^rvw ^ ^ HIGH COURT PF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE MR. T.P. SHARMA & HON'BLE MR. R.L. JHANWAR. JJ. First Appeal (Ml No. 20/2008 APPELLANT Smt. Yuvati Sahu @ Jyoti Sahu. VERSUS Defendant RESPONDENT Plaintiff Premdas Sahu. JUDGEMENT FOR CONSIDERATION Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge Hon'ble Mr. R.L. JHANWAR J. Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge Post forjudgmenton: 2-7/07/2010 Sd/- r ^:t' ..^••"" * ' ^' f m 'i ^. ^ 'w' .^ 's'n^^ ^ M HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARHAT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: INNN^ HQN'BLE MR. T.P. SHARMA fis HON'BLE MR. R. L. JHANWAR. JJ. APPELLANT Defendant Fjrst Aooeal (Ml No. 20/2008 Smt. Yuvati Sahu @ Jyoti Sahu, W/o Premdas Sahu Aged about 38 years, R/o near Bhadauriya Nursing Home, Rajnandgaon Tehsil and District Rajnandgaon (C.G.). VERSUS RESONDENT Plaintiff Premdas Sahu S/o Akbardas Sahu, Aged about 46 years, R/o -Tolagaon, Tehsil Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.). FIRST APPEAL UNDER SBCTION 19 (11 OF THE FAMIL^ COURTS ACT. Present:- Shri Anoop Majumdar, Advocate for the appellant. Shri R.N. Jha, Advocate for the respondent. JUDGBMBNT (Passedon ^7/07/2010) The following iudgment of the Court was passed by T.P. Sharma, J:- 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgtoent and decree dated 3/1/08 passed by Judge, Family Coyrt, Rajnandgaon in Civil Suit No. 52A/2007 whereby Judge Family Court has decreed the suit for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce flled on \ behalf of the respondent i.e. husband. r ^^. ^. 't-SA I;' ;.^-^:--,s-^ J. ^^/•- •^;';-,. ^ ...-^^ "^^iS^^^ 2 ^ ^ 2. Deeree is impugned on the ground that without any evidence of cruelty committed by the appellant, Judge Family Court has decreed the suit and thereby committed an illegality. 3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this appeal as per pleading of the parties, parties were legally wedded Hindu spouses. Their marriage Solemnized in the year 1983. Three children were bom out oftheir wedlock. From 1994 behavior of present appellant become abnormal and cruel. She used to misbehave with the respondent and used to through utensils of the house even she used to assault the respondent. Her behayior was aggressive up to such extent that joint living of the respondent with appellant was not possible. She also threatened the respondent to implicate falsely in criminal case and to send Jail, even appellant has blained upon the character of respondent. She refused to discharge marital obligation. •On the ground of aforesaid cruelty. Respondent flled petition for dissolution 6f marriageby a decree of divorce. Present appellant has filed the reply and denied the allegation made in the petition and has alleged that respondent was transferred on the ground of illicit relation with .!T 1(•: ',f^-'.'. '' it •{' ' .(••'•'•. • ''' r ..-Jl..s?*> |&B!,1 Y^.^ '•-^^•^••~' different women and the respondent used to commit the cruelty upon the appellant on the ground of illicit relation with different women. Community meeting was convened in the year 1996. On 15/8/99 respondent assault her and left the appellant on the pretext that he has kept in other woman as his wife. On 9/10/99 respondent took all the house articles from the house forcefully. Respondent himself has conimitted cruelty and torture upon the appellant. Respondent was having illicit relation with different woinen. In the year 1999 he was arrested in case of rape and he was in jail for long time. 4. On the basis of averments of parties issues were framed and after providing an opportunity of hearing to the parties Judge, Family Court has decreed the suit for dissolution ofmarriage by a decree ofdivorce. 5. Shri Anoop Majumdar, Advocate for the appellant and Shri R. N. Jha, Advocate for the respondent are heard. 6. Judgment and decree impugned and record of the Court below perused. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that in the preseht case, present appellant has not committed any torture and cruelty upon the r -fY ^ ^ respondent but present respondent has committed torture and cruelty upon the appellant. Behavior of the respondent was cruel. He used tp coramit raental cruelty upon the appellant. Respondent was having illicit relation with different.women. He is not a man of good character. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant further argued that Court below has not considered the evidence of appellant and thereby committed an illegality. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the appeal and submits that appellant has committed torture and cruelty regularly and have deserted the appellant therefore, no option is left to the respondent to flle petition for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce. Court below has rightly allowed the petition for dissolution of marriage by a 'decree of divorce filed on behalf of the respondent. 10. In order to appreciate the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, we have examined the evidence adduced on the behalf of the prosecution. In the present case, lawful marriage between parties and fact that they were Hindu legally wedded spouse are not in dispute. A-. ^^.'% yy^ ^ '"^^'i^ -^.^ -/7 .^' -^— '' 'i ''•~:^^^' ^ 1^^ 11. As regard the commission of cruelty 8& torture are concerned, AW1 P.remdas whose petition in decree of divorce has been granted has deposed in his evidence that as a result of wedlock of the parties, three children were born out. Bebave ofthe appellant till 10 years of her marriage were normal thereafter her behave beconie abnorinal. She used to abuse respondent and also used to assault him. Her behave was also abnormal and bad with the mother and father of the respondent. Appellant has blamed upon the character of the respondent. She also threatened him for sending jail and Panchayat. meeting was convened, inside meeting appellant was found at fault even after his transfer, appellant refused fo live with father and mother. of the respondent. Respondent has proved the documents Ex. P-1 to P-6. Witnesses of respondent AW2- Indarbati sister of the respondent, AW3 Bhaktudas has substantially corroborated the evidence of respondent interalia appellant has denied the allegation made by the respondent. She has specifically deposed that she has never committed torture and cruelty but she has blamed on the character of respondent. In the present case, both the y^^y gsss^—'"'' 6 parties have led the evidence relating to cruelty and torture by opposite party but have not adduced substantial evidence relating to such cruelty and torture except the charges of illicit relation of respondent with some women and pendency of case of rape against the respondent. 12. In the present case, present appellant has alleged in Para-12 that character of respondent was under dispute relating to his relation with several woinen. In Para-17 she has further alleged that respondent was in jail in the year 1999 in connection with the offence of rape. Appellant • has deposed in affidavit in Para-11 that respondent was keeping one girl Mamta with him. She further deposed that as per her information respondent was in jail in connection with the offence of rape. The allegations of Paras- 12 8& 17 of the written statement reads as follows:- c(12^ 37^ f^, Sll^ch uf^f vft V^ST ^7, ^f^dlSff ^ ^TTSf ^fw'STf ^f ^^7 <3//<^<?0 ^ f^Sff^ f^cf/f^d ^ ^' ^w^ ?s//*y/'Ty(7v<// ^ ^^ 0/^f/ ^ gy/ 1 ^f^dlSlf' ^ VTW£Tf ^f ^^7 3TJ^^ 3FTT^f^WT ^t ffmf^rT <f}^dl V^rTT SJTI /^y\. ^^, ...-• •.^'.?;-... ^ ':"" •^ /.i '"yy n €> fc /7. 311^cf<iy f^TT f^ft t4/A<y 0/v'u/ ^ ^W SFTT^f^T ^ fim^ fi^^ ^t TTfJT ^^ ^T f) f^FfT^ ^^ ^T ^f^dlSTf ^ ^TTST T^ ^f^, f^fW^ ^T^ ^T'W'ST ^ f'l 'fT^f V^ dcx^^<r/?<y f fiy, 31l^<4> 3T^WV 1999 (VFT ^^ftfT ^t' Pl^l'1^) ^ WT? <yc//r^/v ^ W^VVT ^ ^Y^(777 ^ ^^7 ^ (73/7' ^^ cT^ 3T^ (T^ i^<7 ^" ??7 ^/?? 13. Part of evidence of appellant in Paras- 6 and 11 reads as follows:- tt6. vs f^, ^ff^m A' ^w ^ ^t wf^f ^ . ^£7^ ^' 0/^«'//' ^ ^'/ <7^ /^v^.fi' •T^v^ ^ ?^7 »^ z//A>^0 /?/0/<v^' ^r f/ g'^7 ^' ^ z///?/^0 /?/0/<'/(V/' ^ 3TT£fJ7 77 t/*y</»7 TSfT^TrTTVT ^STT STT I ^T^t ^f7T^nW ^' Pl^f^d ^ ^pm ift ^w (TT^ ^7 f^i^i^d' srnft sffi //. ^JW f^, 1995-96 ^' ^ Vf^T ^ Pl^f^d 3'^^ ^" s^/ (TW^ ^bFT ^r i7^?77' r11*1<fi vTS^t ^t ^^7 c^ 7T^ 3Tf^ U^ 3PT^ fTTST T^ cpf S^l vTS^t ^ ffmT fitffT U^ ^Sf^ ^ 4i mW STJ^I ^' <7^' ^dl^l f^ V^f VTrjm •y/^/0 ^^r cT^^f ^f fl ^ft ^t c^^7 V/Wu/ ^' fi^T^ ^V^T ^f fTZHI fTPT ci)dl^ll'cl ^' 1 W^nf^T^ ^ff^T ^STTI Qr7c7ay uiiitfii^l ^ 3TJWT7 ^ ^f^ ^ fi^}^ <7</W*/ fi^T^ ^ft oT'W^T^QfT ^' rft j 7 ^ ^,<.a3:v'=:^' •/^^^ i %^gi% 1 ^^^":':'%. 1 .^ ^ R <yc//o^/f ^7 y^YZ7 W'uftW^S' ^STT STT 1 ETW^' U^' ^//ftlrfy f^^/^cf ^' T^TT VST SJTI" 14. Appellant has not adduced any evidence in support of her aforesaid evidence or allegations. In absence of such evidence aforesaid allegations and evidence comes within the ambits of mental cruelty conimitted by the appellant upon her husband sufficient for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce. Learned Judge, Family Court, Rajnandgaon has considered the evidence of the parties has decreed the suit for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce. We are of the considered view that learned Judge, Family Court, Rajnandgaon has not committed any illegality in decreeing the suit on the ground of aforesaid mental cruelty committed by the appellant upon her husband. Consequently, this appeal is devoid ofmerits and same is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 15. No order as to costs. Lc •u 7 • Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge ^