IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) First Appeal (M) No. VS of 201 1 'Jl'v APPELLANT/ applicant • ^ . -<^^fc ^^\\ ^S5€.^- -^^ RESPONDENT/ Non-applicant ,^-" .-•""^ Smt. Ram Bai, W/o Rajesh Kumar Banjare, aged about 28 years, at present R/o through father Mehatru Kurre, Caste-Satnami, Raichal, Purani Basti, Kohaka, P.0. Kohaka, Tahsil & District-Durg (C.G.) VERSUS Rajesh Kumar Banjare, S/o Nohardas Banjare, aged about 40 years, Caste-Satnami, R/o Satnami Para, Nandai, Ward No. 35, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) FIRST APPEAL U/S 19 OF THE FAIVIILY CWJRT ACT READWITH SECTION 28 OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR F. A. (M) No. 15 of20 U Appellant . Smt. Ram Bai Versus Respondent Rajesh Kumar Banjare A_PPEAI^UND£R SECTION_J_9 [1}_QF THE_FAMILY COURTS ACT,1984 READ WITH SECTIQN 28 QF THE_IIINDU_MARRIAGE ACT DB: Hon'ble Shri I. M. Quddusi 8s Hon'ble Shri G. Minhajuddin, JJ Shri Gautam Khetrapal, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondent. JUDGMENT SB ORDER ( passed on this 12U1 day ofOctober, 2011 ) Per I. M. Quddusi, J. The instant appeal has been filed by the plaintiff/wife against the impugned judgment and decree dated 21.12.2010 passed by the Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg in Civil Suit No. 16-A/09 (Smt. Rambai Vs. Rajesh Kumar Banjare), dismissing the petition for divorce under Section 13 (l)(ia) ofthe Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The brief facts of the case are that on 22.7.2008 the plaintiff/wife filed a suit which was registered as Civil Suit No. 16-A/09 for granting a decree of divorce against the defendant/husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955'. Their marriage was solemnized on 8.5.1996. The plaintiff made various allegations in the plaint in regard to cruelty and submitted, inter alia, that the respondent/husband is a daily and heavy drinker. He spent his whole salary amount on himself and for managing the family affairs the plalntiff/wife had to take financial help froni her father. Qn the contrary, the respondent/husband denied the plaint allegations and submitted that he is in service and working as Home Guard. The duty timing is such as day, night or even in odd hours as per the requirement. He also submitted that the plaintiff has not been able to prove the plaint allegations. The family Court has given the findings that the plaintiff/wife has been miserably failed to prove the plaint allegations and to establish cruelty on the part of the respondent/husband. Thus, learned Family Court has dismissed the suit. We have also perused the lower Court's record and found that there was no corroborative evidence in support of the statement of the appellant to substantiate her statement. On the basis of mere allegation a decree of divorce cannot be granted. We have not seen any illegality, infirmity or error of law in giving the findings by the learned Family Court. The appellant is not entitled to a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty. The instant appeal has no force and therefore it is dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- l.^A.Quddusi ]udge Sd;- , (,.Minbaiuddln Judge Thakur