1 CGHC010179612023 2026:CGHC:29831-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FA(MAT) No. 155 of 2023 Manoj Dahariya S/o Shri Santram Aged About 24 Years R/o Village - Budhwara, Post Office - Pondi, Police Station And Tahsil - Pondi, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus Bhana Dahariya D/o Shri Ganesh Ram Maheshwari Aged About 34 Years (Wife Of Shri Manoj Dahariya), Caste - Satnami, R/o Village And Post Gandai, Tahsil - Chhuikhadan, District - Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh (Now Khairagarh Chhuikhadan Gandai Chhattisgarh) ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Chandrikaditya Pandey on behalf of Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sahu, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Judgment on Board 14/07/2026 Per Sachin Singh Rajput, Judge 1. The appellant/husband has preferred this appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 assailing the legality, 2 correctness and judicial propriety of the judgment and decree dated 28.02.2023 passed in Civil Suit No. 08A/2021 by the Family Court, Kabirdham (C.G.) (for short Family Court). 2. By the impugned judgment and decree the application under Section 13(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short Act, 1955) filed by the appellant/husband for dissolution of marriage dated 05.03.2019 was dismissed. 3. As per the pleadings of the application, the appellant and respondent married on 05.03.2019 at Arya Samaj Temple, Baijnathpara, Raipur, C.G. and thereafter went to their respective home. The respondent came to the house of the appellant at Village Budhwara in the month of June, 2021 stayed there for 7 months and went to her parental home in the month of January, 2021. She used to visit her parental home many times in the month. The appellant was working as Lab Technician in Tengakhar in Bodla Block and used to visit his home at Village Budhwara every Sunday. The respondent lured appellant into her love trap and forced him to get married. It was suppressed from the appellant that the respondent is a resident of Gandai rather than Khairagarh. The appellant being a member of well reputed family got married with respondent on threatening being given by her. After the marriage, the appellant did not inform about it to his family members. When it was disclosed to his family members, they alongwith other relatives went to see the respondent at Gandai however they did not like her and found that the 3 respondent is 10 years elder than the appellant. The video clip of the marriage dated 05.033.2019 was sent by the respondent with a threatening that if she is not accepted as the daughter-in-law she will send everybody to jail. Later on the respondent herself came to the house of the appellant in the month of June, 2020. The respondent was suffering from Tuberculosis before the marriage and also has stone in her stomach for treatment of which she had gone to her brother’s house. The appellant came to know about this from a friend of his who was working in the hospital of Raipur. Further it has been pleaded that a false report was lodged by the respondent and on compromise she came again to the house of the appellant and thereafter within two days on 27.01.2021 again called the police and again got the compromise done. Thus, the appellant refused to keep the respondent with him. Since then, i.e., 29.01.2021 the respondent is residing at her parental home. The relationship between the parties are such that they cannot live together. Thus, a decree of dissolution of marriage dated 05.03.2019 was sought. Further, Rs. 1 lakh for mental and physical agony was also prayed for. 4. The respondent filed her written statement/reply. It is pleaded that the marriage between the parties was solemnized with their wishes and they were performing their marital duties and living in Village Budhwara alongwith family members of the appellant. After the marriage the respondent was being physically and mentally tortured on account of dowry and pressurized her for divorce. She 4 was forced to live in her parental home by the appellant and appellant has relationship with other woman. Anyhow, the appellant wants to get rid of the respondent after leaving the respondent at her parental home, the appellant has not looked after her thus, prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 5. Two issues which are hereinbelow were framed by the learned Family Court:- (a) Whether the non-applicant committed acts of cruelty towards the applicant after the marriage solemnized on 05.03.2019? (b) Maintenance and Litigation Expenses? 6. The appellant examined himself as A.W.-1 whereas the respondent examined herself as NAW-1. No other witnesses were examined. Learned Family Court on assessment of evidence and material available on record decided the issue no. 1 as negative and ultimately dismissed the application by the impugned judgment and decree. 7. Mr. Chandrikaditya Pandey submits that the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Family Court is bad in law, perverse and contrary to the evidence. The evidence brought by the appellant has not been properly appreciated by the Family Court. The learned Family Court failed to see that the respondent is suffering from Tuberculosis a vulnerable disease, thus, a decree of divorce should have been granted. He further submits that the appellant was treated with cruelty by the respondent, thus, the impugned order cannot sustain the scrutiny of this Court. He also 5 submits that the impugned judgment may be set aside and the marriage dated 05.03.2019 may be dissolved by a decree of divorce. He placed reliance upon Smt. Hemlata Choubey Vs. Brijbhushan Choubey decided by the co-ordinate Division Bench of this Court in FA(MAT) No. 63 of 2022 on 09.12.2025. 8. Per contra, Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sahu supports the impugned judgment and submits that the plaintiff could not prove the cruelty on the part of the respondent rather respondent was treated with cruelty by the appellant. The appellant could not prove the fact that the respondent was suffering from Tuberculosis before the marriage. He also submits that learned Family Court has meticulously examined the evidence available on record and rightly rejected the application of the appellant. He also submits that the appeal has no merits and is liable to be dismissed. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the records. 10. The point of determination before this Court is as to whether the learned Family Court was justified in dismissing the application for dissolution of marriage filed by the appellant and whether the impugned judgment and decree would sustain scrutiny of this Court? 11. Fundamentally, the appellant has brought his case before the learned Family Court that he was constrained to get married with the respondent; respondent was suffering from tuberculosis and stone in her stomach, prior to marriage and appellant was 6 treated with cruelty. Thus, on the basis of this, the learned Family Court framed the first issue. The burden to prove this issue was upon the appellant. In order to prove, the appellant examined himself. In his affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4, he deposed in the line of his pleadings, he was constrained to marry with the respondent and she only came to his house in the month of June, 2020 then he came to know that the respondent was 10 years elder to the appellant. He has stated that the respondent/wife used to avoid physical relationship with the appellant. The evidence also suggests that some reports were made by the respondent and later the compromise was taken place between the appellant and the respondent. The affidavit does not states that respondent was suffering from tuberculosis or any other disease prior to marriage though a pleading to that effect was made by the appellant in his application. In the cross-examination, she remained firm with respect to what she has stated in the affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 and denied the suggestions made by the respondent with respect to her defense. It was a case of the appellant/husband that he was forced to marry the respondent/wife. From the evidence it appears that he admits that he never made any complaint in this respect and never raised any complaint with the society that the respondent is demanding Rs. 5 lakh for divorce. He further admits that every time when the report was lodged against him, he has entered into compromise with the respondent and brought her back. The examination and cross- 7 examination of this witness would simply disclosed the when the complaint in the police station was made by the respondent the appellant used to bring her back entering into compromise. 12. Neither the appellant in his affidavit stated anything about the ailment of the respondent nor any question was put during the course of cross-examination from this witness. 13. The respondent examined herself as NAW-1 and she also deposed in the line of her written statement she has exhibited medical treatment papers and photographs with regard to the marriage and the complaints made in the police station and the compromise entered into between the appellant and the respondent. She admits that she was treated in AIMS Hospital, Raipur and was operated in the month of December, 2019. She also disclosed that she made complaint to the police station and later on compromise between the appellant and the respondent. She denied the suggestion that she made a false complaint of dowry. 14. Learned Family Court on assessment of above stated evidence found that the appellant could not prove that the respondent was suffering from tuberculosis prior to marriage. Neither the appellant could prove the cruelty meted out by the respondent. The appellant failed to prove that he was forced to marry the respondent. He failed to prove that respondent was suffering from any vulnerable disease. He failed to prove that he was subjected to mental or physical cruelty by the respondent 8 rather everytime a complaint was made by the respondent/wife and the same was compromised amongst them. 15. It is not the case that on account of any cruelty meted out, the marriage could not continue to that extent that it should be dissolved with a decree of divorce. Thus, this Court is of the view that the findings recorded by the learned Family Court rejecting the application does not need any interference. The judgment relied upon by the counsel for the appellant does not apply in the given facts and circumstances of the case and is distinguishable to the facts of the case. 16. Thus, appeal fails and dismissed. SD/- SD/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE JUDGE Madhurima