Chattisgarh High Court
Prashant Jha vs Isha Jha on 31 January, 2025
Author: Rajani Dubey
Bench: Rajani Dubey, Narendra Kumar Vyas
1 / 21
2025:CGHC:5851-DB
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Judgment reserved on : 24-01-2025
Judgment delivered on : 31-01-2025
FA(MAT) No. 41 of 2024
Prashant Jha S/o Rajendra Jha, aged about 34 years, Address :
Village-39/2, Purana Para-3, Deosara (Pirda), PO-Bhimbhouri, Tehsil-
Berla, Distt. Bemetara (CG)
---- Appellant/applicant
versus
Isha Jha, W/o Prashant Jha, D/o Shri Late Avdhesh Jha/Smt. Nisha
Jha, age 30 years, R/o Bareth Para, Khairagarh, Distt. Khairagarh-
Chhuikhadan-Gandai (CG)
---- Respondent/non-applicant
For Appellant : In person.
For Respondent : Mr. Lukesh Ku. Mishra, Advocate.
Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, J
Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas, J
C A V Judgment
Per Rajani Dubey, J
Challenge in this appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family
Courts Act, 1984 read with Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
2 / 21
is to the legality and validity of the judgment and decree dated
22.11.2023 passed by First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court,
Raipur in H.M.A. No.895/2019 whereby the application under Section
13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act filed by the appellant/applicant has
been dismissed.
02. The admitted fact in this case is that marriage of the appellant
with the respondent was solemnized on 10.6.2017 as per Hindu rites
and rituals.
03. The appellant filed an application under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 with the averments that after marriage, the
respondent lived with him for 2 ½ months at Village-Pirda and
thereafter started insisting on joining coaching class in Bilaspur
whereas it was agreed between the parties before marriage that the
respondent would live at her matrimonial home as a homemaker and
discharge her marital obligations. However, in September 2017 she left
her matrimonial home without informing the appellant or her in-laws
and went to Khairagarh and from there to Bilaspur for joining coaching
classes. She returned from Bilaspur to Khairagarh in April, 2018.
Despite much persuasion to come back, she agreed on the condition
that he has to live separately with her in Raipur and with the hope of
improvement in her behaviour with the passage of time, he agreed and
took her back to Village-Pirda. However, after about 20-25 days she
joined a coaching class in Raipur and would come to Raipur with the
3 / 21
appellant for her coaching. As the appellant was a doctor in Narayan
Hospital, Raipur they would commute together from Pirda to Raipur i.e.
about 13-14 km. On 20.8.2018 the respondent told the appellant that
today she is staying in Raipur and when he asked as to where and with
whom she is staying, she did not reply and switched off the mobile.
She is a woman of perverted mentality. When he informed about this to
her mother, she threatened him of false implication in a criminal case
and sending them to jail if he puts any restriction on her. Being fed up
with the cruel conduct and mental perversity of the respondent, the
appellant and his family members on 11.9.2018 made a complaint to
Mahila Cell, Bemetara where during counseling the respondent also
expressed her unwillingness to live in joint family at a rural area and
desire to get a job as per her qualification. She deliberately remained
absent during counseling and filed complaint against the appellant and
his family members on false grounds with Mahila Thana, Raipur.
Considering her conduct, the Mahila Cell, Bemetara dropped the
counseling proceedings with the conclusion that the appellant is totally
committed to the respondent.
04. It was further averred by the appellant that he made all possible
efforts to bring her back and hence filed an application under Section 9
of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights before Family
Court, Bemetara where the respondent with malafide intention entered
into compromise with him for living together in Raipur. However, even
during the period 22.4.2019 to 5.5.2019 while they were living in
4 / 21
Professor Colony, Raipur in a rented accommodation, her conduct
towards him was disrespectful and cruel. On 5.5.2019 she left the said
house after locking the door and did not receive his phone calls. Hence
being fed up with the cruel conduct and mental perversity of the
respondent and there being no hope of reunion, the appellant prayed
for grant of a decree on the ground of cruelty.
05. In her written statement, the respondent stated that she was not
given due respect in her matrimonial home, her husband and his
parents used to taunt her that the appellant is a doctor by profession,
so she should also do some job. The appellant was earlier posted in
Bilaspur, therefore, he got her admitted in Bilaspur based coaching
center where they lived for three months. She would come to her
matrimonial home on festivals. When the appellant refused to give her
money, all of her expenses were borne by her mother. In fact she was
being treated with cruelty by the appellant and his family members but
she tolerated all this with the hope of improvement in the situation with
passage of time. However, their behaviour towards her and her family
members worsened. She never went to her parental house without
permission of her in-laws. The appellant is stubborn, he wants to get rid
of her anyhow and on his influence, the officers of Mahila Cell,
Bemetara were also biased against her. She never committed any
physical or mental cruelty to the appellant. She stated that she wants
to go back to her matrimonial home and therefore, the present
5 / 21
application for divorce be rejected.
06. Based on the pleadings of the respective parties, the learned
Family Court framed issues and after appreciation of oral and
documentary evidence, rejected the application of the appellant by the
impugned judgment and decree. Hence this appeal.
07. The appellant appearing in person would submit that the
impugned judgment and decree are illegal and based on conjecture
and surmises. From the conduct of the respondent it is explicit that the
respondent is living separately without any just and reasonable cause
since September, 2017. She deliberately deprived the appellant of
marital happiness which amounts to cruelty. He submitted that she
used to stay at unknown places with unknown people for long without
informing him and his parents. On being informed about the conduct of
the respondent to her parents, they would threaten the appellant of
false implication in criminal case if he put any restriction on her. In
January, 2019 the appellant’s grandmother was admitted in ICU and
despite being informed about it and even after her demise, neither the
respondent nor any of her family members visited the appellant’s
house to offer condolences and support. Rather during this period, the
respondent intentionally facilitated marriage of her brother Sudhesh
Jha.
08. The appellant further submitted that he tried all his level best to
keep her with him but she refused on one pretext or the other. During
6 / 21
counseling proceedings in Mahila Cell, Raipur also she expressed her
unwillingness to live in a joint family in rural area and deliberately
avoided appearing in the counseling on many occasions. However,
looking to her conduct, the counseling proceedings were ultimately
dropped with a conclusion that the appellant/husband is fully
committed to the respondent/wife. This fact also proves cruelty on the
part of the respondent. Even on her insistence while he was living with
her in a rented accommodation in Raipur, her conduct towards him
remained cruel and disrespectful. She intentionally sent a notice to
reclaim the unpaid amount under Section 125(3) of CrPC to his
workplace with a view to tarnishing his image among his colleagues
and staff members of the institution, thereby causing social humiliation
and damage to his reputation whereas she was well aware of his
permanent address.
09. During the proceedings under Section 125 of CrPC, the
respondent in her cross-examination admitted that she did not put
vermilion on her hair parting and also not wear mangalsutra, meaning
thereby she does not consider the appellant as her husband and has
deserted him. She made false allegations of assault against the
appellant and his relatives. Thus, looking to the conduct of the
respondent in light of overall evidence on record, the learned Family
Court was not justified in rejecting the application for divorce of the
appellant. Therefore, the impugned judgment and decree are liable to
7 / 21
be set aside.
Reliance has been placed on the judgment dated 13.12.1999 of
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of BK Narayan Pillai
Vs.Pararneswaran Pillai and another; Smt. Archana Sharma Vs.
Muksh Kumar Sharma, AIR 2015 (NOC) 673 (All.); judgment dated
17.9.2020 of Gauhati High Court in Review Pet. No.73/2020 in the
matter of Smit Renu Das Vs. Sri Bhaskar Das; order dated
25.2.2022 of this Court in FAM No.24/2018 in the matter of Navodit
Mishra Vs. Smt. Richa Mishra; judgment dated 1.5.2023 of Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Transfer Petition (Civil) No.1118/2014 in the matter
of ShilpaSailesh Vs. Varun Sreenivasan; the judgment dated
27.9.2023 of High Court of Karnataka in Misc. F.A. No.104251/2017
and the judgment dated 13.9.2023 of HIgh Court of Delhi in Mat. App.
(F.C.) 236/2018 and CM Appl. 38556/2018.
10. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent
supporting the impugned judgment and decree would submit that upon
proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence the learned
Family Court rightly recorded a finding that no physical or mental
cruelty was committed by the respondent to the appellant and as such,
he is not entitled for any decree of divorce. The appeal being without
any substance is liable to be dismissed.
Reliance has been placed on the decisions in the matters of
Amina Vs. Hassan Koye, 1985 LawSuit (Ker) 59; S. Hanumantha
8 / 21
Rao Vs. S. Ramani, (1999) 3 SCC 620; Savitri Pandey Vs. Prem
Chandra Pandey, (2002) 2 SCC 73; Vishnu Dutt Sharma Vs. Manju
Sharma, (2009) 6 SCC 379; Neelam Kumar Vs. Dayarani, (2010) 13
SCC 298 and Gurbux Singh Vs. Harminder Kaur, (2010) 14 SCC
301.
11. Heard the appellant in person and learned counsel appearing for
the respondent and perused the material available on record.
12. It is an admitted position in this case that the respondent is
legally wedded wife of the appellant and their marriage was
solemnized on 10.6.2017 as per Hindu rites and rituals. Learned
Family Court based on the pleased of the respective parties framed
following issues for adjudication:
dza वाद प्रश्न निष्कर्ष 1. क्या अनावेदिका ईशा झा ने आवेदक प्रशांत झा के "अप्रमाणित"
साथ शारीरिक एवं मानसिक क्रू रतापूर्ण व्यवहार कारित
की है ?
2. क्या आवेदक विवाह विच्छेद की आज्ञप्ति प्राप्त करने का “नकारात्मक”
अधिकारी है।
3. सहायता एवं व्यय ? “कं डिका-31 के अनुसार”
13. As per the appellant/husband (PW-1), he is living with his
parents at Village-Pirda near Raipur but the respondent/wife was not
willing to live with his parents in rural area and on the pretext of joining
coaching classes she went to her parental house in Khairagarh and
9 / 21from there to Bilaspur. As the appellant was a doctor in Narayan
Hospital, Raipur they would commute together from Pirda to Raipur.
However, on 20.8.2018 the respondent told the appellant that today
she is staying in Raipur and when he asked as to where and with
whom she is staying, she did not reply and switched off the mobile.
She is a woman of perverted mentality. When he informed her mother
about it over mobile phone, her mother threatened him that they would
falsely implicate them in a case and send them to jail if he put any
restriction on her daughter. Thereafter, he made a complaint on
11.9.2018 to Mahila Cell, Bemetara where during counseling also she
stated that she is not willing to live in her matrimonial home, she is
unable to adjust in rural environment and wish to do a job as per her
qualification. The said proceedings were ultimately dropped with a
conclusion that the appellant/husband is fully devoted to the
respondent/wife whereas her conduct is not proper towards the
appellant and his family members, she is irresponsible towards them
and is not physically and emotionally attached to her husband.
The appellant/husband states that he made all possible efforts to
keep her with him and also filed an application for restitution of
conjugal right before Family Court, Bemetara where she appeared and
on the basis of compromise he withdrew the said application and
consequently, they started living separately in Professor Colony,
Raipur in a rented house. However, while living there from 22.4.2019 to
5.5.2019 her conduct was rude to him; she used to humiliate him on
10 / 21every trivial issue and would threaten him of sending to jail by lodging a
false case. On 5.5.2019 she went away having locked the door of the
rented house and did not receive his calls. When the appellant made a
call to the landlord, he informed him that she has gone somewhere and
asked him to go back to village.
14. In cross-examination he admits that he did not want the
respondent/wife to do any job after marriage and wanted her to live
with him in the village only. However, he denied the suggestion that
dispute arose between them as she wanted to continue her studies
even after marriage and clarifies that the dispute arose because she
deserted him. In para 21 he admits that he has not filed any document
or medical prescription regarding mental status of the respondent.
15. PW-2 Rajendra Jha, father of the appellant, has also supported
the statement of the appellant. In cross-examination he admits that
since marriage they wanted the respondent to live in village. He admits
that counseling proceedings were held twice between the appellant
and the respondent in Bemetara. On being asked by the court whether
they would keep the respondent with them if she is still willing to live
with the appellant to discharge her marital obligations, he (PW-2)
replied that it is up to the appellant as they have already made enough
attempts earlier.
16. PW-3 Smt. Anjana Jha, mother of the appellant, also supported
the statement of the appellant. However, she admits in para 15 that the
11 / 21respondent never raised any dispute or misbehaved with them, initially
she was unconformable in rural life but gradually she was adjusting
herself to it.
It is worthwhile to mention here that the learned Family Court
appreciated this statement of mother-in-law of the respondent and
found that the appellant failed to prove that the respondent committed
any mental or physical cruelty to him. However, it is clear from the
statement of the respondent/wife that she admitted the fact that after
return from her in-laws’ house she used to go to Raipur and that on
20.8.2018 she went to Raipur by Activa (scooty) and stayed at
Danganiya Girls Hostel with Sunidhi Sharma and Sahani Dewangan
and on 21.8.2018 she did not return to her matrimonial home and went
to the house of sister of Anita Meshram in Gwalior for appearing in the
railway examination. She admits that though her husband/appellant
wanted to accompany her to Gwalior but she went all alone. She
admits that during counseling in Bemetara in Mahila Cell she gave
statement that she is feeling uncomfortable in rural environment and
finding it difficult to adjust herself in such environment. She admitted
that she gave statement that she has no grievance as against her
husband and in-laws. She admits to have given this statement that the
environment of city is different from that of the village and she is not
acquainted with the life style of village, therefore, she is at present not
living with her husband at her matrimonial home. She admits that she
12 / 21was absent in the second counseling at Mahila Thana, Bemetara. She
also admits that the appellant had filed an application for restitution of
conjugal rights before Family Court, Bemetara and that from Bemetara
Court she would go back to her parental house with her mother and
sometimes to Raipur. In para 47 of her cross-examination she states
as under:
“47. यह कहना सही है कि जब वैवाहिक घर से प्रोफे सर कालोनी रायपुर में
शिफ्ट हो रहे थे तब क्या-क्या समान आ रहा है मुझे जानकारी थी। स्वतः
कथन है कि आवेदक फोन से बताया था। यह कहना सही है कि दिनांक
05.05.19 को मकान मालकिन से फोन पर बात हुई थी। यह कहना गलत है
कि मैं मकान मालकिन को बोली थी कि मेरे पति अपने घर चले जाये । मुझे
आज याद नही कि मुझे मकान मालकिन द्वारा फोन करने के पूर्व मेरे पति
द्वारा दो बार फोन किया था। यह कहना सही है कि उक्त दिनांक को किराये
के मकान का ताला मेरे द्वारा बदल दिया था। मैं उक्त दिनांक को किराये के
मकान से गर्ल्स हॉस्टल चली गई थी। यह कहना सही है कि में दिनांक
05.05.19 के बाद अपने वैवाहिक घर नहीं गई थी । यह कहना सही है कि
उक्त दिनांक के बाद से अनावेदिका के परिवार के लोग आवेदक के घर नहीं
गये है। मैने थाना में कोई शिकायत नहीं किया कि मेरे पति मुझे लेने नहीं
आया है। जोमेटो से आर्डर मैने अपने पति के कहने पर किया था स्वतः
कथन है कि आवेदक के घर में नॉनवेज नहीं बनता है इसलिए अंडा खाने के
लिए मंगाया था ।”
17. She also admits that while living in the house at Professor
Colony, the appellant used to beat and abuse her but she did not make
13 / 21
any complaint about it to the police. On being asked as to where she
got medical treatment of her frequent illness, she replied that since her
husband is a doctor, why she would get treatment elsewhere. She
admits that due to thyroid she has deficiency of calcium, iron,
hemoglobin and her blood pressure is low and she has been taking
medicines for it and also getting thyroid test done every three months.
However, she expressed her inability to produce medical bills for her
treatment in the last year. She admits that no report regarding torture
by the appellant and his relatives was made by her to the police. She
admits that since 5.5.2019 she has not gone to her matrimonial home.
18. Learned trial Court only appreciated the statement of mother-in-
law of the respondent but did not appreciate the admission of the
respondent. From the statements of both the parties it is explicit that
from the very beginning the respondent/wife was not willing to live with
the appellant in matrimonial home in the village and her behaviour was
very abnormal. She admits that on 20.8.2018 she went to Raipur and
stayed there. As per her husband when he asked her over mobile
phone as to where and with whom she is staying there, she did not
reply and switched off the mobile. She also admitted that in August,
2018 some elderly people of the society had come to her house and to
honour them she went to her matrimonial home. She also admits that
no one from her parental house went to her matrimonial home for
discussion. The evidence on record also goes to show that the
appellant/husband made all possible endeavours to keep her with him
14 / 21
and in this process he filed an application for restitution of conjugal
rights but the respondent/wife always neglected him and refused to live
with him saying that she does not want to live in rural area or in a joint
family.
19. This Court in the matter of Navodit Mishra (supra) observed and
held in paras 20, 21, 23, 24 & 25 of its order as under:
“20. In case of Ramchander vs. Ananta reported in (2015)
11 SCC 539 Hon’ble Supreme Court considering the ground
of cruelty raised in an application filed by husband seeking
divorce has held thus:-
“10. The expression ‘cruelty’ has not been defined in
the Hindu Marriage Act. Cruelty for the purpose of
Section 13 (1) (i-a) is to be taken as a behaviour by
one spouse towards the other, which causes a
reasonable apprehension in the mind of the latter that
it is not safe for him or her to continue the matrimonial
relationship with the other. Cruelty can be physical or
mental. In the present case there is no allegation of
physical cruelty alleged by the plaintiff.
What is alleged is mental cruelty and it is necessarily a
matter of inference to be drawn from the facts and
circumstances of the case. It is settled law that the
instances of cruelty are not to be taken in isolation but
to take the cumulative effect of the facts and
circumstances emerging from the evidence on record
and then draw a fair inference whether the plaintiff has
been subjected to mental cruelty due to conduct of the
15 / 21other spouse. In the decision in Samar Ghosh case
(supra), this Court set out illustrative cases where
inference of ‘mental cruelty’ can be drawn and they are
only illustrative and not exhaustive.”
21. Aforementioned rulings of Hon’ble Supreme Court
indicate what is mental cruelty and what would be
consideration to accept the plea of mental cruelty. Mental
cruelty and its effect cannot be calculated in arithmetical
manner, it varies from individual to individual; society to
society and also from status of person. Agonised feeling or
for that matter of sense of disappointment can take place by
certain acts causing a grievous dent at mental level.
Inference has to be drawn from the attending circumstances.
23. Marital relationship is a relationship of trust, respect
and emotions. After marriage each spouse is having marital
responsibilities and duties towards each other. From the
facts, as appearing in record, as also evidence of
respondent wife, it is apparent that from August, 2010 there
was no relationship as husband and wife between two,
which is sufficient to draw an inference that there was no
physical relationship between them. Physical relationship
between husband and wife is one of the important part for
healthy married life. Denial of physical relationship to a
spouse by other amounts to cruelty. Hence, we are of the
view that appellant was treated with cruelty by respondent
wife.
24. Another aspect of the case, as is appearing from
evidence of respondent wife, is that respondent joined
service in the year 2011 without any information and
16 / 21
knowledge of appellant. She admitted that though job and
post on which she is working is inter-district transferable
post, but she never applied for her transfer from District
Bemetara to District Bilaspur. In concluding paragraph of
her deposition, she has stated that she does not want to
leave her job; appellant could not come to Bemetara after
selling his house, land etc., which is one of causes of
differences/dispute between them. Respondent also
admitted that appellant asked her to do job in Bilaspur and
not in Bemetara. In the evidence of respondent it has
nowhere come that she wanted to come to Bilaspur and
reside with appellant; she had also made all attempts and
endeavour for the same. Evidence of respondent reflects
that her intention is to live in Bemetara only. Parties are
Brahmin by caste, as per social tradition, after marriage it is
wife who has to come and reside at the place of her
husband along with her in-laws. Respondent also after her
marriage came to Bilaspur but now she does not want to
leave her parents’ place ie. Bemetara. Making of one line
statement that she wants to continue her marital
relationship with appellant husband, will not be sufficient
when from her conduct/behaviour it is not appearing that
she actually intended for the same.
25. For the foregoing discussions and in light of above
mentioned rulings of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we are of the
view that appellant has made out a case for grant of decree
of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty. Accordingly,
impugned order is set aside. Application filed by appellant
under Section 13 (1) of the Act of 1955 is allowed. The
marriage dated 25.11.2007 between appellant and
respondent stands dissolved. Decree be drawn-up
17 / 21
accordingly. No order as to costs.”
20. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Shilpa Sailesh
(supra) held in para 33 of its judgment as under:
“33. Having said so, we wish to clearly state that grant of
divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of
marriage by this Court is not a matter of right, but a
discretion which is to be exercised with great care and
caution, keeping in mind several factors ensuring that
‘complete Justice is done to both parties. It is obvious that
this Court should be fully convinced and satisfied that the
marriage is totally unworkable, emotionally dead and
beyond salvation and, therefore, dissolution of marriage is
the right solution and the only way forward. That the
marriage has irretrievably broken down is to be factually
determined and firmly established. For this, several factors
are to be considered such as the period of time the parties
had cohabited after marriage; when the parties had last
cohabited; the nature of allegations made by the parties
against each other and their family members; the orders
passed in the legal proceedings from time to time,
cumulative impact on the personal relationship; whether,
and how many attempts were made to settle the disputes
by intervention of the court or through mediation, and when
the last attempt was made, etc. The period of separation
should be sufficiently long, and anything above six years or
more will be a relevant factor. But these facts have to be
evaluated keeping in view the economic and social status
of the parties, including their educational qualifications,
whether the parties have any children, their age,
educational qualification, and whether the other spouse
18 / 21and children are dependent, in which event how and in
what manner the party seeking divorce intends to take care
and provide for the spouse or the children. Question of
custody and welfare of minor children, provision for fair and
adequate alimony for the wife, and economic rights of the
children and other pending matters, if any, are relevant
considerations. We would not like to codify the factors so
as to curtail exercise of jurisdiction under Article 142(1) of
the Constitution of India, which is situation specific. Some
of the factors mentioned can be taken as illustrative, and
worthy of consideration.”
21. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Narendra v. K. Meena
reported in (2016) 9 SCC 455 had observed that it is not a common
practice or desirable culture for a Hindu son in India to get separated
from the parents upon getting married at the instance of the wife. The
son, brought up and given education by his parents has a moral and
legal obligation to take care and maintain the parents when they
become old and when they have either no income or have a meagre
income. In India, generally people do not subscribe to the western
thought, where upon getting married or attaining majority; the son gets
separated from the family. In normal circumstances, the wife is
expected to be a part of the family of the husband after her marriage.
She becomes integral to and forms part of the family and husband and
normally without any justifiable strong reason, she should never insist
that her husband should get separated from the family and live with her
separately. The persistent efforts of respondent wife to constrain the
19 / 21
husband to be separated from his family without any justifiable reason
would be torturous for him and would constitute an act of cruelty.
22. In light of above decisions, it is clear that act of the
respondent/wife in the present case is such which amounts to cruelty
to the husband. She admitted that she is not willing to live at her
matrimonial home at Village-Pirda where parents of the husband
reside. Her behaviour is also abnormal. She made no efforts to come
back to her matrimonial home. Admittedly, she has been living
separately since 2019. The appellant filed application for divorce only
on the ground of cruelty before the Family Court on 11.9.2019 i.e.
before two years of desertion but it is clear that behaviour of the
respondent/wife has been abnormal and negligent towards her
husband and she never tried to live with him peacefully. Learned
Family Court did not appreciate the admission of the wife in her written
statement as well as her evidence. Though she stated to be suffering
from various ailments but no medical document to substantiate it has
been filed. From para 15 of her cross-examination it is clear that she
admitted that her husband has not converted to any other religion, not
renounced their marriage and he is not suffering from any disease.
However, she volunteers that he is a mental patient. Thus, from the
conduct of the respondent/wife it is quite clear that she is not attached
to her husband emotionally. It goes without saying that marital
relationship is a relationship of trust, respect and emotions and after
20 / 21
marriage each spouse is having marital responsibilities and duties
towards each other. However, in the present case, it is admission of the
wife that while both of them were living in rented house in Raipur, she
changed the lock of the house and got a phone call from her landlord.
Thus, allegation of the husband in para 7 of his affidavit is admitted by
the respondent/wife that on 5.5.2019 she went away having locked the
door of rented accommodation, the landlord informed that she has
gone away and asked him to go back to village and that he consistently
made efforts to contact his wife and her family members but failed.
23. Looking to the statement of the husband and admission of the
wife, keeping in view the aforesaid decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court and this Court, we’re of the view that the appellant has
successfully made out a case for grant of decree of divorce on the
ground of mental cruelty but the learned Family Court did not properly
appreciate the evidence in its entirety and gave an erroneous finding
on the issues framed. Therefore, the impugned judgment and decree
being contrary to law and material available on record are liable to be
set aside.
24. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and
decree dated 22.11.2023 passed by First Additional Principal Judge,
Family Court, Raipur in H.M.A. No.895/2019 are hereby set aside.
Consequently, marriage of the appellant with the respondent
solemnized on 10.6.2017 stands dissolved from the date of passing of
21 / 21
this judgment.
As regards permanent alimony, considering the facts and
circumstances of the case, the socio-economic status of the parties
and the fact that the respondent/wife is a well educated lady, it is
directed that the appellant/husband shall pay a sum of Rs.5 lacs as
permanent alimony to the respondent/wife within a period of two
months from today.
A decree be drawn up accordingly.
Sd/ Sd/
(Rajani Dubey) (Narendra Kumar Vyas)
Judge Judge
Digitally
MOHD signed by
AKHTAR MOHD
AKHTAR
KHAN KHAN
Khan
[ad_1]
Source link