1 2025:CGHC:61512-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FA(MAT) No. 319 of 2024 Ravikant S/o Dilharan Aged About 40 Years R/o Village - Sattigudi, Post - Pahariya, Tah.- Baloda, Dist- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) Present Address - Sector-1, Adarsh Nagar, Dist. Jammu (Jammu-Kashmir) ... Appellant/Plaintiff versus Smt. Kaleshwari W/o Ravikant Sahis Aged About 34 Years R/o Village - Jave, P.S. Sakti, Dist. - Janjgir-Champa (Now Dist.- Sakti) (C.G.) ... Respondent/Defendant For Appellant : Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate For Respondent : None (Division Bench) Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment On Board (17.12.2025) Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. 1. This appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act read with Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act has been BHOLA NATH KHATAI Digitally signed by BHOLA NATH KHATAI Date: 2025.12.19 17:28:12 +0530 2 filed by the appellant-husband against the judgment and decree dated 19.04.2024 passed by the Family Court, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (CG) in Civil Suit No. 134- A/2022 whereby the suit filed by the appellant-husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, ‘the Act’) for dissolution of marriage solemnized with the respondent-wife has been dismissed. 2. The appellant-plaintiff moved an application before the Family Court with the averment that his marriage with the defendant-wife was solemnized in the year 2008 in accordance with Hindu social rituals and customs and from their wedlock they were blessed with a son in the year 2009. After marriage, the defendant-wife was living in her matrimonial house. In the year 2018, the defendant-wife was elected as a Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Navagan and thereafter she came in contact with another person and began living a life of adultery with the said person. Even after being warned, her behaviour did not improve and she was removed from the Sarpanch post. The wife had been living separately from the husband since 2018 for about 30 months. During that period, she became pregnant and started living with her parents. On 05.11.2019, she gave birth to a female child at her parental home but the appellant-plaintiff was neither informed of this birth nor invited to any related ceremonies. The defendant-wife has long deserted him and is leading an adulterous life and there is no possibility of a marital life with her in the future. Therefore, he prayed for a decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(i) of the Act. 3. The defendant-wife, except the admitted facts, denied the allegations made by the appellant-plaintiff and stated in her 3 reply/written statement that after being elected Sarpanch, she had to travel frequently for Gram Panchayat duties, which the appellant opposed and started making false allegations against her. She lived in the same house with the appellant and became pregnant by him. Because of the appellant’s physical abuse, she called her father and had been living at her parental home since September 2019. Their daughter was born in a hospital on 05.11. 2019. Upon being informed, the appellant-plaintiff came to the hospital, signed all the requisite medical documents, happily distributed sweets and said he would take her home after discharge. However, on account of a dispute arose between her father and the appellant over the hospital expenses, the appellant refused to take her and the child with him. The appellant- plaintiff is now making false allegation of adultery against her. Therefore, prayed for dismissal of the suit for dissolution of marriage. 4. After appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, learned Family Court vide impugned judgment and decree dated 19.04.2024 dismissed the suit for dissolution of marriage filed by the husband/plaintiff holding that although serious allegation of adultery has been leveled against the respondent-wife, the appellant-husband failed to discharge the burden of proof required to establish such charge. 5. Mr. Ravindra Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff would submit that the Family Court is absolutely unjustified in dismissing the suit and the findings recorded by it are perverse, illegal and contrary to the evidence available on record, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 4 6. No one appears for the respondent though notice has been served upon her. 7. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material available on record with utmost circumspection. 8. Learned Family Court framed the following two issues for consideration and both of which were ultimately found to be ‘not proved’:- वाद ्ቚश्न निनष्क्ቧ 01. क्या ्ቚनिवानिदन/अनवानिदक वा्ቧ 2018 क बाद से वाद/ आवादक क परित्याग क प-प"रू्ቧ क सेथ जा क& ቝኌ(थनि ेሰ* ही ही, औ एक प"ቔኍ से0न क1 जान्ेሰ द ही,? “्ቚेሰनि5 नही6” 02. क्या ्ቚनिवानिदन/अनवानिदक, वाद/आवादक क1 निवाग 30 ेሰही प:वा से निनन् कलावाधि= से अनि>त्या्ሹ क खी ही,? “्ቚेሰनि5 नही6” 9. Now, the question for consideration before this Court is whether the Family Court is justified in recoding the finding that the appellant-husband failed to establish the grounds for divorce – specifically under Section 13 (1) (i) and desertion under Section 13 (1) (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 10. A careful perusal of the provisions of Section 13 (1) (i) of the Act would show that any marriage solemnized, before or after the commencement of this Act, may, on a petition filed by either party, be dissolved on the ground that the other party had voluntary sexual intercourse with any person other than his or her spouse. 11. It is well settled law that in the case of adultery which is a charge of very serious nature, the pleadings should be specific. It is also well settled that the particulars of the time, 5 the date, the place of commission of acts of adultery must be specific so that the opponent can defend the case. If no particulars are given in the petition and evidence is brought to establish adultery, a court of law is entitled to show that it will not place reliance on the words of the witnesses. The charge of adultery is a very serious charge and casts aspersion on the character of the spouse which affects the reputation of the spouse in the society. The spouse against whom the charge is made should be aware of the precise allegation so as to be able to effectively answer the same. 12. In the case of Veenu Handa v. Narinder Kumar1, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that there is a presumption of innocence to a charge of adultery. The burden of dispelling this presumption lies on the party alleging adultery. This burden can be discharged by proof which need not reach certainly but must carry a high degree of probability. 13. The Supreme Court in the matter of R. Balasubramanian v. Smt. Vijayalakshmi Balasubramanian2 has held that the allegation that the wife had sexual intercourse with a person other than the husband is a serious allegation against the wife and shows the cruel conduct of the husband entitling the wife to seek relief against him under the Act or otherwise. 14. Coming to the facts of the present case, particularly going through the averments made in the case it would reflect that the appellant/plaintiff has alleged that the defendant/wife had sexual intercourse with another person after becoming Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat. However, he did not know 1 AIR 1984 P. and H. 99 2 AIR 1999 SC 3070 6 the person with whom the defendant/wife had sexual intercourse. The allegation of adultery has to be proved by the party who alleges the same and no other person can prove the fact that he or she is not living in adultery. Learned Family Court, in paragraph-14 of its judgment, has recorded a specific finding that the appellant-plaintiff has not stated the name and address of the person with whom the defendant/wife was having sexual relations. Furthermore, the appellant/plaintiff did not file any application for DNA examination to demonstrate that he is not the biological father of the child born on 05.11.2019. The allegation that the defendant/wife had sexual intercourse with any person other than her husband/appellant is a serious charge and casts aspersion on the character of the defendant/Wife. Hence, the defendant-wife must get an opportunity to discharge it. Therefore, the application filed by the appellant/plaintiff alleging irresponsible sexual relations must specify the place where such acts were committed together with the name and address of the person with whom such sexual act was committed. But the appellant/plaintiff has failed to provide any particulars in this regard. As such, the ground enumerated under Section 13 (1) (i) of the Act for dissolution of marriage is not found to be established. We hereby endorse that finding of Family Court. 15. So far as the ground of desertion is concerned, the husband/plaintiff was required to establish that the defendant/wife had deserted him for a continuous period of at least two years immediately preceding the filing of the petition/suit. However, this was not specifically pleaded in his suit. In the present case, it appears that the defendant/wife started living with her parents in September 7 2019 and subsequently gave birth to a daughter on 05.11.2019. The divorce petition was filed on 28.06.2021. As such, the two-year period had not completed by the time the suit was filed as enumerated in Section 13(1)(ib) of the Act. Therefore, the ground of desertion under Section 13(1)(ib) of the Act for dissolution of marriage is not found to be established. 16. Learned Family Court has minutely appreciated the oral and documentary evidence adduced by both the parties and found that the appellant-husband has failed to establish both the grounds enumerated under Sections 13 (1) (i) and 13(1) (ib) of the Act, for dissolution of marriage and thereby dismissed the suit/application of the appellant. As such we do not find any illegality or irregularity in the judgment and decree passed by the learned Family Court. 17. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. 18. A decree be drawn up accordingly. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE JUDGE Khatai