IMsfes &Beii1 b BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COUR OF CHHAHISGARH AT BILASPUR fC.G.; FIRSTAPPEALNO. &9 1007 /^ APPELLANT NON-APPLICANT RESPONDENT APPLICANT Srrit. Sangita Gupta, wife of Shri Sudeep Gupta, aged about 36 years, C/o. Sohanlal, Titbilasi R/o. Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar (C.G.) VERSUS Sudeep Gupfa, Son of Late Shri Durga Prasad Gupta, aged about 39 years, occupation - Business, R/o. Chameli Chowk, Dhamtari, Tahsil and District Dhamtari (C.G.) •^ \9(\j a^Wu^lcffS^ <-<- 5TSt ^> • FIRST APPEAL UNDER SECTION 38-QM+tE-HtNBtH9bWRiAeE ACT ^S^ts<^ •-..;.'rf'?:::?^*. "*ii^ ^ s HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH: HON'BLE^HRI T^P. SHARMA & HON'BLE SHR! R.L. JHANWAR, JJ. APPJBAL (MUro. 69/2007 APPELLANT Non appticaat Smt. Sangita Gupta, wife of Shri Sudeep Gupta, ^ed about 36 years, C/o Sohanlal, Titbilasi R/o Jagdalpur, District Bastar (CG) Versus RESPONDENT Sudeep Gupta, son of late Shri Durga AppUcaat Prasad Gupta, ^ed about 39 years, Occupation Busiaess, R/o ChaiaeU. Chowk, Dhamtari, Tahsil aad Distnct Dhamtari (CG) Appeal under Sectionl9 (11 ofthe FamilT Courts Act Present: Shri Subhash Yadav, couasel for the appeUant. Shri Adil Mmjah, counsel for the lespoudeut. OKAL - JUDGMENT (Passed ou 27th July, 2010) The foUowiug judgnient of fhe Court.was passed by T. P. Sharma, J. 1. By this petition, petitioner has challenged the legaMty aad propriety ofthe judgment aad decree dated 28.7.2007, passed by fhe l!it Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur Camp DhaDitari in Civil Suit No. 142-A/2005, wbereby aad whereunder, fhe leamed Judge of fhe Family Court has decreed the suit for r ••<•^w-?:.,'%. 9 •A^ '^'.w.^'-' ^' v dissolution of marriage between the parties on fhe ground of cruelty. 2. The judgruent aad decree is challenged on fhe ground fhat wifhout any proof of cruelty by the appellaat hereia, Court below has decreed the suit and fhereby conimitted illegaUty. 3. Brieffacts necessary for disposal offhis appeal are that as per pleadmgs of the parties, both the pardes have niade aUegations of cruelty again.st eacb other. But, by ataending fhe written stateinent, present appeUaat has niade speci&c aUegations agauist the respondent ftiat the respondent is aa impotent person and is not able to discharge his niantal obl^ations, fherefore she herself is ready to divorce the respondent on ttie ground of mipotency. 4. After affordiag opportuaily of hearing to the parties, leamed Additional Principal Judge, Fanuly Court has decreed the suit for dissolution of inarriage on fhe ground of unpotency of fhe respondent. 5. We have heard Shri Subhash Yadav, learaed counsel for the appeUant and Sbri Adil Minhaj, learaed counsel for fhe respondent, perused fhe impugned judgment aad decree. 6. Learued counsel for fhe appeUaat submits .that^althottgh fhe appeUant has made specific aUegations relating to impotency of fhe respondent aad she herself has claimed divorce, but it is not sufScient to construe physicgl or iiiental cruelty. 7. On the other haud, leamed counsel for fhe respondent opposed the petitlon aud subinits that the aUegations laade iu 'tr.:^6». •"!!»..T--.<tf' ^' 4/ para 22 of fhe written stateinent by the appellant herself are sufficient for dissolution ofinarriage by a decree ofdivorce. 8. In order to appreciate the arguinents advaaced on behalfof the parties, we have exaniiued fhe m.aterial available on record. 9. In the present case, respondent has inade several allegations relating to behaviour axid iUicit relations of fhe appellant with other persons. The appeUant has denied the aforesaid atlegations aad has aUeged in her pleadings that the respondent is an irupotent person and is unable to discharge his iiiarital obUgations. Bofh the parties have pleaded facts agauist each ofher relating to serious raental cruelty. Pleadiags of bofh fhe parties are sufficient for dissolution of inarriage between fheia by a decree of divorce. 10. Considering fhe facts aad circuinstaaces of tbe case, we are not iacluied to interfere in. fhe impugned judgment and decree aad finally, dissolving the inarriage between the parties by a decree ofdivorce. 11. Consequently, the appeal is liable to be aud is hereby dismissed. 12. No order as to costs. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge R-L. Jhanwar Judge 1