V HIGHCOURT^OFCHHATTISGARHATSILASPUR DIVISIONBENGH CORAM: APPELLANT »' RESPONl3®NT HON'BLE MR. T.P. SHARMA St HON'BLEMR.R.L.JHANWAR.JJ. F.A.M.No. 64/2009 VERSUS Maruti Sharan Gupta, agedabout 36 years, son of Shri Shivram Prasad Gupta, occupation- Computer Qperator, R/o In froht ^of Bunkar Sangh, Chirhuldeeh, Shaheed Churarriani Ward, Raipur(C<^. Sn-it. Durga Gupta wife pf Shri Maryti Sharan Gupta, D/Q Shri Seyak Ram Gupta, aged about 31 years, occupation -House wife, R/o Vill Chatauna, Post Hirri, P.S. Hirri, Disft. Bilaspur (CG). MEMO OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 19 OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT. Present:- Ms. Morisha Chhatri, Advocate for the appellant^ None for the respondent. . t: t QRAL-JUDGEMENT (Passedbn 06/07/2010) The following iudgment of the Court was passed bv T.P.Sharma.J:- - 1. - Challenge in this appeal is to the judgraent and decreei dated 1/4/2009 passed by Fu-st Addifronal Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur in Civil Suit No. 42- A/2009 wherebydecreie forjudiGial separation hasbeen '•\-. "•-s,1 R y'f •X 1s1. granted in favour of the appellant in the suit for^ dissolution of Diarn.age by a decree of divorce. 2. Decree is challenged on'the ground fliat Coiirt below has hot considered the ground for clairmng the divorce and by awarding the altemative relief, Court belbw has committed illegality. 3. Brief facts as per claiin of the parties. Parties are Hindu legatly wedded spouse. M 25/liy97. The laehayior of respohdent was nof cordial with appellant since tHe time^ marriage and she used tb conimit cruelly and t^ the wedlock. Respondent was residing separafely in her maternal house since 17/7/01 andsheusedto misbehave with the appellant. Gn the aforesaid basis application fcir dissoluliori of rnarriage by a decree 6f divorce was filed t>y the appellant in wl-iieh respondent has not contested the Glaim and case has been decided exparte. In exparte proceeding appellant; has addyced his evidence in affidavit. After appreciatu'ig fhe evidence Couri below has grajafed the alterna.te relief ofjudicial| separation in stead ofgranting decree of divoree. | 4. Ms. Morisha Chhatri, Advoeate fbr the appellant are; heard.. : ,:, ^ ,,.. :;' • ' : ; :::' '-.•:; \ 5. Judginent and deeree impugned 'and record of the -Caurt below perysed. ^ ^^ ^^ iisi-i. •c- ^><" -ft :-'vi>. 6. Leamed ^eounsel^^ tBe 'appellant subniits that appeUant has adducey sufGcient evidence^^^fc decree of (livorce but learhed Gourt below Has not considered ftie evidence speoially the eyidence pf the aTppeOsint. '-•: '''.". ::.:: .. '•• •• l.i.' 7. In prder t6 appreciate the argument advanced pn behalf of the appeUaM, we haye exaniined the .evidenee of appGllarLt. AppeUant has made .serioi-fs ^ altegation .i^relatingtotorturea^ :illiB3tti'i^ation^^fh:vfltlaer<,perso^ 'IIT Para-15 of his eyideirce apgell^^ jKas^^^ thaf on L7/5/08 & 21/5/Q8 she was fbund in one Hotel with pther persori^But rea^ons test kriow he has riQt exainlneti the owner or employer ofthe Hotel or has hot lodged the report irnrnediately .againsf that ^erson with wlwm she was found in :Hotel/' .: :' -.^ ••,. ••;., ."^ : f •• • ,^'-: •.^ 8. After appreciating the evi^enee available Qn 'record learried F^st Additiohal Prineipal Judge, Fa^ has granted alternateKreliefa\^able^underthela^ judiGial sepaj'ation. Qn minuie F>erusal ofthe^reeprd,^ dp not findany ill^gality in grantirig altgrnate re^ ' Ahe appeU^t in steaxl .pf granting^ o^ • ^ We'' d^ y, ^' Consequently, this a^peal is liable tp be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. ; 9. DecreebedrawnupaGcordingly. , 10. No order as to costs. SdA R.L. Jhaiiwar Judge Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge /., Y i