31% mvisizm 3am ("7 IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARHAT BILASPUR Q FirstAppeal (M) No. (Q /2007 Smt. Paras Dewangan, W/o.- Chandrakishor Dewangan Age about 28 years, R/o- Basantpur, Rajnandgaon Tehsil and District Rajnandgaon(C.G.) APPELLANT (Non-ApQIicant) VERSUS Dewangan, Dewangan, ‘ Aged about 31 years, R/o— .Mamta Nagar, Rajnandgaon, Tehsil and District Rajnandgaon (C.G-.) W__-:;.,-._,---- (Appticant) U )‘ FIRST APPEAL UNDER SECTION 19 (4% OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT RESPONDENT :- Chandrakishore S/o.—Ramadhin d / I HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT EBILASPUR DIVISION BENCH: HON’BLE HON’BLE MR. MR. I.M.QUDDUSI G. MINHAJUDDIN, & JJ. “3& First Appe¢m No. 83 of 2007 Appenant Smt. Paras Dewangan Vs Chandrakishore Dewangan Respondent Judqment For Consideration K / \ // JUDGE 23.8.2011 HON’BLE SHRI LM. QUDDUSI, J § we? Post For Judgment On 2'7 August, 2011 ’/ sdl— JUUGE ’ 25 .8.2o11 ’ " ’ IGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DlVISlON BENCH: HON‘BLE MR. |.M.QUDDUSI & / HON’BLE MR. G. MlNHAJUDDlN, JJ. H’I/ First Aggeal (M) No. 83 of 2007 Smt. Paras Dewangan AQQeHant Vs Chandrakishore Dewangan Resgondent Present: Mr. Anoop Majumdar, counsel for the appellant. Mr. Vishnu Koshta, counsel for respondent. JUDGMENT (Delivered on 21'872011) Per G. Minha'1uddin, J Act, 1984 a‘galnst the ludgment and’decree dated 30‘“ November, 2007 passed by Judge, Family ‘Court, Rajnandgaon in Civil Suit No.30A/07, decreeing the suit of‘the respondent/husband for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce on the ground of ’ cruelty under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 2. The undisputed facts of the case are that marriage between the parties was solemnized according to Hindu rites on 25“? April, 1999 at Basantpur, Rajnandgaon and out of the wedlock, a female child namely Khileshwari was born on 3.3.2000. lt is also not in dispute that prior to the marriage, the respondent/husband was in the a? employment of Nagar Panchayat, Dongargarh as a clerk and the appellant/wife is employed as a Shikshakarmi at Village : Katulwari, Tehsil-Dongargarh, Distt. Rajnandgaon. A‘report has been lodged by the appellant/wife againstfthe respondent/husband and his family members in the police station with regard tot harassment in connection with demand of dowry. on the basis of which, after completion of investigation, charge sheet for the offence punishable 1. This appeal has been filed under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts ‘ under Section 498A of the lndian Penal Code was flied before the Court and a criminal case is pending against them. However, rest of the facts are disputed. . Brief facts of the case are that marriage of the appeiiant/Wife with the respondent/husband was soiemnized on 25th April, 1999 as per Hindu rites at Basantpur, Rajnandgaon and the appeiiant started residing with the respondent since 28th April, 1999 after gouna. However, since June, 1999 the appellant/wife refused to iive with the family members of the respondent/husband and staited exerting pressure on him to live separately at another place. Consequently, the respondent/husband took a house on rent at Dongargarh and started residing there with the appellant/wife separately, away from his family members. While living in the 'joint family, the appellant/wife used to maltreat the elders of the respondent/husband and did nottake interest in household chores. When mother of the respondent/husband went to Dongargarh on 16.12.1999 to give her some domestic articles, the appellant/wife on arrival of her mother-in-law returned to her maternal home on the next day. On 19.2.2000 she was sent to her maternal home for first delivery, where she resided till June, 2000 and returned back to Dongargarh in July, 2000 with her female child born on 3.3.2000. Since the appellant/wife is also in service, therefore, on 2.8.2000 the respondent/husband brought his mother at Dongargarh for taking care of the infant. However, being aggrieved by this act of the respondent/husband, the appellant/wife along with her child left for her maternal home on 3.8.2000 without informing anyone. ln September, 2000 the appellant/wife asked the respondent/husband at Dongargarh that either he should stay at her maternal home or at her working place i.e. Village : Katulwahi. On 17.11.2000, she also refused to accompany the respondent/husband to go to see his ailing maternal grand-mother and returned to her maternal home on 18.1 1 .2000, and since then she did not come back to the respondent/husband. . On 23.11.2000 the respondent/husband and others went to take her back, but she did not come. On 24.1 1 .2000, the appellant/wife along with her father and others went to Dongargarh and came back with her- articles. On that date, the appellant/wife and her father had threatened the respondent/husband that they would send him jail and get him terminated from service. 5. On 12.5.2001, the respondent/husband convened a social meeting, where the appellant/wife submitted in writing, that if the respondent/husband resides separately from his family members, only ‘then she will live with him. The respondentjhusband also tried to sort out the matter-through reconciliation proceedings at Women Cell, Family Welfare Center, but the same failed as the appellant/wife was not wiling to live with the respondent/husband and did not want any consultation in this regard. Thisvwas given in writing by the appellant/wife at the Women Cell, Family Welfare Center. , 6. Ultimately, the respondent/husband filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty on 19.9.2001. During the pendency of above divorce petition, the appellant/wife, as an afterthought, lodged a report on 5.11.2001 against the respondent/husband and his family members i.e. mother, sister, maternal grand-father, maternal grand- mother of the respondent, whereupon Cr.No.68/01 for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC was registered against I them and they were arrested. However, subsequently, they were released on’ bail. 7. The appellant/wife has denied the aforesaid allegations and stated that she is an educated working class woman. The respondent/husband was well aware of this fact that she is in service, but they wanted her to do the household chores only. They also used to harass and torture her for dowry. Despite being in service, the appellant/wife never refused to do the domestic works, nor misbehaved with the elders of the respondent/husband family. Since the respondent/husband himself felt that the behaviour of his family members is not proper towards the appellant/wife, therefore, he decided to live separately at Dongargarh with his wife. She has denied the allegation that she left Dongargarh without informing anyone on the next day when her mother-in-law came to Dongargarh on 16.12.1999 and stated that due to the nature of duties she was discharging, it was not possible for her to frequently visit Dongargarh and she was to stay at Katulwahi at night. She never threatened the respondent/husband that she would send him L/W‘: jail, on the contrary, the respondent/husband uged to beat her. OnD 9 12.5.2001, she had consented for living separately in writing because since after marriage, the family members of the respondent/husband were creating problems, and she has every right to live with her husband. She has further explained that she could not appear before the Women Cell because at that time the decision of their society was pending. 8. The appellant/wife has also contended that she had already lodged a report regarding harassmentfor dowry in May, 2001, but the police did not take any action thereon for six months and therefore, it is incorrect to say that she lodged a false report after filing of divorce petition by the respondent/husband. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the Lower Court Record (LCR) as also the impugned judgment and decree. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant/wife has contended that there is not even an iota of evidence on record to prove that at any point of time, there had been cruelty on the part of the appellant/wife towards the respondent/husband and his family members, and the decree of divorce granted by the learned Family Court is not sustainable in law. 11.0n the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent/husband has submitted that on the basis of evidence adduced by the parties and especially, the admissions made by the appellant/wife, it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant’s conduct toward her husband/respondent and his family members had been cruel and of the highest order andvdecree, and as such, cruelty on her part towards her husband/respondent and his family members stands proved beyond any doubt. Therefore, the decree of divorce granted by the learned Family Court is well founded, which deserves to be affirmed. 12.Learned counsel for the parties have also submitted their written submission. KM 13.Now the question, which needs to be deCided in this appeal is — whether the respondent/husband has been abie to prove that there had been crueity on the part of the appellant/wife toward the respondent/husband and his famiiy members, and if so, whether the decree impugned is sustainable in Iaw? 14.From the evidence adduced by the parties and especiaiiy the admissions made by the appellant/wife Smt. Paras Dewangan (DW— 1), it is clear that after soiemnization of marriage on 25.4.1999, she had resided with the famiiy members of the respondent/husband only for a couple of months, after which she started creating problems and pressurizing her husband to reside separately at another place away from his family members. This is not in dispute that even from prior to the marriage, the respondent/husband is residing in the house of his maternal grand—father and maternal grand—mother along with 'his widow mother Kamla Bai and unmarried sister Gayatri, both of them are dependents Upon the respondent/husband. ' 15.0n the constant demand ‘of the appellant/wife that the respondent/husband took a house on rent at Dongargarh and shifted there with his wife to live separately as the respondent/husband was posted at Dongargarh and the appellant/wife was posted at Village : Katulwahi, which is at a distance of about 15-20 km from Dongargarh. 16. From the evidence on record, it is found that even after shifting to Dongargarh, the appellant/wife was not satisfied and whenever mother or any other relative of the respondent/husband used to come to Dongargarh, the appellant/wife used to leave the house along with her infant child and go to her maternal home at Bansantpur, Rajnandgaon without informing anyone. with her husband/respondent since 24.11.2000. From the evidence on record, it transpires that many efforts have been made by the respondent/husband, such as by convening Dewangan Society is not 17.That, the appellant/wife residing g ‘F—“l 6 meeting for taking ba¢k the appellant/wife with him, but before the / Society meeting, the appellant/wife also expressed her clear intention, vide document of EXP/20, that she is ready to live with the respondent/husband only on the condition that he resides separately from his family members. 18. From the document of EXP/22, it‘ is clear that the respondent/husband had also approached the Station House Officer, Women Cell, Rajnandgaon, in connection with reconciliation but 'theappellantlwife had informed the Station House Officer, Women Cell, Rajnandgaon, vide EXP/22, that she is not willing to give any statement in this proceedings and needs no consultation. 19. ln view of the above, it is clear that the respondent/husband had been sincere in making efforts to take back the appellant/wife along with him, but she herself had been adamant and was insisting that f she will be residing with her husband/respondent only on the condition that he leaves his family members and resides separately with her. 20. Although in para-2 of the written statement tiled by the appellant/wife, there are averments regarding demand of dowry but there is not even a whisper about the same in the examination-in- chief of the appellant/wife, which has been submitted in the form of affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 of the CPC. There is no dispute that a meeting of the Dewangan Society was convened on 12.5.2001, in which after hearing the parties, the members of the Society had taken a decision that the appellant/wife Smt. Paras Dewangan should reside with her husband/respondent Chandrakishore Dewangan along with his family members and in case of default in this regard by the appellant/wife, she will be ousted from Dewangan community. However, even after this decision on 12.5.2001, the appellant/wife did not comply with the decision and on the contrary, on 13.5.2001, just on the next day, she lodged a report (Ex.D/1) against her husband/respondent and his family members in the police station alleging an incident of 25.4.2001. However, when no action was taken by the Dongargarh police On that report, then after three days Le. 16.5.2001 she lodged another report before the Station House Officer, City Thana, Rajnandgaon against the respondent/husband and his famiiy members with regard to harassment in connection with demand of dowry. 21. The appellant/wife has further admitted in para-13 of her deposition that she had appeared on 5.1 1 .2001 for the first time in the divorce case filed by her husband/respondent and thereafter, she had lodged a report in her defence against the respondent/husband and his family members regarding harassment in connection with demand of dowry, on the basis of which a criminal case for the offence under Section 498A of the IPC is pending against them. 22. From the evidence available on record, it is clear that on the false report of the appellant/wife that a case under Section‘49’8A of the IPC was registered against the respondent/husband and his family members and they'were arrested and were subsequently, released on bail by the Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon. ln such a case, there is every possibility that the respondent/husband and his family members must have remained in judicial custody for some time before being released on bail by the Sessions Judge. The appellant/wife has also admitted in para—13 of her deposition that after meeting of the Dewangan Society on 12.5.2001, she had ‘lodged a report against her husband/respondent and when no action was taken thereon by the police, she had lodged another report on 16.5.2001 in her defence. Thereafter, on the basis of her report dated 28.11.2001 against the respondent/husband and his family members, offence under Section 498A of the IPC was registered against them. 23. Thus, in view of the above, it is clear beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant/wife had been continuously lodging false reports against the respondent/husband and his family members with the intent to humiliate and torture them, in order to take advantage of the same in her defence. This conduct on the part of the appellant/wife, beyond any doubt, comes within the ambit and purview of cruelty under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ‘\ and granted as such, by the the decree learned of Family divorce Court dated is 30‘“ based September, on proper 2007 D ,b L appreciation of evidence on record and cannot be faulted with. 24. On the basis of aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered opinion that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and decree dated 30‘“ September, 2007 passed by the learned Family Court, Rajnandgaon, which warrants interference by this Court. The appeal is sans merits and deserves to be dismissed. 25. ln the result,vthe appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. l m y . E sw- G.Minhajjudin Judge Sd/— 1, I.M.Quddusi l Judge ll /