t IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FIRST APPEAL (M) N0^:/ 2010 B, l.,NViSI©i APPELLANT APPLICANT ^Brajendra Singh S/o Late Dr. Himmat Singh ^^-""":1 ^'''.'^^ N p^s»li-~ ^ ^'"" ^^x^^ A9ed about 47 yeclrs A<.^-v" i-\^ R/o-Chhuiekhadan .^::^ ....-^'^ RESPONDENT NON APPLICANT a Dist- Rajnandgoan (C.G) Versus ^mt. Renu Singh W/o Brajendra Singh Aged about 42 years At present R/o- Uday Pratap Singh, Kesar Awas No-7, Rajkishore Nagar P.S- Sarkanda, Dist- Bilaspur (C.G) ^ MEMO OF APPEAL U/s 19(1) OF FAMILY COURT ACT 1984 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR DIVISION BENCH: HON'BLE DR. I.M. QUDDUSI, & HON'BLE MR. G. MINHAJUDDIN, JJ. Appellant Applicant Respondent Non-Applicant First Appeal (M) No. 68 of 2010 Brajendra Singh Vs Smt. Renu Singh ^F^ •^ JUDGMENT FOR CONSIDERATIO Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge ^.7-2-2012 HON'BLE DR. I.M. QUDDUSI. J J ^- ^sdf: ^^ Di^ I.M. Quddusi Judge 5.7..2.2012 POST FOR JUDGMENT ON^-1 FEBRUARY. 2012 2-P Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge ^.y .Z.2U12 •<>' HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH: HON'BLE DR. I.M. QUDDUSI, & HON'BLE MR. G. MINHAJUDDIN, JJ. Appellant Applicant Respondent Non-Applicant First Appeal (Ml No. 68 of 2010 Brajendra Singh Vs Smt. Renu Singh Present: Mr. H.S. Ahluwalia, counsel forthe appellant. None for the respondent, though served. JUDGMENT (Delivered on ^? February, 2012) PerG. Minhaiuddin. J 01. This appeal has been filed under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 against the judgment and decree dated 7th May, 2010 passed by the Family Court, Rajnandgaon, in Civil Suit N0.06-A/2009, whereby the application filed by the appellanVplaintiff under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce has been rejected. 02. Facts not in dispute are that marriage between the parties was solemnized on 18.5.1989 at Akaltara Nagar,Distt. Janjgir-Champa and after solemnization of marriage, the appellant and the respondent had lived together as husband and wife till a week before the festival of Teeja in the year 2004. However, rest of the facts are in dispute. v 03. The facts projected in the application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 filed by the appellanVplaintiff are that marriage between the parties was solemnized on 18 May, 1989 atAkaltara Nagar, Distt. Janjgir-Champa and after solemnization of marriage till a week before the festival of Teeja in the year 2004, that they had resided together at their matrimonial home at Chhuikhadan, Distt. Rajnandgaon as husband and wife. Since before marriage, the respondent/wife was suffering from gynecological problem and this fact was suppressed from the appellant by the family members of the respondent. On account of the said fact, even after elapse of a period of 15 years, the parties have no issue out of their wedlock. The doctors after examining the respondent have also opined that on account of gynecological problem, there are no chances of the respondent becoming mother. 04. It has been further alleged that the respondent never discharged her marital obligations and often used to proceed to her parental home alongwith her father or brother without informing the appellant or his family members and used to remain there for a pretty long time and after that, she used to return to her matrimonial home. However, on being asked in this regard, she (respondent) used to intimidate the appellant and his family members that she will get them beaten by her brothers and also used to give threatening that she will implicate them either in a case regarding demand of dowry or will kill them by setting them ablaze after pouring diesel/petrol. About a week before the festival of Teeja in the year 2004 that the respondent had proceeded to her parental home alongwith her brother Sharad Kumar and after that she had not returned and thereby had deserted the company of the appellant without any just and reasonable cause. As such, the dispute between the parties has arisen on account of misconduct and misdeeds of the respondent/wife. On these grounds, the application for divorce under Section 13of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was filed by the appellant/husband. 05. The respondenVwife submitted her written statement and stated that since solemnization of marriage on 18 May, 1989, they were discharging their marital obligations towards each other. Since last seven years, all of a sudden, conduct of the appellant/husband has changed towards his wife (respondent) and on petty matters, the appellant started quarreling and beating the respondent and used to ask her to leave his house. In the month of August, 2004 for celebrating the festival of Rakshabandhan and Teeja, the respondent/wife with the consent of her husband (appellant) had gone to her parental home alongwith her brother and after celebrating the festivals, she was waiting for her husband (appellant) to come and take her back to her matrimonial home, but the appellant nevercared to take her back. As per custom prevailing in their community, for celebrating the festivals of Rakshabandhan and Teeja, wife is taken to her parental home by her maternal relations and after celebration of the festivals, the husband has to come flfA and take his wife back. Because of this custom, after celebrating the festivals, the respondent was awaiting her husband to come and take her back alongwith him, but the appellant did not turn up for taking her back. She has all along discharged her marital obligations and had never intimidated her husband (appellant) or his family members. The respondent/wife is still ready and willing to cohabitate with the appellant if the appellant is ready to keep her properly. The respondenVwife has averred that no ground is available to the appellanVhusband for obtaining a decree of divorce under Section 13 ofthe Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and hence the application of the appellant/husband deserves to be rejected. 06. Learned Family Court after hearing the respective parties and on close scrutiny of the material available on record, by the impugned judgment and decree rejected the application of the appellant/plaintiff under Section 13 ofthe Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce. 07. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, perused the LCR as also the impugned judgment and decree. 08. The main question to be decided in this appeal is - whether the respondent/wife is residing at her parental home without just and reasonable cause and has thereby deserted the company of the appellant/husband and thus committed cruelty towards him? 09. The appellant/husband has admitted in para-12 of his statement that he had never gone to his in-laws' place for bringing his wife (respondent) back. The appellant has further admitted in para-13 that when the respondent remained in hospital of Dr. Mrs. Kamla Tiwari for 15 days, neither he nor any member of his family had remained there with the respondent. As per para-14, the appellant was not giving regular maintenance to his wife and sometimes, he used to give Rs.200 or 400 to her. In para-15, he has admitted that he had not allowed his wife (respondent) to make telephone calls and had told her that if she wants to talk to someone on telephone, then that should be done in his presence. In para- 16, he has admitted that whenever the respondent was in need of anything, he used to say that she should bring that thing from her father's house. 10. The appellanVhusband has alleged that his wife (respondent) is suffering from gynecological problem from the very inception and this fact was suppressed from the appellant by the family members of the respondent. In support of the fact that the respondent is suffering from gynecological problem, the appellant has filed documents Exs.P/21 and P/22, which are prescriptions written by Dr. Mrs. Kamla Tiwari, Gynecologist, after examining respondent Mrs. Renu Singh. However, Dr. Mrs. Kamla Tiwari has not been examined by the appellant for proving the documents Exs.P/21 & P/22. In the documents of Exs.P/21 & P/22, it is nowhere mentioned that the respondent will not conceive. 11. The appellant/husband, in addition to himself, has examined Raju and Ramsukh Rajak as PW-2 and PW-3 respectively. ,Y. ^^y ::^^^> \J But after going through the statements of these witnesses, it is clear that their statements, as a whole, does not support the case of the appellant and as such, are of no help to the appellant. 12. The appellant/husband has himself pleaded in para-3 of the application under Section 13 ofthe Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 that he had informed Vishwanath Singh of Village-Kosa, Rajendra Kumar Singh (Asstt. Professor, Raipur), Bhole Shyam Singh (Teacher, Ghurkot), Ramakant Singh (Teacher, Akaltara), Luvkumar Singh (Teacher, Akaltara), Bhanwar Singh, Bhilai-3 and other family members with regard to threatening which used to be given by the respondent/wife. However, the appellanVhusband has not examined any of the abovementioned persons in support of his case. On the other hand, Bhole Shyam Singh and Luvkumar Singh Chandel have been examined by the respondent/wife as DW-2 & DW- 3 respectively. Bhole Shyam Singh (DW-2) has stated that he had once advised the appellant that if he (appellant) and his wife (respondent) are annoyed with each other, then they should patch up their differences and convince each other and start living together, on which the appellant had not agreed. The other witness Luvkumar Singh Chandel (DW-3), who is related to the appellant being his uncle as well as the respondent, has stated that once he alongwith Ramakant Singh had gone to the house of the appellant to persuade him that he (appellant) and his wife (respondent) should live together, but the appellant had r^plied that he (appellant) will s~?%fc rf fe%%. 1 l':: ^r:/^S^ I '^^ ^ \:»...y/ ;-^^';^- I.' not go to bring his wife (respondent) back and in case, she (respondent) wants to come back, she may come. 13. As per pleadings made in the written statement and the statement of the respondenVwife, it is clear that after celebration of festivals of Rakshabandhan and Teeja in the year 2004, she was awaiting her husband (appellant) to come and take her back alongwith him to her matrimonial home, but the appellant did not come. From the statement of appellant Brajendra Singh (PW-1) and Bhole Shyam Singh (DW-2) and Luvkumar Singh (DW-3), it is clear that that the appellant was bent upon not to go to bring his wife (respondent) back and had also stated that if the respondent wants to come back, she may come. The respondent/wife (DW-1) has pleaded and has also stated that as per customs prevailing in their community, it was the duty of the appellanVhusband to take the respondent/wife back to her matrimonial home after celebration of the festivals of Rakshabandhan and Teeja. But in the year 2004, after celebration of Rakshabandhan and Teeja, while she (respondent) was waiting for her husband (appellant) to come and take her back alongwith him, the appellant did not come to take her back. 14. From the above evidence on record, it is clear that both the appellant as well as the respondent are suffering from ego problem and nothing else. It is not in dispute that after solemnization of marriage in the year 1989, they had lived together at the matrimonial home as husband and wife for almost 15 years up till August, 2004 and there is no reason ^ & 15. 16. why they cannot now live together as husband and wife. Both the appellant as well as the respondent had not made any efforts for restitution of conjugal rights. From the totality of the material available on record, the only irresistible conclusion which can be drawn is that there is no dispute between the parties, except ego problem. As such, the appellanVhusband has been unsuccessful in proving any ground for obtaining a decree of divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the learned Family Court has committed no illegality or infirmity in passing the impugned judgment and decree rejecting the application of the appellant. In the result, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. The impugned judgment and decree dated 7 May, 2010 passed by the Family Court, Rajnandgaon, in Civil Suit No.06-A/2009 is hereby affirmed. No order as to costs. The Additional Registrar (Judicial) shall draw up a decree accordingly^ Sd/- Sd/- G.Minhajuddin Dr. I.M. Quddusi Judge Judge ff