1 2025:CGHC:53786-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FAM No. 123 of 2018 1 - Smt. Godawari Sahu W/o Chandrashekhar Prasad Sahu, Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Chhataona, Tehsil - Takhatpur, P.S. Chakarbhata, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1 - Chandrashekhar Prasad Sahu S/o Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Mulmula, Tahsil – Pamgarh, Police Station – Mulmula, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. K.P. Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Vijay Kumar Deshmukh, Advocate. DB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal , J. & Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, J. Order on Board (04.11.2025) Per Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, 1 This appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 30.04.2018 (Annexure-A/1), passed in Civil Suit No. 313-A/2017 by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court Bilaspur (C.G.), whereby the decree of divorce under Section 13(A) of Hindu Marriage Act filed by the respondent/husband was allowed. HEERA LAL SAHU Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2025.11.06 16:54:58 +0530 2 2 Briefly stated, the respondent’s case was that the parties were married at village Chhataona, District – Bilaspur (C.G.) on 17.04.2008, in accordance with Hindu customary rites and rituals and also having one son aged about eight years born out of their wedlock, who resides with the appellant/wife. The respondent/husband alleged in the application that after a few days of marriage, the behaviour of the appellant/wife changed, and she started misbehaving with the parents of the respondent and also not giving respect to the parents of the respondent. The appellant also did not complete the given work on time and says that she is not his mate. When the appellant was confronted with these incidents started misbehaving, quarrelling with the respondent. Instead, she wishes to reside in her matrimonial house. Respondent left her at the matrimonial house for a few days, with the son. After staying for a few days at the matrimony house, the appellant refused to come back and also prevented him from meeting with the son. From the conduct of the appellant, the respondent/husband was continuously mentally and physically harassed. Therefore, the respondent had no option but to dissolve his marriage with the appellant. 3 The appellant filed reply to the application under Section 13(A) of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Family Court, in 3 which she denied all allegations levelled against her by the respondent and stated that the allegations are false and concocted. She also stated that after the marriage, the respondent and his family members subjected her to cruelty on account of not bringing the dowry. In his absence, his family members had left her in her matrimonial house, saying that she would come back with the articles demanded; otherwise, she should not come back, for which the appellant never complained, because she wanted to live with the respondent. The appellant had requested the respondent to take her back, but all went in vain. 4 The Family Court, Bilaspur, found the ground of cruelty to be proven out of the two grounds presented in the divorce application of the respondent/applicant, husband Chandrashekhar Prasad Sahu, while the ground of desertion was found to be unproven. Therefore, the Court granted a decree of divorce in favour of the respondent/applicant against the appellant solely on the ground of cruelty. 5 Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment and decree dated 30.04.2018 (Annexure-P/1) passed by the learned family Court is bad in law as well as on the facts, and therefore, the said 4 judgment is not sustainable according to law. He next submits that the learned trial Court has failed to consider the evidence led by the appellant and relied upon the statement of the respondent only. Learned trial Court failed to consider the evidence recorded under Order 18 Rule 4 of CPC of the appellant, where she had stated that she has been in her matrimonial house since 27th February, 2016, and the application for divorce was filed on 08.05.2017 by the respondent/husband. The respondent has only taken one ground for divorce, which is cruelty, but in the cross- examination, the respondent has stated that he loves his wife, and there is no strong ground for divorce for the respondent. In the proceedings under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., also appellant was ready to go with the husband, contrary to that the respondent has deposed that he does not want to take the wife with him. In the pleading itself, the respondent has neither explained any incident with a date when he or his parents were subjected to cruelty by the appellant. As such, the order impugned is liable to be set aside. 6 Learned counsel for the respondent submits that after marriage, the appellant was always misbehaving with the respondent and his family members; therefore, the respondent filed an application for dissolution of the 5 marriage between them. He next submits that the respondent-husband was mentally harassed by the appellant. The impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is well merited; therefore, there is no ground to entertain this appeal, and it is liable to be dismissed. 7 Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8 The Supreme Court in the matter of Vinita Saxena v Pankaj Pandit1, has held that in order to evaluate the kind of cruelty the human values, educational standard, individual temperament, etc. as well as the intensity, gravity and stigmatic impact of the conduct of each case must be considered. 9 In Black Law Dictionary (8th Edition 2004) mental cruelty has been defined--As a ground for divorce, one spouse's course of conduct (not involving actual violence) that creates such anguish that it endangers the life, physical health, or mental health of the other spouse. 10 The concept of cruelty in Halsbury's Laws of England (Volume 13, 4th Edition Para 1269) :- “The general rule in all cases of cruelty is that the entire matrimonial relationship must be considered, and that rule is of special value when the cruelty consists not of violent acts but of injurious reproaches, complaints, accusations or taunts. In cases where no violence is averred, it is 1 (2006) 3 SCC 778 6 undesirable to consider judicial pronouncements with a view to creating certain categories of acts or conduct as having or lacking the nature or quality which renders them capable or incapable in all circumstances of amounting to cruelty; for it is the effect of the conduct rather than its nature which is of paramount importance in assessing a complaint of cruelty. Whether one spouse has been guilty of cruelty to the other is essentially a question of fact and previously decided cases have little, if any, value. The Court should bear in mind the physical and mental condition of the parties as well as their social status, and should consider the impact of the personality and conduct of one spouse on the mind of the other, weighing all incidents and quarries between the spouses from that point of view; further, the conduct alleged must be examined in the light of the complainant's capacity for endurance and the extent to which that capacity is known to the other spouse. Malevolent intention is not essential to cruelty but it is an important element where it exits.” 11 In 24 American jurisprudence, mental cruelty has been defined as under:- “Mental Cruelty as a course of unprovoked conduct towards one's spouse which causes embarrassment, humiliation, and anguish so as to render the spouse's life miserable and unendurable. The plaintiff must show a course of conduct on the part of the defendant which so endangers the physical or mental health of the plaintiff as to render continued cohabitation unsafe or improper, although the plaintiff need not establish actual instances of physical abuse.” 12 In order to find out the cruelty apart from a physical cruelty, mental cruelty has been defined by the Supreme Court in the case of Samar Ghosh Vs. Jaya Ghosh {(2007) 4 SCC 511} which is reproduced herein below: 101. “No uniform standard can ever be laid down for guidance, yet we deem it appropriate to enumerate some instances of human behaviour which may be relevant in 7 dealing with the cases of 'mental cruelty'. The instances indicated in the succeeding paragraphs are only illustrative and not exhaustive. (i) On consideration of complete matrimonial life of the parties, acute mental pain, agony and suffering as would not make possible for the parties to live with each other could come within the broad parameters of mental cruelty. (ii) On comprehensive appraisal of the entire matrimonial life of the parties, it becomes abundantly clear that situation is such that the wronged party cannot reasonably be asked to put up with such conduct and continue to live with other party. (iii) Mere coldness or lack of affection cannot amount to cruelty, frequent rudeness of language, petulance of manner, indifference and neglect may reach such a degree that it makes the married life for the other spouse absolutely intolerable. (iv) Mental cruelty is a state of mind. The feeling of deep anguish, disappointment, frustration in one spouse caused by the conduct of other for a long time may lead to mental cruelty. (v) A sustained course of abusive and humiliating treatment calculated to torture, discommode or render miserable life of the spouse. (vi) Sustained unjustifiable conduct and behaviour of one spouse actually affecting physical and mental health of the other spouse. The treatment complained of and the resultant danger or apprehension must be very grave, substantial and weighty. (vii) Sustained reprehensible conduct, studied neglect, indifference or total departure from the normal standard of conjugal kindness causing injury to mental health or deriving sadistic pleasure can also amount to mental cruelty. (viii) The conduct must be much more than jealousy, selfishness, possessiveness, which causes unhappiness and dissatisfaction and emotional upset may not be a ground for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty. (ix) Mere trivial irritations, quarrels, normal wear and tear of the married life which happens in day to day life would not be adequate for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty. (x) The married life should be reviewed as a whole and a few isolated instances over a period of years will not amount to cruelty. The ill-conduct must be persistent for a fairly 8 lengthy period, where the relationship has deteriorated to an extent that because of the acts and behaviour of a spouse, the wronged party finds it extremely difficult to live with the other party any longer, may amount to mental cruelty. (xi) If a husband submits himself for an operation of sterilization without medical reasons and without the consent or knowledge of his wife and similarly if the wife undergoes vasectomy or abortion without medical reason or without the consent or knowledge of her husband, such an act of the spouse may lead to mental cruelty. (xii) Unilateral decision of refusal to have intercourse for considerable period without there being any physical incapacity or valid reason may amount to mental cruelty. (xiii) Unilateral decision of either husband or wife after marriage not to have child from the marriage may amount to cruelty. (xiv) Where there has been a long period of continuous separation, it may fairly be concluded that the matrimonial bond is beyond repair. The marriage becomes a fiction though supported by a legal tie. By refusing to sever that tie, the law in such cases, does not serve the sanctity of marriage; on the contrary, it shows scant regard for the feelings and emotions of the parties. In such like situations, it may lead to mental cruelty.” 13 In the instant case, the respondent/husband, Chandrashekhar Prasad Sahu, has examined himself as AW-1 and his brother, Ramshekhar Sahu (AW-2). Similarly, the appellant/wife has examined herself as NAW-1 and her brother, Uttam Kumar Sahu (NAW-2). From all the above evidence, it is undeniably clear that the marriage of both parties took place on 17.04.2008. They have a son, Manas Sahu, from this marriage, who currently resides with his mother, the appellant. At present, the husband and wife are living separately. The respondent husband, Chandrashekhar Prasad Sahu, is 9 posted as a lineman in the Electricity Department and is a government servant. 14 Respondent/husband Chandrashekhar Prasad Sahu stated in his evidence that shortly after the marriage, the appellant/wife, Mrs. Godawari, began to show changes in her behaviour. She disrespected his parents and spoke rudely to them. She herself viewed her husband with suspicion and refused to do anything he asked. Despite attempts to reason with her, she ignored his advances and retorted that she was not a housemaid, would do whatever she wanted, and would not submit to pressure. He stated that the appellant was often argumentative and prone to fights. He also stated that when he accompanied her to his place of work, she would not prepare meals on time and would constantly quarrel. She repeatedly insisted on going to her parents' home. When he dropped her off at her parents' home and later went to pick her up, she refused to come with him and continued to evade his advances. The respondent/husband also stated that the appellant/wife did not allow him to meet their son. Even when elderly relatives went to try to persuade her and bring her home, she refused to come with them and flatly refused to live with him. When he underwent brain surgery due to an accident, the appellant/wife did not come to see him 10 despite being informed, causing him mental distress. The respondent further stated that the appellant/wife subsequently filed an application for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and as a result, he is paying 7,000 per month as maintenance as ₹ ordered by the Court. He also attempted to maintain peace in their marriage and keep her with him by providing her with a separate residence, but she refused. He even filed an application for restitution of conjugal rights, but the appellant/wife refused to live with him. According to the respondent/husband, they have not had physical relations since 2015. Thus, the respondent/husband supported the facts stated in his application by evidence which could not be rebutted in cross-examination; in fact, his evidence was also corroborated by the statements of his brother Ramshekhar Sahu (AW-2). 15 On the other hand, in her testimony, the appellant/wife, Mrs. Godawari Sahu, accused the respondent/husband, Chandrashekhar Prasad Sahu, of abusing her after drinking alcohol, suspecting her, assaulting, and humiliating her. She also stated that her husband treated her like a maid, taunted her, beat her and threw her out of the house. Furthermore, she alleged that when her father passed away, her husband did not attend the funeral. 11 These allegations were supported by the appellant's brother, Uttam Kumar Sahu (NAW-2), in his testimony. The appellant/wife, Godawari Sahu, never filed a written complaint with the police regarding the alleged harassment incidents against her. She did state in her testimony that a social meeting was held on the subject, but neither did she provide any written proceedings of that meeting, nor did she clearly state the location, date, or names of the attendees. She has not examined any independent witness in her support. The appellant also admitted that she had not filed any application for restitution of conjugal rights. She also admitted that after not receiving maintenance for several months, she had filed an application in Court to have her husband, Chandrashekhar Prasad Sahu, imprisoned. She also admitted that she never visited his office to inquire whether he was receiving his regular salary. The appellant also admitted in her evidence that she had received the entire maintenance amount due. For the aforesaid reasons, the side of the appellant/wife is not found to be reliable and acceptable. In contrast, the case of the respondent/husband is proved by the oral and documentary evidence adduced by him. 16 In the light of the aforementioned judicial illustration and on the basis of cogent, convincing and reliable evidence 12 adduced by the respondent, the court finds that the Respondent/husband was treated with cruelty. The argument advanced by the Appellant in the appeal is not convincing and is not liable to be admitted. Thus, in view of the aforementioned consideration, the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial court is well merited, which does not call for any interference. 17 Therefore, on the basis of appreciation of the aforementioned evidence, we are of the opinion that the finding recorded by the learned trial Court is well merited. The Appeal is therefore liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Judge H.L. Sahu