^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISQARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BBNCH CORAM: APPELLANT/ Non -appUcaut RESPONBNT/ AppUcant HON'BLE MR. T.P. SHARMA & HON'BLB MR. R. L. JHANWAR. JJ. FIRST APPEAL IMtNo. 89 OF 2009 VBRSUS Kuati Bai, W/o Vishnu Prasad Verma, Aged about 44 years, R/o By-Shri Ganesh Banchlior, ViUage Selud, TahsU-Patan, District Durg (C.G.). Vishnu Prasad Verma, S/o Tukaram Verma, Aged about 48 years, R/o ViSsvge -Chetua, P.S. Kuinhari, District Durg (C.G.). FIRST APPEAL UNDER SECTION 19 (11 OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT. 1984. Present:- Shri Am.an Kesharwaai,Advocate for fhe appeUant. Shri R.S. Baghel, Advocate for the respondent. ORAL-JUDGEMBNT (Passed on 03/08/2010} The following iudement of the Court was passed bv T.P. Sharina. J:- 1. • Challenge in this appeal is to thejudgment and decree dated 30/9/08 passed by Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court Durg in Civil Suit No. 51-A/2007 whereby leamed Second Additional Principal Judge, Fatnily Court has passed the decree for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce. 2, Decree is impugried on the ground that without any evidence of alleged Sexual intercourse by appellant with one Vishnu Yadav after solemnization of the marriage, Court below has decreed the suit and thereby committed an illegality. ^ ^••E*^;;^ -.-^•- ^•>^ s ~2^ n/ r\ -v"f 3. As per pleading of the parties. parties are Hindu legally wedded spouse. Marriage solemnized in the year 1978. In the year 1988 as per allegation of the respondent present appellant was living in a adulterous life and was having sexual relation with one Vishnu Yadav. Meeting were called where she admitted the relation thereafter she is residing separately, on the aforesaid grounds petition for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce was filed by the respondent. Present appellant has denied the allegation made in the complaint and specifically alleged that she was not having any sexual relation with Vishnu Yadav. 4. After affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties, leamed Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg has decreed the suit for dissolution of mamage by a decree of divorce filed under Section 13 (1) (i). of the Hindu Marriage Acf, 1955. 5. Leamed counsel for the parties are heard. 6. Judgment and decree impugned perused. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that present respondent has claimed the decree for dissolution of marriage on the ground of sexual intercourse of appellant with other person after soleinnization of the marriage therefore heavy burden to proof such fact was on the respondent but respondent has not proved such facts. 8. On the other hand, leamed counsel for the respondent opposed the appeal and submits that evidence adduced on behalf of the respondent specially document Ex. P-2 are sufficient for proving such facts in issue. 9. In order to appreciate the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, we have examined the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution. In the present case document Ex, P-2 and the evidence relating to Ex. P-2 is a substantive evidence for proving or disproving R .,":1-'-"~^ v'^ k-«S^ "^' ^ <y] ^' the issue relating to voluntarily sexual intercourse by appellant with another person after solemnization of the marriage between the parties. Ex. P-2 reveals that it is document written in the meeting respondent and their witnesses have specifically deposed that present appellant has admitted the UUcit relation and sexual intercourse with one Vishnu Yadav in the meeting. In detail cross examination present appellant has admitted her signature on Ex. P-2 relating to her illicit relation with Vishnu Yadav but she has deposed that she was not having any relation with Vishnu Yadav and member of the meeting had forcefully taken her signature but further she has admitted that she is residing separately since that day. Her witness Keju Ram Verma, has admitted the proceeding of meeting and also admitted decision taken in meeting was against the present appellant. 10. Another witness, brother of the appellant has also admitted the proceeding of meeting and his signature on Ex. P-2 although he has explained that was exparte decision by meeting but they have not made any complaint. Ex. P-2 was prepared on 24/4/90, present application for dissolution of marriage has been filed by respondent in the year 2004 after 14 years of the incident. As per evidence of the appellant since 1990 i.e. date of said meeting she is residing separately from her husband. These evidence are sufficient for drawing an inference that present appellant had voluntarily sexual intercourse with one Vishnu Yadav other than her spouse i.e. respondent after solemnization of the marriage between the parties, which is a ground for divorce under Section 13 (1) (i) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 11. After appreciating the evidence available on record leamed Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg has decreed the petition. 6. +1 ,,;ssaaa '< ^ 0/ ^l ,1."y 12. On close scrutiny of the evidence, we do not find any illegality in the judgment and decree impugned. Consequently, appeal is devoid of merits and same is Uable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 13. No order as to costs. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge :^