellant. It is further submitted that in compliance with the compromise recorded in Case No. 144A/2010, the respondent had independently filed a joint divorce petition under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, but the same was dismissed due to the non-appearance of the appellant. Hence, the present proceedings are barred by the principle of res judicata and the doctrine of estoppel. The respondent asserts that the appellant has always acted with malafide intentions; he maintained an illicit relationship with a woman named Gita Manjhi, with whom he lived continuously for 19 days and nights, a fact personally witnessed by the respondent. When the respondent objected, the appellant assaulted her, compelling her to lodge a complaint at the Smriti Nagar Police Station. During his stay with the said woman, the appellant kept his mobile phone switched off to conceal his activities. Both parties had jointly obtained a housing loan for the construction of their residence. The respondent further states that the appellant falsely represents himself as a doctor and unlawfully engages in medical practice. He is addicted to intoxication and often failed to consummate marital relations due to his condition; 10 when successful, he used to mark circles on a calendar and calculate the act in monetary terms at the rate of ₹50 per occasion. Moreover, he has caused immense mental agony to the respondent by sending obscene and derogatory notices through his advocate. In view of the appellant’s continuous misconduct, cruelty, and mala fide conduct, it is humbly prayed that the present appeal be dismissed as being devoid of merit. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. It is an admitted fact that the applicant and the non-applicant were lawfully married on 24.05.1983 in accordance with Hindu rites and customs. The parties have three children born out of the said wedlock, all of whom are now adults. The respondent-wife is employed as a teacher at the Government Higher Secondary School, Kohka. It is also undisputed that the respondent had earlier instituted divorce proceedings registered as Civil Suit No. 144A/2010 before the Family Court, Durg, which was disposed of on the basis of a compromise dated 18.02.2011. As per the terms of the said consent decree, both parties had agreed to reside in the same house but in separate rooms, to maintain separate kitchens, and to refrain from maintaining any physical relationship with each other. 11 9. It is pertinent to reproduced the compromise decree dated 18.02.2011 (Annexure D.19) for ready reference :- "समक्ष न्यायायालया श्रीमन प्रधान न्यायाधाश कु टुम्ब न्यायालया दुर्ग ( छ०र्ग० ) 1 श्रीमती कुतिती पाण्डेया पातिती श्री आर कु पाण्डेया, आया 45 वर्ष सतिकुन सकु ती नर्गर, कु रूदु र%डे, कु%हकु ति'लई जि*ल दुर्ग (छ०र्ग०) … आवतिदुकु 2 र*कु मर पाण्डेया आ. पा.एस. पाण्डेया उम्र 51 वर्ष पाती मकुन न. 1367 सकु ती नर्गर, कु रूदु र%डे कु%हकु तिमलई, जि*ल दुर्ग (छ०र्ग०) आवदुन अंतीर्गती धार 13 ( ख ) तिहन्दु0 तिववह अंजिधातिनयाम आवतिदुकु एव आवदुकु कु1 ओर स सयाक्त तिनम्न तिनवदुन कुरती ह4- 1 याह तिकु आवदुकु एव आवदुकु कु नम व पाती, उपार वति5ती अंनसर सत्या व सह ह4। 2 याह तिकु उ'या पाक्ष तिहन्दु0 ह4 और तिहन्दु0 रतिती रिरव* स उनकु तिववह तिदुनकु 24.5. 1983 कु% सक्टुर 06 तिमलई जि*ल दुर्ग म; सम्पान्न ह=आ था दु%न% कु दुम्पात्या *वन स 02 पात्री एव एकु पात्री ह4। 3 याह तिकु आवदुकुर्ग5 कु मध्या आपास मधार सबधा नहA रहती और दु%नB ह तिवचारधार, रहन सहन और *वन यापान म; बह=ती अंजिधाकु फकु ह% र्गया ह4 और दु%न% कु दुम्पात्या सबधा म; बन रहन अंस'व ह% र्गया ह4। 12 4 याह तिकु आवदुकुर्ग5 तिदुनकु 25.5.1983 कु% सम्पान्न तिववह आपास सहमती स तिवच्छतिदुती कुरन चाहती ह4। क्याBतिकु व 2002 स अंलर्ग रह रह ह4। 5 याह तिकु दु%नB कु मध्या तिकुस ' प्रकुर कु1 दुरतिवसधा नहA ह4। 6. याह कु1 प्रकुर5 कुलतीती नहA ह4 और मननया न्यायालया कु क्षत्रीजिधाकुर मF ह4। 7. याह कु1, आवदुन पार तिनधारिरती न्यायाशल्कु 40 कु चास्पा तिकुया र्गया ह4। 8. याह कु1 प्रस्तीती आवदुनपात्री सद्भावन पा05 हF। अंतीJ मननया न्यायालया स तिवनम्र प्रथान ह4 कु1 आवदुकुर्गढ़ कु मध्या तिदुनकु 24.05.1983 कु% समपान्न तिववह तिवच्छदु कु आदुश/तिन5या एव तिडेक्री1 पारिरती कुरन कु1 न्यायातिहती मF कुM पा कु1 *व। तिदुनकु :- 18.02.2011 आवतिदुकु Sd/- ‡श्रीमती कुतिती पाण्डेया‡ आवदुकु Sd/- ‡र*कु मर पाण्डेया‡ //सत्यापान // हम आवतिदुकु श्रीमती कुतिती पाण्डेया पातिती श्री आर कु पाण्डेया तीथा आवदुकु र*कु मर पाडेया आ० पा० एन० पाण्डेया सयाक्त रूपा स सत्या तिनष्ठां स सत्यातिपाती कुरती हF कु1 प्रस्तीती आवदुन पात्री कु तिडेकु 1 लर्गयाती अंती तीकु कु सम्पा05 कुथान तीथा प्रथान कु पार हमर *नकुर व तिवश्वस स सत्या व सह ह4 जि*स हम दु%नB न पाढ़कुर, समझकुर, सह पाकुर आ* तिदुनकु 18.02.2011 कु% स्थान दुर्ग मF अंपान-अंपान हस्तीक्षर कुर तिदुया। 13 आवतिदुकु Sd/- ‡श्रीमती कुतिती पाण्डेया‡ आवदुकु Sd/- ‡र*कु मर पाण्डेया‡" 10. Once such a compromise decree has been duly recorded and signed by both parties, they are bound to adhere to its terms. The material on record clearly indicates that the parties have been living separately since 2002. Their relationship has become strained and hostile, and they have leveled allegations and counter-allegations of adultery against each other, none of which have been substantiated by cogent evidence. However, from the overall conduct and the prolonged period of separation, it is evident that there exists no cordiality or mutual trust between the parties. Both have crossed the age of 55–60 years, and their children have attained adulthood. The matter was referred to mediation vide order dated 30.06.2025, but no settlement could be reached. By order dated 10.07.2025, it was noted that the appellant had not shown any interest in appearing before the Mediation Centre to amicably resolve the dispute. 11. In view of the above circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no possibility of reconciliation or restoration of matrimonial relations between the parties. The continuance of such a marriage would serve no useful purpose. 14 Marriage is an institution founded upon mutual respect, trust, and companionship; where these foundations have irretrievably broken down, any attempt to preserve the marital tie would be futile. 12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rajib Kumar Roy Vs. Sushmita Saha reported in the (2023) 17 SCC 441 for the ready reference the relevant paragraphs are quoted hrerinunder :- “7. The husband and wife have been living separately, the wife is at Udaipur, District Gomati, Tripura and husband at Agartala, Tripura for the last 12 years. Nothing would give us more satisfaction if the two could work out their differences and decide to live together, if only for the sake of their child. But under the circumstances, with the rigid attitude of both the parties, who have failed to appreciate the beauty of compromise, we have been forced to convince ourselves, albeit regrettably, that the two cannot now live together. Twelve years of separation, is a sufficiently long period of time to have sapped all emotions which the two perhaps may have had once for each other. We therefore cannot take the same hopeful view as that of the High Court, which still believes that the matrimonial bond between the two has not ruptured beyond repair or that the two cannot 15 still give a new lease of life to their relation. Frankly, no matter how much we would have liked this to happen but in reality, this is a possibility, which under the facts and circumstances of the case, can only be called wishful. 8. Continued bitterness, dead emotions and long separation, in the given facts and circumstances of a case, can be construed as a case of “irretrievable breakdown of marriage”, which is also a facet of “cruelty”. In Rakesh Raman v. Kavita [Rakesh Raman v. Kavita, (2023) 17 SCC 433] , this is precisely what was held, that though in a given case cruelty as a fault, may not be attributable to one party alone and hence despite irretrievable breakdown of marriage keeping the parties together amounts to cruelty on both sides. Which is precisely the case at hand. 9. Whatever may be the justification for the two living separately, with so much of time gone by, any marital love or affection, which may have been between the parties, seems to have dried up. This is a classic case of irretrievable breakdown of marriage. In view of the Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan [Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan, (2023) 14 SCC 231] which has held that 16 in such cases where there is irretrievable breakdown of marriage then dissolution of marriage is the only solution and this Court can grant a decree of divorce in exercise of its power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. 10. We, therefore, declare the marriage to have broken down irretrievably and therefore in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India we are of the considered opinion that this being a case of irretrievable breakdown of marriage must now be dissolved by grant of decree of divorce.” 13. Further, in the matter of Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan , reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 375, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as follows, and the relevant paragraph is quoted herein below: “42. (iii) Whether this Court can grant divorce in exercise of power under Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India when there is complete and irretrievable breakdown of marriage in spite of the other spouses opposing the prayer? This question is also answered in the affirmative, inter alia, holding that this Court, in exercise of power under Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India, has the discretion to 17 dissolve the marriage on the ground of its irretrievable breakdown. This discretionary power is to be exercised to do 'complete justice' to the parties, wherein this Court is satisfied that the facts established show that the marriage has completely failed and there is no possibility that the parties will cohabit together, and continuation of the formal legal relationship is unjustified. The Court, as a court of equity, is required to also balance the circumstances and the background in which the party opposing the dissolution is placed.” 14. In light of the foregoing and the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court, considering the long separation, the mutual allegations, and the total breakdown of the marriage, it would be just and proper to dissolve the marriage between the parties by a decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. So far as the prayer for permanent alimony and maintenance is concerned, this Court finds no sufficient ground to entertain or grant the same in the facts and circumstances of the case. 15. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Judge Saxena