{FA(MAT) No.75/2023} CGHC010050582023 2026:CGHC:41978-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FA(MAT) No. 75 of 2023 {Arising out of judgment and decree dated 27-10-2022 in Civil Suit No.46A/2017 of the Judge, Family Court, Camp Court Katghora, District Korba} Smt. Kavita Bhariya, W/o Rameshwar Singh Bhariya, aged about 28 years, R/o Village Kedaikhar, Thana Darri, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. Present address Q.N.1545, Kaveri Vihar, N.T.P.C., Thana Darri, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba, Chhattisgarh (Defendant) ... Appellant versus Rameshwar Singh Bhariya, S/o Puniram Bhariya, aged about 30 years, R/o Village Kedaikhar, Thana Darri, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba, Chhattisgarh (Plaintiff) ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Vikas Kumar Pandey, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Suresh Kumar Pandey, Advocate. Division Bench: - Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu and Hon'ble Smt. Sushma Sawant, JJ. Judgment On Board (26/09/2026) Sushma Sawant, J. 1. Invoking the appellate jurisdiction of this Court under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, the appellant herein/defendant wife has preferred this appeal challenging the judgment & decree dated 27- SISTA SOMAYAJULU Digitally signed by SISTA SOMAYAJULU Date: 2026.09.30 17:46:42 +0530 {FA(MAT) No.75/2023} 10-2022 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Camp Court Katghora, District Korba in Civil Suit No.46A/2017 (Rameshwar Singh Bhariya v. Smt. Kavita Bhariya), by which the application filed by the respondent herein/plaintiff husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for grant of decree of divorce against the appellant herein/defendant, has been allowed and the marriage solemnized between the plaintiff husband and the defendant wife on 12- 4-2015, has been dissolved by a decree of divorce. 2. The aforesaid challenge has been made on the following factual backdrop: - (For the sake of convenience, parties hereinafter will be referred as per their status shown and ranking given in the civil suit before the Family Court.) Factual Matrix Admitted Facts: - 3. It is admitted fact on record that marriage of the plaintiff/respondent herein with the defendant/appellant herein, who is daughter of Shri Fekuram, R/o Village Gopalpur, was performed according to the social customs and traditions on 12-4-2015 at NTPC Quarter No.1545, Kaveri Vihar, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba. -:Case of the Respondent herein/Plaintiff Husband before the Family Court:- 4. Respondent herein/plaintiff Rameshwar Singh Bhariya filed Original Civil Suit No.46A/2017 (Rameshwar Singh Bhariya v. Smt. Kavita Bhariya) for a decree of divorce on the ground of {FA(MAT) No.75/2023} 'cruelty' and ‘desertion’ committed by appellant herein/defendant Smt. Kavita Bhariya. 5. According to the plaint allegations, marriage between the plaintiff/ respondent and the defendant/appellant took place on 12-4-2015 according to social customs at NTPC Quarter No.1545, Kaveri Vihar, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba. The plaintiff is educated up to Class XII and works as a private labourer under a contractor at NTPC, whereas the defendant is a postgraduate having studied M.A. and was working as Teacher in a Private School. According to the plaintiff, soon after the marriage, differences arose between the parties. He alleged that the defendant was dissatisfied with the rural living conditions and insisted upon being provided with a pucca house or NTPC quarter with better facilities. He further alleged that the defendant did not adjust with his family members, refused to participate in household activities, quarrelled with him and his family members, and insisted that he live separately from them. The plaintiff also alleged that the defendant frequently used to threaten him that she will file criminal and dowry cases against him and, on certain occasions, she has also threatened him that she will commit suicide. It is also alleged by the plaintiff that she physically assaulted him and twice attempted to strangulate him while he was asleep. According to the plaintiff, the defendant and her family members repeatedly insisted that she would not reside at the plaintiff's village and would live only in the NTPC colony. Page 4 of 15 {FA(MAT) No.75/2023} 6. It is stated by the plaintiff that the defendant left the matrimonial home and lodged a complaint before the Women's Help and Counselling Centre, Korba. Although counselling was held on 10-10-2015, parties could not resume their matrimonial life and thereafter the defendant started living separately at her parental home and refused to return to him. The defendant subsequently gave birth to a daughter on 4-4-2016. The plaintiff also alleged that he was not permitted to meet his wife and child and was also allegedly assaulted and humiliated by the defendant’s family members. He has further stated that on 16-10-2016, under pressure and apprehension of being implicated in a criminal case, he returned the articles mentioned in the panchnama/list of articles, but the defendant allegedly did not keep those articles at the place represented by her. The plaintiff's case is that the defendant’s conduct has caused him physical and mental harassment and that the parties have been living separately since 10-10-2015. On these allegations, the plaintiff has sought dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. -:Written Statement of the Appellant herein/Defendant Wife before the Family Court:- 7. The appellant herein/defendant wife has filed written statement denying the grounds for divorce urged by the plaintiff, asserting inter alia that her marital life has been marred by persistent cruelty, harassment, and intense interference of the plaintiff's family. According to her defence, the plaintiff's behaviour has changed drastically after the marriage under the heavy influence of his relatives, leading to verbal {FA(MAT) No.75/2023} abuse, beatings, and severe mental and physical torture without any reasonable cause. She has made detailed pleading as to how her brother-in-law and sister-in-law frequently intervened in their affairs, even planning her temporary abandonment at her parents' home before wedding ceremonies and barring the plaintiff from fetching her. Furthermore, she has described a dominating home environment where her personal room was kept in disorderliness, locked, or deliberately raided by family members in her absence, and her attempts to attend school were aggressively thwarted. The gravity of the defendant’s allegations escalates sharply during her pregnancy. 8. The appellant herein/defendant wife has further stated that upon coming to know that she is pregnant, the plaintiff and his family subjected her to dangerous physical hazards, forcing her to lift heavy construction materials like cement, gravel, sand, and water, and withholding her meals to deliberately induce a miscarriage. She recounted a chilling threat from her sister-in-law regarding the birth of a potential daughter and alleged that when she reported these atrocities to the plaintiff, he remained entirely apathetic, telling her to do as she is being directed. The situation culminated when her father-in-law, demanded a divorce so that the plaintiff could secure his share in family property, forcefully pushing the pregnant defendant out of the house. 9. The appellant herein/defendant wife has also stated that on 4-4-2016, she gave birth to a daughter at Subedar Hospital, NTPC, bearing all medical expenses entirely by her own family without any financial {FA(MAT) No.75/2023} maintenance or assistance from the plaintiff. Despite enduring this relentless cycle of abuse, abandonment, and lack of support, the defendant maintained that she deeply loves her husband and wishes to preserve their marriage for the sake of their daughter's future. She has also stated that she has repeatedly returned to the matrimonial home, only to find herself locked out and driven away by the plaintiff's sister- in-law. Concluding her defence, she has stated that the plaintiff's divorce suit is built entirely upon false fabrications and prayed for its complete dismissal so that she may live a peaceful family life. 10. The Family Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record, framed following issues and answered the issues as under:- dz- Okkn fo"k; fu"d"kZ 1- क्या प्रतिवाfदuh@iRuh ने वाnh@ifr dks vusd izdkj ls dwjrkiwoZd O;ogkj dj oknh dks 'kkjhfjd ,oa ekufld :i ls izrkfM+r fd;k gS\ ^^प्रमाणि ^^ 2- क्या वाnh@ifr] izfrokfnuh@iRuh ds fo:) fookg foPNsn dh vkKfIr izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gSS\ ^^प्रमाणि ^^ 3- सहाया एवा व्यया\ ^oknh dk okn fu.kZ; dh daतिका&84 का अनेसर Lohdkj fd;k tkrk gSA 11. Parties were given an opportunity to adduce evidence and after completion of trial, the suit of the respondent herein/plaintiff husband has been allowed vide judgment dated 27-10-2022, being aggrieved against which, this appeal has been filed on the following grounds:- {FA(MAT) No.75/2023} (i) That the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned Family Court is bad in law, perverse based on evidence and therefore liable to be set aside. (ii) That the learned Family Court has not properly appreciated the facts and evidence available on record while passing the impugned judgment. (iii) That the impugned judgment passed by the learned Family Court suffered from factual and legal infirmity. (iv) That the learned Family Court has wrongly appreciated the evidence in its proper perspective and wrong findings have been recorded. (v) That the learned Family Court has not considered the statement of the appellant and her witnesses and reply, thus this act of the learned Family Court has committed a legal error and the judgment and decree of the learned Family Court is against the principles of natural justice. (vi) That the finding of the learned Family Court is perverse and contrary to the material available on record. -:Arguments of the Appellant/Defendant:- 12. Mr. Vikas Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant herein/ defendant, referring to the grounds taken in the memorandum of appeal, submits that the learned Family Court has failed to properly consider and appreciate the evidence available on record. It is contended that the material evidence led by the appellant/defendant {FA(MAT) No.75/2023} has not been duly appreciated in its proper perspective and that the findings recorded by the learned Family Court are contrary to the evidence available on record. Learned counsel further submits that the learned Family Court has, without any proper appreciation of the evidence and on an erroneous consideration of the material available on record, accepted the case of the respondent/plaintiff and allowed the application for divorce, which, according to the appellant, is unsustainable in law and on facts. -:Arguments of the Respondent/Plaintiff:- 13. Mr. Suresh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent herein/defendant, in reply, submits that the learned Family Court has rightly appreciated the evidence available on record and has recorded its findings on the basis of the material produced by the parties. It is contended that the appellant/defendant has failed to point out any material evidence which has been ignored or overlooked by the learned Family Court. Learned counsel further submits that the findings recorded by the learned Family Court are based on proper appreciation of evidence and that no error or illegality has been committed in allowing the case of the respondent. It is, therefore, submitted that the judgment and decree passed by the learned Family Court call for no interference. -:Details of evidence before the Family Court:- 14. Before the Family Court, witnesses on behalf of the respondent herein/ plaintiff have been examined as Rameshwar Singh Bhariya (PW-1) – {FA(MAT) No.75/2023} the plaintiff himself, Budhwar Sai (PW-2) – person from his society, Peshiram Bhariya (PW-3) – his paternal uncle, Kanwal Lal (PW-4), Shambhu Gupta (PW-5) and Samarin Bai (PW-6) – a person from his village. Similarly, witnesses on behalf of the appellant herein/defendant have been examined as Smt. Kavita Bhariya (DW-1) – the defendant herself, Smt. Chamrin Bai (DW-2) – her mother and Anita Bhariya (DW-3). -:Analysis of the Appellate Court:- 15. For proper adjudication of the matter, it would be apposite to refer to the relevant provisions of Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, as the original petition seeking dissolution of marriage was instituted on the grounds of “cruelty” and “desertion”, which constitute statutory grounds for divorce under the said provision. The relevant provisions are reproduced herein below:- “13. Divorce.–(1) Any marriage solemnized, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, may, on a petition presented by either the husband or the wife, be dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground that the other party– (i) x x x x (i-a) has, after the solemnization of the marriage, treated the petitioner with “cruelty”; or (i-b) has “deserted” the petitioner for a continuous period of not less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition; or (ii) x x x x” 16. Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 provides for grant of a decree of divorce where, after solemnization of the marriage, the {FA(MAT) No.75/2023} petitioner has been treated with “cruelty” by the other party. Section 13(1)(ib) provides for divorce where the other party has “deserted” the petitioner for a continuous period of not less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition. 17. In the present case, since the petition has been filed on the grounds of both “cruelty” and “desertion”, the ground of “desertion” is examined first. It is pertinent to mention that where a petition for divorce is filed on the ground of “desertion”, the statutory requirement prescribed under Section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 must be fulfilled on the date of presentation of the petition. 18. As per the pleading of the respondent herein/plaintiff husband, the date of desertion pleaded in paragraph 10 of the petition is 10-10- 2015, whereas the petition was presented on 6-7-2017. Evidently, the statutory period of two years of desertion had not expired on the date of presentation of the petition. Therefore, the precondition prescribed under Section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was not fulfilled on the date of presentation of the petition. 19. Hence, technically, the ground of “desertion” cannot be considered for grant of a decree of divorce, as the statutory period of two years had not been completed on the date of presentation of the petition. The learned Family Court, however, had framed the principal issue with regard to “cruelty”. Therefore, it would be appropriate to examine the evidence and findings in relation to the ground of “cruelty”. Page 11 of 15 {FA(MAT) No.75/2023} 20.In the present case, the pleadings of the parties contain allegations and counter-allegations against each other. Substantial portions of the respective pleadings merely reproduce the rival versions of the parties in their examination-in-chief. Therefore, merely reproducing or comparing the statement made in the examination-in-chief would not advance the determination of the controversy. It is, therefore, necessary to examine the matter on the basis of the facts and circumstances brought on record in the cross-examination of the parties. 21. The respondent herein/plaintiff husband has examined, apart from himself, witnesses who are his relatives and neighbours. Therefore, their statements regarding personal relationship between the parties do not carry much weight and their testimony on this aspect does not warrant any detailed consideration. However, their statements do bring one aspect on record, namely, that a meeting of the parties was held in the presence of members of the community. The factum of such meeting is also admitted by the wife i.e. the appellant herein/defendant Kavita Bhariya (DW-1) and her mother Chamrin Bhariya (DW- 2). Thus, it is evident that the relationship between the parties was not cordial and had deteriorated to such an extent that intervention by the members of the society/community became necessary. 22.On consideration of the evidence, certain material aspects emerge from the cross-examination which require consideration. In particular, the answers elicited from the appellant/defendant wife in paragraphs 10 and 11 of the cross-examination, coupled with the suggestions put by {FA(MAT) No.75/2023} the respondent/plaintiff husband to her, assume significance in determining the circumstances in which the parties came to live separately and the conduct of the parties thereafter. These aspects indicate that the respondent’s/plaintiff’s version that the appellant/ defendant wife found the matrimonial home inconvenient and desired to reside in a house equipped with better facilities, cannot be disregarded. The evidence also indicates that she did not accord due regard to the members of the matrimonial family and viewed the gifts offered by them with disregard. 23.From the statements elicited in the evidence of the appellant herein/ defendant wife, it is apparent that she intended to reside at her place of posting and was unwilling to reside with the respondent herein/ plaintiff husband. Her own statements indicate that she had, in fact, gone to the matrimonial home accompanied by the police and removed her belongings therefrom. It is further borne out from her testimony that the respondent/plaintiff convened a social meeting in the community for the purpose of bringing her back, which has also been admitted by her. These facts, when considered together, indicate that she had left the matrimonial home of her own volition and was not willing to resume cohabitation with the respondent/plaintiff husband. 24.The statements of the respondent/plaintiff husband also deserve to be given due weight, particularly in view of the admissions made by wife Kavita Bhariya (DW-1) and her mother Chamrin Bhariya (DW- {FA(MAT) No.75/2023} 2) in their cross-examination. They have admitted that the husband had borne the expenses relating to her treatment, delivery and other necessary requirements and had also been visiting her from time to time. These admissions lend support to the testimony of the respondent/plaintiff husband and indicate that he had continued to discharge his responsibilities towards the wife and had maintained contact with her. 25.In view of the aforesaid discussion and the admissions emerging from the cross-examination of the appellant herein/defendant wife and her mother, it stands established that the wife herself had left the matrimonial home of her own volition and had chosen to reside separately from the husband and even after the social meeting, she was not willing to live with her husband. 26.The material on record further indicates that the respondent/ plaintiff husband had continued to discharge his matrimonial obligations, including bearing the expenses of her treatment and delivery and visiting her from time to time. His efforts to bring her back and resume matrimonial life also stand supported by the evidence on record. 27.Thus, the circumstances appearing from the evidence do not indicate that the respondent/plaintiff husband had abandoned the appellant/ defendant wife. Rather, the evidence indicates that the appellant/ defendant wife had withdrawn from the matrimonial relationship and, even after the intervention of the members of the society, was not {FA(MAT) No.75/2023} willing to resume cohabitation with the respondent/plaintiff husband. Her continued unwillingness to resume matrimonial life, particularly even after intervention by the members of the society and without sufficient justification, when considered along with the other circumstances brought on record, amounts to conduct falling within the ambit of mental cruelty. 28.The conduct of the appellant/defendant wife in withdrawing from the matrimonial relationship, remaining unwilling to resume cohabitation despite social intervention, and the circumstances surrounding such conduct have to be considered cumulatively. The Supreme Court in the matter of Ravi Kumar v. Julmidevi, (2010) 4 SCC 476, has held that matrimonial cruelty is to be assessed on the nature of the conduct and its effect on the other spouse, keeping in view the surrounding circumstances and the cumulative course of conduct. 29.It is also pertinent to note that in paragraph 22 of the judgment in Ravi Kumar (supra), the Supreme Court, while referring to the decision in the matter of Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi, (1988) 1 SCC 105, has reiterated that the concept of cruelty is not capable of being defined in precise or exhaustive terms and that its determination depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. 30.The present case also has to be examined in the light of the peculiar circumstances brought on record. The wife’s continued refusal to reside with the husband, her unwillingness to resume matrimonial life and her conduct in treating the husband as inferior to herself and in failing to {FA(MAT) No.75/2023} accord him the dignity and respect expected in the matrimonial relationship falling within the scope of mental cruelty. 31. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, the learned Family Court, upon proper appreciation of the evidence available on record, was justified in holding that the conduct of the wife amounted to cruelty towards the husband. Therefore, the decree of divorce granted in favour of the husband cannot be said to suffer from any error warranting interference by this Court. -:Conclusion:- 32. In view of the foregoing discussion and for the reasons recorded herein- above, we are of the considered view that the impugned judgment & decree passed by the learned Family Court do not suffer from any error in appreciation of the material on record warranting interference in appeal. Consequently, the appeal deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. 33. Decree be drawn-up accordingly. Sd/- Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) (Sushma Sawant) JUDGE JUDGE Soma