1 2025:CGHC:57084-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FA(MAT) No. 63 of 2021 Smt. Preeti Tiwari W/o Shri Pramod Tiwari, D/o Late K. K. Tiwari Aged About 25 Years R/o Quarter No. L. I. G. 12, Deendayal Puram Colony Balaghat (Madhya Pradesh) At Present Amandula, Tehsil Sakti, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant/Defendant versus Pramod Kumar S/o Shri Rajendra Tiwari Aged About 27 Years R/o Ratakhar Korba Tahsil And District Korba Chhattisgarh, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent/Plaintiff For Appellant : Mr. Vineet Kumar Pandey, Advocate For Respondent : Ms. Vidhi Matlani, Advocate DB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment On Board HARNEET KAUR Digitally signed by HARNEET KAUR Date: 2025.11.26 13:30:16 +0530 2 24.11.2025 Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. 1. Invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Section 19(1) of Family Court Act, 1984 read with Section 28 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter, “the Act of 1955”), the appellant/defendant has preferred this appeal calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of impugned judgment and decree dated 09/02/2021 passed in Civil Suit No. 10A/2018 whereby learned Family Court, Korba has allowed the application preferred by the respondent/plaintiff under Section 13(1)(ia), 13(1)(ib) and 13(1A)(i) of the Act of 1955 and granted decree of divorce in his favour. 2. Respondent/plaintiff filed a civil suit seeking decree of divorce stating inter alia that his marriage with appellant/defendant was solemnized on 20/05/2011 at village Amandula, Tahsil Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa and thereafter, they were residing together happily, however, on 24/04/2012, appellant/defendant insisted to go to Janjgir-Champa to attend a marriage and went there alone and thereafter, without informing the respondent/plaintiff, appellant’s mother took her to her home in Baalaghat. After one month i.e. on 20/05/2012, 3 on account of their first marriage anniversary, respondent/plaintiff went to his in-laws’ house at Baalaghat and after residing there for two to three days, he asked the appellant/defendant to come back to her matrimonial home along with him but appellant/defendant’s mother refused and told him to return to his house and she will hire a car and send the appellant/defendant to her matrimonial home in the next few days. Thereafter, on 28/05/2012, at about 5 PM, appellant/defendant’s mother called the respondent/plaintiff and told him that when she came home after work in the evening, she found that appellant/defendant had left her home and had left a letter behind stating that she cannot live with the respondent/defendant and had secured a job at a private company wherein she will be earning Rs. 10,000/- per month. Respondent/plaintiff tried several times but appellant/defendant refused to return to his house. 3. Thereafter, on 14/03/2013, appellant/defendant filed an application under Section 125 of CPC seeking maintenance in the Family Court, Baalaghat and she also filed a complaint for domestic violence against the respondent/plaintiff as well as a compliant for dowry and harassment against his family members at Baalaghat 4 Police Station, however, it was not found proved by the Police during investigation. On 25/07/2012, respondent/plaintiff filed a suit under Section 13 of the Act of 1955 and on 20/01/2015 (Ex. P/2), finding the act of cruelty proved against the appellant/defendant, the Family Court granted decree of judicial separation in favour of the respondent/plaintiff and even after passing of two years, the appellant/defendant did not challenge it rather in order to annoy and upset the respondent/plaintiff, she filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights before the Family Court, Sakti which stood dismissed on 08/12/2017 (Ex. P/1). Therefore, on account of mental cruelty caused by the appellant/defendant, decree of divorce be granted in his favour. 4. Appellant/defendant filed her written statement and opposed the plaint averments stating that her husband i.e. the respondent/plaintiff and his family had taken dowry at their marriage and they constantly harassed her to bring money from her mother and also treated her like a maid. She has further stated that the decree of judicial separation dated 20/01/2015 (Ex. P/2) was passed ex-parte in which no opportunity of hearing was given to the appellant/defendant and since their marriage was solemnized at Tahsil Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa and 5 the appellant/defendant as well as the respondent/plaintiff stood together for the last time at Baalaghat, therefore, the Family Court, Korba would not have the jurisdiction to pass decree for divorce as per the parameters provided under Section 19 of the Act of 1955, therefore, the instant civil suit is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. 5. Learned Family Court framed the following issues for determination and answered them as stated below :- ्ቅ 0 वाद विवषय वि ष्कष 1. क्या वादी/आवेदक के प्ቌ में पारित न्यायियक पृथककण की वि णय विद ांक 20.01.2015 को ्ቚयितवादी/अ ावेविदका के ्ቛाा चु ौती हीं विदये जा े के काण वादी/आवेदक ्ቚयितवादी/अ ावेविदका के खि*लाफ विववाह विवच्छेद की यि/्ቅी ्ቚा्቎ क े की अयि1काी है ? "्ቚमाणिणत" 2. क्या ्ቚयितवादी/अ ावेविदका वादी/आवेदक को अ ेक ्ቚका से ्ቅू तापूण व्यव्हा क वादी/आवेदक को शाीरिक एवं मा सिसक रूप से ्ቚतावि;त विकया है ? "्ቚमाणिणत" 3. क्या ्ቚयितवादी/अ ावेविदका वादी/आवेदक को वि< ा विकसी काण के विवगत दो वष> से अयि1क समय से अणि?त्यज विकया है ? "्ቚमाणिणत" 4. क्या वादी/पयित ्ቚयितवादी/पत् ी के विवरु्ቍ विववाह विवच्छेद की आ्ሺवि्቎ ्ቚा्቎ क े का अयि1काी है ? "्ቚमाणिणत" 5. सहायता एवं वाद व्यय ? आवेदक का वाद वि णय की कं यि/का - 31 के अ ुसा स्वीका विकया जाता है। अयितरि्ሹ वाद विवषय 6 6. क्या आवेदक का ्ቚकण इस न्यायालय के सु वाई ्ቌे्ቔायि1का में हैं। "्ቚमाणिणत" 6. In sum and substance, learned Family Court, after consideration of oral and documentary evidence on record, held that since appellant/defendant had not challenged the decree of judicial separation dated 20/01/2015 passed in favour of the respondent/plaintiff, therefore, it has attained finality and the appellant/defendant is living separately from the respondent/plaintiff without any reasonable cause and has caused physical and mental cruelty to him, therefore, the Family Court proceeded to grant decree of divorce in favour of respondent/defendant. 7. Mr. Vineet Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant/defendant, would submit that the Family Court is absolutely unjustified in granting decree of divorce in favour of the respondent/plaintiff on the ground enumerated under Sections 13(1)(i), 13(ia), 13(ib) and 13(1A)(i) of the Act of 1955 by recording a finding which is perverse and contrary to the record. He would further submit that the finding recorded by the Family Court is not based on evidence available on record and therefore, the impugned judgment and decree are liable to be set aside. 7 8. Ms. Vidhi Matlani, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff, would submit that the Family Court is absolutely justified in granting decree of divorce in favour of the respondent/plaintiff on the aforesaid ground as decree for judicial separation dated 20/01/2015 (Ex. P/2) granted by the Family Court under Section 13 of the Act of 1955 was never challenged by the appellant/defendant and she, herself, has refused to live together with the respondent/plaintiff and they have been living separately from 25/05/2012. Moreover, the appellant/defendant has treated the respondent/plaintiff with mental cruelty, as such, the Family Court has rightly granted decree of divorce on these three grounds and the instant appeal is liable to be dismissed. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 10. Learned Family Court has granted the decree of divorce in favour of the respondent/plaintiff basically on three grounds. We will discuss each ground one by one in seriatim. I. Ground under Section 13(1A)(i) of the Act of 1955 :- 11. Section 13(1A)(i) of the Act of 1955 provides as under :- 8 “13. Divorce. - (1A) Either party to a marriage, whether solemnised before or after the commencement of this Act, may also present a petition for the dissolution of the marriage by a decree of divorce on the ground - (i) that there has been no resumption of cohabitation as between the parties to the marriage for a period of one year or upwards after the passing of a decree for judicial separation in a proceeding to which they were parties; or” 12. As noticed above, Section 13(1A)(i) of the Act of 1955 permits either party to that petition, in which a decree for judicial separation had been passed, to apply to the Court for a decree for divorce by showing that there has been no resumption of cohabitation between the parties to the marriage for a period of one year or upwards after passing of the decree. 13. In the instant case, the decree for judicial separation was passed by the Family Court under Section 13 of the Act of 1955 on 20/01/2015 (Ex. P/2) in favour of the respondent/plaintiff on the ground of cruelty and both the appellant/defendant and respondent/plaintiff were parties in that suit. Thereafter, the said decree for judicial separation has not been questioned by the appellant/defendant in any proceeding and learned Family Court, after noticing the admission of the appellant/defendant, held that there has been no resumption of cohabitation between her and the 9 respondent/plaintiff after 20/05/2012 i.e. for a period of more than one year, and proceeded to grant decree for divorce in favour of the respondent/plaintiff under Section 13(1A)(i) of the Act of 1955, which in our considered opinion, is a correct finding of fact based on evidence and in which we do not find any perversity or illegality warranting interference by us. II. Ground under Section 13(1)(ib) of the Act of 1955 :- 14. At this stage, it would be relevant to notice the provision contained under Section 13(1)(ib) of the Act of 1955, which states as 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 - (i) XXX XXX (ia) XXX XXX (ib) has deserted the petitioner for a continuous period of not less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition;” 15. The explanation appended to Section 13 defines the word ‘desertion’, which states as under :- “Explanation. - In this sub-section, the expression ‘desertion’ means the desertion of the petitioner by the other party to the marriage without reasonable cause and without the consent or against the wish of such party, and includes the wilful neglect of the petitioner by the other party to the marriage, and 10 its grammatical variations and cognate expressions shall be construed accordingly.” 16. In the present case, the appellant/defendant left the company of the respondent/plaintiff on 25/04/2012 and went to Janjgir-Champa at attend a marriage ceremony and thereafter, without the consent of the respondent/plaintiff, she went to Baalaghat to her mother’s house, and on 25/05/2012 when respondent/plaintiff went there to celebrate their first marriage anniversary and asked her to come with him to their matrimonial house, she refused to go with him and thereafter, on 25/07/2012, respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for divorce, however, the Family Court granted the decree of judicial separation on 20/01/2015 (Ex. P/2) finding the fact of cruelty proved against the appellant/defendant. As such, the finding recorded by learned Family Court that since on 25/04/2012, appellant/defendant visited Janjgir-Champa alone to attend a marriage ceremony and thereafter, went to her mother’s house at Baalaghat without the consent of the respondent/plaintiff and further refused to come to her matrimonial house when the respondent/plaintiff went to Baalaghat on 25/05/2012 and asked the appellant/defendant to come and live with him, the act of the appellant/defendant would come within the definition of ‘desertion’ within the meaning of Section 13(1)(ib) of the 11 Act of 1955 read with the explanation appended to Section 13 of the Act of 1955 and we hereby affirm the said finding recorded by the Family Court granting decree of divorce on the ground of desertion. III. Ground of cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) :- 17. Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act of 1955 provides as 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 - (i) XXX XXX (ia) has, after the solemnisation of the marriage, treated the petitioner with cruelty, or” 18. The word ‘cruelty’ has not been specifically defined in the Act of 1955. However, the Supreme Court in the matter of Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh1 has laid down some situations or instances of human behaviour that would constitute mental cruelty. Paragraph 101 of the report states as under :- “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 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 1 (2007) 4 SCC 511 12 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. 13 (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 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 sterilisation 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.” 19. Coming to the facts of the present case, respondent/plaintiff had only permitted appellant/defendant to attend a marriage ceremony at Janjgir-Champa and thereafter, she was supposed to return to her matrimonial house at Korba, but on the contrary, she went to her mother’s house at Baalaghat 14 without the consent of the respondent/plaintiff and when he, himself, visited Baalaghat to celebrate their marriage anniversary and asked her to come along with him to their matrimonial house, she did not assent to his request and refused to come to Korba along with the respondent/plaintiff. Thereafter, on 28/05/2012, appellant/defendant left her mother’s house at Baalaghat and left behind a letter for her mother stating that she does not want to live with her husband i.e. respondent/plaintiff and she has secured a job in Indore and is leaving him. Not only this, the appellant/defendant further went on to file false complaints against the respondent/plaintiff for domestic violence and demand of dowry, which in our considered opinion, would come under mental cruelty within Section 13(1)(ib) of the Act of 1955, which the Family Court has rightly considered and granted decree for divorce on the ground of cruelty, which is a correct finding of fact based on evidence on record. 20. In view of the aforesaid legal discussion, learned Family Court has rightly granted decree for divorce in favour of the respondent/plaintiff under Section 13(1)(ia), 13(ib) and 13(1A)(i) of the Act of 1955. We do not find any merit in this appeal. 15 21. Accordingly, the instant appeal, being devoid of merits, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s). 22. A decree be drawn accordingly. SD/- SD/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE JUDGE Sd/- Harneet