1 CGHC010242872022 2026:CGHC:28076-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FA(MAT) No. 129 of 2022 Smt. Venu (Anjali) W/o Tarun Kumar Kashyap Aged About 28 Years R/o Near Bajrang Chowk, Tahsil And District Gariyaband, Presently R/o Through Santram Ambade, Labour Colony, Rajnandgaon, Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Appellant versus Tarun Kumar Kashyap S/o Keshav Kashyap Aged About 31 Years R/o Near Bajrang Chowk, Ward No. 12, Gariyaband, Tahsil And District Gariyaband (C.G.) --- Respondent ___________________________________________________________ For Appellant :Mr. Anirudh Shrivastava, Advocate on behalf of Mr. S.S. Baghel, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Manoj Kumar Dubey, Advocate ___________________________________________________________ Hon’ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu & Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Judgment on Board Per, Sachin Singh Rajput , Judge 07.07.2026 1. The appellant has filed this appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, challenging the legal correctness and judicial propriety of the impugned judgment and decree dated 04.07.2022 passed by the learned Family Court, Rajnandgaon, District- Digitally signed by AMIT PATEL 2 Rajnandgaon (C.G.), in Civil Suit No. 313-A/2021 (for short, "the Family Court"), whereby the application filed by the respondent/husband under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking a decree of divorce was allowed and the marriage solemnized between the parties on 16.04.2017 was dissolved. 2. It is an admitted fact that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 16.04.2017 as per social rites and rituals and from their wedlock, a daughter was born on 26.08.2018, who passed away. 3. The respondent/husband filed an application under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the learned Family Court, Rajnandgaon, seeking a decree of divorce. It was pleaded therein that the marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnized on 16.04.2017 in accordance with Hindu rites and customs. After the marriage, the appellant/wife joined the respondent/husband at the matrimonial home and from their wedlock, a daughter was born. The respondent further averred that after the birth of the child, he came to know that the appellant was suffering from Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome (AIDS) and was HIV-positive even prior to the birth of the child. It was further alleged that as a consequence, the child was also found to be HIV-positive. According to the husband, HIV is transmitted through sexual contact and in view of the appellant's medical condition, it was not possible for the parties to maintain a physical relationship or lead a normal marital life. On these averments, the respondent sought dissolution of the marriage by a decree of divorce. 3 4. The non-applicant/wife, filed her written statement denying the allegations made in the divorce petition. She pleaded that she had been duly discharging her matrimonial obligations and was residing happily in her matrimonial home without any stigma or complaint. It was further contended that she had been properly performing her duties towards the members of her matrimonial family and had neither misbehaved with them nor treated them with cruelty. The appellant specifically asserted that she was neither HIV-positive nor suffering from AIDS prior to her marriage and that she was diagnosed as HIV- positive only after the marriage. She further pleaded that during her pregnancy, she underwent regular medical checkups and was not found to be HIV-positive at that time. It was also contended that she had been faithfully performing her matrimonial obligations and taking proper care of her matrimonial family. According to her, it was the legal and moral obligation of the respondent/husband to bear her medical expenses and provide for her maintenance and other necessities. On these grounds, she prayed for dismissal of the divorce petition. 5. It is clear from record of the learned Family Court that the learned trial Court framed five issues on the basis of pleadings of both the parties. Important Issues No. 1, 2, 4 and 5, which are reproduced herein as under:- S.No. Issues Conclusion 1. Whether the non-applicant/wife has caused cruelty to the applicant/husband after marriage? “ Not proved” 2. Whether the husband is entitled to obtain a decree of divorce “Proved” 4 against the wife?” 4. Whether the non-applicant/wife was suffering from AIDS before the marriage? Whether this fact was concealed and the marriage was solemnized through deception?” “ Not proved” 5. Whether the non-applicant/wife is suffering from a disease of such a nature that it is not possible for the applicant/husband to live with her? “Proved” 6. Learned Family Court after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, allowed the application filed by respondent/husband under Section 13 (1) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the Family Court, Rajnandgaon for grant of decree of divorce. Hence, this appeal has been filed by the appellant/wife. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant/wife submits that on instructions, he is not challenging the decree of divorce on merits. However, he prays that the appellant/wife be awarded permanent alimony to enable her to maintain herself and meet her livelihood expenses. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent/husband supports the impugned judgment and submits that learned Family Court after minutely appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, rightly passed the decree of divorce in favour of the husband, therefore, the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Family court is well merited, which do not call any interference by this Court. Learned counsel further submits that on instructions received from the respondent, the respondent is willing to pay a sum of 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs ₹ 5 only) to the appellant/wife towards permanent alimony and that the said amount shall be deposited within one month. It was also submitted by the counsel for the respondent that since the husband has contracted a second marriage and from that wedlock, he is blessed with a baby child, therefore, in view of the subsequent development of events and the settlement entered into between the parties regarding permanent alimony, learned counsel for the respondent is not pressing this appeal on merits. 9. This appeal was listed for final hearing on previous occasions. When the matter was called for hearing, learned counsel for the respondent/ husband made a similar submission that the respondent/ husband was willing to pay a sum of 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) to the ₹ appellant/wife towards permanent alimony and that the said amount would be deposited within one month. However, we have ordered learned counsel for the respondent to seek further instructions from the respondent/husband regarding the possibility of enhancing the amount offered towards permanent alimony. 10. Today, when the matter was called for hearing, learned counsel for the respondent/husband submits that the respondent/husband is willing to pay a sum of 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) to the appellant/wife ₹ towards permanent alimony and out of the said amount, 3,00,000/- ₹ shall be paid within a period of one month and the remaining amount may be paid in six monthly installments, as the respondent is a Class-III employee. 11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 6 12. As per earlier directions of this Court dated 17.03.2025, the appellant and the respondent have filed their respective affidavits in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh vs. Neha, reported in AIR 2021 SC 569. 13.As per the affidavit filed by the appellant/wife, she is about 32 years of age and is educated up to B.C.A. (Diploma). She has stated that she is earning 6,000/- per month. She has further stated that she had ₹ obtained a loan of 2,00,000/- for the treatment of her daughter and is ₹ required to pay an EMI of 3,200/- per month towards repayment of the ₹ said loan. According to the appellant, the respondent/husband owns 15 acres of agricultural land and four houses, from which he earns rental income. However, no details or supporting documents have been annexed to the affidavit in support of these assertions. 14.The respondent/husband has also filed his affidavit. According to him, he does not own any immovable property and he is about 34 years of age and is educated up to B.Sc. (Agriculture). He has stated that he is an employee of the State of Chhattisgarh and is working as a Rural Agricultural Extension Officer (RAEO). According to his affidavit, his monthly salary is 53,374/-. ₹ The respondent has also annexed his salary slip for the month of March, 2025 and as per the said salary slip, his gross salary is 56,181/- and his net salary is 51,781/-. Thus, ₹ ₹ while the affidavit mentions his monthly salary as 53,374/-, the salary ₹ slip reflects a gross salary of 56,181/- and a net salary of 51,781/-. ₹ ₹ 15. From the material available on record, it is quite evident that the appellant-wife is suffering from HIV and naturally, she requires regular and continuous medical treatment. As per her affidavit, she is earning 7 ₹6,000/- per month from private job whereas, the respondent/ husband is a government employee and is drawing a regular monthly salary. However, it is not disputed in this case that the offer of permanent alimony was made by respondent/husband stating that he is a Class-III employee. According to his affidavit, he has remarried and has also been blessed with a son. 16.The respondent/husband has offered to pay a sum of 5,00,000/- ₹ towards permanent alimony. However, in the opinion of this Court, the said amount appears to be on the lower side. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly, looking to the ailment of the appellant/ wife, this Court is inclined to award a sum of 7,00,000/- ₹ towards permanent alimony. Out of the said amount, a sum of ₹3,00,000/- shall be paid by the respondent/husband to the appellant/wife by 7th August, 2026. The remaining amount of ₹4,00,000/- shall be paid by him in two six monthly installments on or before 7th July, 2027. 17. Thus, while maintaining the judgment and decree of dissolution of marriage passed by the learned Family Court, we order payment of ₹7,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs only) to the appellant/wife towards permanent alimony. 18. Let a decree be drawn accordingly. 19. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Judge AMIT PATEL