1 FA(MAT) No.35 of 2023 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FA(MAT) No. 35 of 2023 Reserved on 23/07/2025 Delivered on 28/08/2025 1 - Nyaymurti Lahre S/o Late Shri Nanhuram Lahre Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Thathari Police Station Baradwar Tahsil Jaijaipur, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Smt. Meena Lahre W/o Nyaymurti Lahre Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Thathari Tahsil Jaijaipur District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) Present Address Awantika Colony Q.No. G-13 Jagdalpur Police Station Bodhghat Tahsil Jagdalpur, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pravin Kumar Tulsiyan, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Indra Tripathi, 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 and decree passed by the Learned Judge, Family Court, Jagdalpur District Bastar (C.G.) dated 20.12.2022 (Annexure A/1) in Civil Suit No.36-A/2019, whereby ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA 2 FA(MAT) No.35 of 2023 the Trial Court had dismissed the application of appellant-husband seeking divorce under Section 13(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 2. In this case, it is an admitted fact that the marriage between both parties was solemnized on 30.04.2006 according to Hindu rites and rituals. It is also admitted that the appellant-husband had filed application under Section 13 (1) (a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 against the respondent-wife. However, the trial Court dismissed the said application stating that the appellant had failed to establish a case of cruelty or any other legally sustainable ground warranting dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 3. Facts of the present case, in brevity, is that the The applicant is a government employee who regularly reports to work at approximately 10:00 a.m. It is submitted that the non-applicant, his legally wedded wife, habitually rose late in the morning and displayed reluctance in performing basic household responsibilities, including the preparation of breakfast. She would quarrel with the applicant, frequently asserting, "I am not your maid." Despite such conduct, the applicant continued to endure her behaviour with forbearance. 3 FA(MAT) No.35 of 2023 4. During visits to the applicant’s native village, Thagri, the non- applicant abstained from participating in domestic duties such as cooking or childcare, and exhibited consistent disrespect towards the elders in the family, often using indecent and abusive language towards them. After approximately one and a half years of marriage, their first daughter, Ms. Pranjal, was born. However, the behaviour of the non-applicant remained unchanged. She allegedly treated her mother-in-law, Smt. Chuli Bai, with disrespect, refused to cook for her, declined to allow her to reside in the matrimonial home, and persistently pressured the applicant to abandon his mother. 5. On 15.04.2011, following the birth of their second daughter, namely, Akanksha, the conduct of the non-applicant further deteriorated. It is alleged that respondent-wife began to exhibit increased cruelty towards the applicant-husband and his family, levelling false and baseless accusations of immoral character against the applicant, and frequently engaging in verbal abuse and physical altercations. The respondent-wife is reported to have filed several false complaints, both oral and written, against the applicant with Police Station Bodhghat and the Women Police Station, Jagdalpur. These included more than five separate instances, all of which were found to be unsubstantiated upon investigation. It is submitted that these repeated false allegations 4 FA(MAT) No.35 of 2023 caused severe mental and emotional distress to the applicant. On one occasion, the respondent-wife accused the applicant of stealing her mobile phone, SIM card, and memory card, and lodged a report with Police Station Bodhghat. Subsequently, the mobile phone was recovered from the possession of the respondent-wife herself. The non-applicant also created disturbances at the applicant’s workplace leveling baseless allegations of illicit relationships with female colleagues. Similar accusations were made against the applicant in relation to vegetable vendors, shop assistants, and domestic workers, causing further mental harassment. It is further alleged that the non-applicant routinely withheld food from the applicant and, on several occasions, mixed sleeping pills into his food and drink. In one instance, she allegedly added kerosene. Upon confrontation, she is said to have threatened to poison and kill the entire family of the applicant. 6. The respondent-wife regularly communicated false information to her maternal family, provoking them to interfere unjustifiably in the applicant’s personal and matrimonial life. They allegedly threatened the applicant with false legal action under charges of dowry harassment, domestic violence, rape, and witchcraft. The respondent-wife is also alleged to have misused her connections with legal and police personnel to threaten and intimidate the 5 FA(MAT) No.35 of 2023 applicant and his family, claiming that she would ruin their lives through legal persecution. 7. On complaints filed by the respondent-wife, counselling was undertaken by the Women’s Cell on 23.10.2017, and she was advised to fulfil her marital obligations. However, there was no improvement in her conduct. During the applicant's absence from town, the non-applicant is alleged to have communicated frequently with other individuals via mobile calls and WhatsApp messages, often late into the night. When questioned, she would instigate arguments and harass the applicant further. Though the non-applicant remains the legally wedded wife of the applicant, she has, for a long duration, refused physical intimacy. Upon being approached, she would threaten to implicate the applicant in false criminal cases. 8. The respondent-wife has reportedly refused to apply sindoor (vermilion), a traditional symbol of marriage, and stated to the applicant that, "You are dead to me. I married you for your job. I am only interested in your money, not you." On multiple occasions, the non-applicant is said to have lodged baseless complaints with the applicant's superior officers and regional office with the intent to defame him and cause departmental action. This severely affected the applicant's mental health and public image, driving him to a state of despair and suicidal thoughts, from which he refrained only for the sake of his two minor daughters. A legal 6 FA(MAT) No.35 of 2023 notice for divorce was duly issued by the applicant through counsel. However, the non-applicant did not respond to the same. It is submitted that there is no subsisting or meaningful conjugal relationship between the applicant and the non-applicant, and there is no possibility of reconciliation. The marriage has irretrievably broken down. Hence this Appeal A certified copy of the judgment and decree dated 20.12.2022 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure P/1. 9. In her written statement, the respondent-wife has denied all allegations levelled against her. The appellant-husband contends that the appellant-wife and appellant-husband shared a cordial relationship following their marriage. The appellant-husband further states that, despite having daughters, the appellant- husband became indifferent towards him and now seeks to dissolve the marriage. Therefore, this appeal is liable to be dismissed. The allegation made against the wife was denied by her stating that only in order to get divorce, fabricated ground have been raised. She alleged that the husband is in relationship with one of his female colleague and he is spending money upon her. 10. Learned Family Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence, the application for divorce filed by the present appellant- 7 FA(MAT) No.35 of 2023 husband under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, and the said application was dismissed by the trial Court. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant-husband submits that following his marriage to the respondent, serious matrimonial discord arose primarily due to the respondent’s continuous cruel conduct and non-cooperative behaviour. It is stated that the appellant, being a government servant, would leave for his workplace daily at around 10:00 a.m. However, the respondent persistently woke up late, refused to prepare meals, and would often engage in verbal altercations, telling the appellant, "I am not your maid." Further, when the appellant and respondent visited the appellant’s native place, Village Thathari, the respondent refused to undertake any household responsibilities or attend to their children. Despite the birth of their first daughter after one and a half years of marriage, there was no change in the respondent's behaviour. Rather, her conduct worsened; she began demanding that the appellant should abandon his mother, treated his family members with cruelty, and falsely accused the appellant of being of immoral character. The respondent also filed multiple complaints against the appellant alleging domestic violence. Notably, more than five such complaints were filed with Police Station Bodhghat and the Women Police Station, all of which were found to be false and unsubstantiated upon investigation. 8 FA(MAT) No.35 of 2023 12. It is further submitted that the respondent falsely accused the appellant of stealing her mobile phone, SIM card, and memory card, and registered a complaint at Police Station Bodhghat. However, the said mobile phone was later recovered from the possession of the respondent herself. The respondent frequently quarreled with the appellant at his workplace, making baseless allegations of illicit relationships with his female colleagues. She would also deliberately withhold food and reportedly mixed sleeping pills into the appellant’s meals. On one occasion, it is alleged that she added kerosene to his food and further threatened to poison and kill his entire family. The respondent continued her acts of cruelty by instigating interference from her maternal family members, who frequently threatened the appellant with false cases of dowry harassment, domestic violence, rape, and witch-hunting. Counselling sessions were conducted on the basis of both parties' complaints by the Mahila Cell in March 2017, and again during a social meeting convened on 23.10.2017 in Village Thathari. During these proceedings, the respondent was advised to fulfil her marital obligations. However, no behavioural change was observed thereafter. It is also submitted that the respondent developed the habit of communicating with other men through mobile calls and chatting applications at odd hours. When confronted by the appellant, she would resort to further arguments and mental harassment. 9 FA(MAT) No.35 of 2023 13. Moreover, the respondent consistently denied conjugal relations to the appellant, and on being questioned, threatened to implicate him in false criminal cases. She even stated that she married the appellant solely for his government job and was interested only in his income and not in the marital relationship. In addition, the respondent is reported to have made repeated false and defamatory complaints to the appellant's senior officers in his department, thereby tarnishing his professional image and subjecting him to immense mental distress. In view of the above facts and continued acts of cruelty and harassment perpetrated by the respondent, the appellant most respectfully prays before this Court to grant a decree of divorce, as the marriage has irretrievably broken down with no possibility of reconciliation. 14. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent-wife respectfully denies all allegations leveled against her by the appellant-husband and submits the appellant-husband frequently maintained an improper relationship with a woman named Bhanumati Dugga, with whom he observed spending late nights, sharing meals from a single plate, and exchanging messages and chats on his mobile phone. The respondent personally witnessed and heard such conduct. Contrary to the appellant’s claims, it is the appellant who has subjected the respondent to cruelty and harassment. The appellant would often return home intoxicated 10 FA(MAT) No.35 of 2023 and physically assault the respondent. Further, he pressured her to consent for a divorce. 15. Due to the persistent harassment by the appellant, the respondent lodged a complaint, following which counselling sessions were arranged through the Women’s Cell. During these sessions, the appellant had assured that he would desist from such misconduct. A social meeting was convened where the respondent was counseled to maintain marital harmony. Throughout the marriage, the respondent has endeavored in good faith to discharge her duties as a wife and maintain the marital relationship. However, the appellant himself succumbed to an extramarital affair and persistently harassed the respondent, pressuring her to seek a divorce. The respondent categorically denies ever refusing to perform her marital obligations. At the time this petition was filed, she was eight and a half months pregnant, and on 28.04.2018, she delivered their third daughter, which demonstrates her commitment to the marriage. The present petition is thus founded on false and frivolous grounds. 16. Further, the respondent denies making any false complaints against the appellant or defaming him before his departmental superiors. On the contrary, she continues to shoulder the responsibility of raising their daughters amidst the appellant’s cruelty. It is submitted that the appellant is seeking divorce on 11 FA(MAT) No.35 of 2023 fabricated grounds in a malicious attempt to evade his marital responsibilities, while he himself has been the source of cruelty towards the respondent and the children. In view of the above, the respondent prays that this Court dismiss the appeal and uphold the judgment passed by the learned Family Court. 17. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 18. It is an undisputed fact that the marriage between the appellant- husband and the respondent-wife was solemnized on 30.04.2006 in accordance with Hindu rites and customs. It is also not in dispute that three daughters were born out of the said wedlock, all of whom are presently residing with the respondent-wife. 19. The appellant-husband has sought dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. He has alleged that the respondent-wife consistently displayed disrespectful and hostile behaviour towards his mother and other family members. It is contended that the respondent was unwilling to undertake any domestic responsibilities, and often created conflicts in the household. She persistently insisted that the appellant desert his mother, refusing to allow her to reside in the matrimonial home, thereby causing mental agony and emotional distress to the appellant. 12 FA(MAT) No.35 of 2023 20. The appellant further alleged that the respondent frequently levelled unfounded allegations of illicit relationships with several women in his neighbourhood, workplace, and even within the family, including close relatives such as his sister-in-law, niece, and the respondent's own sister. It is asserted that such accusations were not only baseless but also deeply humiliating. On various occasions, the respondent is alleged to have refused physical relations with the appellant and threatened to implicate him in false criminal cases. It is also alleged that the respondent claimed that, due to the appellant’s instigation, his brother was falsely implicated in a criminal case under Section 376 IPC. 21. It has been further contended that the respondent lodged multiple complaints before the local police stations, most of which were found to be either false or lacking substance. The police authorities, in several instances, reportedly closed the complaints under Section 45 of the CrPC and also initiated proceedings under Sections 107, 116, and 151 of the CrPC. The appellant argued that such conduct on the part of the respondent amounts to mental cruelty. The evidence on record indicates that during conciliation proceedings, the appellant-husband categorically refused any proposal for reconciliation. It is also on record that the appellant has been residing separately and has not taken any 13 FA(MAT) No.35 of 2023 steps towards maintaining or supporting the respondent-wife or their minor children. 22. With respect to the allegation of an extramarital affair between the appellant-husband and one Smt. Bhanumati Dugge, it is admitted by the appellant that a complaint was lodged by the respondent-wife against the said individual. It emerges from the record that both parties are government employees. The respondent has claimed that due to the appellant’s alleged relationship with Bhanumati Dugge, he has been negligent towards his marital and parental responsibilities. While direct evidence of adultery is admittedly difficult to produce, the material placed on record, including mobile chats and the nature of the association between the appellant and Smt. Bhanumati Dugge, suggests a relationship that went beyond professional boundaries. 23. The Trial Court, after a detailed appreciation of the evidence adduced by both parties, came to the conclusion that the complaints made by the respondent-wife were not entirely baseless. In fact, some complaints were found to be supported by prima facie evidence. The Trial Court has carefully weighed the nature and frequency of the allegations and has rightly observed that while mere filing of complaints by one spouse does not per se amount to cruelty, such complaints, if proved to be unfounded and intended to harass, may constitute mental cruelty. However, in the 14 FA(MAT) No.35 of 2023 present case, the Trial Court found that the allegations of the respondent appeared to be made bona fide, considering the conduct of the appellant. 24. The appellant-husband placed several documents on record marked as Ex. P/1 to Ex. P/5, to establish that the complaints made by the respondent were false and motivated. However, upon a close perusal of these documents and the testimonies of both parties, the Trial Court rightly concluded that the complaints do not appear to be entirely fabricated or lacking merit. Notably, Smt. Bhanumati Dugge, despite being central to the allegations, was not examined as a witness in support of the appellant’s defence, thereby weakening his stand. The Family Court considered these aspects in light of the legal principles laid down by the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in V. Venkateshwarlu vs. Smt. V. Mamtha [AIR 2014 AP 24] , wherein it was observed: “Indiscriminate institution of criminal proceedings by one of the spouses against other, just with a view to harass, can be in a given case, treated as an act of cruelty. How-ever, even instance of filing of a complaint under Section 498-A, I.P.C. by a woman spouse, by itself, cannot be treated as an act of cruelty, notwithstanding the acquittal of the accused therein. If that is so, the easiest way for male spouse to get rid of his wife would be to harass her, 15 FA(MAT) No.35 of 2023 leading to filing of a complaint under Section 498-A, I.P.C. and citing the same as an act of cruelty in an O.P. for divorce. That was never the intention of the Parliament when it enacted Section 498-A, I.P.C. and other related provisions.” 25. It is also pertinent to rely upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Savitri Pandey v. Prem Chandra Pandey 1 , wherein paragraph 6 is quoted hereinbelow for ready reference. Additionally, reliance is placed on the judgment in Avijin K. Dominic v. Beena 2 , excerpts of paragraphs 12, 13, 14, and 15 of which are reproduced below for ease of consideration :- “6. Treating the petitioner with cruelty is a ground for divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Act. Cruelty has not been defined under the Act but in relation to matrimonial matters it is contemplated as a conduct of such type which endangers the living of the petitioner with the respondent. Cruelty consists of acts which are dangerous to life, limb or health. Cruelty for the purpose of the Act means where one spouse has so treated the other and manifested such feelings towards her or him as to have inflicted bodily injury, or to have caused reasonable apprehension of bodily injury, suffering or to have injured health. Cruelty may be physical or mental. Mental cruelty is the conduct of other spouse which causes mental suffering or fear to the matrimonial life of the other. "Cruelty", therefore, 1 (2002) 2 Supreme Court Cases 73 2 2024 SCC OnLine Ker 740 16 FA(MAT) No.35 of 2023 postulates a treatment of the petitioner with such cruelty as to cause a reasonable apprehension in his or her mind that it would be harmful or injurious for the petitioner to live with the other party. Cruelty, however, has to be distinguished from the ordinary wear and tear of family life. It cannot be decided on the basis of the sensitivity of the petitioner and has to be adjudged on the basis of the course of conduct which would, in general, be dangerous for a spouse to live with the other. In the instant case both the trial court as well as the High Court have found on facts that the wife had failed to prove the allegations of cruelty attributed to the respondent. Concurrent findings of fact arrived at by by the courts cannot be disturbed by this Court in exercise of powers under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. Otherwise also the averments made in the petition and the evidence led in support thereof clearly show that the allegations, even if held to have been proved, would only show the sensitivity of the appellant with respect to the conduct of the respondent which cannot be termed more than ordinary wear and tear of the family life.” XXXXXXXXX 12. In Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh [(2007) 4 SCC 511], the Apex Court held that no uniform standard can ever been laid down for guidance for ascertaining whether a particular conduct of a party to his spouse, would amount to cruelty. However, the Apex Court enumerated some instances of 17 FA(MAT) No.35 of 2023 human behaviour, which may be relevant in dealing with the cases of mental cruelty, in paragraph No. 81 of that judgment, which is extracted as follows; “81. 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 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 18 FA(MAT) No.35 of 2023 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 lengthy period, where the relationship has deteriorated to an exten that because of the acts and behaviour of a spouse, th wronged party finds it extremely difficult to live with the othe party any longer, may amount to mental cruelty. (xi) If a husband submits himself for an operation of sterilizatio without medical reasons and without the consent or knowledg of his wife and similarly if the wife undergoes vasectomy abortion without medical reason or without the consent knowledge of her husband, such an act of the spouse may leadto 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. 19 FA(MAT) No.35 of 2023 (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 A. Jayachandra v. Aneel Kaur [(2005) 2 SCC 22: AIR 2005 534], the Apex Court held that mere annoyance or irritation may not constitute cruelty, rather it is a spontaneous change in human behaviour, which restricts the other side to live with the spouse under fear of endangering life or bodily injuries. It was further observed thereunder that though the word 'cruelty' has not been defined strictly. has to be gathered from the attending circumstances of each case d that the allegations should be specific with regard to time, place d manner of committing such cruelty. 14. In Gurbux Singh v. Harminder Kaur [(2010) 14 SCC 301 11 SC 114], the Apex Court held that the aggrieved party has to ake a specific case that the conduct of which exception is taken, mounts to cruelty. It was further observed that a single act of lence, which is of grievous and inexcusable nature satisfies the test cruelty, and that the marital life should be accessed as a whole, and visolated 20 FA(MAT) No.35 of 2023 instances over certain period, will not amount to cruelty. 15. In Joydeep Majumdar v. Bharti Jaiswal Majumdar [(2021) 3 SCC 742], the Apex Court held in paragraph No. 10 of that judgment, as follows; "10. For considering dissolution of marriage at the instance of a spouse who allege mental cruelty, the result of such mental crueltymust be such that it is not possible to continue with the matrimonial relationship. In other words, the wronged party cannot be expected to condone such conduct and continue to live with his/her spouse. The degree of tolerance will vary from one couple to another and the Court will have to bear in mind the background, the level of education and also the status of the parties, in order to determine whether the cruelty alleged is sufficient to justify dissolution of marriage, at the instance of the wronged party. In Samar Ghosh v. Java Ghosh (2007) 4 SCC 5111. this Court gave illustrative cases where inference of mental cruelty could be drawn even while emphasizing that no uniform standard can be laid down and each case will have to be decided on its own facts." 26. In the present case, the Trial Court recorded a categorical finding that the appellant-husband has failed to establish that the allegations made by the respondent-wife were false, malicious, or made with the intent to harass. Further, the appellant could not prove that the alleged cruelty on the part of the respondent forced him to live separately. The evidence on record reflects that the 21 FA(MAT) No.35 of 2023 appellant chose to live apart and did not make any attempts to resolve the issues or restore marital harmony. 27. On the contrary, the evidence indicates that it was the appellant- husband who demonstrated a consistent lack of care and support towards the respondent-wife and their minor daughters. He has not initiated any proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights, which could have reflected his bona fide intent to preserve the matrimonial bond. The conduct of the appellant suggests abandonment rather than victimization. 28. Furthermore, the material on record points towards the fact that the husband’s lack of cooperation and his alleged relationship with other women has been the root cause of marital discord. The complaints filed by the respondent do not appear to be a calculated attempt to malign the appellant but rather a reaction to the circumstances she found herself in. The evidence produced by the appellant himself shows that he has not only failed to perform his duties as a husband but also neglected his responsibilities towards his three minor daughters. 29. Considering the aforesaid aspects of the matter, we do not find the present case to be a fit one for interference so as to unsettle the well-reasoned judgment and decree passed by the learned 22 FA(MAT) No.35 of 2023 Family Court, nor do we find any justification to grant a decree of divorce in favour of the appellant-husband. 30. In light of the above discussion and having given our anxious consideration to the evidence, pleadings, and findings recorded by the learned Trial Court, we find no perversity or illegality in the impugned judgment and decree warranting interference in this appeal. The Trial Court has appropriately evaluated the facts and rightly dismissed the petition for divorce, having found no sufficient ground of cruelty as defined under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act. 31. Accordingly, we are of the considered view that the present appeal is devoid of merit and consequently the appeal is dismissed. The judgment and decree dated 20.12.2022 passed by the Learned Family Court, Jagdalpur, in Civil Suit No. 36-A/2019 is hereby affirmed. 32. The parties shall bear their own costs. Decree be drawn accordingly. Sd/- Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Judge Saxena