1 CGHC010413162024 2026:CGHC:36721 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 03-08-2026 18-08-2026 - 18-08-2026 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FA(MAT) No. 411 of 2024 Gurpreet Kaur W/o Datinder Singh Aged About 36 Years R/o Sardar Sinder Singh Bhatia, Near Central Bank Ambikapur Road Post And Tehsil - Pathalgaon District Jashpur Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus Datinder Singh Bhatia S/o Sardar Tirlochan Singh Aged About 36 Years R/o Budhwaripara, Ward No. 14, Dongargarh District - Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Krishna Tandon, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Aman Tamrakar, Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi, J CAV Judgment This appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has been preferred by the appellant/wife challenging the judgment and decree 2 dated 11.11.2024 passed by District Judge, Dongargarh, Distt. Rajnandgaon in HMA Case No.6A/2020 whereby the application under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 filed by the respondent/husband has been allowed and consequently, marriage between the parties held on 8.3.2007 has been dissolved. 2. The respondent/husband filed an application u/s 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short “the Act of 1955”) with the averments that his marriage with the appellant was solemnized on 8.3.2007 according to Hindu rites. The parties lived together peacefully for about 1 to 1 ½, after which disputes arose. The respondent alleges that the appellant repeatedly pressurized him for living separately from his parents despite his father's serious heart condition and multiple heart surgeries. It was further averred that the appellant disrespected and abused his parents, causing him mental distress. The parties had two sons, one of whom namely Aryansh died in childhood due to some rare disease, but the appellant’s conduct remained unchanged. She would take their younger son namely Sadchit Singh to her parental home without consent of the respondent and enrolled him in a school there. A family meeting was held on 6.9.2018, and although the appellant gave a written apology, but her behaviour did not improve. On 22.1.2020 during a community function, the appellant’s family assaulted and abused his parents and attempted to forcibly take away their younger son. A police complaint was lodged the same day. Hence he filed the instant application seeking divorce from the appellant on the ground of cruelty. 3. The appellant/wife in her written statement admitted the marriage and the initial facts pleaded by the respondent but denied all allegations of misconduct. She stated that the respondent acted under the influence of his 3 mother, who subjected her to continuous harassment and cruelty. Despite intervention by community elders, the marital relationship remained strained. The appellant claims that the respondent and his family demanded Rs.50 lakhs from her parents to establish a petrol pump, and when the demand was refused, the respondent assaulted her, abandoned her outside her brother's house late at night, and forcibly took away their son. She further states that after the death of their elder son, Aryansh, instead of supporting her emotionally, the respondent and his family kept her sedated with sleeping pills and mistreated her. According to the appellant, she and her younger son were expelled from the matrimonial home, forcing her to temporarily enroll him in a school at Pathalgaon, though they later resumed cohabitation after a settlement through community members. Hence she prayed that the divorce petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. Learned Family Court after hearing both the parties and appreciating the oral and documentary evidence led by them, allowed the application filed by the respondent/husband u/s 13(1) of the Act of 1955 and thereby granted decree of divorce in his favour on the ground of cruelty vide impugned judgment and decree dated 11.11.2024. Hence this appeal by the appellant/wife. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the impugned judgment and decree is erroneous both on law and facts. He submits that the pleadings of the appellant/wife and evidence led by her in support thereof have not been properly considered and appreciated by the trial Court, and only on the basis of apology letter, allegedly written by her, the decree of divorce has been granted in favour of the respondent. He further submits that the first child namely Aryansh died due to some life-threatening disease, 4 thereafter, the appellant was under depression but the respondent did not take care of her, rather he treated her with cruelty which forced her to live at her parental home. He would submit that the appellant is still ready and willing to live with the respondent, even after his misbehaviour she did not make any complaint against him which itself shows that she wants to live with him peacefully. Therefore, it is prayed that the instant appeal may be allowed and the impugned judgment and decree be set aside. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/husband opposed the aforesaid submission made on behalf of the appellant/wife and submitted that the learned trial Court after proper appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record coupled with the conduct of the respondent/wife, has rightly passed the impugned judgment and decree which warrants no interference by this Court. Hence this appeal being without any substance is liable to be dismissed. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. AW-1 Datinder Singh Bhatia, husband, states that 1 to 1 ½ years after marriage, the appellant/wife lived well but thereafter started raising dispute over trivial issues. She used to pressurize him for living separately from his parents but it was not acceptable to him because his father had suffered heart surgeries thrice and he did not want to leave him in such critical condition. He states that their first son Aryansh died in early age due to some rare disease. He states that the appellant/wife used to disrespect his parents which caused him mental agony and despite being persuaded by him and other members of the community, her conduct remained unchanged. She 5 would leave her matrimonial home with their son Sadchit Singh for her parental home at Patthalgaon without informing anyone and even she enrolled their son in a school at Patthalgaon. He states that in the family meeting held on 6.9.2018, the appellant/wife admitted her mistakes and executed an apology letter that she would live properly in future, which was signed by her brother Gurmeet Singh Bhatia and her maternal uncle Gernaill Singh Bhatia but even thereafter her conduct remained the same towards him and his family members. He states that on 28.10.2019 the appellant/wife without informing anyone left for her parental home at Patthalgaon and did not return thereafter despite his making all possible endeavour to bring her back. On 22.1.2020 when he along with his family members went to Rajnandgaon to attend a marriage function, the appellant/wife with her family members also came there. Her family members misbehaved with his family members, abused them and also threatened them of life. This incident was reported to the police by him. 9. In cross-examination, AW-1 Datinder Singh Bhatia, husband, denies the fact that at the time of birth of their first son, his relations with the appellant/wife were good. He admits that their son Aryansh was suffering from a rare disease and ultimately succumbed to the same. He admits that he hold his wife responsible for death of Aryansh. He denies the suggestion that relations between his wife and his mother were not cordial and that his mother used to mentally harass his wife. He states that his wife (appellant) always used to pressurize him for living separately from his parents. He also denies the suggestion that he demanded Rs.50 lakhs from his in-laws for establishing a petrol pump and on their refusal, his relations with his wife became tense. In para 21, he denies the suggestion that he obtained 6 signature of his wife on blank papers and later an apology letter was got typed on stamp paper and was annexed with the paper signed by his wife. He states that the said stamp paper was purchased by his wife and it bears signature of her brother also. He admits that he is not maintaining his wife for the last five years. He also admits that he himself never attempted to bring her back. 10. NAW-1 Gurpreet Kaur, wife, reiterating the averments made in her written statement, deposed that the respondent/husband acts at the instance of his mother and treats her with cruelty which was complained to her parents and other near relatives, who advised the respondent/husband for living separately with the appellant/wife but instead of doing so, he ousted her from the matrimonial home. She states that when the demand of Rs.50 Lakhs raised by the respondent/husband for establishing a petrol pump, could not be fulfilled by her parents, the respondent/husband beat her and left her at the house of her brother Gurmeet Singh Bhatia in the night at 1 o’clock and took her her son Sadchit Bhatia with him. 11. From perusal of evidence of NAW-1 Gurpreet Kaur, it is seen that she has not stated anything as to how and why her mother-in-law used to instigate or provoke the respondent/husband against her whereas it has been admitted by Harvinder Kaur (AW-4), mother of the respondent, that for few days after marriage, relations between the parties were cordial and affectionate, they had travelled more than 50 times across India. AW-4 denies the suggestion that she used to ill-treat the appellant or instigate the respondent against her. The appellant/wife has made only bald allegation against AW-4, therefore, such allegation is found to be baseless and unreliable. Rather it is seen from the statements of the respondent/husband 7 and his witnesses that the appellant/wife used to pressurize the respondent/husband for living apart from his parents whereas it is an admitted fact that father of the respondent/husband had suffered heart surgeries thrice and was not keeping good health and that was the reason for the respondent/husband for not bowing to the pressure of separate living being exerted by the appellant/wife. It has also come in the evidence of AW-2 Arvinder Singh Bhatia, AW-3 Smt. Keshri Bai, and AW-4 Harvinder Kaur, who are brother, maid and mother of the respondent/husband respectively that the appellant/wife with her son Sadchit Singh used to leave for her parental home at Patthalgaon without informing anyone and even got her enrolled in a school there. The said evidence remains unrebutted in their cross- examination. 12. From perusal of the evidence of respondent/husband and his witnesses it appears that after death of Aryansh (son of the parties), the appellant/wife was under stress and somehow the respondent/husband and his family members also blamed her for his death whereas it is admitted by the parties that he died on account of some rare disease. As per evidence of both the parties, on account of frequent quarrel between the respondent/husband and the appellant/wife, the respondent had left her twice in the year 2018-19 in the house of her brother at Rajnandgaon. 13. It is also seen from the evidence of NAW-2 Gurmeet Singh Bhatia and NAW-4 Gernail Singh Bhatia, who was maternal uncle (Mama) of the appellant/wife and uncle (Fufa) of the respondent/husband, as has been stated by the appellant in para 15 of her cross-examination, that they had intervened in the dispute between the parties and tried to made them understand. NAW-1 Gurpreet Kaur, her brother Gurmeet Singh Bhatia (NAW- 8 2) and Genail Singh Bhatia (NAW-4) have also admitted the fact that the apology letter (Ex.P/1, photocopy of which is Ex.P/1C) was executed by the appellant/wife. They have also proved their signature on Ex.P/1C. NAW-1 appellant/wife though states that only as a security, she signed on blank paper and gave it to the respondent/husband, on which he later got an apology letter typed and filed before the Court, but NAW-4 Gernail Singh Bhatia has admitted in para 15 of his cross-examination that he had signed the said apology letter after reading the same. He also admitted that at the time of preparation of apology letter, the respondent/husband or any of his family members was not present. In such a situation, the statement made by the appellant/wife that her signature was obtained on blank paper, is not found to be reliable, rather the contents of the apology letter also support the statements of the respondent/husband and his witnesses that the appellant/wife used to exert pressure on the respondent/husband to live apart from his parents. 14. As per deposition of respondent/husband Datinder Singh Bhatia, his father was a heart patient and suffered three heart surgeries. This fact has also been admitted by the appellant/wife. The respondent/husband has consistently stated that the appellant/wife persistently insisted that he should live separately from his parents. This assertion is materially corroborated by the evidence of AW-2, AW-3 and AW-4. Significantly, the appellant's own brother Gurmeet Singh Bhatia and maternal uncle Gernail Singh Bhatia, who were admittedly involved in the efforts for reconciliation between the parties, have admitted execution of the apology letter (Ex.P/1C) and their signatures thereon. The evidence of NAW-4 Gernail Singh Bhatia assumes particular significance, inasmuch as he has stated that he signed the document after 9 reading it and that at the time of its preparation neither the respondent nor any member of his family was present. 15. The insistence of a spouse for a separate matrimonial home, by itself, cannot invariably be characterised as cruelty. A spouse may legitimately seek separate residence where there exists a reasonable and justifiable basis, particularly where the matrimonial environment is demonstrably oppressive or unsafe. The question, therefore, is not whether a wife can ever ask her husband to reside separately from his parents, but whether, in the facts and circumstances of the particular case, the persistent insistence was justified or whether it constituted an unreasonable attempt to compel the husband to sever or substantially alter his relationship with his parents. 16. In this regard, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Narendra v. K. Meena, (2016) 9 SCC 455, assumes considerable relevance. The Supreme Court observed that in Hindu society, it is pious obligation of the son to maintain his parents and persistent efforts of the respondent/wife to constrain the appellant/husband to be separate from his family without any justifiable reason, merely for some monetary consideration, would be tortuous to husband constituting the act of “cruelty”. However, it is equally true that whether such insistence amounts to cruelty depends upon the circumstances of each case. A mere request or desire to live separately, by itself, does not constitute cruelty; the Court must examine whether the demand was justified and the manner in which it was made. 17. Tested on the aforesaid standard, the present case stands on a different footing from a case where the wife merely expresses a preference for an independent household. Here, the respondent's father was admittedly 10 suffering from serious cardiac ailments and had undergone three heart surgeries. This fact has not been disputed by the appellant. The respondent's explanation that he was unwilling to abandon or distance himself from his ailing father is, therefore, neither unnatural nor unreasonable. On the contrary, it reflects a legitimate familial obligation which the respondent was entitled to take into consideration while deciding his place of residence. The respondent's refusal to accede to the demand for separate residence cannot, in these circumstances, be treated as an act of cruelty towards the appellant. A matrimonial relationship does not confer upon either spouse an unfettered right to compel the other to renounce or abandon pre-existing familial responsibilities. Marriage creates a new family, but it does not, by itself, extinguish the moral and legal responsibilities which a person may owe towards aged or infirm parents. 18. It is trite that mental cruelty cannot ordinarily be determined by isolating one particular incident. The matrimonial relationship has to be examined as a whole, keeping in view the conduct of the parties, the circumstances in which the conduct occurred, its continuity and its impact upon the mind of the spouse alleging cruelty. Ordinary wear and tear of matrimonial life or isolated quarrels would not constitute cruelty; however, where the conduct complained of is persistent and is such as to make the continuance of matrimonial life reasonably difficult, the same may amount to mental cruelty. 19. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the respondent/husband has successfully established that the conduct of the appellant/wife, viewed cumulatively, caused him mental cruelty and made continuation of the matrimonial relationship difficult. The findings recorded by the learned Family Court are based on proper appreciation of the 11 pleadings and evidence available on record and do not suffer from any perversity or illegality warranting interference. Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of any substance is liable to be and is, accordingly, dismissed. The impugned judgment and decree dated 11.11.2024 of the District Judge, Dongargarh, Distt. Rajnandgaon in HMA Case No.6A/2020 is affirmed. Let a decree be drawn up accordingly. Sd/ (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Khan MOHD AKHTAR KHAN Digitally signed by MOHD AKHTAR KHAN Date: 2026.08.18 17:20:13 +0530