1 2025:CGHC:18867-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FA(MAT) No. 83 of 2023 1 - Girdhar Ram Kosariya (Dewangan) S/o Shri Ramsingh Kosariya (Dewangan) Aged About 40 Years, Presently Residing At Village Khujji, Tahsil Dongargaon, District - Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Appellant versus 1 - Smt. Chhaya Kosariya (Dewangan) W/o Girdhar Ram Kosariya (Dewangan), Aged About 31 Years Presently Residing At Through Mother Smt. Saraswati Dewangan Wd/o Late Ishwar Lal Dewangan, Shitla Para, Bhilai- 03 , Tahsil And District - Durg, (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Aniruddha Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent(s) : None, though served. DB: Hon’ble Smt Justice Rajani Dubey Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput JUDGMENT ON BOARD Per Sachin Singh Rajput, J 25/04/2025 1. This appeal has been filed under Section 19 (1) of the Family Court Act, 1984 (for short “Act of 1984”) by the appellant/ husband assailing the correctness, validity and judicial propriety of the judgment and decree dated 09.02.2023 passed by learned Family Court, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (CG) in Civil Suit No.169 A/2020. 2 2. An application under Section 13(1) (i-d) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short “Act of 1955”) was filed by the appellant/ husband seeking a relief of dissolution of marriage dated 14.02.2017 between the appellant/husband and respondent/ wife. It is an admitted fact that the appellant/ husband and respondent/ wife were married on 14.07.2017 as per Hindu rites and rituals. It is also admitted that the appellant/ husband is employed in the Railway Department as a Trackman and is posted at Station Bankal. 3. Pleadings in nutshell is that the respondent/wife used to ask the appellant/husband to live in her maternal home as live in son-in-law (Gharjamai) and to take responsibility of her maternal house, which was denied by the appellant/ husband. The respondent/ wife started residing mostly at her maternal home and troubling the appellant/husband, sometimes making a noose for hanging under the pretext of suicide, sometimes threatening to commit suicide by pouring kerosene on herself and setting herself on fire, threatening to consume poison and writing a false suicidal note etc and on being objected, she started quarreling with the appellant/ husband, not doing household work, harassing for dowry, threatening to send her to jail for domestic violence. On account of behaviour of the respondent/ wife, the appellant/ husband suffered mental cruelty. The first child was born on 10.11.2017 who died after 10 days of the birth. After 6 months, the respondent/ wife became pregnant for second time, she got an abortion done, when the third pregnancy occurred, the respondent/ wife terminated the pregnancy by taking pills which caused mental cruelty to the appellant/ husband. The respondent/ wife is not inclined to live with the appellant/ husband and wants to live in her maternal home. On 21.12.2018 the respondent/ wife left the home of appellant/ husband and went to her maternal home which was informed in writing to the Police Station Dongargaon by the appellant/ husband on 01.01.2019, upon which the Police advised the respondent/ wife. On 14.03.2020, the respondent/wife took back entire jointure (Shtridhan) and ended the marital relationship with the appellant/ husband. 3 4. The respondent/ wife filed her written statement. It is pleaded that after one week of the marriage, the appellant/ husband used to taunt respondent/ wife on pretext of articles gifted in marriage. It is further pleaded that the appellant/ husband and his family members used to quarrel with the respondent/ wife on petty matters, they also taunted her that she has come from a poor family, did not bring any dowry and used to abuse, assault and threatened to dire consequences. The appellant/ husband has become addicted to liquor. The appellant/ husband under the influence of liquor forces on account of making physical relationship by unnatural way and due to inhumane act of the appellant/ husband, their first child died in just 10 days. The respondent/ wife was held responsible for the death. The appellant/ husband and his family members did not take care of the respondent/ wife, despite that she lived in her marital home, she never asked the appellant/ husband to live in her maternal home as live in son-in-law (Gharjamai) and neither did she ever attempt to commit suicide. After death of first child, the second was aborted due to physical and mental cruelty and to avoid the third abortion, on permission of the appellant/ husband and his family members she came to her maternal home, however her physical condition was not fit to become a mother. She was forced to live at her maternal home by the appellant/ husband on the pretext that she is not worthy of his family and not able to deliver the child properly and the appellant/ husband said to give divorce to her. 5. When all the incident were informed to her parents, with the efforts of her parents a social meeting was convened where the appellant/ husband agreed to keep her properly, thereafter she living in her marital home, but there was no change in the behaviour of the appellant/ husband. On the basis of above broad pleadings, learned Family Court framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the defendant committed cruelty with the plaintiff after marriage ? 2. whether the plaintiff is entitled to get decree of dissolution of marriage from the defendant ? 3. Cost and expenses ? 4 6. The appellant/ husband examined three witnesses and the respondent/ wife also examined three witnesses. 7. Learned Family Court upon appreciation of evidence available on record decided the issues against the appellant/ husband and dismissed his application by the impugned judgment and decree which is assailed before this Court in this appeal. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant/ husband argued that the judgment and decree passed by the learned Family Court is bad in law. He submits that from the evidence of the appellant/ husband and his witnesses, the cruelty against the appellant/ husband by the respondent/ wife has been duly proved, the learned Family Court failed to appreciate the evidence on record to its proper perspective and committed an error of law and fact in deciding the issues against the appellant/ husband, therefore, he prays that the appeal may be allowed by setting aside the impugned judgment and decree. 9. None appears on behalf of respondent/ wife though notice has been served. 10. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant at length and perused the record including the judgment impugned. 11. The appellant/ husband has filed an application for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty and also on desertion. According to pleadings and evidence of the appellant/ husband, he was subjected to physical and mental cruelty on account of behaviour of the respondent/ wife. From the record it appears that the appellant/ husband tried to establish on record that the respondent/ wife quarrels with him, does not perform the domestic work, threatens him to send to jail on false case of demand of dowry & domestic violence. She got aborted the child by consuming abortion pills which caused mental cruelty. She left the house on 21.12.2018 without his will and consent and went to maternal home. On 14.03.2020, she took back all her money (Shtridhan) and terminated the marital relationship and does not want to live with him. 12. In her evidence before the Family Court respondent/ wife deposed in the line of pleadings of her written statement. The witnesses of respondent/wife also deposed in 5 the same line. She has stated that after one week of the marriage, the appellant/ husband and his family members started torturing her physically and mentally by taunting her. Her husband addicted to liquor. The appellant/ husband made unnatural relationship forcibly with her, on non-cooperation he used to assault seriously. With a hope in change of behaviour, she somehow kept her good and when cruelty meted to her, it was intimated to her parents, a social meeting was convened upon which both the parties were advised to live peacefully. The appellant/ husband admitted his mistake and assured not to repeat the same behaviour in future and took the respondent/ wife to his home. After the decision was taken in the social meeting, she went with her husband/ however the behaviour of the appellant/ husband did not change, during this time, she became pregnant and during pregnancy, the appellant/ husband continued to perform inhumane act, as a result the delivered child died within 10 days. She was thrown out from the house after quarreling and making allegation that she suffered three miscarriages and cannot deliver any child. Her statement is also supported by two other witnesses. From the evidence on record, the parties are leveling allegations against each other. 13. The learned Family Court on the basis of above evidence gave a finding that the appellant/ husband was not able to prove that the respondent/ wife treated him with cruelty. From the evidence gathered, it also appears that a social meeting was convened and thereafter the respondent/ wife started living with the appellant/ husband. The allegation with regard to sending the appellant/ husband to jail in false cases and to commit suicide do not appear to have been proved.Learned Family Court also gave a finding that from the evidence on record it does not appear that the respondent/ wife herself has caused the abortion. From the evidence gathered, it does not appear that the appellant/ husband was subjected to physical and mental cruelty, therefore, the finding recorded in this regard does not appear to be perverse or contrary to record. So far as the desertion is concerned, this Court is of the view that the respondent/ wife had sufficient cause to live separately from the appellant/ husband. 6 14. In order to prove the desertion, the Supreme Court in the case of Ravi Kumar v. Julmi Devim reported in (2010) 4 SCC 476 has observed as under - "13. It may be noted only after the amendment of the said Act by the amending Act 68 of 1976, desertion per se became a ground for divorce. On the question of desertion, the High Court held that in order to prove a case of desertion, the party alleging desertion must not only prove that the other spouse was living separately but also must prove that there is an animus deserendi on the part of the wife and the husband must prove that he has not conducted himself in a way which furnishes reasonable cause for the wife to stay away from the matrimonial home." 15. Even otherwise as per allegations in the application, the respondent/ wife left her marital home on 21.12.2018 without the will and consent of the appellant/ husband. The application seeking decree of dissolution of marriage was filed on 17.11.2020. before completion of 2 years, hence the appellant/ husband is not entitled to raise this ground. 16. As a fallout of above discussion, we do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment. The appeal sans merit and is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost. Decree be drawn accordingly. Sd/- Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Judge Parul PARUL MITTAL Digitally signed by PARUL MITTAL Date: 2025.05.15 15:54:17 +0530