1 2026:CGHC:909-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FA(MAT) No.324 of 2024 The date when the judgment is reserved The date when the judgment is pronounced The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website Operative Full 09.10.2025 07.01.2026 -- 07.01.2026 1 - Smt. Santoshi W/o S. Ganpati Rao, Aged About 41 Years R/o 57/B, Railway Quarter, Ward No.11, Station Road, Bhilai-03, Tahsil Patan, District Durg (C.G.) Mo.No. 7697302769 Appellant (s) versus 1 - S. Ganpati Rao S/o S. Venket Rao, Aged About 46 Years R/o Room No.232, Panchsheel Nagar, Behind Jagga Tent House Charoda, Bhilai, Tahsil Patan, District-Durg (C.G.) Respondent(s) For Appellant (s) : Mr. Ratnesh Agrawal and Mr. Sourav Agrawal, Advocates For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikas Kumar Pandey, Advocate Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad CAV Judgment Per Rajani Dubey J. 1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment and decree dated 29.08.2024 passed by the learned 3rd Digitally signed by R NIRALA 2 Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg (C.G.) in Civil Suit No.152/2021, whereby the appellant’s application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for grant of divorce has been rejected. 2. Brief facts of the case are that marriage was solemnized between parties on 30.03.2019 as per the Hindu Rituals at Samudaik Bhawan Panchsheel Nagar Bhilai, District Durg (CG). Just after marriage respondent and his sister-in-law (Bhabhi) jointly started torturing the appellant for demand of dowry and taken loan from the Department of appellant on her name. On 23.05.2020, appellant left the house of the respondent due to the aforesaid reason and sent legal notice dated 09.09.2020 to the respondent and demanded her Stridhan back and that she is willing to live separately from respondent, but respondent did not reply to the same, then she preferred the suit for grant of decree of divorce before the learned Family Court Durg (C.G.), but the learned Family Court rejected the application of the appellant for grant of divorce, hence the present appeal has been filed by the appellant. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned judgment and decree is erroneous in law and facts both and the same is liable to be set aside. The learned Family Court while passing the impugned judgment and decree has failed to appreciate the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the appellant. The learned Family Court has wrongly held that the 3 appellant has failed to prove the ground of cruelty. The learned Family Court has wrongly held that the appellant herself deserted the respondent without any sufficient cause The appellant has also proved that the respondent tortured her for fulfillment of the demand of dowry. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed. Reliance has been placed on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rajib Kumar Roy vs Sushmita Saha, reported in (2023) 17 SCC 441. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court and submits that the learned Family Court has minutely appreciated the oral and documentary evidence available on record and has rightly dismissed the application of the appellant. The impugned judgment and decree is well merited and does not require any interference by this Court. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. It is an admitted position before the learned Trial Court that the marriage of both the parties was solemnized on 30.03.2019 at Panchsheel Nagar, Bhilai according to Hindu rites and rituals. The appellant wife filed application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage before the learned Family Court. 4 7. The learned Family Court on the basis of pleadings of both the parties framed 4 issues and the important issues which are Issue Nos.1 & 2 are as under:- dz-
द  क 1- D;k vukosnd us vkosfndk ds lkFk dwzjrk iwoZd O;ogkj dkfjr fd;k gS \ Þizekf.kr ughß 2- D;k vukosnd us vkosfndk dk fcuk fdlh dkj.k ds ifjR;kx dj fn;k gS \ Þizekf.kr ughß 8. The appellant wife stated in her affidavit filed under Order 18 Rule 4 of CPC that husband and family members of him tortured her and demanded dowry as such she gave Rs.1 Lakh to the respondent husband and her sister-in-law and other family members mentally and physically tortured her always as such she was not able to do her job properly. In the cross-examination, she admitted that as to how the respondent committed cruelty with her she has not explained. She also admitted that she did not file any complaint before the police station regarding the same. She also admitted that the respondent had demanded Rs.1 Lakh from her, which she gave in 2-3 installments in cash. In para 11 she stated that she faces hurdles in doing job due to the respondent. She also admitted that a social meeting was arranged regarding the resolution of dispute but it did not work. 9. The sister of the appellant A. Anuradha (PW-2) supported the statement of appellant wife and she admitted this suggestion in the cross-examination that her sister got compassionate 5 appointment in place of her father and quarter was also allotted to her. 10. The respondent husband stated in her affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 of CPC that he is living with his parents and other family members in a joint family but the appellant did not want to live in the joint family and they never tortured her for demand of dowry or for any other reason. In the cross-examination, he admitted that his mother, his sister-in-law (bhabhi) and he does marketing. He denied this suggestion that due to torture by them, the appellant left the house. He admitted that the appellant does not want to live with them. He denied this suggestion that he never sent notice to the appellant to live with him. He admitted this suggestion that the appellant sent notice to him but he did not reply to the same and torn the same. He denied this suggestion that due to torture she is unable to do her job and stated that due to mental illness, she is not able to do her job properly. 11. On Close scrutiny of statements, it is clear that appellant wife is working lady and husband admitted this suggestion that after getting bothered, she came to her parental house. He also admitted that he never tried to bring her back nor even sent any notice to her and did not reply to the notice sent by the appellant. He also admitted that after being bothered, she is taking divorce. It was also suggested by the respondent husband that he demanded Rs.1 Lakh from the appellant wife and she gave him the same by taking loan in the office. The appellant also filed Ex- 6 P/1 notice in which it is alleged that her sister-in-law and her son used to misbehave with her. The respondent husband admitted that he torn the notice sent by the appellant wife. He himself admitted that his mother is the master of his home and his mother, sister-in-law and he does marketing. 12. While dealing with the issue of cruelty, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Amutha vs A. R. Subramanian, reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 3822, held in paras 27, 28 and 34 as under :- “27. One of the primary grounds for the dissolution of the marriage is the appellant’s conduct, which constitutes mental cruelty under Section 13 (1) (ia) of HMA. The respondent has provided sufficient evidence to show that the appellant was engaged in a pattern of behavior that caused him immense mental and emotional distress. This included filing false and baseless criminal complaints against the respondent and his family, which not only strained their relationship but also caused significant damage to his reputation and peace of mind. 28. In N.G. Dastane (Supra), this Court laid down the principle that cruelty is not confined to physical violence but also encompasses actions that inflict mental pain and suffering that creates a reasonable apprehension of harm or injury to the aggrieved spouse from the conduct of the other spouse so as to make it impossible for them to stay together. In the present case, the appellant’s conduct, including the initiation of frivolous legal proceedings, falls squarely within the definition of mental cruelty. The respondent’s claim is further supported by this Court’s judgment in Samar Ghosh (Supra), wherein it was recognized that actions causing sustained emotional torment and loss of trust in the marital relationship constitutes cruelty. 29. xxxx 30. xxxx 7 31. xxxx 32. xxxx 33. xxxx 34. It is evident from the record that continuation of the marriage would only lead to further animosity and litigation, causing harm to both parties. The appellant’s insistence on reconciliation appears to be more of a strategy to prologn the proceedings rather than a genuine effort to revive the relationship. In matrimonial disputes, this Court has emphasized the need to prioritize welfare and dignity of both parties. Forcing a marriage to continue when it has become a source of unhappiness and conflict undermines the very purpose of the institution of marriage. In the present case, the interests of both the parties to move on with their lives independently.” 13. Further, Hon’ble Apex Court defined cruelty in Shilpa Sailesh vs Varun Sreenivasan, reported in (2023) 14 SCC 231, held in para 43 as under :- “43. On the meaning of "cruelty" as a ground for dissolution of marriage. reference was made to the High Court's reliance on D. Tolstoy's passage in The Law and Practice of Divorce and Matrimonial Causes. Therein, "cruelty" has been defined as wilful and unjustified conduct of such character as to cause danger to life, limb or health, bodily or mentally, or as to give rise to a reasonable apprehension of such danger. However, this Court in Dastane case 49 felt that D. Tolstoy's passage, which cites Horton v. Horton 50, is not enough to show that the spouses find life together impossible even if there results injury to health. Accordingly, this Court in Dastane case 49 elucidated that if the danger to health arises merely from the fact that the spouses find it impossible to live together and one of the parties is indifferent towards the other, the charge of cruelty may perhaps fail. However, harm or injury to health, reputation, the working- career or the like, would be important considerations in determining whether the conduct of the defending spouse amounts to cruelty. The petitioner has to show that the respondent has treated them with cruelty so as to cause reasonable 8 apprehension in their mind that it will be harmful or injurious to live with the contesting spouse.” 14. Applying the aforesaid principle in the case in hand, it is clear from the statement of both the parties that the wife is working lady and is mentally harassed by the husband and in-laws and husband never supported her. He also admitted that his mother is the master of his home and his mother, sister-in-law and he does marketing and he himself admitted that after being bothered, the wife filed divorce application, but the learned Family Court did not appreciate these aspects of the matter and wrongly dismissed the application filed by the appellant wife. 15. Thus, we are of the considered opinion that the appellant wife successfully proved this fact that the respondent husband committed cruelty against her, as such the appellant wife is entitled for decree of divorce. 16. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and decree is hereby set aside. The marriage solemnized between the appellant wife and respondent husband on 30.03.2019 is dissolved. 17. Let a decree be drawn accordingly. Sd/- Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Judge Nirala