HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Wvision Bench Hon’bie Shn Dhlrendra Mighra apd Hon’bie sari Dllap Raosaheb $eshmukh JJ First Apnea] (M ) No 12 of 2007 , Appellant Applicant * Praywal Bananee. Sic Shri P K Banerjee, aged about 34 ' years. reswienf of Anupam Nagar Distnct Ralpur (C G) ‘ ' ‘ ’ VerSUS Respondent Anamlka Baneqee W/o Prauwd Non-Applicant > Banerjee, aged about 34 years,‘ resment of Anupam Nagar' wesent address — Madhu Pine ‘ Chswk Sharm Nagalr Distnct‘ \ Raipur (CG) Appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act Present: ’ Smt. Hamida Siddiqui, counse! for the appeiiant. Shri C.R.Sahu, counset for the respondent. t JUDGMENT fiDelivered an this IE uday of Novembet, 20.08) fhe followmg Judqment was delivered by D1lIp Raosaheb" Deshmukh J Aggrieved by the judgment dated 5~§~2007 passed by the llnd Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur (henceforth ‘the Family E Court') in Case No.70—A12007, whereby the petition under section , 13(1)(ia) and (lb) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (henceforth 'the Act’) for grant of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion by the respondent was dismissed, the appellantihusband has preferred this appeal. (2) Admittedly, marriage was solemnizedbetween the appellant and the respondent on 26-1 1—1 995 as per Hindu religious rites. A son was born in the year 2000 who lives with the respondent. r (3) Divorce was sought by the appenant mteralia on e ground that .n we respondent had treated him wuth cruelty by !evellmg false, .allegatlons against the appeliant that he had Illicit reiatlons wirh another , lady. (4), In reply, the respondent had averred that the appellant had informed the respondent that .he had married one Samina Khan and a wanted to seek divorce from the respondent. (5) The appellant examined himself, Dipendranath Mukherjee, A.W.- t 2 and Shyamal Banerjee, A.W.-3. The respondent examined hersetf, her mother Latika Mukherjee and Smt. Anurupa Bhargava. (3) recorded a finding that the appellant had illicit relation with another lady and had by his own conduct created a situation where he was reasonably expected to face the consequences. On these premises, the Famity Court held that the appellant had failed to prove that the respondent had deserted him or treated him with cruelty. Consequently, the petition for divorce was dismissed. The Family Court on appreciation of evidence led by the parties (7) The sole ground urged by Smt. Hamida Siddiqui, learned counsel for the appeilant in this appeal is that the respondent had failed to discharge the burden of proving that the appellant had illicit relations with one Samina Khan. On this premise, it was urged that leveliing of a false allegation by the respondent against the appellant amounts to cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act. 5w: w .uw. ~vt (8) ‘ On the other hand, Shri C.R.Sahu, ieamed counsel for the respondent argued in support of the impugned judgment. {9) Having considered the rival submissions, we have perused the r record. Anamika Banerjee, the respondent had testified on oath that the appetiant had told him about his ilticit relationship with Samina i Khan. in paragraph 7, she reiterated that the appellant had ciearly expressed to seek divorce from her on the ground that he could not desist from his reiationship with Samina Khan. She further stated in paragraph 8 that her family members had also spoken to the father of the appellant in her presence in this regard. ln paragraph 10, she further stated that Samina Khan had toid her that she could not leave the appellant. Smt. Latika Mukherjee, mother of the respondent,- N.A.W.-2 has also supported the testimony of the respondent. No question has been asked in her cross-examination to rebut the factum of illicit relationship of the appellant with Samina Khan. A perusal of paragraphs 17, 18 and 19 of the testimony of the appellant further goes to show that the appellant had given evasive repiies regarding his relationship with Samina Khan. Dipendranath Mukherjee, A.W.-2, witness for the appellant had also admitted that the respondent had iodged a report in the police station regarding illicit relationship of the appellant with some girl. A strong preponderance of possibility thus exists in favour of the respondent. ln this View of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the appellant had failed to prove that the respondent had treated him with cruelty. The Family Court was justified in observing that the applicant had, by his own conduct, created a situation where he was expected to face the consequences. @ a (1:0) in this view of the matter, the Famity Court had rightly rejected the petition for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Act. J There is no merit in this appeai, which is accordingty dismissed. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge . i Sdl— Dillp Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge