1 2026:CGHC:24168-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FA(MAT) No. 8 of 2023 Smt. Rinki Singh W/o Deepak Singh Aged About 30 Years Caste Kshatriy, R/o Village Pondi, Chirmiri, P.S. Pondi, District Koriya Chhattisgarh. --- Appellant versus Deepak Singh S/o Shri P.N. Singh, Aged About 33 Years Caste Kshatriya R/o Ward No. 07, North Jhagrakhand, P.S. Jhagrakhand, Tahsil Manendragarh, District Koriya Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Hemant Kumar Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate Division Bench Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Hon'ble Shri Sachin Singh Rajput, Judge Order On Board (16.06.2026) Per Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge 1. Appellant/defendant has filed this appeal questioning the legality and sustainability of the impugned judgment and decree dated 15.11.2022, passed in Civil Suit No. 50-A/2020, whereby the Judge, Family Court, Menendragarh, District – Koriya, has allowed the suit of respondent/husband filed U/s.13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 granting decree of divorce. 2. The facts relevant for disposal of this present appeal are that a suit under Sections 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was filed by the BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN 2 plaintiff-husband against the defendant-wife seeking a decree for dissolution of the marriage solemnized between the parties on the ground of mental cruelty and harassment pleading therein that marriage of respondent-plaintiff was solemnized with appellant on 17.01.2017 as per Hindu rites and rituals at village – Pondi, Chirmiri, Koriya. After marriage, defendant came with plaintiff to her in-laws house at North Jhagarakhand, Koriya. It was pleaded that on the very first night of marriage, defendant stated that she does not want to get married, her family members forcibly got her married against her wish, therefore, she cannot have physical relations with plaintiff or live a married life and just after six days of marriage, she returned to her parents home. During these six days, there was no physical relationship between the parties. Defendant told the plaintiff that she does not consider him as her husband and refused to perform matrimonial obligation. Despite repeated calls, defendant refused to speak with the plaintiff. In March 2017, during the Holi festival, defendant told plaintiff on phone that she will come to matrimonial home for 2-3 days only and thereafter, she will return to her parental home. Even during these 2-3 days, defendant maintained distance from plaintiff, and no marital relationship was established. Thereafter, plaintiff went to her parents' home and tried to convince the defendant to live with him but defendant does not want to live with the plaintiff. It was further pleaded that when defendant/wife became ill and was admitted to Central Hospital, Manendragarh, and subsequently to Apollo Hospital, Bilaspur, plaintiff took care of her and born all the medical expenses. After treatment, defendant was brought to Jhagarakhand however, after two days, she was forcibly taken away 3 by her parents. Defendant always interested to live in her parental home and used to threat plaintiff that she will implicate him and his all family members in false case. On 05.07.2020, defendant came to the plaintiff's house at Jhagrakhand along with her parents and asked to return of her wedding articles. She further threatened that, in the event the said articles were not returned, she would implicate the plaintiff and his family members in a false case. Since the marriage, there has been no marital relationship between the parties, therefore, plaintiff seeks decree of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty. 3. Defendant/wife filed written statement/reply denying the averments/allegation made in the plaint. It was pleaded that on 19.01.2017, the day of marriage reception, plaintiff came after consuming liquor and started arguing with the defendant, stating that her father should have given a gold ring each to the plaintiff's four brothers-in-law as well. She was treated with cruelty on account of demand of dowry. She was ignored by all the family members. It was further pleaded that plaintiff is having an extra marital affair with another woman. Plaintiff refused to eat food cooked by the defendant. It was also pleaded that when she fell ill, she was not taken care properly by the plaintiff and his family members and all the medical expenses were born by her father. The plaintiff did not speak to defendant. Whenever defendant inquired about the reason for his conduct, plaintiff told her to obtain a divorce from him, stating that he did not like her and was interested in another woman. She was harassed by the plaintiff and her in-laws. Suit was filed on the false and fabricated facts and grounds. 4 4. Learned trial Court based on the pleadings made by respective parties have formulated as many as four issues for consideration and upon considering the evidence brought in record by the respective parties, has allowed the suit by the impugned judgment and decree granting decree of divorce in favour of plaintiff. 5. Learned counsel for appellant/wife would submit that learned trial Court fell into error in allowing the suit filed by plaintiff-husband without appreciating the evidence brought in record by the parties in appropriate manner. It is contended that appellant-wife has never left the matrimonial home and always ready and willing to lead a matrimonial life with respondent-husband. The respondent-husband is habitual drinker and used to harass appellant in trivial issue. Appellant was also subjected to harassment and cruelty on account of bringing insufficient dowry at the time of marriage. She was repeatedly taunted, humiliated, and mistreated by respondent-husband and his family members. Respondent-husband was having an extra marital affair with another women and it is the respondent/husband who treated the appellant/wife with cruelty. It is also contended that grounds for desertion and irretrievable breakdown of marriage were not pleaded in the plaint. In fact it was the respondent/husband who deserted the appellant. Respondent-husband has failed to produce any evidence to establish that appellant-wife has committed any cruelty against him. In support of his contention, counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Gurbux Singh Vs. Harminder Kaur, reported in (2010) 14 SCC 301 and prays that the appeal be allowed and the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Family Court be set aside 5 6. Learned counsel for respondent-husband opposes the grounds raised in appeal and the submission made by learned counsel for appellant and submits that the allegation levelled against respondent-husband is false and baseless. It is contended that appellant-wife refused to have sexual relations with the respondent-husband since solemnization of their marriage, and no physical relationship was ever established between the parties. Appellant-wife does not want to reside in her matrimonial home and used to threat respondent-husband to implicate him and his family members in false and fabricated case. It is further contended that such conduct on the part of the appellant-wife amounted to cruelty towards the respondent-husband, thereby causing him mental agony and distress. The learned Family Court after proper appreciation of documentary and oral evidence brought in record by the respective parties has rightly come to the conclusion that the respondent-husband has made out a case for grant of decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty, which does not call for any interference. 7. We have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the documents placed on record. 8. The marriage between the parties is not in dispute. It is an admitted fact that the marriage was solemnized between the parties in accordance with Hindu rites and rituals. Plaintiff-husband has instituted a suit under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking a decree of divorce primarily on the grounds of desertion and cruelty. It is stated that, since solemnization of marriage, appellant-wife has refused to establish physical relations with respondent-husband, and 6 no physical relationship was ever developed between the parties thereafter. It is further stated that the appellant-wife has shown no willingness to reside with or continue the matrimonial relationship with the respondent-husband as her marriage was performed with respondent-husband against her wish and will and thereby appellant- wife has committed cruelty against respondent-husband. 9. In order to examine the cruelty, the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh, (2007) 4 SCC 511, would be a relevant guideline wherein the Court has indicated certain illustrative instances at para 101 whereby the inference of mental cruelty can be drawn. Para 101 reads 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 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. 7 (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. 8 (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. 9 10. Further Hon’ble Supreme in case of N.G. Dastane (Dr) v. S. Dastane, (1975) 2 SCC 326, has considered the ground of mental cruelty and observed thus :- “30. An awareness of foreign decisions could be a useful asset in interpreting our own laws. But it has to be remembered that we have to interpret in this case a specific provision of a specific enactment, namely, Section 10(1)(b) of the Act. What constitutes cruelty must depend upon the terms of this statute which provides: “10. (1) Either party to a marriage, whether solemnized before or after the commencement of this Act, may present a petition to the District Court praying for a decree for judicial separation on the ground that the other party— (b) has treated the petitioner with such cruelty as to cause a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that it will be harmful or injurious for the petitioner to live with the other party;” The inquiry therefore has to be whether the conduct charged as cruelty is of such a character as to cause in the mind of the petitioner a reasonable apprehension that it will be harmful or injurious for him to live with the respondent. It is not necessary, as under the English law, that the cruelty must be of such a character as to cause “danger” to life, limb or health or as to give rise to a reasonable apprehension of such a danger. Clearly, danger to life, limb or health or a reasonable apprehension of it is a higher requirement than a reasonable apprehension that it is harmful or injurious for one spouse to live with the other. * * * * 10 46. In regard to the conduct of the respondent as reflected in her admissions, two contentions raised on her behalf must be considered. It is urged in the first place that the various letters containing admissions were written by her under coercion. There is no substance in this contention. In her written statement, the respondent alleged that the appellant's parents had coerced her into writing the letters. At the trial she shifted her ground and said that the coercion proceeded from the appellant himself. That apart, at a time when the marriage had gone as under and the respondent sent to the appellant formal letters resembling a lawyer's notice, some of them by registered post, no allegation was made that the appellant or his parents had obtained written admissions from her. Attention may be drawn in this behalf to the letters Exs. 299 and 314 dated March 23 and May 6, 1961 or to the elaborate complaint Ex. 318 dated May 19, 1961 which she made to the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Food and Agriculture. Prior to that, on September 23, 1960 she had drawn up a list of her complaints (Ex. 424) which begins by saying: “He has oppressed me in numerous ways like the following”. But she does not speak therein of any admission or writing having been obtained from her. Further, letters like Exs. 271 and 272 dated respectively June 23 and July 10, 1960 which besides containing admissions on her part also contain allegations against the appellant could certainly not have been obtained by coercion. Finally, considering that the respondent was always surrounded by a group of relatives who had assumed the role of marriage-counsellors, it is unlikely that any attempt to coerce her into making admissions would have been allowed to escape unrecorded. After all, the group here consists of greedy letter-writers. 11 11. In case of Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi, (1988) 1 SCC 105, Hon’ble Supreme Court has examined the plea of cruelty and observed that the word “cruelty” has not been defined in the Hindu Marriage Act. It has been used in Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Act in the context of human conduct or behaviour in relation to or in respect of matrimonial duties or obligations. It is a course of conduct of one which is adversely affecting the other. The cruelty may be mental or physical, intentional or unintentional. If it is physical, it is a question of fact and degree. If it is mental, the enquiry must begin as to the nature of the cruel treatment and then as to the impact of such treatment on the mind of the spouse. Whether it caused reasonable apprehension that it would be harmful or injurious to live with the other, ultimately, is a matter of inference to be drawn by taking into account the nature of the conduct and its effect on the complaining spouse. There may, however, be cases where the conduct complained of itself is bad enough and per se unlawful or illegal. Then the impact or the injurious effect on the other spouse need not be enquired into or considered. In such cases, the cruelty will be established if the conduct itself is proved or admitted. The absence of intention should not make any difference in the case, if by ordinary sense in human affairs, the act complained of could otherwise be regarded as cruelty. Intention is not a necessary element in cruelty. The relief to the party cannot be denied on the ground that there has been no deliberate or willful ill- treatment. 12 12. In case of V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat, (1994) 1 SCC 337, Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with the issue of mental cruelty has observed as under :- “16. Mental cruelty in Section 13(1)(i-a) can broadly be defined as that conduct which inflicts upon the other party such mental pain and suffering as would make it not possible for that party to live with the other. In other words, mental cruelty must be of such a nature that the parties cannot reasonably be expected to live together. The situation must be such that the wronged party cannot reasonably be asked to put up with such conduct and continue to live with the other party. It is not necessary to prove that the mental cruelty is such as to cause injury to the health of the petitioner. While arriving at such conclusion, regard must be had to the social status, educational level of the parties, the society they move in, the possibility or otherwise of the parties ever living together in case they are already living apart and all other relevant facts and circumstances which it is neither possible nor desirable to set out exhaustively. What is cruelty in one case may not amount to cruelty in another case. It is a matter to be determined in each case having regard to the facts and circumstances of that case. If it is a case of accusations and allegations, regard must also be had to the context in which they were made.” (Emphasis supplied) 13. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sonal Talpada Vs. Veerbhan Singh, in SLP (C) No. 10422 of 2024, decided on 02.06.2026 while considering the plea and the grounds raised by husband in an application filed under Section 13 (1) of the Act, 1955 of refusal of wife for establishing physical relation with her husband has observed thus - 13 “19. As held in the case of Samar Ghosh (supra) and other catena of judgments by this Court, denial of conjugal rights including persistent refusal of sexual intercourse without a reasonable cause constitutes mental cruelty and is a valid ground for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the HMA. The courts in India have repeatedly established that withholding sexual intimacy inflicts severe emotional distress and undermines the bedrock of marriage. Therefore, the conclusion of the High Court is sustained. The decree of divorce as granted by allowing the appeal of the Respondent- husband is upheld.” (Emphasis supplied) 14. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh, (2007) 4 SCC 511, while dealing with the issue of cruelty, has defined the expression ‘mental cruelty’, which reads as under:- “42. In 24 American Jurisprudence 2d, the term “mental cruelty” has been defined as under: “Mental cruelty as a course of unprovoked conduct toward one's spouse which causes embarrassment, humiliation, and anguish so as to render the spouse's life miserable and unendurable. The plaintiff must show a course of conduct on the part of the defendant which so endangers the physical or mental health of the plaintiff as to render continued cohabitation unsafe or improper, although the plaintiff need not establish actual instances of physical abuse.” 15. Reverting back to the case at hand, plaintiff-husband/respondent (P.W.-1) has stated in his evidence as per the plaint averments. In his examination in chief, he stated his marriage was solemnized with 14 defendant on 17.01.2017. On the very first night of marriage, defendant stated that she does not want to get married and she married with him upon pressure. When he was residing at his work place at Khandawa, he used to make a phone call to defendant-wife, but defendant-wife did not pick up his call. He further stated that, during the Holi festival, he brought defendant from her parents' home, where defendant stayed with him for 4-5 days and thereafter, she insisted for going to her parents' home and went to her parents' home. He further stated that when defendant-wife became ill and was admitted to Central Hospital, Manendragarh, and subsequently to Apollo Hospital, Bilaspur, plaintiff took care of her and born all the medical expenses. After treatment, defendant was brought to Jhagarakhand however, after two days, she was forcibly taken away by her parents. 16. He also stated that upon being persuaded, defendant agreed to accompany him to Khandwa and went there with him in January 2018. However, even at Khandwa, behaviour of defendant remained unusual. Plaintiff stated that whenever he returned from his office, the defendant would abuse him and grab him by the collar. He further stated that defendant was with him in Khndawa for approximately one and quarter months, during this period also behaviour of defendant was not good. He stated that one day he returned late from the office due to some work. However, the defendant did not respond when he knocked on the door, due to which he had to return to his office and spend the night there. He further stated that in April 2020, when his office was closed due to COVID-19 pandemic, he returned to his home 15 at Jhagarakhand and stayed there for approximately one and a half months. During this period, the defendant was also residing with him. However, she did not establish any physical relationship with him, and there was no change in her behaviour. He further stated that on 05.07.2020, defendant came to Jhagarakhand along with her parents and asked to return of her wedding articles. Defendant threatened that if articles were not return, she will implicate the plaintiff and his family members in a false case. He specifically stated in his evidence that, there has been no marital and physical relationship between the parties. He lodged report against defendant in the Police Station Jhagarakhand vide Ex.P-1. Defendant was living separately since last four years. This witness was cross-examined at length and he denied all the suggestion given by the defendant. He denied the allegation that on the day of the marriage reception, after consuming liquor, he started quarrelling with defendant over the issue of gold rings for his brothers-in-law. He also denied that he ignored defendant while she was living with him and that he did not behave properly towards her. He admitted that before Holi festival, his family brought the defendant at Jhagarakhand. He also stated in cross-examination that he stayed with the defendant at hospital when she fell ill and was admitted in the hospital. This witness was cross-examined at length, however, he denied all the suggestion given to him by defendant. 17. Sanjay Sitole (P.W.-2) and Sukhavinder Singh (P.W.-3) are colleagues of plaintiff. Sanjay Sitole (P.W.-2) has stated in his evidence that he used to pickup the plaintiff from his home for office and drop him after office. In February, 2018 due to work-related reasons, there was a 16 delay at the office. Approximately 11:30 PM, he accompanied the complainant to his residence and dropped him there. After leaving the complainant at his residence, he returned to his house. After 15–20 minutes, complainant informed him on phon that his wife was not opening the door of the house and asked to him to take him back to the office and he took the complainant back to the office. He further stated that a marriage celebration for a member of the office staff had been organized at the office. The plaintiff had informed him that he would attend the function along with his wife; however, his wife did not accompany him to the event. 18. Similarly, Sukhvinder Singh (P.W.-3) stated that he, along with his wife, went to Deepak's house to invite him to the party; however, Deepak's wife refused to attend. He further stated that while they were in another room, they heard sound of quarrel between Deepak and his wife, following which his wife tried to persuade her. He further stated that after about 8-10 days of marriage, he invited Deepak and his wife for dinner, but wife of Deepak did not come. He further stated that during period when audit was being conducted at the office, Deepak had returned home late one night. On next day, Deepak come late in office during audit proceedings. Upon asking, Deepak come informed him that he had gone to his house; however, his wife had refused to open the door, therefore, he returned to the office and spent night there, and went back home in the morning. 19. Vaibhav Singh (P.W.-4) also stated in his evidence that disputes frequently arose between the parties and defendant always used abusive and insulting language towards plaintiff. He further stated that 17 marriage of defendant had been solemnized against her wishe and that she was not willing to reside and cohabit with the plaintiff. He further stated that on one occasion, when he visited the house of plaintiff, he saw the defendant telling the plaintiff to return all wedding articles to take her back to her parental home. Defendant used to harass the plaintiff and his mother and father. 20. The defendant examined herself as D.W.-1. In her deposition, she has levelled general and omnibus allegations against the plaintiff and her in-laws. She stated that she was subjected to harassment and cruelty by the plaintiff and his family members on account of alleged insufficient dowry given at the time of marriage. She further stated that she was repeatedly taunted, humiliated, and ill-treated by the plaintiff/husband and his family members. She also deposed that she was not properly cared for when she fell ill and was admitted to hospital. In cross-examination, this witness stated that she had not mentioned in her reply about any quarrel or dispute regarding dowry on the date of the marriage reception, when her parents had come to attend the reception. She stated that she had not lodged any report at the police station against the plaintiff and his family members regarding harassment or demand of dowry. She further admitted that in reply even it is not mentioned that plaintiff assaulted her after consuming liquor during Holi festival. In paragraph 17 of her cross- examination, this witness specifically admitted that since marriage there had been no physical relationship between her and plaintiff. In para 20, she stated that during the period she resided at her matrimonial home, her relationship with the plaintiff remained 18 extremely strained and devoid of cordiality. She also admitted that she has filed a proceedings of domestic violence against plaintiff and his family members in Chirmiri Court. In para-25 of her cross-examination, she further admitted that she has been living separately from plaintiff since 06.02.2020 and she has no relationship with plaintiff. 21. Mahendra Pratap Singh (D.W.-2) is a neighbour and Samir Kumar Singh (D.W.-3) is the brother-in-law of the defendant-wife. Both the witnesses, in their respective depositions, have stated only about the marriage between the parties and have referred to disputes arising between them on trivial issues. 22. Upon careful consideration of the pleadings and evidence on record, it is clear that plaintiff-husband has been able to establish that from the very inception of marriage, defendant-wife was unwilling to cohabit and failed to perform matrimonial obligation towards husband. The conduct of defendant in avoiding cohabitation, repeatedly leaving matrimonial home and residing separately since 06.02.2020 without any justifiable cause clearly establishes desertion. The version of plaintiff stands corroborated by other witness, who deposed about quarrel and dispute between the parties and absence of cordial relations and refusal of defendant on social occasions. Even her behaviour towards her husband, in the presence of his office colleagues, was not proper and was humiliating in nature. They have also stated about strained relations and absence of normal marital interaction between the parties. The defendant-wife has made vague and general allegations of cruelty and dowry harassment against plaintiff and his family members, which remain unsubstantiated by any 19 cogent or independent evidence. Moreover, she has made specific admission in cross-examination that she has been living separately from the plaintiff since 06.02.2020, that there has been no physical relationship between the parties since the marriage, and that their relationship remained extremely strained. She has also admitted that she has initiated proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act against the plaintiff and his family members. 23. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Samar Ghosh (supra) and other catena of judgments has held that denial of conjugal rights including persistent refusal of sexual intercourse without a reasonable cause constitutes mental cruelty and is a valid ground for divorce under Section 13 (1) (ia) of the Act, 1955. Perusal of the record clearly shows that parties have not cohabited as husband and wife in the true sense for a substantial period and there has been complete emotional, physical and matrimonial estrangement between them. 24. Continuous and frequent use of rude language and neglect by the appellant/wife, along with her petulant manner, indifference, and negligence, has reached such a degree that it has made the matrimonial life of plaintiff/husband absolutely intolerable. The plaintiff is an educated person working in a private firm and enjoys a good reputation in society. The conduct and behaviour of appellant/wife as is culled out from the evidence, in the opinion of this Court, would amount to cruelty as discussed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Samar Ghosh (supra) in paragraph 101, as well as in the other decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to here-in-above. 20 25. For the foregoing discussions, facts pleaded, evidence of the parties and in the light of the law and the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the afore quoted judgments, we are of the view that the finding arrived at by learned Family Court allowing the suit filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 granting decree of divorce in favour of plaintiff-husband is based on proper appreciation of the facts, evidence and law applicable, therefore, it does not call for any interference. 26. Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and it is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Judge Balram