1 CGHC010197422024 Judgment reserved on – 11.05.2026 Judgment pronounced on – 17.07.2026 Judgment uploaded on -17.07.2026 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FA(MAT) No. 205 of 2024 Virendra Kumar Jain S/o Jhawarlal Maroti Aged About 37 Years R/o Behind Shanti Niketan, Purani Line, Gangdhar, Bikaner, Rajasthan, Presently Resident At B- 80, 8th Floor, Harsh Horizon, Daldal Shivni Road, Mova, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus Smt. Jyoti Jain (Jyoti Sahu) W/o Virendra Kumar Jain, D/o Shri Rameshwar Lal Sahu Aged About 33 Years At Present Resident Of Behind Gopal Dal Mill, Mangdapara, Raipur, Dist. And Tehsil Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellant : Ms. Anamika Jain, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Devershi Thakur, Advocate For Respondent : None despite service DB: Hon’ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput CAV Judgment Per Sachin Singh Rajput, J. Parties to this appeal shall be referred to as appellant-husband and the respondent-wife respectively. 2. This is an appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 filed by the appellant-husband. Challenge herein is to the judgment and decree dated HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Digitally signed by HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Date: 2026.07.17 16:57:01 +0530 2 10.04.2024 passed in Civil Suit No.762 of 2022 by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) (for short 'the Family Court'). 3. The appellant-husband filed an application under Section 13(1)(i-a)(i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act of 1955') before the Family Court seeking dissolution of marriage against the respondent-wife. 4. The admitted facts in the case are that the parties to the case were in love and for that with the consent of their family members they tied the nuptial knot on 06.12.2014 with due observance of the Hindu rites and rituals at Raipur (Chhattisgarh) and with the passage of time, two children were born out of their wedlock who at present are residing with their mother i.e. the respondent herein. 5. If the pleadings taken by the appellant-husband are looked at, it emerges that the respondent-wife was treating the appellant-husband and his family members with cruelty. It is alleged that she was a shot-tempered woman, and did not allow her in- laws even to touch her son. Allegedly, she wiped out the vermilion (sindoor) put on the hair parting streak and remove wedding necklace (mangalsutra), bangles, bindi etc. all used as an auspicious symbol to a married woman. She also time and again threatened to commit suicide in case her demand remain unfulfilled. The appellant- husband has also taken a plea that the respondent-wife left her matrimonial home without any rhyme or reason and if someone objected to this act, she would create a ruckus, once followed by cutting of veins even. According to the appellant- husband though all efforts were made to arrive at a reconciliation, they remained futile as the respondent-wife was not inclined to mend her ways. The respondent- wife is alleged to have deserted the appellant-husband and gone to her parental home. The appellant-husband is further said to have visited the maternal home of the respondent-wife to bring her back but she never inclined to do so. 6. While denying the averments made by the appellant-husband, the respondent- wife has stated in her written statement that the attitude of her-in-laws towards her was not amenable and that she has not done any act which has mentally or 3 physically tormented the appellant-husband or his family members. She has emphatically stated that she never left her matrimonial home at her own rather it was well punctuated with the consent of her husband and her-in-laws. According to the respondent-wife, once her husband had left her in her parental home saying that he would take her back soon but he never turned up to take her back. Not only this, when she tried to contact the appellant-husband on phone, he has scolded her and switched off his mobile phone. While refuting the allegation that while leaving her matrimonial home she had taken away all her belongings including the valuables, she has emphatically stated that she had left the same as it is in her matrimonial home and did not bring the same with her. According to her the appellant-husband is trying to enter into the second marriage though she is all prepared to live with him as his wife. 7. The learned Family Court, on the basis of above pleadings, framed the following issues: Sr. No. Issue Finding 1. Whether, after the solemnization of the marriage, the respondent treated the applicant with cruelty? “Not proved” 2. Whether the respondent-wife deserted the appellant- husband for a continuous minimum period of two years before filing the application of dissolution of marriage? ---- 3. Whether the applicant is entitled to a decree of divorce against the respondent? “No” 4. Relief and costs? “The applicant's claim is dismissed.” 8. In support of their pleadings, the parties have examined two witnesses each in support of their respective case. 4 9. Though, the Family Court has framed four issues in all including that of desertion on 16.12.2022, the same does not find place in the impugned judgment. However, while passing the judgment learned Family Court has dealt with and decided the said issue as well. 10. The learned Family Court after assessment of the evidence and material available on record, decided the issues against the appellant-husband and ultimately dismissed the application for divorce by the impugned judgment and decree, which led to filing of this appeal. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant/husband submitted that the learned Family Court erred in passing the impugned judgment and decree. The impugned judgment and decree is illegal, erroneous and contrary to law. It is further submitted that the husband by cogent and prudent evidence was able to prove the cruelty and desertion on the part of the wife. Thus, the learned Family Court ought to have granted a decree of divorce in favour of the husband. She further submitted that the learned Family Court failed to appreciate the evidence of the appellant/husband with proper perspective. She submitted that the appeal may be allowed and the impugned judgment and decree may be set aside and a decree of dissolution of marriage/divorce may be granted to the appellant/husband. She relied upon a judgment passed by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Rachit Verma v. Smt. Anuradha Dey, First Appeal No.37 of 2021, order dated 8.1.2025. 12. This Court, on 24.6.2024, directed issuance of notice to the respondent/wife. The notice was reported to be served upon the wife. Thereafter, on 22.7.2025, the appeal was admitted for hearing and a fresh notice was directed to be issued by ordinary as well as registered modes to the respondent-wife. Office report indicates that the fresh notice was also served upon the wife. Thus, twice, notice was issued by this Court to the wife, however, despite that, no representation was made on behalf of the respondent/wife. 5 13. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant/husband and perused the record of the Family Court with due care. 14. The only question to be decided in this case is whether the act alleged to the respondent-wife as a whole would amount to cruelty and desertion or not? 15. The main contention of the appellant-husband is that the respondent-wife treated him with cruelty and then voluntarily left the matrimonial home and is residing separately since 2020 without any justifiable cause. However, the evidence available on record does not substantiate this contention. There is nothing to show that the respondent-wife ever treated the appellant-husband with cruelty. The allegation made by the appellant-husband that the respondent-wife does not want to live in the company of her sisters-in-law and did not want them to touch her son, does not appear to embrace the element of cruelty either towards that appellant- husband or his relatives. It may at best be said to be the sense of extra care towards her son by her alone, and cannot be stretched to the cruelty to any of her members of matrimonial home. Likewise, the element of desertion as alleged by the appellant-husband also remains unsubstantiated. It is for the reason that even in the affidavit dated 12.01.2018 (Ex.P1-C) executed by her she has clearly stated that of course there was some dispute with her husband and in-laws and out of the anger she had cut the vein of her hand. She however is stated to have realized subsequently that her act was abominable and she was to live a happy married life. The affidavit also states her commitment not to recur the instances as earlier, and if that happens, it would be solely attributable to her. All this conclusively suggestive of the fact that the element of cruelty as well as that of animus deserendi is absolutely missing on the part of the respondent-wife. Further her statement also eloquently speaks that she always had been and has been ready and willing with the appellant-husband but it is he who did not make any attempt to bring her back in spite of telephonic insistence on her part to do so. At the most, the appellant- husband, according to the respondent-wife, met her children and took them on 6 excursion occasionally but he did not try to exhibit any inclination to her. It is well settled that in a case founded on desertion, the burden lies heavily upon the petitioner to establish not only the factum of separation but also the animus deserendi on the part of the spouse alleged to have deserted. The evidence adduced in the present case falls short of establishing such intention. 16. Insofar as the allegation of cruelty is concerned, the assertions made by the appellant-husband regarding threats of suicide and other alleged incidents are primarily based upon his own statements in the pleadings and have not been independently corroborated by reliable evidence. 17. In view of material available on record, this court is of the opinion that the element of cruelty either physical or mental coupled with desertion is wholly missing in this case. Being so, this Court is unable to conclude that the respondent-wife treated the appellant-husband with cruelty within the meaning of Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Act. The material on record further indicates that the respondent-wife was residing at her parental home due to circumstances which, according to her, arose from the conduct of the appellant-husband and his family members. Consequently, her separate residence cannot be characterized as a deliberate or unjustified withdrawal from the society of her husband. Where there exists a reasonable cause for living separately, the statutory ground of desertion is not attracted. 18. Upon an overall appreciation of the evidence on record and in the light of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh reported in AIRONLINE 2007 SC 347, it becomes manifest that mere disagreements on trivial matters or occasional skirmishes between the spouse do not amount to mental cruelty. Mere unhappiness, incompatibility or dissatisfaction of one spouse with the conduct of the other cannot, by itself, constitute cruelty necessitating termination of marriage by a decree of divorce. Although the appellant-husband has taken the stand that the respondent-wife deserted him without any sufficient cause, he has failed to establish the same by adducing any 7 cogent and clinching evidence. As far as the case in hand is concerned, the material available on record clearly indicates that the respondent-wife was always willing to resume cohabitation with the appellant-husband and it is the appellant-husband who did not show keen interest to such cohabitation. 19. Having thus carefully examined the entire evidence and the submissions advanced by the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the learned Family Court has meticulously appreciated the evidence on record and rightly concluded that the appellant-husband is not entitled to a decree of divorce in the facts and circumstances of the present case. This Court had a glance to the judgment sought to be taken support of by counsel for the appellant-husband but being based on an altogether different factual firmament, it does not appear to of any help to the appellant-husband. It can thus be summarized that no perversity, illegality or material irregularity has been demonstrated by the appellant-husband so as to warrant interference with the well reasoned findings recorded by the learned Family Court in the present appeal. 20. Consequently, this Court holds that the appellant-husband has failed to establish either cruelty or desertion on the part of the respondent-wife. The judgment and decree passed by the learned Family Court do not suffer from any infirmity requiring any interference therewith. Accordingly, the appeal, being devoid of merit, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. 21. Decree be drawn accordingly. 22. No order as to cost. Sd/- Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Judge Jyotishi/Ansari