1 / 13 2026:CGHC:26089-DB HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FA(MAT) No. 77 of 2024 Sudhir Singh Thakur S/o Shivnath Singh Thakur Aged About 31 Years R/o Tilaknagar, Chatapara, P.S. Civil Line, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus Smt. Nutan Singh Thakur W/o Sudhir Singh Thakur, D/o Late Ramnihor Singh Thakur Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Mohatarai, P.S. Ratanpur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Suresh Kumar Verma, Advocate For Respondent : None appears. D.B. : Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu & Ho n'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Judgment on Board 25/06/2026 Per Parth Prateem Sahu, J. 1. This appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 is directed against the judgment and decree dated 30.01.2024 passed by Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2026.07.01 10:50:55 +0530 2 / 13 learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, in Civil Suit No.206-A/2020, whereby application preferred by the appellant-husband under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, "the Act of 1955"), seeking dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty, has been dismissed. 2. Facts necessary for disposal of the present appeal are that the appellant-husband (plaintiff) filed an application under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act of 1955 pleading that his marriage with the respondent-wife (defendant) was solemnized on 19.04.2019 according to Hindu rites and customs. After marriage, both the parties started residing together at Tilak Nagar, Bilaspur. According to the appellant, within two or three days of entering the matrimonial home, defendant-wife started picking up quarrels over trivial issues. It is alleged that whenever the appellant spoke to any of his relatives, defendant-wife would suspect his character. She did not participate in the household work and, whenever she became angry, she used to damage household articles and leave for her parental home without informing any member of the family. It is further pleaded that the defendant-wife repeatedly threatened to commit suicide and falsely implicate the appellant and his family members in criminal cases. He further pleaded that, in the hope that the situation would improve, he continued to tolerate defendant-wife’s conduct. According to him, defendant-wife persistently pressurised him to obtain his share in the family property, and thereafter either reside with her at her parental home or purchase a separate house for their residence. It is further alleged that when the appellant refused to accept her demand, defendant-wife assaulted his mother and left for her parental home on 25.09.2019. He 3 / 13 submitted a written complaint against defendant-wife to the police authorities. Thereafter, on the complaint lodged by the defendant-wife, both the parties appeared before Women Police Station, Bilaspur, where a compromise was arrived at. Pursuant thereto, the appellant brought the respondent back to the matrimonial home a few days before Diwali of the year 2019. However, before Holi in the year 2020, defendant-wife again insisted upon going to her parental home, where she was dropped by the appellant. Since then, she has neither returned to the matrimonial home nor made any effort to resume cohabitation. The appellant has alleged that the defendant-wife has continuously abused him, levelled false allegations regarding his character and insisted upon living separately from his family, which, according to him, amounts to mental cruelty. Therefore, he sought dissolution of the marriage by a decree of divorce. 3. The respondent-wife filed her written statement denying all the material allegations made in the application/plaint. According to her, after the marriage, the appellant used to mentally harass her by taunting her that she belonged to a poor family and had not brought sufficient dowry. She further alleged that the appellant used to humiliate her by making derogatory remarks on her and subjected her to both mental and physical cruelty. She pleaded that she had cordial relations with the appellant's family members and regularly performed all household duties. It was further pleaded that the appellant, without any justifiable reason, frequently threatened to drive her out of the matrimonial home during the night. The respondent specifically denied that she had ever compelled the appellant to separate from his family or to reside at her parental home. On the contrary, she alleged that on the night of 24.09.2019, appellant brutally 4 / 13 assaulted her and abandoned her near her parental village. She further pleaded that before the festival of Holi in the year 2020, the appellant again subjected her to physical and mental harassment and ultimately left her at her parental home. Thereafter, appellant neither made any effort to bring her back to the matrimonial home nor enquired about her well-being. She also denied that she had ever insisted upon living separately from the appellant or his family members. 4. On the basis of the pleadings made by the parties, learned Family Court framed the following issue for determination: "Whether, after solemnization of the marriage, the defendant-wife treated the plaintiff-husband with cruelty?" 5. Learned Family Court upon appreciation of the pleadings and oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by the parties, answered the aforesaid issue in negative and held that the appellant had failed to establish the allegation of cruelty against the respondent. Consequently, the application filed under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act of 1955 was dismissed by the impugned judgment and decree, which is the subject matter of challenge in the present appeal. 6. Assailing legality, validity and correctness of the impugned judgment and decree, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the learned Family Court has committed an error of law as well as of fact in dismissing his application. It is contended that the evidence available on record clearly establishes that the defendant-wife repeatedly threatened to commit suicide and to falsely implicate the appellant and his family 5 / 13 members in criminal cases, which constitutes mental cruelty. It is further argued that the learned Family Court failed to properly appreciate the evidence adduced by the appellant and overlooked material circumstances which entitled him to a decree of divorce. Learned counsel lastly submits that the parties have been living separately for the last about six years and there is no possibility of reconciliation or resumption of matrimonial life. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned judgment and decree be set aside and a decree of divorce be granted in favour of the appellant. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have carefully perused the record of the learned Family Court. 8. The appellant has sought dissolution of the marriage on the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The factum of marriage is not in dispute. It is an admitted position that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 19.04.2019 in accordance with Hindu rites and customs. 9. Section 13 of the Act of 1955 provides for grant of decree of divorce in certain cases. It enacts that any marriage solemnized whether before or after the commencement of the Act may be dissolved on a petition presented either by the husband or by the wife on any of the grounds specified therein. Clause (ia) of sub-section (1) of Section 13 envisages that a decree of divorce may be passed by a Court on the ground that after the solemnization of marriage, the opposite party has treated the petitioner with cruelty. Expression ‘cruelty’ includes both (i) physical cruelty; and (ii) mental cruelty. Cruelty is not defined in the Act of 1955. 6 / 13 Physical cruelty can be proved by letting in oral and documentary evidence. As far as mental cruelty is concerned, the same has to be decided based on the facts and circumstances of each case taking into consideration the social standing of the parties. 10. In the case of Praveen vs. Inderjit Mehta reported in (2002) 5 SCC 706 while dealing with provisions of Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Act of 1955, Hon’ble Supreme court has examined ‘mental cruelty’ and observed as under :- “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 7 / 13 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 cruelty due to conduct of the other.” 11. In support of his application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, appellant/plaintiff Sudhir Singh Thakur examined himself as PW-1 and Bhuneshwar Singh @ Rajesh as PW-2. On the other hand, respondent/defendant, Nutan Singh Thakur, entered the witness box and examined herself as DW-1. 12. Plaintiff Sudhir Singh Thakur in his affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 CPC has stated that non-applicant/wife used to pressurize him to get his share from his family and sell it and live with her at her parents' house or buy a separate house and live with her as she wished and when he refused to go and live with her at her parents' house, non-applicant/ quarreled with him, beat up his mother and went to her parents' house on 25.09.2019, in connection with which the applicant had given complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur informing about his wife giving threat to implicate him in a false case and a complaint regarding her behavior was also given to the Incharge of Women Police Station. 13. Respondent/defendant Smt. Nutan Singh Thakur has stated in paragraph 2 of her affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 CPC that after marriage the applicant/husband used to scold her in the name of dowry saying that she had not brought anything in dowry and used to mentally harass her by taunting her for being from a poor family. 8 / 13 14. It is a well-settled principle of law that burden of proving allegation of cruelty lies squarely on the parties who seeks dissolution of marriage on that ground. Mere making of allegations in the pleadings is not sufficient; the party asserting cruelty must establish the same by leading clear, cogent, reliable, and legally admissible evidence before the Court. The standard of proof in such cases is based on the preponderance of probabilities; however, the evidence produced must be of such nature that it inspires confidence and is capable of convincing the Court that the conduct complained of amounts to cruelty within the meaning of law. Vague assertions, general allegations, or unsubstantiated statements, without supporting material, cannot form the basis for granting a decree of divorce. 15. On appreciation of the evidence, we find that except the self-serving testimony of the appellant (PW-1), there is no reliable and independent evidence to substantiate the aforesaid allegations. Though the appellant examined one witness, namely Bhuneshwar Singh @ Rajesh, his testimony is not sufficient to establish any specific incident constituting cruelty. Mere filing of complaints by the appellant, without any consequential action or independent proof of the allegations contained therein, cannot by itself establish that the respondent had in fact threatened to commit suicide or falsely implicate the appellant and his family members. Such complaints do not constitute substantive evidence of cruelty. Equally, the allegation that respondent-wife assaulted the appellant's mother has remained unsubstantiated. The appellant failed to examine his mother, who was the most material witness to prove the alleged incident. Apart from his own testimony, no independent evidence 9 / 13 has been adduced. Furthermore, no medical record or any other relevant document has been placed on record to corroborate the allegation of assault. The respondent-wife, while entering the witness-box as DW-1, specifically denied all allegations of cruelty. She stated that she was subjected to harassment on account of dowry and was repeatedly taunted for belonging to a poor family and for her short stature. According to her, it was the appellant who left her at her parental house and thereafter never made any sincere effort to resume cohabitation. Her testimony could not be discredited in cross-examination. 16. It is well settled that normal wear and tear of matrimonial life, occasional quarrels, differences of temperament and disputes relating to residence do not by themselves amount to cruelty within the meaning of Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act. Cruelty must be of such a nature as to cause a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the spouse that it would be harmful or injurious to live with the other. The evidence adduced by the appellant falls short of this legal standard. 17. In order to examine the cruelty, the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh reported in (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 10 / 13 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 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. 11 / 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.” 18. In the case of Gurbux Singh v. Harminder Kaur, reported in (2010) 14 SCC 301, Hon'ble Supreme Court, while deciding the appeal preferred by the appellant-husband against dismissal of his application under Section 13 of the Act of 1955, seeking a decree of divorce on the ground of “cruelty”, observed as under: “16. The married life should be assessed as a whole and a few isolated instances over certain period will not amount to cruelty. The ill conduct must be precedent for a fairly lengthy period where 12 / 13 the relationship has deteriorated to an extent that because of the acts and behaviour of a spouse, one party finds it extremely difficult to live with the other party no longer may amount to mental cruelty. Making certain statements on the spur of the moment and expressing certain displeasure about the behaviour of elders may not be characterised as cruelty. Mere trivial irritations, quarrels, normal wear and tear of married life which happens in day to day life in all families would not be adequate for grant of divorce on the ground of cruelty. Sustained unjustifiable and reprehensible conduct affecting physical and mental health of the other spouse may lead to mental cruelty. Both the appellant and the respondent being highly qualified persons, the appellant being Principal in ITI College, the respondent working as a Librarian in a government institute, an isolated friction on some occasion like festival of lohri even in the presence of others cannot be a valid ground for dissolving the marriage.” 19. From the material available on record, we find that the learned Family Court has meticulously appreciated both the oral and documentary evidence and has rightly held that the appellant failed to prove that the respondent treated him with cruelty after solemnization of the marriage. The findings recorded by the Family Court are based on proper appreciation of evidence and do not suffer from perversity, illegality or misreading of the record warranting interference in this appeal. 20. Consequently, we are of the considered opinion that the appellant has failed to establish any ground for dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 13 / 13 21. The appeal, being devoid of merit, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. The judgment and decree dated 30.01.2024 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur in Civil Suit No.206-A/2020 is affirmed. 22. Let a decree be drawn accordingly. S Sd/- Sd/- S- (Parth Prateem Sahu) (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Judge Praveen