~A' 1^y COUP.T OF CHHATTISa4RH ,AT First Ao@s®!(M) No.45 of Corom; • Horr'bie Mr.T.P. Shorma & Hon'b.te AAr.R.L.Jharswsr. JJ. Chhoteb! S/o.Bhaiyararrs, c.gedabout 38 yeo.rs, Ca^te Gabe'i, OccupotJon CuiTivator, resident of Vlliaqe Bhagodih, l^hsil Kharisia, uistrict Rsigarh (C.-&.) V@rsys Shashikala, Wifs of ChhQtela!, aged about 32s years, Occupation Housewife and Cultivator, Resident of Chalnpur, Tahsi! Kartala. District KorbGfC.^.') (FIRST APPE.4L UNDER SECTION 19 OF THE FAMILY COURTS .4CT 1984) Pre^ent . Mrs, Hamida Siddique, counsc! for the appeSiant, Mr.^nr-iit Sharma, counse! for the respondent. (Passed on 13"'' November, 2009) The judgment of the Court byT.P.Sharma, J^- 1. This first appcQJ under Section 19 of the Famlly Courts Act, 1984 (in short 'the A-at, 1984') is directed agalnst the jydgment and decree dated 5<12.2007 passe-d.by the Judge, Fc:mi!y Court, Rdgarh, In Civii Suit |sJn,44,A/05 whereby the Judge, FcxtT^iiy Court has dismlsscd the sult for djssolution.of mcirriage by decree of divorce.. 2., Judgment & decree are chailenged on the ground that the Court bebw has not considered the proved case of mentu! crueity committed by the respondent ond t'hereby committcd iSlegail^. '+u^jj^ddo aq^ uodn A4.|:aru3 AUD paujUiuioD +ou sv^ 4,uapuod^a^ al1J- BAj!34.grspP ^.0 33U3p6A-3 AUD p'33F8ppO 4.0U ^Dl| pUD /.j34.jnpD j.O puno^S ai{4 papD'ajd 4ou S'DI| 4.u'Q|jaddD 4U^;ajd a-i|4. +Dt{+ s+auiqns' puo |'oaddD au+ ^3^oddo ^uapuod^aj 344. .^oj. r3^uno3 paujDag 'puui| ^ai|4.o 344. UQ 'g "AJ^iHp^ p^^ A4|aru3 j.0 4.DDJ. aAOjd ai|4. p-aj-ap|suo3 4.ou SP^ ^Oj-aq ^no^ 344 +rsq 'uoj^sod 5u|s|aiojdaico u| (^Hf") m'Dj-uj-^auj^o^q j3i.| i|4|m 4.uapuodsau 3i|+ ua'as ^OL| j.jasiy|q +u^j|addo a^j^ "Aja+.jnpp Us 5usA|{ s| +uapuodsa^ 3i|4. 4.uij4. s^jUiqns ^aq^n^ j^uno3 pau^Da"] °uos|od 5u8^-ax^8Uiaipo Aq 4>UDjjaddD :ai|4. ^ 04. paj^ s'oii aij^ '^3Ui|4. orv4 puo +uuiraddo ai|4. uodn A+jan^c- puo a^n^o^ paus^Oio^ soq 4.U3puods'a^ 344. 4.Dq+ s+jy^qns +uo||addu 'B^ ^oj. |a^uno3 pau^'oa'"] "^ "•4.^no3 A|j"iyDj 344. j.o p^co-a^ pau6nduii 33^39p p.uu 4.u-aui5pnf aq^ pasruad puu saj+jpd a^ ^oj. j3suno3 paujDa| p^Dau; aAoq a^ a9 ua3JOA8p j.o 33j3ap Aq aSoj^^py.i ^o uos+njo^ip ^oj. ^rss' ai|4 pass|ai^jp ^04 ^no^ Ags^uj 'aSpnf aij^ 'saj+^x>d 344. o^ Su^DaLj j.o A^iun+joddo uo Sujpjo^^ ja+j'^p^^ pay^o^^ 3^3^ ^an^Ss ^3|4.jud 344. j.o S4.uaujj3AD j.o sjSDq 344. UQ 'y n4.UDjjaddv 'aq^ |||>j 04. m3|A D q^m uo^|od 5u^a^s|UjaipD jaAau SPI| 345 '+uoijaddD 344 uodn A+pm^ pu^ 3^r4^04. pauj^^o^ ^!3Aau s©i| 31^ 4.^4+ P^+^^ A||D3jJ.p3ds pUD uoj+DSajjD ai|^ pa|U3p Su^ ^uapuod^aj ai|j^ -y -a3^0Ajp j.O aa^33p Aq aSoujous j.o uoj+njos^ip joj. ^sn^ ai|4 p^ilj' ^^H 4.UDgj3ddo 4ya^ajd ai|+ 'uoi+oSajjD pp^ajo^o j.o sj^Dq 344. uo 'uossod 5u|jaj.^|UjUipD Aq UJJL| g||>j o^ pa^"+ st^4 puu /4i;an^^ p^^ ^n^o^ Suju^^^^ pa+^D+^ +u3puodsaj at|4. '4.U^i|3difc 344. .f.0 6uspD3gd ^ad ^D •aji'aqmay^os' pyD jai|4.a6o4. Suepjs'a^ :^a^ //vaLil ^661 TUQ uo p'^ju^^io^ SD^ aSDj^jvyy "as-nods pappam A|j'o6"aj puo ^npusj-i ajD ^aj^rud laLj4. 40114. a^o |oaddo sju+ j.o Sujjjj, 04 6u|pDaj si3D:4 ^ajjg "9 9.. In order to cppreclate the contentions of the partles, we haye examini the evidence ayasb.bb on record. According to pieading of the appelbnt, the respondent has committed cruelty and has trled to kl!! him by administering poison, but anyhow he SQved himseif but the appeitent ho^ not alteged in his pleading reiating to factum of adultcry, but in his statement he has depose-d that he hos seen the respondent in compromisjng position with her brother-in-tew (Jija) and hc objected, but she refu^ed to djscontinue the relation with her brother-in-iaw. fteason best known to the appe!lant thct the appe.Hont has not pieaded thi^ materia! foct and grounds in his suit- The Qppe'bnt has examined his mother Ramkunwar (AW-3) yvho has a!so corroborated the factuiT1 of adultery- She has also deposed that she herseif has seen the respondent wlth her brother-in-law in compromising posltion. 10. .4s per pbadings and eyidence of the appelJant-ChhotsIal and his witnsssgs Kamtesh ^awei, Ramkunwar (mother of the appsitent) Qnd Chudaman ^awe! (cousin brother of the appel!ant), the responde-nt has tried to kii! the appelbnt by administering poison in tonic and cooked vegetables. When the appe'lant saw the tonic in •suspicious condition, he put the same before his domestic cat who consumed it and after ^ometime cat died, These evidence prima facle shows that twice the respondent attempted to commit murder of the appeliant, but the appe-liant has not bdged any report, has not taken any action before the Court of law and continued reiation with the respondent. This conduct of the appe!lant and his witnes^es appears unnatura!. These statements and statement of adultery without ^ there bein9 any pbading itself is the a.ct of cruelty committed by the o,ppe.!Jant upon the respondent. 11. After appreciatjng the evidence avaibbie on record, thc Judge, Fcimiiy Court, Raigarh has dis9missed the suit for dissobtion of rnarriage by decree of dlvorce^ Judgment an.d decree Impugne.d are based on evidence and the same is sustalno.ble under the !aw. ;-<"» ( "VS, 12.Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, we ar< of the considered view that the Judge, Fami!y Court, Raigarh has not committed any iilcgoJity or infirmity in dismissing the suit for dissolution of marriage by decree of divorce. We do not find any substance in this appeai. The appea! is liable to be dismissed and It is hereby dismissed,. No order as to costs. Advocate fee as per schedu!e. &ecree be dro-wn up accordingiy. Sd/- B/- Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge R.L. Jhanwar Judge