1 2025:CGHC:58761-DB The date when the judgment is reserved The date when the judgment is pronounced The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website Operative Full 17.09.2025 04.12.2025 -- 04.12.2025 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FA(MAT) No. 287 of 2024 { Arising out of judgement and decree dated 18.06.2024 passed by learned Family Court, Balod, District- Balod (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 89-A/2022} • Smt Umeshwari Sahu W/o Homendra Kumar Sahu Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Bagatrai, P.S. And Tehsil- Gurur, District Balod, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant Versus • Homendra Kumar Sahu S/o Late Ramhan Sahu Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Surra, P.S. And Tehsil- Gurur, District Balod, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. V. B. Soni, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Ajay Kumrani, Advocate. Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, J. Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J. C.A.V. Judgment Per Rajani Dubey , J. 1. This appeal is filed by the appellant against the impugned judgment and decree dated 18.06.2024 passed by learned Family Court, Balod, District- Balod (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 89-A/2022, whereby the learned Family Digitally signed by AMIT PATEL Date: 2025.12.04 13:19:12 +0530 2 Court has allowed the application under Section 13 (1) (ia) and (ib)of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 filed by the respondent/husband for decree of divorce and dissolved the marriage between the parties on the ground of cruelty. Therefore, the present appeal filed by the appellant. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 11.05.2018 as per Hindu rites and rituals and residing together at Village- Surra and from their wedlock, their son Dopesh was born, presently he is aged about 03 years. After the marriage, about a week, the respondent/husband and the appellant/wife were going to visit Maa Bamleshwari Temple at Dongargarh on a motorcycle and on the way, suddenly a buffalo came in front of them and they met with an accident. When the appellant's father came to know about this fact, he called the respondent and the appellant to Bagtarai on Thursday and took them to the Dargah of Adhari Navagaon, saying that they were possessed by a ghost and told them to visit the place every Thursday and gave assurance to them that his business would do well. After marriage, the respondent/husband started taking the appellant/wife to Bagtarai every Thursday for about 7-8 months, due to which he suffered loss in the business and during this time, the respondent came to know that the appellant and her parents were Muslims and had married the respondent by concealing this fact. Then, the respondent refused to take the appellant to her parents' house every Thursday. The appellant started insisting on going to her parental house every Thursday. Thereafter, the appellant along with her parents began urging the respondent to embrace Muslim religion, which the respondent refused to do so. On this, the appellant's behavior drastically changed and she had disputed with the respondent’s mother and the respondent. The appellant/wife began behaving in an unusual manner, abusing the 3 respondent/husband by using filthy language, thereby she locked herself in a room, and threw objects of daily use, such as a mirror, stand, fan, and chair. Despite several efforts made by the respondent, his mother, and the elders of the village, the appellant did not change. The appellant/wife started controversy by defaming the character of the respondent's younger sister and thereafter she threatened to implicate the entire family of the respondent/husband in a false case, causing the respondent and his mother a lot of trouble. The appellant repeatedly told the respondent to leave his mother so that they can live in a rented house at Dhamtari, which the respondent declined. On 25/09/2019, the appellant started an unnecessary dispute with the respondent and tried to set herself ablaze by lighting up a matchstick and pouring kerosene on her body, which the respondent somehow rescued her from it and to inform regarding the said incident, the respondent/husband went to meet Kriparam, the appellant has also followed him by saying that take her to Bagtarai. On this, the respondent took the appellant to Bagtarai at 8:30 pm, where the appellant's family started abusing the respondent filthily and the appellant said to her parents to bring shackles from Dhamtari, so that she will keep him tied up in the room, being so frightened, the respondent somehow fled from village Bagtarai to his village Surra and told everything to the heads of the village. Subsequently, the said incident was narrated by the respondent to his mother and sister, who are living at Bhilai. After the arrival of the respondent's mother and after being persuaded by the villagers, the respondent went to village Bagtarai to bring back the appellant, but she refused to come with the respondent to village Surra. Then, on 09/10/2019, the respondent went to village Bagtarai with his mother to bring the appellant, but the appellant explicitly declined to come to village Surra. 4 Therefore, on 14/10/2019, respondent had lodged a written report against the appellant at police station Gurur. On 05/11/2019, the respondent along with the villagers viz. Kriparam, Kunjlal, Bhishma, etc., went to Bagtarai to bring back the appellant. However, despite their persuasion, the appellant did not come with the respondent. On 20/11/2019, the respondent's father-in-law sent a notice of a social meeting, following which a social meeting was held. After being persuaded by prominent members of the community, the appellant accompanied with the respondent to village Surra. Despite this, the appellant's behavior remained unchanged and she again started disputing with the respondent and his mother over trivial issues and she started defaming the respondent's sister and threatening to implicate the respondent by filing a report of dowry and assault. The appellant called her brother Keshavram Sahu to Gurur, where Keshavram assaulted the respondent, snatched his mobile and took the appellant with him to Bagtarai. The respondent's mouth was bleeding due to the assault and appellant filed a report against the respondent and his mother at police station- Gurur, which was found to be false and no action was taken. The appellant has been residing in her maternal home since 26/11/2019 after disowning herself from the respondent. The appellant very cruel towards the respondent and his mother and on 08/03/2021 she filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for receiving the maintenance amount against the respondent before learned Family Court Balod, which is pending. On 23/03/2021, the appellant has filed a complaint against the respondent, his mother and his sister under domestic violence and the case is pending before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balod. It has been more than two years and eight months since the appellant living separately from the respondent. Reply 5 has been filed by the appellant/wife wherein she denied all averments and stated that the respondent/husband, his mother and sister abused her and mocked her for her lack of education and intelligence. The respondent’s family members physically and mentally tortured by beating her over trivial issues. When her son was aged about 8 months old, he was not well and thus the appellant and the respondent had took to Gurur Hospital, but no doctor was present at the hospital and therefore, the respondent had taken them to Village- Darra where the respondent has received a call from Gopendra Chandrakar, who told him that his wife is defaming them and because of that the respondent has abused her and threatened her to death. Upon, this the respondent/husband left the appellant and their son. Subsequently, when the respondent has abused her and started quarreling then the appellant with her son has left the matrimonial home and went to her along with her brother. Further stated that her father has convened a social meeting and their dispute got resolved and the appellant has gone along with the respondent to the matrimonial home, but again after some time the respondent and his mother has started to abuse her using filthy language and ultimately in the month of December, 2019 the respondent has ousted her from the matrimonial house and thus the appellant has lodged the complaint before the police station- Gurur. It is alleged that due to misconduct of the respondent, she is suffering mentally and physically. It is stated by the wife that in spite of all this, she is ready to live with the respondent, but the respondent himself is not willing to keep her. She stated that the respondent had filed the suit for divorce pleading false and baseless facts, hence, she prayed that the application filed by the respondent under Section 13 (1) (ia) and (ib)of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before learned Family Court be dismissed. 6 3. Learned Family Court framed issue with regard to cruelty and held it against the appellant/wife. After evaluating the evidence allowed the application preferred by the respondent/husband for grant of decree of divorce holding that he has successfully proved that he was treated with cruelty by wife/appellant. Hence, this appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant/wife would submit that the Family Court has wrongly come to the conclusion that the appellant/wife has subjected to persecution with the husband/respondent only because the appellant could not produce any document pertaining to the police complaints, but the learned Family Court has failed to consider that admittedly the appellant has filed a complaint under the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The impugned judgment is also perverse and illegal as the learned Family Court has not given any finding or conclusion as to how the behaviour of the appellant was cruel to the respondent/husband despite that has granted decree of divorce in favour of him. Learned counsel for the appellant would further submit that a woman who wishes to maintain the conjugal rights does not take any legal course against the in-laws upto the limit she can endure, as she understands it will ultimately weaken the chances of restitution. The husband/respondent has filed the application seeking divorce only after the filing of application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and under Domestic Violence Act. Learned Family Court has failed to consider that the wife attempted to commit suicide as she was being subjected to persecution by her in-laws and not to threaten, coerce or traumatize, the respondent/husband which could be said as cruelty and before taking ground of desertion, the respondent/husband has not filed any application for restitution of conjugal rights, and on the contrary, the appellant has contested and stated in her reply that she wants 7 to reside with the respondent/husband. Therefore, under these circumstances, the impugned judgment and decree of divorce granted in favour of the respondent/husband deserves to be set aside. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment passed by this Court in the matter of Girdhari Lal vs. Smt. Gomti Devi.1 5. Learned counsel for the respondent/husband has supported the impugned judgment and submits that the learned Family Court has minutely appreciated the oral and documentary evidence on record and rightly allowed the application preferred by the husband for grant of decree of divorce holding that he has proved that he was treated with cruelty by the wife/appellant and she was the one who deserted him. As such, the findings recorded by the learned Family Court are well merited. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matters of Sau.Jiya vs. Kuldeep2 G.V.N. Kameswara Rao vs. G.Jabilli3 & Parveen Mehta vs. Inderjit Mehta 4 . 6. We have heard both the counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record with utmost circumspection. 7. It is an admitted position in this case that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 11.05.2018 as per Hindu rites and rituals at Village- Bagtarai, Tahsil- Gurur, District- Balod (C.G.) and from their wedlock, their son Dopesh was born. 8. On the basis of pleadings made by the parties, learned Family Court framed the issues, which are reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference as under:- 1 FAM No. 130 of 2019 2 2025 SCC OnLine SC213 3 (2002) 2 SCC 296 4 (2002) 5 SCC 706 8 वाद ्ቚ्቞ निष्क्ቧ (1) क्या आवेदक िሻदू निववा अधिनियम, 1955 की ारा 13- (1) (i-क) (i-ख) के ्ቚावा के अुसार निववा निवच्छेद की धि्ቅी ्ቚा्቎ करे की पा्ቔता रखता ै? " ्ቚमाणि'त ।" (2) सायता एवं व्यय ? आवेदक का आवेद स्वीकार निकया गया। ( कं धिका 24 के अुसार) 9. As per the husband/respondent (PW-1), the allegation is that the wife/appellant had attempted suicide and frequently threatened him to take her life; furthermore, she pressurized him to embrace Muslim religion and upon his denial, she tried to set herself ablaze to commit suicide by pouring kerosene oil on her body to threaten him, being fed up by the aforesaid acts of his wife/appellant, he lodged a report on 14.10.2019 at Police Station- Gurur by the husband/respondent. In para 11 of his cross- examination, it was suggested to husband that the appellant/wife was subjected to cruelty by him and his family members that is the reason of her often trying to commit suicide. Then, the respondent/husband has denied the suggestion that the appellant/wife was subjected to cruelty by him and his family members. He has admitted that being afraid of his wife/appellant’s frequent suicide attempt, he informed the said incident to the Station House Officer, Police Station- Gurur vide Ex. P/1. He further admitted that due to her frequent suicidal attempts, he left her at her parental home. 10. Smt. Uttara Bai Sahu (PW-2), mother of the respondent has supported the statement of her son/respondent and she stated that the appellant had tried to commit suicide and further stated that the appellant used to go to Mausoleum (Mazar), therefore, in this regard a social meeting was 9 convened. 11. Leelaram Sahu (PW-3) has stated that he is a member of social meeting and also a President of Dhaneli. They questioned appellant-Umeshwari and respondent- Homendra, in which Homendra/respondent told that Umeshwari/appellant and her father follow the Muslim religion and they pressurized him to embrace the Muslim religion and also pressurized him to live separately from his mother, due to which the respondent/ Homendra refused. When they questioned from Umeshwari/respondent, she admitted that she follows the Muslim religion. PW-3 further stated that Homendra and Umeshwari have been living separately for nearly two years. In his cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that he gave affidavit under Order 18 Rule 04 of CPC as he is familiar with the respondent’s father. 12. Smt. Umeshwari Sahu (DW-1), wife of the respondent has stated that she is not aware of this fact that the respondent/husband had lodged the report on 24.10.2019 at Police Station- Gurur against her by alleging that she tried to set herself ablaze by lighting up a matchstick and pouring kerosene on her body. She denied the suggestion that after six months of the marriage, she used to pressurize the respondent/husband to embrace Muslim religion. She admitted this fact that she lodged the report against the respondent/husband and his family members at Police Station- Gurur and a social meeting was convened for two times. In para 9 of her cross- examination, she denied the suggestion by saying that in the social meeting so convened, the members of the same concluded the meeting by saying them to live separately. Furthermore, she admitted that she filed a case under the domestic violence act against the husband/respondent, respondent’s sister and mother. In para 9 of her cross-examination, she further denied the suggestion that she and her family members were 10 practicing Muslim religion prior to her marriage. 13. The respondent/husband has filed a complaint (Ex.P/1) dated 14.10.2019 at Police Station- Gurur, District- Balod, C.G., wherein he complained that the appellant/wife always threatened him by making suicidal attempts. He further mentioned few of the instances, in which he was threatened by her (i) once she held rat poison in her hand and was saying that she will consume it, (ii) she held knife pointing towards her stomach and was saying that she will pierce her stomach and also she tried to set herself ablaze by lighting up a matchstick and pouring kerosene oil on her body. 14. Ex. P/2 is a document of social meeting, which was convened on 16.01.2021, wherein considering the dispute between the parties, the members of the society were agreed to allow both the parties to live independently or separately. 15. Ex. P/3 is a copy of maintenance order dated 20.07.2023 passed by learned Family Court, Balod, wherein learned Family Court has awarded the amount of Rs. 2,000/- per month each as a maintenance amount in favour of the appellant/wife and her son. 16. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of G.V.N. Kameswara Rao (supra) observed and held in para 9 of its judgement as under:- “9. Under Section 13(1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, on a petition presented either by the husband or wife, the marriage could be dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground that the other party has, after the solemnization of the marriage, treated the petitioner with cruelty. 'Cruelty' is not defined in the Act. Some of the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act were amended by Hindu Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976. Prior to the amendment, 'cruelty' was one of the grounds for judicial separation under 11 Section 10 of the Act. Under that Section, "cruelty" was given an extended meaning by using an adjectival phrase, viz. "as to cause reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that it will be harmful or injurious for the petitioner to live with the other party". By the Amendment Act of 1976, "cruelty" was made one of the grounds for divorce under Section 13 and relevant provision reads as follows:- 13. "Divorce (1) Any marriage solemnized, whether before or after the commencement of the 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) . (ia) has, after the solemnization of the marriage, treated the petitioner with cruelty, or (ib) .. (ii)-(ix) " 17. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Parveen Mehta (supra) observed and held in paras 20 & 21 of its judgement as under:- 20. In the case in hand the foundation of the case of "cruelty" as a matrimonial offence is based on the allegations made by the husband that right from day one after marriage the wife was not prepared to cooperate with him in having sexual intercourse on account of which the marriage could not be consummated. When the husband offered to have the wife treated medically, she refused. As the condition of her health deteriorated she became irritating and unreasonable in her behaviour towards the husband. She misbehaved with his friends and relations. She even abused him, scolded him and caught hold of his shirt collar in the presence of elderly persons like Shri S.K. Jain. 12 This Court in the case of Dr N.G. Dastane v. S. Dastane observed: (SCC p. 346, para 56). “Sex plays an important role in marital life and cannot be separated from other factors which lend to matrimony a sense of fruition and fulfilment.” 21. Cruelty for the purpose of Section 13(1)(i-a) is to be taken as a behaviour by one spouse towards the other, which causes reasonable apprehension in the mind of the latter that it is not safe for him or her to continue the matrimonial relationship with the other. Mental cruelty is a state of mind and feeling with one of the spouses due to the behaviour or behavioural pattern by the other. Unlike the case of physical cruelty, mental cruelty is difficult to establish by direct evidence. It is necessarily a matter of inference to be drawn from the facts and circumstances of the case. A feeling of anguish, disappointment and frustration in one spouse caused by the conduct of the other can only be appreciated on assessing the attending facts and circumstances in which the two partners of matrimonial life have been living. The inference has to be drawn from the attending facts and circumstances taken cumulatively. In case of mental cruelty it will not be a correct approach to take an instance of misbehaviour in isolation and then pose the question whether such behaviour is sufficient by itself to cause mental cruelty. The approach should be to take the cumulative effect of the facts and circumstances emerging from the evidence on record and then draw a fair inference whether the petitioner in the divorce petition has been subjected to mental 13 cruelty due to conduct of the other. ” 18. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Pankaj Mahajan Vs. Dimple @ Kajal5, held and observed in para 23 of its judgment as under:- “23) It is well settled that giving repeated threats to commit suicide amounts to cruelty. When such a thing is repeated in the form of sign or gesture, no spouse can live peacefully. In the case on hand, the appellant-husband has placed adequate materials to show that the respondent-wife used to give repeated threats to commit suicide and once even tried to commit suicide by jumping from the terrace. Cruelty postulates a treatment of a spouse with such cruelty as to create reasonable apprehension in his mind that it would be harmful or injurious for him to live with the other party. The acts of the respondent-wife are of such quality or magnitude and consequence as to cause pain, agony and suffering to the appellant-husband which amounted to cruelty in matrimonial law.” 19. In the light of above cited judgements, in the present case also, it is quite evident that the wife/appellant threatened her husband/respondent by making repeated attempts to commit suicide and it is also quite evident that since the year 2020, the appellant/wife is living separately from her husband/respondent and looking to the conduct of the wife, it is not possible for husband to live with her with any mental pressure. Learned Family Court after minutely appreciating the oral and documentary evidence and thereby rightly finds that the appellant/wife has committed cruelty with the respondent/husband and she deserted him, therefore, learned Family Court has granted decree of divorce in favour of the respondent/husband. Thus, we do not find any illegality or irregularity 5.AIRONLINE 2011 SC 17 14 warranting interference by this Court in the impugned judgment passed by learned Family Court. 20. As regards permanent alimony, it is evident that respondent/husband has been paying Rs. 4,000/- per month as maintenance amount to the appellant/wife and her son. As per affidavit of the appellant/wife, she is doing a job of Security Guard, from which she is earning Rs. 4,000/- per month and on the other hand the respondent/husband has also filed an affidavit and stated that he is running a huller mill as well as Aata chakki in the village and from which, he is earning Rs. 20,000/- per month and he has also ancestral property at village- Surra, so considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the socio-economic status of the parties and looking to the guideline of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Sau.Jiya (supra), we find that awarding an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Ten Lakhs only) as a one time settlement in favour of the appellant-wife shall serve the purpose of equity and meet the ends of justice. This amount shall cover all the pending and future claims of the appellant/wife against the respondent/husband. The respondent/husband is, therefore, directed to pay the said amount as permanent alimony to the appellant/wife within a period of four months from today. 21. A decree be drawn up accordingly. SD/- SD/- (Rajani Dubey) (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE JUDGE AMIT PATEL