1 2025:CGHC:12034-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FA(MAT) No. 26 of 2020 A. Somshekhar S/o Late Shri A. Kali Prasad, Aged About 52 Years, R/o Agrasen Nagar, Ring Road, No. 1, Quarter No. B-10, Police Station D.D. Nagar, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus Smt. A. Sandhya W/o Shri A. Somshekhar Aged About 49 Years R/o R.M.S. Colony, Quarter No. 206, Tagore Nagar, Police Station Kotwali, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For appellant : Shri Aman Upadhyay, Advodcate For Respondent : None {Hon’ble (Smt.) Justice Rajani Dubey & Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput} (Order in Chamber dated 11/03/2025) Per Sachin Singh Rajput, J Parties herein, for convenience, shall be referred to as the appellant/husband and the respondent/wife. 2. This appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (henceforth “Act of 1984”) has been filed against the judgment dated 29.11.2019 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur in HMA Case No. 35/2016 by which the application filed by the respondent/wife under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (henceforth “Act of 1955”) has been allowed. 2 3. Brief facts: Marriage between the parties was solemnized on 30.11.2000 at Raipur as per the Hindu Rites and Rituals. At the time of marriage, the appellant/husband was in service and that after marriage by taking leaves he used to discharge the marital obligations. This obligation continued to be discharged between the two after the retirement of the petitioner/husband also. However, being issue-less, they with mutual consent adopted Ku. Sanchita on 01.11.2008 and started bringing her up, who at present is studying in Krishna Public School, Raipur. The appellant/husband brought her up as his own daughter, but with the passage of time on trivial matters he started abusing and beating the respondent/wife. On account of appellant/husband being alcoholic, he drove the respondent/wife out of his house in June 2015 and since then she is living with her brother. After the respondent/wife filed a complaint in the Mahila Thana, Raipur, the appellant/husband filed an application under Section 10 of the Act of 1955. It is stated that after driving her out of his house without any reasonable cause, he never made any effort to take her back. The respondent/wife is stated to be willing to live with the appellant/husband and thus discharge the matrimonial obligations. 4. Barring admitted facts, the appellant/husband has denied all the pleadings taken by the respondent/wife. It is stated that the daughter was adopted without mutual consent. It is stated that the respondent/wife is taking care of the daughter by keeping her with her. It is stated that the respondent/wife always persisted to live in her maternal home, that he had given his ATM card to her and further that she always treated him to be the source of fulfilling her requirements. Lastly, he has stated that the respondent/wife is not entitled to a decree of restitution of conjugal rights as 3 she herself has deserted him without there being any reason. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, learned Family Court framed the following three issues:- (I) Whether the appellant/husband has deprived the respondent/wife of her conjugal rights without any reasonable and sufficient cause? (ii) Relief and cost? 6. After hearing the parties and considering the evidence of the witnesses, learned Family Court decided the issue No.1 in positive and while deciding the issue No.2, decreed the suit of the respondent/wife filed under Section 9 of the Act of 1955, directed the appellant/husband to keep the respondent/wife with him within a period of two months therefrom and discharge the conjugal obligations. Decree is thus directed to be drawn accordingly. Hence this appeal. 7. Counsel for the appellant/husband submits that the judgment and decree passed by learned Family Court is perverse and not sustainable in the facts and circumstances of the case. He submits that the Court below has committed an error in not considering the fact that at the time of marriage the appellant/husband was in the service of Army and from time to time he used to come to the respondent/wife to spend conjugal life with her. He submits that learned Family Court has also not considered the fact that it is the respondent/wife who always picked up dispute with the parents of the appellant/husband and thereafter left for her maternal home without any reasonable cause. He submits that as the respondent/wife was not able to conceive, she without the consent of the appellant/husband adopted a girl and started raising her up. According to the counsel for the appellant/husband, the alleged expulsion of the respondent/wife at the hands of the appellant/husband is absolutely false and fabricated, and in fact it is she who deserted him and 4 thus deprived him of conjugal bliss. He submits that looking to the material illegality and irregularity in the judgment and decree impugned, the same is required to be set aside by allowing the appeal. 8. Heard counsel for the appellant/husband and perused the material on record. 9. The evidence of the respondent/wife go to show that her marriage with the appellant/husband had taken place at Raipur on 30.11.2000 and that as no issue was born to her, she with the mutual consent of the appellant/husband adopted Ku. A. Sanchita on 01.11.2008 who as of now is pursuing her studies in Krishna Public School, Raipur. It is further apparent from her pleadings that after adoption of the female child the appellant/husband treated her as his own daughter but after some time he started ill-behaving with her, hurling abuses and indulging in beating with her, but looking to the future of the adopted daughter, she went on to bear all his extremities. Appellant/husband is also stated to be a drunkard and for that he used to beat her and nurturing a disliking to her he drove her as also her daughter out of his house as a result of which started living in her maternal home. She is stated to have never quarreled with the appellant/husband or with his family members, and that after being expelled she had made a complaint in Mahila Thana, Raipur, and as a counterblast the appellant/husband making false allegations against her, filed an application under Section 10 of the Act of 1955 in the Family Court, Raipur. She has further stated that after driving her out of his house, the appellant/husband did not make any effort to take her back nor did he give the maintenance expenses to her. Her pleadings show that being wife, the appellant/husband is bound to maintain her and he is trying to look for an escape route from doing that, 5 though she is ready to live with him and discharge her matrimonial obligations. 10. K. Apparao (AW-2) is the brother of respondent/wife who has deposed in the same lines as that of herself. Appellant/husband in his evidence has stated that the respondent/wife used to treat him with cruelty, quarreled with him also, and for that they are living separately since 2015. He has deposed that there are no marital relations between them for about five years. 11. Learned Family Court however decided the issues in favour of the respondent/wife after appraisal of the evidence before it. 12. Being this, the judgment and decree impugned do not seem to be contrary to the material available on record and therefore no other view that the one so taken, is required by this Court. Appeal thus being without any merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Decree be drawn accordingly. Sd/- Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Judge Jyotishi AVANISH JYOTISHI Digitally signed by AVANISH JYOTISHI Date: 2025.03.18 16:53:31 +0530