1 2025:CGHC:18865-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FA(MAT) No. 106 of 2022 1 - Smt. Shradha Pandey, W/o Ashish Pandey, D/o Shri Santosh Upadhyay, Aged About 24 Years Manager, Hora Transport Company, Dhamtari, R/o Rudri Road, Rani Durgawati Chowk, Dhamtari, Tahsil & District- Dhamtari (Chhattisgarh)..........Defendant/ Non-Applicant ... Appellant versus 1 - Ashish Pandey, S/o Jawaharlal Pandey, Aged About 32 Years, Occupation Service, R/o B/14, Near Pt. Shivram School (Near Sagar Hospital), Bhavna Nagar, Shankar Nagar, Police Station Civil Line, Raipur, Tahsil & District Raipur (Chhattisgarh).............(Plaintiff/ Applicant) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Shivendu Pandya, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Advocate Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Judgment on Board Per Rajani Dubey, J. 25.04.2025 2 1. The appeal has been filed by the appellant/wife against the judgment and decree dated 13.04.2022 passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Dhamtari, District- Dhamtari (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 8-A/2021 whereby the application filed under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 by the respondent/husband seeking decree of divorce, was allowed and consequently, the marriage of the parties solemnized on 28.11.2017 has been dissolved. The parties to this appeal shall be referred herein as per their description before the learned family Court. 2. Before the learned trial Court, it is an admitted fact that the marriage of the plaintiff and the defendant was solemnized on 28.11.2017 in Dhamtari as per Hindu customs. As per this Court’s order dated 01.09.2020 passed in TPC No. 3/2020, the Civil Suit No.854/2019 was transferred from Principal Judge, Family Court Raipur to the Judge, Family Court, Dhamtari for its trial/disposal in accordance with law and procedure. Therefore, the case is received to this Court on transfer for trial. Accordingly, this case is being adjudicated by providing an opportunity of proper hearing to both the parties. 3. Plaintiff/husband filed the application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking decree of divorce before the learned trial Court on the ground that after marriage, the defendant/wife went to plaintiff’s native village- Katghora and where she stayed till 17.02.2018, thereafter, being annoyed with the household work, she called her father and went to her maternal home in Dhamtari and she did not come till 31.05.2018. The mother of the defendant/wife threatened the plaintiff's mother over the phone that she would implicate the entire family in a dowry case, due to which, the plaintiff made a written complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Korba on 22.03.2018 and on 3 the basis of which, counseling was done in Mahila Cell, Korba wherein the defendant/wife appeared with her father and family members. On 31.05.2018, in the light of the counselling, the plaintiff brought the defendant to Raipur, where they stayed for 15 days. Thereafter, on 15.06.2018, they went to Katghora. In the night of 17.06.2018, the defendant quarreled with the plaintiff and her mother in Katghora and ran away from home. The plaintiff, after convincing the defendant, took her to the house of his maternal grandmother in Katghora itself. After staying there for the night, the defendant called her father and went to Dhamtari. After marriage, the defendant informed the plaintiff that she was in a relationship with Rachit Patel in Dhamtari, with whom she used to chat. Even after that, the defendant was pressurizing the plaintiff for divorce by mutual consent. In July 2018, the father of the defendant sent her alone to Bilaspur for PSC coaching without the consent and knowledge of the plaintiff. The plaintiff further pleaded that on 17.06.2018, the respondent had an argument with her mother-in-law due to which, she suffered heart attack. Thereafter, angioplasty was done at MMI, Raipur, despite informing the defendant about it through phone and Whatsapp, despite that the defendant and her father did not come to see his mother. Despite all this, the plaintiff wanted to keep defendant with him and live a married life, but she did not want to live together and made a false complaint against the plaintiff and her mother before the Superintendent of Police for dowry harassment and burning. Thereafter, the plaintiff appeared at Women's Cell, Dhamtari on 07.07.2018, where the defendant filed a complaint of being thrown out of the house alleging dowry harassment, which was withdrawn by the 4 defendant's father. When the plaintiff went to take the defendant on 01.10.2018 to attend his father's death anniversary, the defendant refused to go with him. Plaintiff filed a suit under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Family Court, Raipur and in the counselling, the defendant agreed to go with the plaintiff and on 13.7.2019, the case was disposed of by Lok Adalat and they lived together and led a married life till 10.08.2019. After marriage, the defendant used to pressurize the plaintiff to keep in a separate house from his mother, but as there was no other member in the family except the plaintiff, it was not possible for him to live separately from his mother, due to which, the defendant used to harass the plaintiff's mother everyday. Between 27.07.2019 and 10.10.2019, the defendant started to harass the plaintiff and her mother physically and mentally. Therefore, the possibility of the plaintiff living with the defendant and carrying on with his marital life has ended. Therefore, the plaintiff/husband is entitled to get a decree of divorce against the defendant/wife and marriage of the plaintiff and the defendant solemnized on 28.11.2017 may be dissolved. 4. In her written statement, the respondent/wife, apart from admitting the undisputed facts, has denied the allegations and stated that the respondent lived jointly with her mother-in-law Sita Pandey and aunt-in- law Satya Tiwari in her in-laws house. After one week of marriage, the defendant's mother-in-law and aunt-in-law used to taunt her on account of dowry. The father and maternal uncle of the defendant brought the defendant to her maternal home on the first Holi festival, thereafter, the plaintiff applied to Women's Counseling Center Korba on false grounds, on receiving the notice, the defendant appeared in the counselling and 5 in the said counselling, the plaintiff reached a settlement by giving an assurance that he would not harass the defendant. The plaintiff, instead of taking the defendant with him, said that he would take her after a few days, but he did not show any interest in taking her, then on calling him again, he took her to boys hostel, where after keeping her for 3 days, he took her to Katghora and thereafter he denied to keep her in Raipur. Thereafter, she went to her maternal home along with her father. She further pleaded that when the defendant joined PSC coaching in Bilaspur, the plaintiff disturbed her studies, defaming her and other girls living in the hostel. The plaintiff had filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Family Court, Raipur against the defendant on false grounds, thereafter, the defendant, trying to save her married life, agreed to live with the plaintiff. Thereafter, the the plaintiff kept her in a rented house in Raipur for a week and after some time, he again beat her and threw her out of the house, therefore, she came to her maternal home, thereafter, the father of the defendant went to Raipur to leave her. The plaintiff started harassing the defendant on account of dowry. He started mentally harassing her. The plaintiff quarelled with the defendant and caught the hand of the defendant and cut her vein, then she had to get 38 stitches in the hospital. For the said incident, the plaintiff and her mother apologized to the defendant and her parents, but no action was taken to save their married life, thereafter since 04.10.2019, the defendant is living at her maternal home. Hence, a request has been made to cancel the suit filed by the plaintiff and the application may be dismissed. 6 5. On the basis of pleadings made by both the parties, learned trial Court framed the issues and after appreciating oral and documentary evidence, by its judgment and decree dated 13.04.2022, allowed the application filed by the plaintiff/husband. Hence, this appeal has been filed by the defendant/wife. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned trial Court passed the impugned order against the settled principle of law hence is illegal, erroneous and contrary to law. The learned Family Court has committed grave error in not properly considering the averment inter- alia, documents and evidence adduced by the non-applicant/appellant. The finding recorded by the family Court is based on surmises and conjectures and is contrary to the evidence available on record and law. The learned family Court has seriously erred by not considering the fact that the appellant/wife has assigned cogent reason to live separately from the house of respondent/husband which is not appreciated by the learned Family Court. The learned Family Court has committed error in recording the findings that the appellant was residing separately from the house of the respondent by without sufficient reason whereas the cruelty and harassment/ill-treatment was proved by the appellant against the respondent by giving the cogent and sufficient evidence but the learned Family Court did not appreciate the same. The learned Family Court has failed to consider that it appears from the face of the records that the appellant/wife herself has not left the house of the respondent but she left the house of the respondent by cogent reason which is mentioned in the evidence of the appellant and her witnesses but the learned Family Court did not consider the same. 7 He further submits that the learned Family Court ought to have considered that the respondent/husband compelled the appellant/wife to leave the house and pressurized her to go to her parental house due to which, the appellant/wife has no any option but to live separately which is very painful for her. The view taken by the learned Family Court is not justified and reasonable and is erroneous under the facts and circumstances of the case as well as same is not legally supported to the case of the respondent/husband. The learned Family Court committed gross error by recording the findings that the appellant has failed to give a concrete evidence with regard to cruelty which is raised by the respondent in his application. At present, the appellant/wife is willing to live with the respondent/husband and enjoy the marital life but the family members of the respondent are not ready to bring the appellant in the house of the respondent but the learned family Court did not consider this important aspect of the case during the course of counseling. The learned family Court committed gross error by deciding the issues as against the appellant without any cogent, concrete and legal evidence as well as against the well settled principles of Hindu Marriage Act. Therefore, the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned family court are liable to be set aside. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/husband supports the impugned judgment and decree and submits that the learned trial Court minutely appreciated oral and documentary evidence and rightly passed the judgment and decree in favour of the husband, therefore, no interference is required to be called for by this Court and this appeal is liable to be dismissed. 8 8. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. 9. On the basis of pleadings of both the parties, learned Family Court framed three issues which read as under:- क्र. वाद प्रश्न निनष्कर्ष 1. क्या प्रनिवानिदन श्रद्धा पाण्डेया न वाद आशीर्ष पाण्डेया क साथ निवावाह क अनष्ठापान पाश्चा! क्र" रपा"र्ण व्यावाहर निकया ? "प्रमानिर्ण" 2. क्या वाद क्र" र क आधार पार निवावाह-निवाच्छेद क* निडेक्र* पान क अधिधाकर ह, ? "ह-" 3. साहया एवा/ व्याया ? "निनर्णया क* क/ निडेक 41 अनसार निननिर्ण" 10. It is not disputed before the learned Family Court that marriage of the appellant/wife and respondent/husband was solemnized on 28.11.2017 in accordance with Hindu rites and rituals. It is also not disputed that the appellant/wife filed application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. against the respondent/husband for grant of maintenance wherein on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties on 14.01.2020, the respondent/husband has been paying Rs.6,000/- to the appellant/wife as a maintenance. The respondent/husband filed application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act against the appellant/wife for restitution of conjugal rights before the Family Court, Raipur and the said case was settled between the parties in the National Lok Adalat held on 13.07.2019. 11.In her affidavit filed under Order 18 Rule 4 of CPC, appellant/wife Shradha Pandey (D.W.-1) admitted that she is living with her parents 9 and she also admitted this fact that respondent/husband filed application under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights. In her cross-examination, she admitted that she was taking coaching for PSC examination in Bilaspur. She also admitted that before filing the application under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act by the respondent/husband against her, she was living in her parental home and she also admitted that the said case was disposed of on the basis of compromise between the parties before the Lok Adalat. She further admitted that during her PSC coaching in Bilaspur, she lived in a hostel. Further, she admitted her two videos in which she was dancing. 12. Appellant/wife and her father also admitted this suggestion that they did not attend the six month and death anniversary programme of father of the respondent/husband. 13. Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Narendra V. K. Meena reported in (2016) 9 SCC 455 held in paras 12 and 13 as under :- “12. The respondent wife wanted the appellant to get separated from his family. The evidence shows that the family was virtually maintained from the income of the appellant husband. It is not a common practice or desirable culture for a Hindu son in India to get separated from the parents upon getting married at the instance of the wife, especially when the son is the only earning member in the family. A son, brought up and given education by his parents, has a moral and legal obligation to take care and maintain the parents, when they become old and when they have either no income or have a meagre income. In India, generally people do not subscribe to the western thought, where, upon getting married or attaining majority, the son gets separated from the family. In normal circumstances, a wife is expected to be with the family of the husband after the marriage. She becomes integral to and forms part of the family of the 10 husband and normally without any justifiable strong reason, she would never insist that her husband should get separated from the family and live only with her. 13. In the instant case, upon appreciation of the evidence, the trial court came to the conclusion that merely for monetary considerations, the respondent wife wanted to get her husband separated from his family. The averment of the respondent was to the effect that the income of the appellant was also spent for maintaining his family. The said grievance of the respondent is absolutely unjustified. A son maintaining his parents is absolutely normal in Indian culture and ethos. There is no other reason for which the respondent wanted the appellant to be separated from the family-the sole reason was to enjoy the income of the appellant. Unfortunately, the High Court considered this to be a justifiable reason.” 14.The question for our decision in the present appeal is whether the learned trial Court was justified in granting the decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and, whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, a decree for dissolution of the marriage between the parties should be passed on the ground or grounds as contemplated under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act. 15. Section 13(1) provides several grounds for obtaining divorce by either party to the marriage whether solemnized before or after the commencement of the Act. For facility of reference, Section 13 (1)(b) of the Act, 1955, is reproduced herein under :- 13. Divorce. - (1) Any marriage solemnised, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, may, on a petition presented by either the husband or the wife, be dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground that the other party --- [(ib) has deserted the petitioner for a continuous period of not less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition; or]. 16. In the light of above decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Narendra (supra) and as regards cruelty is concerned, in the present case, 11 respondent/husband produced oral and documentary evidence which would show that his mother is old aged person and she is suffering from various ailments and also filed various documents of treatment of his mother in this regard. Despite knowing this fact, the the appellant/wife did not want to live with her mother-in-law. After the death of father of the respondent/husband, despite knowing about his six month and death anniversary, the appellant/wife did not go to her in- laws house. Thus, it is proved that the respondent/husband proved this fact by oral and documentary evidence that the appellant/wife has committed cruelty with him. On consideration of the entire facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that the finding of the learned Family Court in allowing the application of divorce filed by the plaintiff is based on proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence. We do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and decree of the learned Family Court. 17. As a decree has been passed, the wife is entitled to permanent alimony for her sustenance. Be it stated, while granting permanent alimony, no arithmetic formula can be adopted as there cannot be mathematical exactitude. It shall depend upon the status of the parties, their respective social needs, the financial capacity of the husband and other obligations. Hon’ble Apex Court in Vinny Parmvir Parmar v. Parmvir Parmar [2011 (13) SCC 112], while dealing with the concept of permanent alimony, has observed that while granting permanent alimony, the Court is required to take note of the fact that the amount of maintenance fixed for the wife should be such as she can live in reasonable comfort considering her status and the mode of life she was used to when she lived with her husband. At the same time, the 12 amount so fixed cannot be excessive or affect the living condition of the other party. 18. Keeping in mind the aforesaid principles and the fact that the plaintiff/husband is giving Rs.6,000/- per month as maintenance in compliance of order passed in application filed by defendant/wife under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., we think it appropriate to fix the one time permanent alimony at Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lacs) which shall be deposited before the learned Family Judge or in the account of appellant/wife within a period of nine months. We may want to clarify that amount, if any, deposited earlier shall be adjusted. 19. On the basis of the forgoing discussion, the decree for dissolution of marriage is affirmed on the ground of mental cruelty which eventually leads to dismissal of the appeal. The parties shall bear their respective costs. 20. Let a decree be drawn up accordingly. Sd/- Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Judge Ruchi RUCHI YADAV Digitally signed by RUCHI YADAV