1 / 16 CGHC010192302024 2026:CGHC:39769-DB AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FA(MAT) No. 187 of 2024 Smt. Shraddha Sharma W/o Shri Ashish @ Banti Sharma, Aged About 29 Years Presently Resided At- Lakholi Chowk, Ward No. 35, City, Tahsil/ District- Rajnandgaon ( C.G.). ... Appellant (s) versus Ashish @ Banty Sharma S/o Shri Rajkumar Sharma, Aged About 33 Years Occupation- Contractor In Railway, R/o- Ward No. 11, Behind Ganj, Kharsia, Raigarh, Distt- Raigarh ( C.G.). ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate D.B. : Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu & Hon'ble Smt. Justice Sushma Sawant Judgment on Board 10/09/2026 Per Parth Prateem Sahu, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 02.05.2024 passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Rajnandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon in Civil Suit No.31-A/2020, whereby application preferred by appellant/applicant (wife) under Sections 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, "the Act of 1955"), seeking dissolution of Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2026.09.22 11:02:30 +0530 2 / 16 marriage by a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty has been dismissed. 2. Facts necessary for adjudication of the present appeal are that the appellant/applicant-wife filed an application under Section 13(1) of the Act of 1955 before the Family Court Rajnandgaon, seeking a decree of divorce against respondent/non-applicant-husband. It was pleaded in the application that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 16.07.2013 in accordance with Hindu rites and customs. After the marriage, respondent-husband and his family members subjected the applicant/wife to continuous physical and mental harassment and cruelty. She was compelled to perform all household task but was not provided adequate food or even proper meals. Whenever she objected to such treatment, non-applicant/husband, along with his mother and sister, abused, humiliated and physically as well as mentally harassed her. It was further pleaded that even after the birth of child, there was no improvement in the conduct and behaviour of the non-applicant or his family members. On the contrary, the acts of harassment and cruelty became more severe and the applicant was repeatedly pressurized to leave the matrimonial home. According to the applicant/wife, non-applicant was addicted to alcohol and, while under its influence, frequently assaulted and physically tortured her without any justifiable reason. It was also alleged that non-applicant/wife subjected her to financial harassment by pressurizing her to bring money from her parental home. He used to spend his earnings on alcohol and gambling and, despite having his own income, demanded money from the applicant for household expenses. It was further alleged that in or around February-March, 2019, non-applicant assaulted the applicant and forcibly drove her out of the matrimonial home 3 / 16 and at that time, he retained her wedding gifts, jewellery, utensils, cash and other belongings. Non-applicant had been cruel towards her since the solemnization of marriage and had failed to discharge his duties and obligations as a husband. It was further alleged that he consistently neglected and ill-treated the applicant as well as their child and failed to provide them with a peaceful and secure matrimonial life. On 16.07.2019, a registered legal notice was issued to non-applicant through an advocate. Despite receipt of the said notice, non-applicant neither submitted any reply nor took steps to redress the grievances raised therein. According to applicant, continuous acts of cruelty, harassment, physical assault, financial exploitation and neglect, coupled with non-applicant's failure to discharge his marital obligations, had made it impossible for her to continue living with him. It was, therefore, pleaded that the matrimonial relationship had deteriorated to such an extent that she could not reasonably be expected to live with the non-applicant and, therefore, a decree of divorce be granted in her favour. 3. Respondent/non-applicant-husband, in his written statement, denied the allegations made by the applicant. He pleaded that shortly after the marriage, he separated from his elder brother Mahesh and his parents, and started residing separately with the applicant/wife in their ancestral house. According to him, applicant was dissatisfied with residing in the ancestral house and repeatedly pressurized him either to purchase a separate house or to take a house on rent. It was further pleaded that applicant voluntarily chose to reside at her parental home. His financial condition was limited and he was employed as a Supervisor at Kharsia Auto, earning approximately 10,000/- per month. The applicant had ₹ 4 / 16 repeatedly expressed that the family could not be maintained on such a meager income and, owing to her dissatisfaction, she chose to reside at her parental home. It was further stated that the applicant had taken possession of the keys of the cupboard in which she had kept her personal belongings. He had admitted their son, Ansh, in St. John's English Medium School. In the year 2019, when Ansh was studying in KG- I, a dispute arose between the parties, whereafter the applicant left the matrimonial home and went to Rajnandgaon along with their son. According to the non-applicant, the applicant was dissatisfied because his elder brother was earning more than him. The non-applicant expressed his willingness to reside peacefully with the appellant and their son. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties and upon consideration of the evidence adduced by them, learned Family Court framed following main issues for adjudication: “1. Whether the defendant caused cruelty to the plaintiff after marriage. 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to obtain a decree of divorce against the defendant ?” 5. Upon appreciation of the pleadings and oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by the parties, learned Family Court held that the appellant/applicant had failed to establish the allegations of cruelty against the respondent/non-applicant and, consequently, was not entitled to a decree of divorce. The application was accordingly dismissed by the order impugned. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the appellant-wife has preferred the present appeal. 5 / 16 6. Assailing legality and validity of the impugned judgment and decree, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-wife submits that the learned Family Court has failed to properly appreciate and consider the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the appellant/applicant in support of her case. It is submitted that the evidence on record clearly establishes that the respondent/husband subjected the appellant to physical and mental cruelty. The material aspects of the case have been completely overlooked by the learned Family Court while dismissing the application filed under Section 13(1) of the Act of 1955. It is further submitted that the findings recorded by the learned Family Court are erroneous, contrary to the evidence available on record and unsustainable in law. Impugned judgment and decree suffer from material errors of law and fact and therefore the same deserve to be set aside. 7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-husband supports the judgment and decree passed by the learned Family Court. It is submitted that, upon proper appreciation of the pleadings and the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record, learned Family Court has rightly concluded that the appellant/applicant failed to prove the allegations of cruelty against the respondent/non-applicant. He submits that the allegations regarding physical and mental cruelty, demand of money, assault, addiction to alcohol and gambling and forcible ouster from the matrimonial home are vague, exaggerated and have not been established by cogent and reliable evidence. It is further submitted that the appellant was dissatisfied with the financial condition of the respondent/non-applicant and insisted that he should either purchase a separate house or take a house on rent. The respondent, being employed 6 / 16 as a Supervisor at Kharsia Auto and earning approximately 10,000/- per ₹ month, was not financially capable of meeting such demands. Appellant/wife, of her own volition and owing to her dissatisfaction with the respondent's financial condition, left the matrimonial home and started residing at her parental home along with their son. Respondent/non- applicant never refused to maintain or reside with the appellant/applicant and their child and has always remained willing to lead a peaceful matrimonial life with them. 8. We have considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the record of the Family Court. 9. The appellant/wife (applicant) has challenged the impugned judgment and decree whereby learned Family Court has dismissed the application filed by appellant/wife (applicant) under Section 13(1) of the Act of 1955 seeking decree of divorce against respondent/husband on the ground of cruelty. The factum of marriage is not in dispute. It is an admitted position that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 16.07.2013 in accordance with Hindu rites and customs. 10. Section 13 of the Act of 1955 provides for grant of decree of divorce in certain cases. It enacts that any marriage solemnized whether before or after the commencement of the Act may be dissolved on a petition presented either by the husband or by the wife on any of the grounds specified therein. Clause (i-a) of sub-section (1) of Section 13 envisages that a decree of divorce may be passed by a Court on the ground that after solemnization of marriage, opposite party has treated the petitioner 7 / 16 with cruelty. Expression ‘cruelty’ includes both (i) physical cruelty; and (ii) mental cruelty. Cruelty is not defined in the Act of 1955. Physical cruelty can be proved by oral and documentary evidence. As far as mental cruelty is concerned, the same has to be decided based on the facts and circumstances of each case taking into consideration the social standing of the parties. 11. In order to examine cruelty, the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh reported in (2007) 4 SCC 511, would be a relevant guideline wherein the Court has indicated certain illustrative instances at para 101 whereby the inference of mental cruelty can be drawn. Para 101 reads as under :- “101. No uniform standard can ever be laid down for guidance, yet we deem it appropriate to enumerate some instances of human behaviour which may be relevant in dealing with the cases of “mental cruelty”. The instances indicated in the succeeding paragraphs are only illustrative and not exhaustive: (i) On consideration of complete matrimonial life of the parties, acute mental pain, agony and suffering as would not make possible for the parties to live with each other could come within the broad parameters of mental cruelty. (ii) On comprehensive appraisal of the entire matrimonial life of the parties, it becomes abundantly clear that situation is such that the wronged party cannot reasonably be asked to put up with such conduct and continue to live with other party. 8 / 16 (iii) Mere coldness or lack of affection cannot amount to cruelty, frequent rudeness of language, petulance of manner, indifference and neglect may reach such a degree that it makes the married life for the other spouse absolutely intolerable. (iv) Mental cruelty is a state of mind. The feeling of deep anguish, disappointment, frustration in one spouse caused by the conduct of other for a long time may lead to mental cruelty. (v) A sustained course of abusive and humiliating treatment calculated to torture, discommode or render miserable life of the spouse. (vi) Sustained unjustifiable conduct and behaviour of one spouse actually affecting physical and mental health of the other spouse. The treatment complained of and the resultant danger or apprehension must be very grave, substantial and weighty. (vii) Sustained reprehensible conduct, studied neglect, indifference or total departure from the normal standard of conjugal kindness causing injury to mental health or deriving sadistic pleasure can also amount to mental cruelty. (viii) The conduct must be much more than jealousy, selfishness, possessiveness, which causes unhappiness and dissatisfaction and emotional upset may not be a ground for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty. (ix) Mere trivial irritations, quarrels, normal wear and tear of the married life which happens in day- to-day life would not be adequate for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty. 9 / 16 (x) The married life should be reviewed as a whole and a few isolated instances over a period of years will not amount to cruelty. The ill conduct must be persistent for a fairly lengthy period, where the relationship has deteriorated to an extent that because of the acts and behaviour of a spouse, the wronged party finds it extremely difficult to live with the other party any longer, may amount to mental cruelty. (xi) If a husband submits himself for an operation of sterilisation without medical reasons and without the consent or knowledge of his wife and similarly, if the wife undergoes vasectomy or abortion without medical reason or without the consent or knowledge of her husband, such an act of the spouse may lead to mental cruelty. (xii) Unilateral decision of refusal to have intercourse for considerable period without there being any physical incapacity or valid reason may amount to mental cruelty. (xiii) Unilateral decision of either husband or wife after marriage not to have child from the marriage may amount to cruelty. (xiv) Where there has been a long period of continuous separation, it may fairly be concluded that the matrimonial bond is beyond repair. The marriage becomes a fiction though supported by a legal tie. By refusing to sever that tie, the law in such cases, does not serve the sanctity of marriage; on the contrary, it shows scant regard for the feelings and emotions of the parties. In such like situations, it may lead to mental cruelty.” 10 / 16 12. In support of her case before the learned Family Court, applicant/wife examined herself as AW-1, her father Kailash Sharma as AW-2 and her aunt Laxmi Sharma as AW-3 whereas, non-applicant/husband examined himself as NAW-2 and his uncle Vijay Sharma as NAW-1. 13. In the present case, appellant-wife (applicant) has alleged several instances of physical and mental cruelty on the part of the respondent- husband. However, in paragraph- 11 of her cross-examination, she admitted that she had never made any complaint before the police or any community member regarding the alleged harassment meted out to her by the respondent. Likewise, Kailash Sharma (AW-2), father of applicant-wife, admitted in his cross-examination that he had not made any complaint before the community members alleging that his daughter was being harassed by the non-applicant. On the other hand, Laxmi Sharma (AW-3), aunt of the applicant stated in paragraph-7 of her cross-examination that a complaint had been made before the community members at Kharsia and Rajnandgaon regarding the harassment meted out to the applicant, but the matter was not heard. Thus, there is an apparent inconsistency between the statements of AW-2 and AW-3 on the question of whether any complaint was made before the community members. 14. Non-applicant/husband, in his cross-examination, specifically denied the suggestion that he had assaulted the applicant, burnt her thigh with a cigarette or thrown her out of the house. He also denied consuming alcohol. He stated that social meetings were held two or three times at Parshuram Bhawan, Rajnandgaon, in an attempt to resolve the dispute between the parties. According to him, on one occasion, when he went to 11 / 16 bring the applicant-wife back, she and her family members did not permit him to enter the house. In paragraph- 8 of his cross-examination, when asked why the applicant/wife did not like him, he stated that his income was only 10,000/- per month, whereas his elder brother was earning ₹ more, and that the applicant used to taunt him by comparing his income with that of his elder brother and asking him to earn more. In paragraph- 10 of his cross-examination, non-applicant/husband denied the suggestion that he failed to provide household supplies, compelling the applicant to obtain groceries and other household articles from her parental home. He also denied the suggestion that he had asked applicant to bring money from her parental home on the ground that the household groceries had been exhausted. He further denied the allegation that, despite being advised by a doctor not to administer abortion pills to applicant on account of the alleged risk of uterine cancer, he had nevertheless administered such pills to her. 15. Nothing material or adverse has been elicited from the testimony of the said witness (non-applicant/husband) so as to discredit or impeach his evidence. 16. It is well settled that matrimonial life necessarily involves certain differences, disagreements and adjustments between spouses. Mere differences relating to residence, financial circumstances or day-to-day household affairs, in the absence of conduct of sufficient gravity and persistence, cannot by themselves constitute cruelty within the meaning of Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Act of 1955. 12 / 16 17. In the present case, the appellant/wife (applicant) has made several allegations against the respondent/husband (non-applicant). However, the material on record does not establish, by cogent and reliable evidence, that the respondent's conduct was of such a grave and persistent nature as to render the continuation of matrimonial life impossible or to make it unreasonable to expect the appellant to continue cohabitation with him. 18. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Anil Kumar Jain v. Maya Jain reported in (2009) 10 SCC 415 observed thus : “27. In all the subsequent cases, the Supreme Court invoked its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India in order to do complete justice to the parties when faced with a situation where the marriage ties had completely broken and there was no possibility whatsoever of the spouses coming together again. In such a situation, this Court felt that it would be a travesty of justice to continue with the marriage ties. 28. It may, however, be indicated that in some of the High Courts, which do not possess the powers vested in the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution, this question had arisen and it was held in most of the cases that despite the fact that the marriage had broken down irretrievably, the same was not a ground for granting a decree of divorce either under Section 13 or Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 29. In the ultimate analysis the aforesaid discussion throws up two propositions. The first proposition is that although irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not one of the grounds indicated whether under Sections 13 or 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 13 / 16 for grant of divorce, the said doctrine can be applied to a proceeding under either of the said two provisions only where the proceedings are before the Supreme Court. In exercise of its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution the Supreme Court can grant relief to the parties without even waiting for the statutory period of six months stipulated in Section 13- B of the aforesaid Act. This doctrine of irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not available even to the High Courts which do not have powers similar to those exercised by the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution. Neither the civil courts nor even the High Courts can, therefore, pass orders before the periods prescribed under the relevant provisions of the Act or on the grounds not provided for in Sections 13 and 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.” 19. In the case of Gurbux Singh v. Harminder Kaur, reported in (2010) 14 SCC 301, Hon’ble Supreme Court, while considering an appeal arising out of the dismissal of an application filed by a spouse under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking a decree of divorce, observed as under: “16. The married life should be assessed as a whole and a few isolated instances over certain period will not amount to cruelty. The ill conduct must be precedent for a fairly lengthy period where the relationship has deteriorated to an extent that because of the acts and behaviour of a spouse, one party finds it extremely difficult to live with the other party no longer may amount to mental cruelty. Making certain statements on the spur of the moment and expressing certain 14 / 16 displeasure about the behaviour of elders may not be characterised as cruelty. Mere trivial irritations, quarrels, normal wear and tear of married life which happens in day to day life in all families would not be adequate for grant of divorce on the ground of cruelty. Sustained unjustifiable and reprehensible conduct affecting physical and mental health of the other spouse may lead to mental cruelty. Both the appellant and the respondent being highly qualified persons, the appellant being Principal in ITI College, the respondent working as a Librarian in a government institute, an isolated friction on some occasion like festival of lohri even in the presence of others cannot be a valid ground for dissolving the marriage.” 20. In the case at hand, upon an independent and comprehensive appraisal of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, we find that, although appellant-wife (applicant) has alleged various instances of harassment and cruelty against the respondent-husband (non- applicant), she admitted in her evidence that she had not lodged any complaint before the police or the community members in respect of such alleged harassment. The testimony of AW-2 Kailash Sharma, father of the appellant-wife, also does not substantiate her case to the extent alleged, as he admitted that no complaint had been made before the community members regarding the alleged misbehaviour or harassment meted out to his daughter. On the contrary, AW-3 Laxmi Sharma, aunt of applicant/wife, stated that a complaint had been made before the community members. This material inconsistency in the evidence of the witnesses assumes significance while assessing the overall credibility and reliability of the evidence adduced by the applicant-wife. 15 / 16 21. The burden of establishing the allegations of cruelty was upon the appellant/applicant-wife. Apart from the oral assertions made by the appellant/applicant and her witnesses, no cogent and reliable documentary evidence has been brought on record to substantiate the allegations of physical assault, financial harassment, addiction to alcohol and gambling, forcible ouster from the matrimonial home or other acts of cruelty alleged against the respondent/non-applicant-husband. 22. It is true that absence of a police complaint or documentary evidence is not, by itself, sufficient to reject an allegation of cruelty in every matrimonial case. However, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, when the allegations are denied by respondent/husband (non- applicant) and the supporting oral evidence suffers from material inconsistencies, the appellant/applicant has failed to establish the alleged acts of cruelty to the requisite standard. 23. The appellate court, while considering an appeal against a judgment based upon appreciation of evidence by the Family Court, is required to examine whether the findings recorded by the trial court are supported by the evidence on record and whether such findings suffer from perversity, illegality or any material error of law. 24. Upon consideration of the entire material available on record, we find that the learned Family Court has considered the pleadings as well as the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties and has recorded a reasoned finding that the appellant/applicant failed to establish the allegations of cruelty against the respondent/non-applicant. 16 / 16 25. The findings recorded by the learned Family Court are based upon appreciation of the evidence on record and cannot be said to be perverse or contrary to the evidence. No material illegality or error of law has been demonstrated warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. 26. In view of the foregoing discussions and having regard to the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decisions referred to hereinabove, we are of the considered view that the appellant/applicant failed to establish that she was treated with cruelty by the respondent /non-applicant within the meaning of Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Act of 1955. Consequently, she is not entitled to a decree of divorce on the ground urged in the petition. 27. Accordingly, the appeal, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. Impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, in Civil Suit No. 31-A/2020, is hereby affirmed. 28. Let a decree be drawn accordingly. S Sd/- Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) (Sushma Sawant) Judge Judge Praveen