HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARHt BILASPU R First Appeal (M) No.42 of 2007 Satya Bai W/o Chandra Kumar aged about 20 years, R/o Village Kretha, Post Koliyari, Tahsil & Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.) Versus Chandra Kumar S/o Rajuram aged about 25 years, R/o Near Santosh Mill, Jangelpara Nagri, Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.) {First appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Aci, 1984} Present: Mr. Vivek Rathore, counsel for the appellant. Mrs. Indira Tripathi, counsel for the respondent. ORAL JUDGMENT (1 3-1 1-2009) T.P. Sharma .l:’ - 1. By this appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, the appellant has challenged the judgment & decree dated 3-3-2007 passed by the 15‘ Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur (foi' short ‘the Family Court’), in Civil Suit No.3 A/2006, whereby & whereunder the Family Court has dismissed the petition for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce filed on behalf of the appellant herein, who is wife of the respondent herein. Judgment & decree are challenged on the ground that the Family Court has not considered the proved factof cruelty committed by the respondent upon the appellant and thereby committed illegality. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are that the parties are legally wedded Hindu spouses. Marriage of the respondent with the appellant took place in the year 2004. According to the pleadings of the APPELLANT: RESPONDENT: Division Bench: - Hon’ble Mr. T.P. Sharma & Hon’ble Mr. R.L. Jhanwar. JJ appellant, the respondent and his relatives used to commit cruelty torture upon the appellant just three months after her marriage and they used to demand dowry. After some time, the respondent refused to discharge marital obligations and used to provide meal to the appellant only for one time in a day. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations the appellant tiled petition for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce. . The respondent denied the allegations and specincally pleaded that he has not committed any torture or cruelty upon the appellant and he or his relatives had never demanded dowry or any article. . After affording opportunity of hearing to the parties, the Family Court has dismissed the petition for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce. ..We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment & decree impugned as also the record of the Family Court. . Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the respondentalong with his relatives has committed cruelty upon the appellant and demanded dowry. The respondent has not discharged the marital obligations, even the respondent & his relatives have not provided meals to the appellant for two times in a day and they compelled the appellant to sleep on land. These facts are proved case of cruelty committed by the respondent and are sufficient for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce. Learned counsel further submits that the appellant & her aunt Kaushalya Ba‘i (AW-2) have specifically deposed that the respondent has committed cruelty upon the appellant. . On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the appeal and submitted that the respondent has not committed any cruelty upon the appellant, he has tried his level best to dissolve the problem and took the appellant with him, but the appellant is not ready. 9. In order to appreciate the contentions of the parties, we have exami the evidence adduced on behah‘ of the patties. 10.Satya Bai (AW—1 ), the appellant herein, has deposed in her evidence that just after three months of her marriage, the respondent & his relatives started committing torture & crueity upon her, they used to assault her and demand dowry & other articles, even they do not provide meals for two times in a day and she has lodged report against the respondent. The appellant has denied in her cross-examination that the respondent did not commit cruelty & torture upon her. Her version has been corroborated by her aunt Kaushalya Bai (AW-2). .But father of the respondent has deposed in his evidencé that they have never committed cruelty upon the appellant and when his son went to the maternal house of the appellant to take the appellant back, she refused. He has also deposed that he has made separate arrangement for stay of his son & daughter-in-Iaw i.e. the appellant herein, but the appellant is not ready to live with the respondent. The respondent has also denied the allegation of cruelty and specifically deposed that they have never committed cruelty and torture upon the appellant. 12.The appellant has cross-examined the respondent and put a suggestion that the respondent used to sleep with his mother instead of sleeping with her, he used to drink liquor and used to beat her. By putting this suggestion, the appellant has exceeded her limits. This shows that virtually the appellant is committing cruelty upon the respondent. 13.After appreciating the evidence available on record, the Family Court has dismissed the petition for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce. Judgment & decree impugned are based on evidence and the same is sustainable under the law. We do not find any illegality or impropriety in