1 CGHC010365622023 2026:CGHC:29871- NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FA(MAT) No. 319 of 2023 1. Raju Kushwaha S/o Shri Dinesh Kushwaha Aged About 25 Years Caste- Koiri , Occupation- Agriculture, R/o Village- Sohga, Post- Karji, Police Station- Darima, Tahsil- Ambikapur,, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1. Smt. Lalita Kushwaha W/o Raju Kushwaha Aged About 21 Years Caste- Koiri, Occupation- Service (Employment Assistant), R/o Village- Sambalpur (Semra), Post- Latori, Police Station- Jaynagar, Tahsil- Surajpur,, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Puneet Ruparel, Advocate DB: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Parth Prateem Sahu,J & Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sachin Singh Rajput, J Order on Board Per Parth Prateem Sahu, J 10.07.2026 1. This appeal is filed by appellant-husband against the judgment dated 05.10.2023 of learned Family Judge, 2 Ambikapur refusing the grant of decree of divorce to the husband. 2. Factual matrix of case, in short, is that marriage of the parties took place in accordance with Hindu rites and rituals on 11.5.2017. After the marriage, respondent-wife did not want to do domestic works and used to quarrel with him and his parents if asked to do domestic works. She had been residing 2-3 days in a week with appellant and rests of days in her parental home. She used to go to her parental home without any intimation and used to return after several visits of appellant to take her back home. At the time of Durga pooja, when appellant and his father visited parental home of respondent to take her back, she refused to come, he was attacked and assaulted by his father-in-law and also attempted to administer poison to his father. They somehow managed to save themselves and flee from there. A meeting of community at the parental home of respondent was convened in respect of disputes between them and in which she was advised by elderly members of community to live peacefully in her matrimonial home and to visit her parental home with the permission of her husband and in-laws. On the advise of elderly members of community, she returned back to her matrimonial home but after 2-3 days she again went back to her parental home without intimating anyone. 3 Appellant was patiently bearing torturous behaviour of respondent wife with a hope that one day his wife would change her attitude and give a conducive atmosphere to lead a peaceful married life, but unfortunately there was no change in her attitude. On 15.08.2018, respondent wife came back from her parental home with appellant to her matrimonial home, however, after staying for 2-3 days, she again went back to her parental home. Appellant thereafter several times went to respondent to bring her back but she flatly denied to come back saying that she does not want to live with him and asked him to perform second marriage. On 16.11.2018, respondent wife gave birth to a girl child, but after delivery of child, she went to her parental home without intimating anyone and there she along with her family members killed the child and gave false information of her death to appellant over mobile phone. Thereafter, all the efforts made by appellant to bring respondent wife back to her matrimonial home have ended in vain. Respondent wife has deserted the appellant and living willingly in her parental home. A divorce petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (henceforth ‘the Act of 1955’) was filed by appellant, which came to be registered as Civil Suit No.19A/2019, however, based on compromise arrived at between the parties under which respondent wife had agreed to live with appellant, 4 appellant had withdrawn the same on 26.2.2020. Thereafter, appellant started residing with respondent in her parental house, however, after few days, he was assaulted and ousted by respondent and her family members regarding which a written report was lodged by appellant on 11.7.2020 in concerned police station but no action was taken by police stating that dispute relates to non-cognizable offence. Thereafter, appellant went to house of respondent wife many a times, as also requested her over telephone to come back, but she flatly denied to come back, leaving no option with the appellant but to file application for dissolution of marriage by way of a decree of divorce. 3. Respondent – wife filed reply to application denying the averments made therein and it was pleaded that respondent is an educated woman, after marriage she had been leading happy married life with appellant-husband. She always treated parents of her husband and other family members with full respect. Prior to marriage, she has been appointed as Assistant Secretary in Gram Panchayat Sambalpur and after marriage she has been attending the office from her matrimonial home. During her stay in matrimonial home, she never went on duty without intimating her husband or his parents. There was no dispute between them for a period of one year after marriage. Appellant or his parents were never 5 misbehaved or beaten in her parental home. It was further pleaded that during her pregnancy, as advised by the doctor, she was not doing much agriculture work, therefore, she was abused and taunted by appellant and his father after consuming liquor. They asked her to bring Rs.1,00,000/- from her parental home, they used to treat her with cruelty and tortured her in many ways. Being fed up with the persistent ill-treatment, she had gone to her parental home and narrated her parents cruel behaviour she was subjected to by her husband and his father. Whereupon, a meeting of elder members of the community was convened on 16.7.2018 in which appellant and his father was advised not to harass her in any manner after consuming liquor, to take her back to home and take full care of her. It was further pleaded that appellant left her at her house for the delivery of child, however, after delivery of child, appellant or any of his family members did not come to see the child. Suddenly the child fell sick and died. It was further pleaded that on 24.2.2020 a meeting of community was convened in which she and appellant have agreed to live together happily in future and pursuant thereto, the appellant had withdrawn the civil suit filed by him for grant of divorce. Thereafter they resided together in her parental home and after such resumption of marital life, respondent became pregnant and gave birth to a 6 child on 13.11.2020. In the month of July, 2020, when appellant desired to go to his house, respondent asked him to take her with him, but he did not take her with him saying that he will take her next time. After about a week, appellant returned back to her parental home, he was heavily drunk and started hurling abuses. When they tried to stop him, he got enraged and started giving filthy abuses to her and other members of her family. Hearing this, neighbourers gathered and on being asked by them not to hurl filthy abuses, he left for his house on motorcycle and next day got lodged false report in the police station. After delivery of child, appellant did not come to meet her or their daughter and till date she is maintaining her daughter by residing in her parental home. It was pleaded that respondent wife has never denied to reside with appellant. On the basis of aforementioned averments, it was pleaded that application filed by appellant for grant of divorce be dismissed with cost. 4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, learned Family Court framed 02 issues, afforded opportunity of leading evidence to both the parties and on the basis of evidence, oral and documentary, available on record, has held that appellant failed to establish any of the grounds as envisaged in Section 13 of the Act of 1955 for grant of decree of divorce. Accordingly, by impugned judgment and decree, application 7 filed by appellant-husband under Section 13 of the Act of 1955 for grant of decree of divorce has been dismissed. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant-husband would argue that the factual aspects pleaded before the learned Court supported by the evidence adduced on behalf of appellant-husband, have not been properly considered and as such, the judgment impugned is erroneous and not sustainable in the eyes of law. He argues that after marriage, the respondent used to avoid doing household works and used to quarrel with him, his father and mother as well as misbehave with them and used to go to her parental home without informing him or her in-laws. On 16.7.2018, upon intervention and advise of elderly members of community, respondent came back to her matrimonial home and after staying for 2-3 days she again went back to her parental home without any intimation to appellant. Appellant had though instituted divorce proceeding seeking dissolution of marriage, but there was again a settlement between the parties, therefore, appellant with the bona fide intention of giving another opportunity, withdrew divorce petition and started residing in parental home of respondent wife. However, instead of reciprocating this genuine attempt of appellant to save the marriage, respondent wife continued to treat him with hostility and ultimately subjected him to physical 8 assault and forcibly drove him out of her house. A police report regarding this incident was also lodged by appellant. He next contended that respondent wife along with minor daughter is living separately from appellant since long in her parental home, thereby appellant has been depriving of his love and affection towards his minor daughter. Respondent never shows any inclination to live with appellant, who tried his best to establish marital life, but on each and every occasion, she refused to go with appellant-husband. He submits that the conduct and attitude of respondent wife clearly indicate that she has no genuine and real interest to lead marital life with the appellant and she wants to put an end permanently to cohabitation. So, appellant had no other option but to file the petition for divorce on the above grounds as there was no possibility of reunion and the nuptial knot between them had been irretrievably broken down. However, application for grant of decree of divorce preferred by appellant, which ought to have been allowed, has been erroneously dismissed by learned Family Judge. Hence, he prays that impugned judgment and decree be set aside and decree of divorce be granted in favour of appellant. 6. We have heard learned counsel for appellant and perused the record of the Family Court. 9 7. The question which is involved in this appeal for consideration is whether learned Family Court is justified in rejecting divorce application filed by appellant-husband under Section 13 of the Act of 1955? 8. It is trite that the relief of divorce under the Act of 1955 is governed entirely by the statute. Either spouse may seek dissolution of the marriage by invoking Section 13 of the Act, but such relief can be granted only upon establishing one or more of the grounds specifically enumerated therein. A decree of divorce cannot be founded on mere allegations, suspicion, conjectures, or the subjective dissatisfaction of either party. The ordinary wear and tear of matrimonial life, normal differences, trivial irritations, and day-to-day discord, which are inherent in every marital relationship, do not by themselves constitute a ground for dissolution of marriage. The statutory ground pleaded must be established by cogent, credible, and convincing evidence. It is, therefore, the duty of the Court to carefully scrutinize the pleadings and evidence on record to ascertain whether the petitioner has successfully discharged the burden of proving the ground relied upon for seeking dissolution of the marriage. 9. In case at hand, appellant-husband has sought a decree of divorce contending in his application that respondent-wife used to frequently visit her parental home without permission 10 and intimation to the petitioner and his family members. She was not doing household works and on being asked to do, she used to quarrel with appellant and his parents. She flatly denied to come with appellant to her matrimonial home and upon intervention by elderly members of community, she returned to her matrimonial home but after staying for 2-3 days, she again went back to her parental home without intimation. On 26.02.2020, in order to save marriage, appellant withdrew divorce petition and started residing with respondent wife in her parental home, but after some days, he was assaulted by her mother, father and brother and forcibly ousted hi, from the house. A report regarding said incident was also lodged with police. Respondent-wife left the house of the appellant-husband, went to her parental house and she never came back despite all possible efforts made by appellant husband. 10. Above are the grounds stated by appellant in the petition and to establish the claim of divorce, appellant examined himself as PW-1, his father Dinesh Kushwaha as PW-2, neighbourer Shivshankar as PW-3 and Kalawati as PW-4. Besides oral evidence, copies of order sheets of Civil Suit No.13A/2019 filed by appellant for grant of decree of divorce, application filed under Section 13 of the Act of 1955, written statement filed by respondent, compromise deed arrived at between the 11 parties, judgment dated 26.2.2020 in CS No.13A/2019, written complaint submitted by appellant in Police Station Jainagar on 27.7.2020, are exhibited as Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-8 respectively. 11. On the contrary, stand of respondent-wife is that her behaviour was always respectful for appellant and his family members. On account of her pregnancy, she was not in a position to do agriculture work as she was doing earlier and therefore, her husband and father-in-law, after consuming liquor, used to abuse and taunt her and ask her to bring Rs.1,00,000/- from her house. They were torturing her in various manner and being fed up with which, she came back to her parental home and only after intervention of elderly members of community, she went back to her matrimonial home on the condition that appellant or his father will not harass her and take care of her. On 30.8.2018 appellant left her at her parental home and did come back even after informing him about delivery of child. Her husband is habitual drunkard, if he stops consuming alcohol and mends his ways, no dispute would arise between them. She never denies to live with appellant. Respondent examined herself as DW-1 and one Kanti Singh as DW-2. 12. We have already gone through respective cases of the parties as pleaded in their respective pleadings. Now, to consider 12 whether appellant-husband has been able to establish ingredients required to be proved for grant of a decree of divorce against respondent-wife, we will proceed to look into the evidence adduced by the parties before the trial Court. 13. PW-1 Raju Kushwaha is the appellant-husband. He has reiterated all the contents of his petition under Section 13 of the Act of 1995. He has deposed that after the marriage, respondent came to reside with him and after residing for four days, left for her parental home along with her brother. She is employed as Rozgar Sahayikan and she has been attending her duties from her parental home. Whenever he tried to bring back respondent from her parental home, she used to quarrel with him. His father-in-law used to say that he will not send his daughter to her matrimonial home. Sometimes she came back to matrimonial home with him. Once the father and mother of respondent had assaulted him on his visit to their house. His father was assaulted once. He has further deposed that a community meeting was convened at his instance and on being advised, respondent came to live with him, but after 2-3 days she again left for her parental home. Since 2017 respondent has been residing in her parental home. A false report was also lodged by respondent against him in Police Station Jairamnagar. He further deposed that respondent during her stay in matrimonial home did not do 13 household works, rather compelled his parents to do household works. He further submits that on account of compromise arrived at between the parties, he withdrew divorce petition filed earlier with a hope that respondent will correct herself, but there is no change in her. Respondent did not inform him about delivery of their child, got herself discharged from hospital in haste as a result their newly born daughter died. Respondent does not want to lead a married life with him and therefore, he be granted decree of divorce against respondent. In the cross-examination, he has admitted that respondent became pregnant for the second time while residing with him and for convenience, she was attending her duties by residing in her parental home. He further admitted that he used to drink liquor sometime and respondent does not like his habit of drinking liquor. He has denied the suggestion that he resided in parental home of respondent for six months or he used to quarrel with respondent after consuming liquor. He has also denied the suggestion that he has kept another girl with him. 14. PW-2 Dinesh Kushwaha is the father of appellant husband. This witness broadly reiterates the version as to what was stated by appellant (PW-1). He has deposed that daughter of respondent is not born from his son. He has admitted that after the compromise between the parties, appellant resided 14 with respondent in her parental home, however, after a few days, he was assaulted and ousted from the house by respondent and her parents. 15. PW-3 Shivshankar Singh has stated that his house is very close to the house of appellant (PW-1). He has deposed that respondent is in the habit of leaving matrimonial home and used to frequently visit her parental home. However, he has stated that dispute of appellant and respondent was never taken place in his presence. He has admitted that after the compromise, appellant and respondent have lived properly and he never attended any meeting in which compromise was arrived at between the parties. 16. PW-4 Kalawati is the neighbourer of appellant. She stated that conduct and behaviour of respondent towards appellant and other family members was not good, she did not do any domestic work and did not cook food and serve to anyone. She also stated about convening of a meeting of panchayat with respect to dispute of appellant and respondent. She further deposed that whenever appellant had gone to parental home of respondent to bring her back, she had come. She has also deposed about filing of divorce petition by appellant, its withdrawal pursuant to compromise between the parties and staying of appellant at the parental home of respondent. In cross-examination, she admitted that she never went along 15 with appellant to bring respondent wife. No dispute between appellant and respondent had ever taken place in her presence. 17. On the other hand, respondent examined herself and one witness on her behalf. DW-1 Lalita Kushwaha is the wife herself, while reiterating the version of her written statement in her testimony, has denied all adverse allegations levelled by appellant in her divorce petition as also statement. She has deposed that she had never gone to her parental home without consent of her in-laws. She denied that she was not doing any household work in her matrimonial home. She deposed that whenever her husband or in-laws had come to her parental home, they were always respected and she never misbehaved with them. She denied the suggestion that she is living separately from her husband without any reason, her husband attempted to bring her back several times but she refused to go with him. She also denied that she had ever misbehaved or behaved in a disrespectful manner with appellant or his parents. She denied that her brother and father assaulted the appellant and ousted him. She denied the suggestion that she does not want to live with her husband and stated that she wants to live with appellant and on being asked, she stated that she will go to her marital home when her husband stop consuming liquor. 16 18. DW-2 Kanti Singh is a resident of village Sambhalpur i.e. placing of posting of respondent wife. She shown her inability to speak about conduct and behaviour of respondent with her in-laws. She stated that she was present in the meeting of Kushwaha society convened in respect of dispute between appellant and respondent. She deposed that at the time of delivery of respondent, appellant was informed by respondent’s brother over telephone in her presence, but they did not come. 19. Factual scenarios emerging from the evidence brought on record by appellant-husband, as discussed herein-above, would show that appellant filed divorce petition on 23.11.2020 seeking decree of divorce mainly on the grounds that respondent-wife never respected appellant and his family members; she was not doing domestic work; she did not inform about birth of child; after she left her matrimonial house for delivery of first child; he was assaulted and ousted from the house by respondent and her parents; and that in spite of best efforts by the appellant, respondent refused to live with him. 20. When statements of respondent-wife made as DW1 before the family Court is evaluated, it is found that she has consistently deposed that she wants to live with her husband and she would return to her matrimonial home when her 17 husband (appellant) stops consuming alcohol. There was cohabitation between appellant and respondent as a result she became pregnant and delivered second child on 13.11.2020. Divorce petition is filed after delivery of child i.e. on 23.11.2020. 21. Marriage is an institution where bitter sweet instances happen every now and then. It is a delicate relationship which is to be nurtured with effort and love from both the parties. Normal wear and tear of married life cannot be magnified to claim dissolution of marriage. Conduct of the spouse has to be such that it becomes intolerable for them to live with each other. In the instant case, the instances pointed out by appellant- husband, though denied in written statement and evidence by respondent wife, even if taken to be true, these instances are in the nature of behaviour and attitude of respondent-wife and pertaining to ordinary wear and tear, which is normal to most marriages, if not all, not enough to dissolve the marriage by way of a decree of divorce. If appellant-husband is granted a decree of divorce on the grounds as pleaded in the present case, it would amount to allowing his claim on mere asking. 22. In case of Gurbux Singh vs Harminder Kaur reported in (2010) 14 SCC 301, referring to decision in case of Samar Ghosh vs Jaya Ghosh, reported in (2007) 4 SCC 511, Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that while trivial irritations, 18 quarrels, normal wear and tear of married life which happens in day to day life in all families would not entitle a party to a decree of divorce; however, continuing and subsisting unjustifiable and reprehensible conduct which affects the physical and mental health of the other spouse may lead to mental cruelty. In case at hand, Appellant-husband has not been able to plead much less prove that respondent wife is guilty of a conduct, which has made it difficult for him to live with her. 23. For the foregoing discussions, we are of the opinion that the learned District Judge has rightly recorded a finding that the appellant failed to prove the grounds pleaded in the petition. The said finding appears to be based on proper appreciation of the evidence available on record and does not call for any interference. 24. Consequently, the appeal being meritless is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. A decree be drawn up accordingly. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Judge roshan/- SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Digitally signed by SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI