IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH rtj,-<>s.u - -. -ftV iS' f-i'i F.A. (Ml N0. \ O / 2011 i! t»..-.T.-J>.. ^ itt t. tfaiS?^ K;e*3^ Court fee affixed Rs. 40 /- FIRST APPEAL UNDER SECTION 96=effi;TM:ET:COBB<©F €WBMPROC^N®E/3 Ci^ a^- /S^i Appellant (Applicant in the original suit) yft^O.:^---^^J pngent(> • i~ D^d--^^- .^-^*'*9 ^...—" f.f ^^El^r <~ SUBREN DANSENA, S/0 BHARAT DANSENA, A/A 32 YEARS, R/0 VlLLAGE PUSALDA, PUSOUR, DlSTMCT RAIGARHJC.G.) Versus Respondent (Non Applicant in the original suit) ^ SMT. KAMLA, W/0 SUBREN DANSENA, A/A 29 YEARS, R/0 VlLLAGE NAWGHATA, KATANGAPAL, TAHSIL SARANGARH, DlSTRICT RAIGARH (C.G.) aSpnf ~ ' °?PPn.fBi(ui^ .3 -/PS -—- i.i.oz 'yaawsAON^ NO iNawsanr yod isod 3§pnf Tsnppn&-]A['I -/PS L c r 'isnaano 'ifti-i IDHS ana.NOH aSpnf uippnfBquii\[ -g -/PS NoiivysaisNOo aojiNsiAioanr E|LUBX 'lLUg euesuea uajqns SA ns leuiDuo eqi ui iueoi|ddv-uoNj tuapuoasey (lins leuiBuo eqt ui tueo!|ddv) lueiiaaay s il'l I.I.OZ^o oi, -ON (W) |eeaav»sJ!j rr 'NiaanrvHNiuu -9 •aw ^^9.NOH '»'isnaano'iwi IUHS aia.NOH :HON3a NOISIAIQ andsvnia iv HUVOSIIIVHHO do ianoo HSIH "^^ "^*. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH: HON'BLE SHRI I.M. QUDDUSI, & HON'BLE MR. G. MINHAJUDDIN, JJ. First Appeal (Mt No. 10 of 2011 Appellant Subren Dansena (Applicant in the original suit) Vs Respondent Smt. Kamla {Non-Applicant in the original suit) -V Present: Mr. Anumesh Shrivastava, counsel for the appellant. Mr. Jitendra Nande, counsel for the respondent. JUDGMENT (Delivered on 2-^November, 2011) Per G. Minhaiuddin. J 01. This appeal has been filed under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 against the judgment and decree dated 13.12.2010 passed by Judge, Family Court, Raigarh, in Civil Suit No.32-A/09, dismissing the application filed by the appellanVplaintiff under Section 13 ofthe Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce. 02. Brief facts of the case, as per averments made in the application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 by the appellanVhusband, are that marriage between the parties was solemnized on 25.4.2005 at Village - Navghata as per Hindu customs. and rituals and thereafter, the • respondenVwife started residing with the appellant/husband at her matrimonial home. However, since the respondent/wife did not want to live in a joint family, therefore, she used to unnecessarily quarrel with her in-laws on some trivial issues, address them in a derogatory manner and refuse to live with them and also threaten to implicate the entire family in a false dowry cas& The asgellant/husband having been fed up with l. & 03. 04. the daily state of affairs, started residing separately in a rented house, firstly at Village - Salihabhanta, then at Village - Regaon and thereafter at Village - Jheenkabahal and was working in a shop at Urja Nagar, Tamnar Power Plant. However, during this period also, the respondenVwife used to quarrel with the landlord and neighbours and go to her parental home without informing anybody. The appellant/husband had come to know through villagers and neighbours that when he used to leave for his duties, some unknown persons used to visit his house and the respondent/wife has< illicit relations with those unknown persons. The appellant/husband tried his best to persuade the respondent/wife to discharge her marital obligations properly, but failed. Out of their wedlock, two soos have been born. Therefore, considering the future of their children, the appellanVhusband again brought the respondent/wife back to his village on 18.4.2009, however, the respondent/wife again went back to her parental home after quarrelling on 22.4.2009 and since then she is residing in her parental home along with her children. The conduct of the respondent/wife towards the appellanVhusband and his family members has been cruel, she has deserted the company of the appellant/husband without any sufficient cause and is living in adultery, therefore, the appellanVhusband prayed for dissolution of marriage by a decree ofdivorce. The respondent/wife, in her written statement, denying the adverse averments made by the appellant/husband in his application, has submitted that she has always been ready and willing to live with the appellant/husband. The appellant/husband had himself dropped her in her parental home and filed th^ application for grant of decree of divorce on false and frivolous grounds and the same is liable to be dismissed. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the material available on record, including the impugned judgment and decree. ' i— fc ^' 05. The core question to be decided in this appeal is - whether the respondent/wife has treated the appellant/husband and his family members with cruelty, had without reasonable cause deserted the company of the appellant/husband and had committed adultery? 06. To substantiate the averments made in the application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, that the appellant/plaintiff, in addition to himself, has examined Gangaram and Balmati as PW-2 & PW-3 respectively. He has also filed certain documents in support of his case. The respondent/defendant in order to substantiate the averments made in her written statement, in addition to herself, had examined Nehru and Gopal as DW-2 & DW-3 respectively. In addition to oral evidence, the respondenVdefendant had also filed documents. 07. It is not in dispute that marriage between the parties was solemnized on 25.4.2005 at Village - Navghata as per Hindu rights and ceremonies and after that, the respondent/wife started residing at her matrimonial home at Village - Pusalda. It is also not in dispute that they are having two sons born out of their wedlock. As per statement of the appellant/husband, immediately after marriage, the respondent/wife expressed her desire that she wants to live separately and was not willing to live with the parents of the appellant/husband and on account of this, she used to raise disputes on petty mattes. The respondent/wife used to quarrel-with the parents of the appellant and address them in a derogatory manner and also threaten them as well as the appellant that in case her demand of separate living -is not acceded to, she will implicate " .them in a false case of demand of dowry, which compelled the'appellant to leai/e his parental home and shift to Urja .Nagar of Tamnar Power Plant, where he started working on salary basis. During this period, the appellant was residing in a rented house, first at Village - Salhabhanta, then at Village - Regaon and after that, at Village - Jheenkabahal. Because of the temperament of the respondent/wife as she used to •——IP-:i»aS s^i6Sp»!S^i!tiBnB»ffiatBsaai).»aii!'.EaKit-iB". wiSeKeeMiewMBm- !l • •eoueiiej p AqyoM }ou si )uiod siq) uo (e-AAd) !lELU|Eg ^o tU3LU3te)s sq} ''qons sy 'IUSLUS^S siq ui sjaqMAue Jissiujq pueqsnq/iuBiiedde 94) Aq paiejjeu useq )ou seq souapiou! ue qons 'J9A8MO|-| •Aeme Buiuum pue iue||adde eq} ;o esnoL) aij) ^o )no 6uiLuo3 uosjad uMou^un suo uass peq pue jsueui eq} inoqe sjinbue 0} esnoi) JSL) jo ino euieo (!)euj|eg) aqs qoiL|M uo 'asnoq eqi io joop eq} Buiuado )ou si ()uepuodsej) SJIM sii) ieq} (iteuiieg) je^ 0} psuieidiuoo peq sq 'seiinp sii) 0104 psujniej }UB||8dde 8L<) U94M Aep suo leyi uoi^euiuuexe-ssojo JSL^ p g-ejed uj p9}B)S J9L|lJnj SBL) SS8U)rM Slljl -SUOSJSd 8SOL|1 q)IM SUO!)B|ej tjoill! 6uiAB4 SBM tuapuodssj 34} leyi pajesdde )! ^OILJM 0104 '}ue||edde 941 p esnoq eq^ IISIA 0} pasn suosjgd UMou^un eiuos ')ue||edde eq) jo souesqe sq) ui ieq} paieis OS|B seq (e-Md) !lELU|eg ss3U}i/v\ 'SUOJIBISJ )i0!||! JQJ sj34)o ^o sesnoq 34) 0} 6uioB SBM sqs }eqi aoueje^u! 94} OuiMBJp SBM 94 'A|UO }eqi LUOJ^ pue pooqjnoqq6isu aq) uj OUIMI seipei SLUOS p sesnoL) 341 oi o6 0} pssn }ue||9dde aL|) j.o aoussqe sq} u! luspuodsej 9L|) )eqi 'g y g-sejed ui 'uoiteuiLuexs-ssojo siq ui psUiLupe sey LUBje6uB9 ss3U)iM siq} }nq 'Lueq} 4)iM SUO!}B|SJ }P!||1 6UIAB4 SBM 8l(S }BL|t jEsdde 01 pesn 11 'iuepuodsgj oq} p lonpuoo au^ 11104 pue auoie ||e SBM luapuodsej eq) uai)M iue||3dde eqi jo esnoL) 94} )!SIA 0} pssn suosjsd uMOu>|un auos 'iuB||9dde sij) p soussqe 94) ui leq} paieis seLI (Z-Md) uejeBueQ sseu^iM qBnoqiiv 'weo uo }uauja}e}s j04 ui se ||8M se }U3LU9)eis ueuuM jey ui ejiM/tuapuodsej 3L|) Aq peinjej uesq SABL) suo!ie63||B eseq) ||v •suo!)B|9j }!0i||! BuiAeq SGM }U9puods9J aL|) LuoqM L|)IM 'ssnoy SIL| )!SIA Q) pesn suosjad uMou>|un aiuos 'jeAoiduje siq }o doys 8L|} }e seitnp siif 6u!6je43S!p JO^ 06 0} p8Sn (}UB||8ddB) sq USLIM }eq} luiq LUJOJU! 0} pasn sjnoqqBisu SIL) pue 'puEqsnq/)ue||3dde eL|i BUILUJO^UI tno^flM 9LUOL) |B}U3Jed J9l| 01 06 pue esnoi) je^ 3Aea| 0} pesn (uapuodsej 94} leq} pa)e)s J3i|pn.( seq iue||9dde 9i;i •J3l))OUe O) 33B|d 9UO LUOJ^ yiqs 01 pey iue||9dde 9L|i )eq) 'sjnoqqBisu eq) se ||9M se pjo|pue| 94) 4)iM |ajjenb 60 •90 ^ .1-<«* ^ 10. Both the witnesses i.e. Gangaram (PW-2) and Balmati (PW- 3), have stated that when they used to enquire from the respondent about her promiscuous conduct, that she used to quarrel with them. It is but natural that if a false allegation of promiscuous conduct is leveled against a lady, then she will exhibit her annoyance and on the spur of the moment, will naturally start quarreling with the perSons leveling such false allegations. As such, the evidence adduced by the appellant/husband on the point of adulterous conduct of the respondent/wife is not worthy of reliance. 11. So far as treating the- appellant/husband and his family members with cruelty by the respondent/wife is concerned, the appellant/husband has himself stated that as the temperament of the respondent/wife and the appellant's parents were different, disputes were arising daily on account of their temperament, and therefore, he had shifted to a separate rented house and started working in a shop on salary basis at Tamnar Power Plant, Urja Nagar. From the statement of Gangaram (PW-2) and Balmati (PW-3), it is clear that when the neighbours used to level allegationsof adulterous conduct of the respondent/wife, she used to quarrel with them. The appellant/husband has been unsuccessful in proving the charges of adulterous conduct on the part of the respondent/wife on the basis of evidence adduced by him and even on the basis of preponderance of probabilities. As such, leveling of false charge of adulterous conduct on the part—&t-respondent/wifeitself amounts to cruelty of.the highest order and degree committed by the appellant/husband towards the respondent/wife. Thus, from the evidence available on record, the appellant has also been unsuccessful in proving that the respondenVwife has deserted him without any reasonable cause. As such, the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Family Court suffers from no illegality or infirmity warranting interference by this Court and deserves to be affirmed. 12. In the result, the appeal fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. The impugned judgment and decree dated 13.12.2010 passed by the Family Court, Raigarh in Civil Suit No.32-A/09 is hereby affirmed. 13. Additional Registrar (Judicial) is directed to draw up a decree ^ccprdingly. Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge 11