T7 K' ^-" Oivision Banel ^1'1"! INTHE HIGH COURT OF CHHATHSGARH BILASPUI ^[RSTAPPEAL (M) N0. f-li^ OF 2010 Mahesh Kumar Dhritlahare, aged about 24 years, S/o Shri Tulsiram Dhritiahare, R/o ChhuipaU, District Mahasamund (CG). AP^BLLANT: ^^ ^•^ ^y^y ^^-•••"""' '^ / ^PONDBNT: VBRSUS ^Puspha Bai W/o Mahesh Kumar, aged 20 years, R/o at present resident at C/o Uderam Bandhe, Village Raveli, Post Chandanu, P.S. Nandghat, District Durg (CG). MEMORANDUM OF FIRST APPEAL UNDER SECTION 19 111 OF PAMILY COURT ACT. ^. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH: HON'BLE SHRI I.M. QUDDUSI, & HON'BLE MR. G. MINHAJUDDIN, JJ. FirstAppeal (Ml No. 149 of 201 O Appellant Mahesh Kumar Dhritlahare Vs Respondent Pushpa Bai JUDGMENT FOR CONSIDERATION Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge ^2,-9-2011 HON'BLE SHRI I.M. QUDDUSI. J 3 c^^-^- u Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge 2-^.9.2011 POST FOR JUDGMENT ON ^-VSEPTEMBER. 2011 Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge ('- .f^. \ ^il^-'l 1 / ./ ^-.^' .,-f ,.3-^^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH: HON'BLE SHRI I.M. QUDDUSI, & HON'BLE MR. G. MINHAJUDDIN, JJ. Appellant Respondent FirstAppeal (M) No. 149 of 2010 Mahesh Kumar Dhritlahare Vs Pushpa Bai ^w Present: Mrs. Indira Tripathi, counsel forthe appellant. None for the respondent, though served. JUDGMENT (Delivered on2-Y September, 2011) Per G. Minhaiuddin. J 01. This appeal has been filed by the appellanVhusband under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 against the judgment and decree dated 27.8.2010 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, Camp Court at Mahasamund, in Civil Suit No.65-A/08, whereby and whereunder the application filed by the appellant/husband under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty, has been rejected. 02. As per the averments made in the application for divorce by the appellant husband, after solemnization of marriage on 29.4.2007, the respondent wife started living with the appellant husband in his house. Since very inception, the respondent wife was pressurizing the appellant husband for separate living from her in-laws in her parental home. When the appellant husband did not yield to her pressure, the ^ r^ h—^ 03. ^ respondent wife started mentally harassing him by threatening to falsely implicate the appellant husband and his family members in a dowry case. On 17.12.2007, father of the respondent wife took her to his home at Raveli and when the appellant husband went there to bring her back, her father refused to send her with the appellant. Earlier also, the respondent wife had gone to her father's home on the occasion of Teeja and remained there for two months. On 22.1.2008, one of the respondent wife's family members namely Rakhchand had abused and threatened the appellant husband of life and false implication in dowry case on telephone. The respondent wife used to quarrel with the appellant husband on trivial matters and humiliate him. In the past, she had also tried to commit suicide by hanging. She is living in her parental home and is not willing to come back to live with the appellant husband, though he tried several times to bring her back. Therefore, the appellant husband is entitled for a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty by the respondent wife. The respondent wife in her reply to the application for divorce under Section 13(1) ofthe Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, denying the allegations of cruelty leveled by the appellant husband, has stated that in fact, the behaviour of the appellant husband had been cruel to her, therefore, she went to her parental home. She was harassed to such an extent that she tried to commit suicide. The appetlant husband out of the fear of being implicated in dowry case <?.y the respondent wife, has ^f5^ fff ^<"^^ . ^ ^ ^ ^p filed a false application for divorce. She has always been ready and willing to tive with the appellant husband peacefully. 04. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the LCR as also the impugned judgment and decree. 05. The core question to be considered by this Court in this appeal is - whether the respondent wife has committed cruelty of such a nature towards the appellant husband, so as to entitle him to seek for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce on that ground? 06. In support of his application for divorce, the appellant husband has examined himself as AW-1, his father Tulsiram Dhritlahare as AW-2 and Jalandhar as AW-3. In addition to this, the appellant husband has filed documents A/1 to A/4. The respondent wife to substantiate the averments made by her in her reply to the appellant's application, has examined herself as NAW-1 and her father Uderam as NAW-2. 07. As per the allegations leveled in the application for divorce by the appellant husband against the respondent wife, she had lived with him only for a period of 3-4 months after the marriage in a peaceful manner and after that she stari:ed insisting to live separately with him at her parent's home at Village - Raveli, Tahsil - Bemetara, Distt. Durg. On appellant not acceding to the respondent's demand, that she stariied misbehaving with the appellant and used to threaten him and his family members that she will commit suicide and implicate them in a criminal case in connection with demand of dowry /y-:^h 1 %. —-" "-1 •^:",^' ^=^\ f^s^ ^ ^j and of harassing and torturing her. The appellant has averred in his application that whenever the respondent used to go to her parent's home, she would used to remain there for a pretty long period and when the appellant used to go to bring her back, her father used to refuse to send her back to her in- laws' house. 08. The respondent through her reply has refuted all the allegations leveled against her in the divorce application as false and baseless and alleged that the appellant and his parents had been continuously harassing and torturing her in connection with demand of dowry. She has also alleged that the appellant had been continuously treating her with cruelty, on account of which she was compelled to leave his house andreside with her parents andsince 2008, the appellant or his family members had never tried to bring her back. 09. The burden of proving the fact that the respondent wife had treated the appellant husband with extreme cruelty is on the appellant husband. To substantiate this fact, the appellant Mahesh Kumar (AW-1) has stated that after 3-4 months of marriage, the respondent wife started pressurizing him to leave the house of his parents and reside at her parents' house at Raveli and work with her father. On this point, the statement of the appellant does not find corroboration from the statement of his father Tulsiram (AW-2). Both the appellant Mahesh Kumar (AW-1) and his father Tulsiram (AW-2) have stated that the respondent used to quarrel with the appellantand his family members on petty things and S£—^ :^e^ j /y '^-..^^.-••^' cg3 threaten them that she will commit suicide and implicate them in a false dowry case, in respect of which the appellant husband had lodged a report at Police Station - Saraipali and Police Station - Bemetara. However, the appellant has not filed any documents i.e. copy of the report to substantiate his statement and the statement of his father on this point. 10. The appellant and his father Tulsiram (AW-2) have stated that on 23.8.2008 the respondent's father had come to take her for the Teeja festival, on which she had gone with her father and after that, she did not return to her in-laws' house. The appellant in para-2 of his statement has admitted that the respondent's father had come to his house along with her daughter/respondent to drop her but as the house of the appellant was locked, they had waited for some time and returned. Both the appellant and his father Tulsiram have admitted that after that, none of the members of the appellant's family had gone to bring the respondent wife back to her in-laws' house. Both the appellant and his father Tulsiram (AW-2) have stated in a categorical manner that even ifthe respondent is ready and willing to come back, then also they will not be taking her back. 11. From the evidence adduced in support of the application for divorce, it is clear that the appellant husband has been unsuccessful in establishing that the respondent wife had treated him with cruelty, on account of which he is entitled for a decree of divorce on that ground. On the contrary, it is apparent from the material on record that the respondent " ...^y'. r<3^. along with his father had gone to the appellant's house but as the house was locked, therefore, after waiting for some time, they had returned back to their Village - Raveli and thereafter, the appellant had never tried to bring her back. 12. On the basis of aforesaid discussion, we are of the opinin that the learned Family Court has rightly rejected the application of the appellant husband under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty by a decree of divorce. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment, warranting interference by this Court. 13. In the result, the appeal is devoid of any substance, the same deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Additional Registrar (Judicial) is directed to draw a decree accordingty. 14. No order as to costs. Sd/- LM.Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge ^