HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR First Appeal (M) No.43 of 2008 APPELLANT/: (Plaintiff) Smt. Radhika Bai W/o Ramshankar Dansena, aged about 22 years, R/o Village Belpali, at present R/o Village Kalmi, Tahsil & Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) Versus Ramshankar Dansena S/o Pattan Dansena, aged about 26 years, R/o Belpali, Tahsil Kharsia, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) {Appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 read with Section 19 (2) of the Family Courts Act, 1984} RESPONDENT: Present: Mr. Amit Sharma, counsel for the appellant. None present for the respondent. Division Bench: - Hon'ble Mr. T.P. Sharma & Hon'ble Mr. R.L. Jhanwar. JJ ORAL JUDGMENT (4-12-2009) 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment & decree dated 6-2-2008 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Raigarh (for short 'the Family Court') in Civil Suit No.23A/2005, whereby the Family Court has dismissed the petition filed by the appellant herein for dissolutionof marriage by a decree of divorce. 2. Judgment & decree are impugned on the ground that the Family Court has not considered the proved case of cruelty sufficient for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce. 3. As per the pleadings of the parties, the parties are Hindu legally wedded spouses, their marriage was solemnized on 30-5-2001 and after marriage they were living together, but after some time, the respondent started cruelty & torture upon the appellant in connection with demand of ^ ^ '..- dowry and the respondent used to beat the appellant. On 12-10-2002 the respondent & his parents decided to kill the appellant and in furtherance of their decision, they collected kerosene oil and attempted to pour it upon the appellant and set her ablaze, but the appellant shouted for help on which persons of the vicinity came and saved her. The respondent & his parents continued torture & cruelty upon the appellant. The appellant lodged the report on 25-11-2002. The respondent is facing criminal trial punishable under Section 498A of the I.P.C. before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raigarh, in Criminal .case No.424/2003. On the basis of the aforesaid cruelty, the appellant has filed petition for dissolution of marriage by a decreeof divorce. 4. The respondent has denied the allegation and specificaliy alleged that they have never committed torture or cruelty upon the appeilant and they have never demanded dowry, but the appellant has falsely lodged report and has falsely implicated him in the criminal case. 5. On the basis of the averments, the Family Court has framed issues and after affording opportunity of hearing to t'he parties, dismissed the petition for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant, perus6d the judgment & decree impugned and record of the Family Court. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that this is a proved case of cruelty and the appellant has specifically and categorically deposed the factum of cruelty. The respondent along with his parents has decided to kill her, they collected kerosene oil, tried to pour it on her and attempted to set her ablaze on which she shouted for hetp whereupon persons of the vicinity came and saved her. Narsingh , .,^^&^^^ .rc^'- g '•^^^^^^1 ^, \^^f T Lal (PW-2), Gangadhar Patel (PW-3) & Tejram Dansena (PW-4) - father of theappellant have corroborated the statement ofthe appellant. 8. The allegation has been denied by the respondent. Statement of the respondent has been supported by Paltan Singh (DW-2) - father of the respondent, Mohan Lal Dansena (DW-3), Mithailal (DW-4) & Bhujbal Yadav (DW-5). 9. Factum of cruelty, preparation for killing the appellant, collection of kerosene oil, attempt to pour kerosene oilon the appellant and attempt to set the appellant ablaze are substantially raised. These facts have been pleaded by the appellant in her petition. The appellant has deposed these facts in para 3 of her evidence, but Gangadhar Patel (PW-3) - former Sarpanch ofVillage Kalmi, has deposed in para 1 of his evidence on affidavit that the appellant informed him that the respondent and his parents were planning to set her ablaze. Both the facts are self- contradictory. 10-Father of the appellant Tejram Dansena (PW-4) has admitted in para 9 of his evidence that after six months of'the marriage of his daughter he gave motorcycle to the respondent. Per contra, the appellant has deposed in para 12 of her evidence that at the time of marriage they gave Suzuki motorcycle to the respondent. 11.Evidence adduced on behalf of the appellant are self-contradictory, at one place of her evidence the appellant had gone beyond her pleadings. The respondent has denied the allegations and adduced evidence that he has never committed torture & cruelty upon the appellant and the appellant herself has lodged report against him. 12.0n close scrutiny of the evidence, it reveals that the appellant without any reasonable and proper cause has filed the petition for dissolution of Bi^oina marriage by a decree of divorce. The factum of cruelty committed by the respondent is not proved. After appreciating the evidence, the Family Court has dismissed the petition for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce. 13.0n due consideration, we do not find any substance in the appeal, same is liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. 14.Decree be drawn up accordingly. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge