^ mwcQUsr OF CHHATTIS' F!'PS+ ABpea! (W) Ho.25 of 2007 s Mon'blertr.T.P. S Hon'b!e.V.r.R.L., 7-T :w v<S A.ggollgnt Laluram Sahu, S/o Lats Shri Budhuram Sahu, Aged about 52 years, R/o Contrcsctor Coiony. Near Supeia Sahu Pan Bhandar, Tehsii cma District Durq (C.6.} ReseondeRt (FTRST .4PPEAL U Smt.Champibai, V//o Shri Lsiurarn Sahu, Aged abotit 45 years, R/o Viiiage Karamtara, Post Karamtara, Thana 'i-aibogh, Kajriwidgaon, Tehsil Dorigargaon; Dsstrict Rajnandgaon (C.6.) ER SECTION 19 OF THE FA.AAILY COURTS ACT 1984) Present : rtrs.Fouzia AMrza, counse! for the appeliant Mr'.Abhishskh Sharma. counsel for the resi (Passed on 10" November. 2009) ^ Thejud3mer!+ of the Court was deli'/ered byT.P.SHar'mfl, J.:- 1. TTiis flrst-,appeal under" Section 19 of the Family Courts .Act, 1984 (in short lt+ie Act, 1.984') is directed "gainst the judgmentaid decree • dated 20.2.2007 passed by the Third Add'tiona! Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, in Ciyi! Su!t No.57A/2005 whereby 'S whereby learned Third .Additional Principa! Judge has dtemissed •tfie suit for disso!utio" of marriage by decree of divor-ce filed on behalf of the appel'ant. . ^ ->, e 2. Judgment & decree ar-e chaHenged on the ground thdt tha Court below^has not considered the eyidence relating to cruelty sufficient foi* dissolution of fMrr'wge by decree of divorce and thereby committed !!!egality. 3. Brief facts leading to filing of this cypeal as per pleading of the parties are tha+ the appeilant and •Wie respondent are legally wedded spouse. Ths respondent is suffering from epilepsy. Fraud has been cowrnitted by the parents of the respondent at Ihe time of ncarriage. The appe!lcint hasremarried with Smt. Kunti Bai- Separate residence and maintenmce has been awarded to the respondent. The respondent is in habit of quQrrelmg and misbehaying witti the nppeilant.On the 9round of cruelt/, suit for dissolutson of morriage by decree of diyorce has been filed. AHegation of the plaint has been denied by the respondent and pleaded that she has never committed to'-hjre and cr-ueity upon the appellant, on the o+her hand, the appeliant has remarried with Smt.Kunti Bai. 4. On the basis of aver-ments made by the parties, issues were framed and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties, the suit was disrp.issed by the Third Additiono! Pr'mcspa! Judge, Family Court, t)urg. ./' 5. We have heard learned counse! for the partieS ana--pB-FQSSa ttie judgmentand decree impugned crid record of1+ie Fam'iy Court. 6. Lea''ned counsel for the appe'lanf.. submits that daughter of the appellant namely, Sonbati has deposed against the respondeot thnt she used to commit cruelty upon her father, but the Court below has not considered ths evidence of Sonbati who is natura! witness and daughter of •Hie appeHantcind the respondent. B/- 7- On the other' hand, 'earned counsel for the respondent opposes ttie petition and submits that doughtsr has not stated anythin9 ngainst her mother r^lating to crue!ty. 8. In order to cppreciate the contentions of the parties, we haye exanninsd the eyidence adduced on beha'f of the parties. The cppe!!a"t ond the respondent haye made counter al!ega+i"ns against each other, but Sonbati is independent cnd natura! u'itness. She has deposed i" her affidayit that the s-espondent used to commit cruel+y upon the appel'ent. In hec cr'oss-examination, she has specifically deposed that she was residing with her stepifother' Smt.Kunti Bai and father since the nge of 5 years c>nd presentty she is residing in her r"atrimonial house. She has specificaliy deposed th.at since the age of 5 years she was residing with the oppellarit and stepmother Smt.Kunti Bai and presently her- age is 25 years. She has clso deposed thttt Smt.Kunti Bai has never committed torture cmd cruelty upon her father. Except the evidence of Sonbatl, the appellant has not adduced any eyidence. 9. After appr'eciating the evidence ayailabls on record, the Third .Additiona! Pnncipa! Judge, Family Court. Durg hcs dismissed the suit for dissolution of marriage by decree of diyorce. ). Taking lnto consideration the fiacts and circunnstances pf •rti^egse, we are of the considered view that the Third .Additional Pr'inclpa! Judge, Family Court, Durg has not committed any illega!ity in dismissing the suit for dissolution of marriage by (fecr'ee of diyorce. We do notfind wvy T'erit in this appea!. The appea! is liab!e to bs dismissed and it is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Decree be drawn up accordingly. Sd/- T.P.Sharma Judge Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar