!N THE HIGH COURT OF IUDICATURE OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FIRSTAPPEAL (M)....../........../2010 APPELLANT R^PONDENT MESPONDENT ^PLAINTIFF VERSUS ^^Smt. Sagi Nagmani W/0- Sagi Mahesh Babu Aged about 35 years, R/0- J-187- Janta Colony, Gudiyari, Raipur Distt- Raipur [C.G.] [Wife] B.B.^......J.%9//o Prawfite,, ^f ^nn ....Hj^^!r' ^" Sagi Mahesh Babu S/0 S.V. Ranga Raju Aged about 36 years. R/o III, G, C, 1-3/1, Sector -1, Devendra Nagar, Raipur, Distt- Raipur [C.G.) (Husband) MEMO OF FIRST APPEAL U/S 19 fll OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT 1984 ^m %%IS@iiBmiSiIIIIBSSiB11198?^WMBI?^^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR D.B.: Hon'ble Shri Justice I.M. Quddusi and HonLble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra First Appeal (M.) No.9 of 2010 Appellant Respondent versys Smt. Sagi Nagmani Sagi Mahesh Babu Present: Shri D.N.Prajapati, counsel forthe appellant. Shri H.BAgrawal, Senior Advocate with Smt. Meera Jaiswal, counsel for the respondent. FirstAppeal under Section 19(1) ofthe Familv Courts Act ORAL JUDGMENT (Delivered on 8th December, 2010) Per I.M. Quddusi. J.: Heard. 2. This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 24-12-2009 passed by the 1st Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur in Civil Suit No.98-A/2009. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellant Smt. Sagi Nagmani was married to the respondent Sagi Mahesh Babu in Bhilai on 26-4-1996. After marriage, they were residing in Bhilai. Out of their wedlock, they have a daughter, namely, Kumari Sagi Tejasvi, whose birth took place in 1997. After few days ofthe marriage, the appellanVwife started quarreling with the respondenVhusband and his family members. Even after inculcating her, no change was seen in her behaviour. Consequently, the husband left the house of Bhilai ,.^-;^^^ ,^;- .'-"^1 "^' '^ 'r^•:\ ....^' and started to live with his wife and daughter in a rented house at Raipur since January, 1998. The appellanVwife was not discharging the duties of a housewife. She was not cooking food, washing clothes, maintaining cleanliness in the house, preparing the daughter for school nor was preparing tiffin for her. She used to wake-up in the morning at 11 A.M. On returning of her daughter from the school, she did not serve her food. The appellant/wife, on being inculcated by the respondent/husband, she used to abuse him filthily, due to which, the respondent/husband ashamed in the neighbourhood. She used to compare income of her brother-in-law (J/ya) with the respondent/husband saying that domestic expenses cannot be incurred in Rs.6-7 thousands monthly and she was taunting the respondent/husband that she will not live with him in this low earning. She used to go her maternal house without informing the respondenVhusband. She used to say that her father is rich. She used to inspire her daughter to tell lie and learn her anti-sociai cruel things. She used to steal things of landlord of the earlier rented house and used to quarrel with the said landlord, due to which the respondent/husband ashamed and apologized before the said landlord and was also compelled to vacate the said rented house. On being told by the respondent/husband about the behaviour and mischief of the appellant/wife to her parents, they inculcated her, but no change was seen in her conduct. She used to threat the respondent/husband to implicate him in a false case lodging a report in the police. Due to cruel treatment of the appellant/wife, the respondent/husband has left the rented accommodation and is living in a room of his office situated in —:r ,.<-^^, ^"" ..^^""^'% ^ ^. x....-,,.^ ^ Devendra Nagar, Raipur. The respondent/husband sent a legal notice to the appellant/wife on 24-5-2007 for apologizing and living with him looking to the future of their daughter, but the appellant/wife refused to accept the notice. She came to the office of the respondent/husband and quarreled with him saying that she will break all the articles of his office and throw them, due to which, the respondent/husband faced difficulty and ashamed in the office. Due to continuous cruel treatment of the appellant/wife, the respondenVhusband filed an application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the Family Court, Raipur for dissolution of the marriage, on the above-stated pleadings. 4. The appellanVwife denied the allegations and stated that except for trivial irritations, quarrels and normal wear and tear of the married life, no such serious incident has taken place as stated by the husband and, thus, the application for grant of a decree of divorce deserves to be dismissed. 5. The learned Family Court, on appreciation of evidence, more particularly the statements of the witnesses examined by the husband, namely, PW-1 Sagi Laxmi (mother of the husband), PW-2 T.Purshottam, PW-3 Rakesh Kumar, PW-4 J.K.Sahu, PW-5 Y.Surendra Patro and PW-6 Sagi Mahesh Babu (husband), concluded that the husband was treated with cruelty by the appellanVwife and he is entitled for a decree for divorce. PW-5 Y.Surendra Patro, who is the neighbourer, has stated that the appellant used to make altercation by using abusive language. He has also deposed that the wife used to commit theft of articles from .^' his house. PW-3 Rakesh Kumar is also the witness who has seen the cruel behaviour of the wife towards her husband. PW-2 Purshottam has even reproduced the abuses hurled by the wife on the husband. He has also seen the scratches on the body of the husband from the nails of the wife. He has also stated that the wife used to abuse the husband by saying that he sleeps with her mother and her sister. 6. In view of the above proved incidents, when the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Samar Ghosh vs. Jaya Ghosh, (2007)4 SCC 511 is applied,this Court is unable to agree with the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellanVwife that the incidents are trivial in nature and would amount to normal wear and tear of the married life. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the first appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. The impugned decree is upheld. There shall be no order as to costs. 8_ A decree be drawn-up accordingly. _____ Gopal Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge