1 CGHC010088862026 2026:CGHC:36407-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FA(MAT) No. 84 of 2026 1 - Narendra Kumar Rathore S/o Shri Ganpat Singh Rathore Aged About 45 Years R/o Mandal Para, Ward No. 7, Sardha, Tehsil - Lormi, District- Mungeli (C.G.) ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Purnima Nandani Rajput W/o Narendra Kumar Rathore Aged About 40 Years R/o Mandal Para, Ward No.7, Sardha, Tehsil - Lormi, District- Mungeli, Chhattisgarh, Present Address- Jageshwar Singh Rajput Ward No.11, Majgaon Nagar Panchayat Lormi, Tehsil- Lormi, District- Mungeli (C.G.) (Non- Applicant) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Shri Chandresh Shrivastava and Ms. Rakshita Mishra, Advocates For Respondent(s) : Ms. Lata Nayak, Advocate DB : Hon’ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Judgment on Board Per Sachin Singh Rajput, J. 14/08/2026 This appeal filed under Section 19 (1) of the Family Court Act, 1984 filed by the appellant being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 02/02/2026 passed by the Family Court, Mungeli, District – Mungeli (CG) in civil suit No.31A/2024 whereby the application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act of 1955’) filed by the appellant for decree of divorce was rejected. 2 2. The parties are hereinafter referred to as the appellant/husband and respondent/wife. The appellant/wife filed an application under Section 13 of the Act of 1955 seeking dissolution of marriage by granting decree of divorce before the learned Family Court. The pleadings which are reflected from the application is that the marriage between the appellant and respondent was solemnized on 05/03/2003 at village– Majgaon, Tahsil – Lormi, District-Mungeli, CG according to Hindu rights and rituals. Out of their wedlock, two sons namely Govind Gopal Singh Rajput aged about 20 years and Devvrat Rajput aged 13 years were born. At present, both of them are residing with the appellant/husband and are studying. As per further pleadings, the respondent/wife never used to cook meals, give the same to the appellant/husband and thus, he used to cook meals and take care of children. The respondent/wife never performed her matrimonial duties. She used to torture and used filthy language against the appellant/husband. Once she throttled him and also once she tied his hands and legs with the help of rope and also gave sleeping pills to him which was informed by him to the family members of the respondent/wife. Then a compromise was arrived at between them. Still the respondent/wife never cooperated with the appellant and always behaved with cruelty with him. On being asked to clean the kitchen, she used to abuse him. The appellant/husband made a complaint to the Family Counseling Centre on 28/06/2024. Counseling was conducted on 01/07/2024, conciliation proceedings were carried out three times, despite of that, no behavioral change was witnessed by the appellant/husband. Further pleadings reflect that on 18/09/2024 at 11 AM, he went to Madhya Pradesh in a baraat. The respondent and children were at home and in the evening, the children also went to Lapti in a baraat. The younger son came back at 11:30 PM and in order to open the door, he shouted and when the door was not opened, after peeking through the window, he saw Yashwant Rajput S/o Sewaram in a compromised situation coming out of the room of the respondent/wife which was informed by him to his elder son-Govind Gopal. The elder son informed about the incident to the appellant at 12:30 AM. On 19/04/2024, when he came back from Madhya Pradesh and enquired about this, the respondent/wife packed her luggage and left the home which was informed by him in writing to the Station Incharge, Lormi on 19/04/2024. Copy of report under Section 155 CrPC was delivered to him and police did not take any action against 3 Yashwant Singh. A complaint was also made to the Superintendent of Police, Mungeli. It is further pleaded that earlier also, the respondent/wife never performed her marital obligations and used to quarrel with him. Thus, the circumstances and relationship between them has broken, not possible to be united and from 19/04/2024, after the respondent/wife left the home, no matrimonial relationship has been established between the appellant and the respondent. Thus, he prayed for decree of divorce. 3. The respondent/wife filed a written statement of the application and denied the averments of the application. It was pleaded that the entire household work was performed by her alone. She was performing her matrimonial obligations towards the husband and maternal obligations towards children. She used to cook food and was doing other domestic work. False complaint was made by the appellant/husband in the Family Counseling Centre, upon which, a counseling was conducted wherein it was stated by her that she used to wash clothes of the appellant, gives food to him and that he has a relationship with a school teacher and that is why the appellant/husband is treating the respondent/wife with cruelty, assaults her and despite of that, if he is ready to keep her properly, she will take care of the appellant. It has been further pleaded that the appellant/wife never allowed the respondent/wife to go alone anywhere. She has been assaulted by the appellant, false allegation in respect of her character has been made and was thrown out of the house. It is further stated that the appellant/husband is inclined to marry one teacher posted at Manki after giving divorce to the respondent/wife. The respondent/wife does not want to give divorce and today also, she is ready to live with the appellant/husband. Thus, prayed for dismissal of the application. 4. On the basis of above, following issues have been framed - Issues Conclusion i Whether the applicant been abandoned by the non-applicant by treating him cruelly? Not proved ii Whether the applicant is entitled to obtain a decree of divorce for dissolution of marriage dated 05.03.2003 solemnized with the non- applicant? No. iii Relief and cost ? Petition/application 4 dismissed as per paragraph 21 5. The appellant examined two witnesses and the respondent examined herself and one other witness. 6. Learned Family Court, placing reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Samar Ghosh vs. Jaya Ghosh reported in (2007) 4 SCC 511 and K.Shriniwas Rao vs. D.A. Deepa Civil Appeal No.1794/2013 passed on 22/02/2013 and after assessment of evidence available on record, dismissed the application of the appellant/husband which led to filing of this appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant/husband submits that the learned Family Court has failed to appreciate the evidence available on record in its correct perspective. He submits that the learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the respondent/wife deserted the appellant/husband and residing separately. He submits that the appellant has proved the ground of cruelty and desertion by the respondent/wife, thus, the finding of issue No.1 recorded by the learned Family Court is erroneous and liable to be set aside. He submits that the parties are living separately since 19/04/2024 and more than 1½ years have passed and there has been no resumption of cohabitation. It is submitted that the matrimonial bond has completely broken down and there is no possibility of reconciliation. The oral and documentary evidence led by the appellant/husband has been totally ignored by the learned Family Court. Thus, the impugned judgment deserves to be set aside. 8. Opposing the above submission, learned counsel for the respondent/wife submits that the respondent/wife has denied the allegations made in the divorce petition and claimed that she had fulfilled all her responsibilities as a wife and mother, including cooking, household work, caring for the appellant/husband and looking after the children. It is submitted that the appellant/husband had made false complaints against her, subjected her to physical and mental cruelty, suspected her character without basis, had a relationship with another woman/teacher and ultimately drove her out of the matrimonial home. It is submitted that she still wants to live with the appellant/husband and their sons and 5 does not want to give divorce and expressing hope for reconciliation. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 10. The appellant came up with the pleading that after marriage, the behavior of the respondent towards the appellant was not cordial, rather she was not performing her domestic work, matrimonial duties and not taking care of the children. Further pleadings also reflect that she used to filthily abuse the appellant. Again an allegation of adultery was leveled against the respondent that her younger son saw one Yashwant Rajput S/o Sewaram coming out of the room of the respondent/wife without wearing any clothes and further after 19/04/2024, she deserted the appellant. The appellant/husband was examined as AW1 who deposed in the line of his application. To support the further case, the elder son of the appellant/husband was examined who stated that he was told by his younger brother that one Yashwant Rajput was coming out of the room of his mother. In the cross examination of AW1, he states that he has not informed the police with regard to throttling by the respondent/wife. He further deposed that for the incident dated 18/04/2024, he has not called any community meeting because of the fear of social stigma and humiliation. He denied all the later suggestions given by the respondent/wife. The elder son also deposed in respect of the allegations of adultery against the respondent/wife. He admits that before 2023, the relationship between him and his mother were cordial and after some incident in the year 2023, his mother made false statement against him and from then, their relationship was never good. Thus, from the assessment of evidence, it appears that only general and omnibus allegations have been made by the appellant in respect of cruelty. The appellant/husband tried to prove the allegations with regard to adultery by evidence of his elder son Govind Ram (PW2). From the evidence, it appears that some conciliation proceedings have also been conducted between the parties. 11. The respondent/wife examined herself as NAW2. She also deposed in the line of her pleadings. She denied suggestion with regard to cruelty meted out by her towards her husband. Similar statement has been given by Santosh Singh Rajput (NAW2). Thus, from the evidence on record, it appears that on one hand, the appellant/husband is making allegations with regard to cruelty and adultery whereas the respondent/wife is denying the same. As stated above, some 6 conciliation proceedings have been drawn between the parties, however, copy of such proceedings are not part of record. Intimation under Section 155 CrPC is exhibited as Ex.A/1 and some complaint made by the appellant to the police is being exhibited from Ex.A/3 to Ex.A/6. From perusal of these documents, it appears that the appellant/husband has stated same facts which are the pleadings to the police. Decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Samar Ghosh (supra) lay down the parameters to constitute mental cruelty and held that mere trivial instances involving minor clashes between the spouses would not amount to mental cruelty. Mere unhappiness and dissatisfaction of one party at the instance of other cannot by itself constitute cruelty warranting dissolution of marriage. 12. The allegations which are leveled against the respondent/wife with regard to cruelty as stated above are general and omnibus. No particular or specific allegation regarding any incident is quoted in the pleadings or come up in the evidence. The crux of the case which appears to have been made against the respondent by the appellant is with regard to adultery of the respondent with one Yashwant Rajput. In order to prove that, the elder son of the appellant has been examined who has been told by his younger brother with regard to the incident. The incident has been totally denied by the respondent. Even if it is accepted that the elder son has stated that the younger son has informed him about the incident, the younger son has not been examined who could be the best witness who is alleged to have seen the incident. But for the reasons best known to the appellant, he has not been examined and thus, the respondent has been deprived from having cross-examining him. Even the appellant/husband and his elder son (AW2) are only the hearsay witnesses and not the eye witnesses of the alleged adultery. Learned Family Court, on the basis of his evidence, particularly looking to the fact that the younger son has not been examined, has not come to the conclusion that the appellant was able to prove the adultery. Learned Family Court has also held that Govind (AW2) comes in the category of hearsay witness and in the absence of any clinching evidence, this factor has not been proved and on assessment of evidence, decided issue No.1 against the appellant and dismissed the suit. The finding so recorded by the learned Family Court in the light of decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Samar Ghosh (supra), does not fall within the parameters of mental cruelty. When a husband is doubting the chastity of his wife 7 making an allegation of adultery, the allegations must be proved by way of cogent and prudent evidence. A woman’s chastity cannot be questioned only on the basis of hearsay evidence. The position would have been different if their younger son had been examined and deposed against the respondent because he is said to be the eye witness of the alleged incident. Thus, this Court is unable to accept the factum of adultery against the respondent proved in accordance with law. Thus, we do not find any error, illegality or irregularity committed by the learned Family Court dismissing the application of the appellant. The appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. 13. Decree be drawn accordingly. 14. No order as to cost. Sd/- Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu ) (Sachin Singh Rajput ) Judge Judge Deepti DEEPTI HARIKUMAR Digitally signed by DEEPTI HARIKUMAR Date: 2026.08.25 15:08:50 +0530