Smt. Ritu Shrivas vs Narendra Singh Darshan

Per Parth Prateem Sahu, J.

This appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 is directed against the judgment and decree dated 08.09.2025 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur in Civil Suit No. 556-A of 2023, whereby application preferred by appellant/applicant (wife) under Section 13(1)(i-a) and 13(1)(i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, "the Act of 1955"), seeking dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion, has been dismissed.

Facts necessary for disposal of the present appeal are that the appellant/applicant (wife) filed an application/suit under Sections 13(1) (i-a) and 13(1)(i-b) of the Act of 1955, before the Family Court, Bilaspur, seeking dissolution of her marriage with the respondent/non-applicant (husband) pleading therein that their marriage was solemnized on 21.05.2013 in accordance with Hindu rites and rituals, and a son was born out of the wedlock on 10.12.2014. She pleaded that after birth of their son, non-applicant/husband subjected her to mental and physical cruelty by neglecting her and their son, taunting her for bringing insufficient dowry, abusing and confining her, restricting her movements and suspecting her character. She further pleaded that in September 2017, husband and his family members, after harassing her, left her at her parental home and thereafter made no sincere effort to resume cohabitation. She also alleged that non-applicant/husband levelled false allegation regarding her character during the proceedings under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., thereby causing her further mental harassment. On these grounds, she sought dissolution of the marriage and a decree of divorce.

In his written statement, non-applicant/husband denied all allegations of cruelty and dowry demand and pleaded that he had always maintained the applicant and their son, including payment of child's school and bus transportation fees, as admitted by the applicant in her statement under Section 125 Cr.P.C. He pleaded that, soon after marriage, applicant started quarrelling with him and his elderly parents over trivial issues, behaved indecently and threatened to implicate them in false dowry cases. He further denied that his sisters-in-law had ever harassed the applicant or that he had ever doubted her character. But it is the applicant herself who mentally harassed the non-applicant by making derogative remarks about his age and expressing her unwillingness to continue the marital relationship. He contended that the applicant had voluntarily left the matrimonial home in September 2017 along with their minor son and, despite his repeated efforts, refused to return. He further relied upon the proceedings before the Women's Police Station, Bilaspur, and the applicant's statements in the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., to contend that she had declined reconciliation and had made no complaint of harassment before the said authority. In his additional pleadings, non-applicant further pleaded that the applicant frequently visited her parental home and, whenever he objected to such visits, she quarrelled with him and threatened to commit suicide and implicate him and his family members in false cases. He reiterated that he had never subjected her to cruelty and pleaded that dissolution of the marriage would adversely affect the future, welfare and development of their minor son. Therefore, application/suit filed by the applicant be dismissed.

On the basis of the pleadings made by the parties, learned Family Court framed following main issues for determination:

Learned Family Court upon appreciation of the pleadings and oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by the parties, answered the aforesaid issues in negative and held that the applicant/wife failed to prove the allegation of cruelty and desertion against the non-applicant/husband. Consequently, the application filed under Section 13(1)(i-a), 13 (1) (i-b) of the Act of 1955 was dismissed by the impugned judgment which is under challenge by the appellant/applicant in the present appeal.

Assailing legality, validity, and correctness of the impugned judgment and decree, learned counsel for the appellant/wife (applicant), submits that learned Family Court committed manifest illegality and perversity in rejecting the application filed by the appellant/applicant for decree of divorce. He submits that learned Family Court passed the impugned judgment and decree without properly appreciating the facts, circumstances and evidence available on record. It is contended that the Family Court failed to consider the applicant’s testimony regarding repeated demands for money and dowry, as well as physical assault by her husband and in-laws, resulting in injuries. It is further argued that the Family Court overlooked the order dated 24.12.2024 passed in Misc. Criminal Case No. 281/2022 under Section 125 Cr.P.C., whereby maintenance was granted to the appellant, recognizing sufficient grounds for her separate residence. Learned counsel submitted that the testimony of the appellant/applicant (AW-1) was not properly appreciated and that she had sufficient reasons to live separately, particularly when the non-applicant/husband made no sincere effort to bring her back to the matrimonial home. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and decree are liable to be set aside.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/husband (non-applicant) would submit that the learned Family Court, after proper appreciation of the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence available on record, has rightly dismissed the divorce petition, as the appellant/wife (applicant) failed to establish the grounds of cruelty and desertion under Section 13(1)(i-a) and 13(1)(i-b) of the Act of 1955. It is contended that the allegations of dowry demand, physical assault and mental harassment are vague, unsubstantiated and unsupported by any cogent evidence. Merely because maintenance was awarded to the appellant/applicant under Section 125 Cr.P.C., it cannot be presumed that the respondent/husband had subjected her to cruelty or that she was justified in withdrawing from his company. It is further submitted that the appellant/applicant voluntarily left the matrimonial home in September 2017 along with their minor son and, despite repeated efforts made by the respondent for reconciliation, she refused to resume cohabitation. Her refusal to return to the matrimonial home is also evident from the counselling proceedings before the Women's Police Station and her statements recorded in the maintenance proceedings. Learned counsel would further submit that the appellant has failed to establish any legally sustainable ground warranting dissolution of marriage. Learned Family Court has committed no illegality or perversity in passing the impugned judgment and decree. Accordingly, the appeal, being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed.

We have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the record of the Family Court.

The appellant/wife has challenged the impugned judgment and decree whereby learned Family Court dismissed the application filed by her under Section 13(1)(i-a) and Section 13 (1) (i-b) of the Act of 1955 seeking decree of divorce from respondent/husband on the ground of cruelty and desertion. The factum of marriage is not in dispute. It is an admitted position that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 21.05.2013 in accordance with Hindu rites and rituals.

Section 13 of the Act of 1955 provides for grant of decree of divorce in certain cases. It enacts that any marriage solemnized whether before or after the commencement of the Act may be dissolved on a petition presented either by the husband or by the wife on any of the grounds specified therein. Clause (i-a) of sub-section (1) of Section 13 envisages that a decree of divorce may be passed by a Court on the ground that after solemnization of marriage, opposite party has treated the petitioner with cruelty. Expression ‘cruelty’ includes both (i) physical cruelty; and (ii) mental cruelty. Cruelty is not defined in the Act of 1955. Physical cruelty can be proved by oral and documentary evidence. As far as mental cruelty is concerned, the same has to be decided based on the facts and circumstances of each case taking into consideration the social standing of the parties.

Section 13(1)(i-b) of the Act of 1955 provides desertion as a legal ground for divorce. It allows either spouse to file for the dissolution of marriage if the other party has deserted them for a continuous period of at least two years right before filing the petition.

In order to examine the act of cruelty, the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh reported in (2007) 4 SCC 511, would be a relevant guideline wherein the Court has indicated certain illustrative instances at para 101 whereby the inference of mental cruelty can be drawn. Para 101 reads as under :-

In support of her case before the learned Family Court, appellant/applicant (wife) examined herself as AW-1, whereas, non-applicant/husband examined himself as NAW-1.

In the present case, appellant/wife (applicant) has alleged several instances of physical and mental cruelty on the part of respondent/husband. In her affidavit filed under Order 18 Rule 4 of the CPC, she reiterated the allegations made in her plaint/application. However, during her cross-examination, particularly in paragraph- 15 thereof, she admitted that she had not lodged any complaint regarding the alleged harassment pleaded in paragraph -3 of her affidavit. She further admitted that she had not produced any evidence in support of her allegations that, after the birth of their son, respondent neglected her care and treatment; criticised her for not performing household work properly; taunted her for having brought insufficient dowry; deprived her of food and other necessities; confined her in a room; or that her sisters-in-law taunted her and the respondent abused and behaved indecently with her, thereby causing her mental and physical harassment. Further, in paragraph- 16 of her cross-examination, applicant (AW-1), admitted that she is an educated woman and holds qualifications of B.Com., M.Com., B.Ed. and M.A. in English. She also admitted that the respondent/husband had initiated reconciliation proceedings before the Women's Police Station, Bilaspur. Copy of the proceedings conducted before the Women's Police Station, Bilaspur, has been exhibited as Ex. D-1.

Thus, the testimony of the appellant/applicant/wife Ritu Srivas (AW-1), particularly her admissions made during cross-examination, indicates that she did not lodge any complaint against the respondent/husband or his family members in respect of the alleged acts of cruelty. Although she sought to explain the absence of any such complaint by stating that she had refrained from taking recourse to legal proceedings in order to protect her family, the explanation does not inspire confidence, particularly when she has admittedly been living separately from the respondent since 2017. No material has been brought on record to demonstrate that, during the prolonged period of separation, she made any attempt to report or otherwise substantiate the alleged acts of cruelty. Further, the appellant has admitted the proceedings conducted before the Family Counselling Centre, Women's Police Station, Bilaspur, which have been exhibited as Ex. D-1. A perusal of the said proceedings reveals that no allegation of physical or mental cruelty against the respondent or his family members was made by her during the counselling proceedings. Though the appellant/applicant stated in paragraph-18 of her cross-examination that she had apprised the Mahila Police Station of the alleged harassment, no such allegation finds mention in Ex. D-1, which bears her signature. Thus, her admission regarding non-filing of any complaint, coupled with the absence of any reference to the alleged acts of cruelty in the relevant counselling proceedings, assumes significance while assessing the credibility of her allegations. These circumstances, when considered cumulatively, create a serious doubt regarding the veracity of the allegations of cruelty subsequently made by the appellant against the respondent and his family members.

In the light of the aforesaid discussion, we find that the allegations of physical and mental cruelty levelled by the appellant/wife against the respondent/husband and his family members have not been established by any cogent and reliable evidence. Accordingly, we are of the considered opinion that the appellant/wife has failed to discharge the burden of proving cruelty as contemplated under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Act of 1955.

So far as the ground of desertion under Section 13(1)(i-b) of the Act of 1955 is concerned, applicant/wife (AW-1), in paragraph 5 of her affidavit filed in evidence, stated that in September 2017, the respondent/husband and his family members subjected her to harassment and left her at her parental home situated at 27, Kholi, Vikas Nagar, Bilaspur, against her wishes. She further alleged that, thereafter, the respondent made no effort to bring her back to the matrimonial home or resume cohabitation. However, during his cross-examination, particularly in paragraph-15 thereof, when respondent/husband (NAW-1) was questioned as to why he had not lodged any complaint with the police if the appellant had left the matrimonial home in September 2017, he stated that the applicant had left the matrimonial home on the pretext that she intended to pursue her B.Ed. studies and, therefore, he did not consider it necessary to lodge any police complaint. Thus, the testimony of the respondent/husband indicates that, according to him, the appellant had left the matrimonial home on her own volition for the purpose of pursuing her studies.

Further, perusal of the proceedings recorded by the Family Counselling Centre, Women's Police Station, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, exhibited as Ex. D-1, does not disclose any assertion on the part of the appellant that she had been forcibly sent to or left at her parental home by the respondent in September 2017. On the contrary, the said proceedings indicate that the appellant/applicant expressed her unwillingness to return to the matrimonial home on the grounds that she had completed her B.Ed. qualification, the respondent was unable to provide her with suitable residential accommodation and the house did not have the requisite facilities. She also expressed her desire to reside at Bilaspur. These statements, recorded during the counselling proceedings, assume significance while examining the circumstances in which the parties started living separately and the question as to which of them withdrew from the matrimonial relationship.

Thus, the material available on record, particularly the testimony of the respondent/husband (NAW-1) and the proceedings exhibited as Ex. D-1, does not substantiate the appellant's/applicant’s assertion that she was forcibly sent to her parental home against her wishes by the respondent in September 2017. Rather, the aforesaid material indicates that the appellant/applicant was unwilling to return to the matrimonial home and had expressed her preference to reside separately at Bilaspur on account of her educational and residential comforts and considerations. Consequently, the appellant's version that the respondent had driven her out of the matrimonial home and thereafter deserted her is not supported by the evidence on record. These circumstances are, therefore, relevant in determining whether the essential ingredients of desertion, including the factum of separation and the requisite intention to bring cohabitation permanently to an end by the respondent/non-applicant, have been established in the present case.

In view of the aforesaid discussion and the evidence available on record, we find that the appellant/wife has failed to establish that the respondent/husband had driven her out of the matrimonial home or left her at her parental home against her wishes in September 2017, as alleged by her. Rather, the material on record indicates that she was unwilling to return to the matrimonial home and had expressed her preference to reside separately at Bilaspur. Thus, the appellant's assertion that the respondent had compelled her to live separately and thereby deserted her is not borne out by the evidence on record. Consequently, the appellant has failed to establish that the respondent/husband had deserted her within the meaning of Section 13(1)(i-b) of the Act of 1955.

It is well settled that matrimonial life necessarily involves certain differences, disagreements and adjustments between spouses. Mere differences relating to residence, financial circumstances or day-to-day household affairs, in the absence of conduct of sufficient gravity and persistence, cannot by themselves constitute cruelty within the meaning of Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Act of 1955.

In the present case, the appellant/wife (applicant) has made several allegations against the respondent/husband (non-applicant). However, the material on record does not establish, by cogent and reliable evidence, that the respondent's/non-applicant’s conduct was of such a grave and persistent nature as to render the continuation of matrimonial life impossible or to make it unreasonable to expect the appellant to continue cohabitation with him.

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Anil Kumar Jain v. Maya Jain reported in (2009) 10 SCC 415 observed thus :

Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Savitri Pandey Vs. Prem Chandra Pandey reported in (2002) 2 SCC 73, while dismissing the appeal filed by appellant-wife seeking decree of divorce under Section 13 (1) (i-b) and 23 (1) of the Act of 1955, observed thus :

In case of Gurbux Singh v. Harminder Kaur, reported in (2010) 14 SCC 301, Hon’ble Supreme Court, while considering an appeal arising out of the dismissal of an application filed by a spouse under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking a decree of divorce, observed as under:

The burden of establishing the allegations of cruelty was upon the appellant/applicant-wife. Apart from the oral assertions made by the appellant/applicant, no cogent and reliable documentary evidence has been brought on record to substantiate the allegations of “cruelty” as well as “desertion” against the respondent/non-applicant-husband.

The appellate Court, while considering an appeal against a judgment based upon appreciation of evidence by the Family Court, is required to examine whether the findings recorded by the trial Court are supported by the evidence on record and whether such findings suffer from perversity, illegality or any material error of law.

Upon consideration of the entire material available on record, we find that the learned Family Court has considered the pleadings as well as the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties and has recorded a reasoned finding that the appellant/applicant failed to establish the allegations of “cruelty” and “desertion” against the respondent/non-applicant.

The findings recorded by the learned Family Court are based upon proper appreciation of the evidence on record and cannot be said to be perverse or contrary to the evidence. No material illegality or error of law has been demonstrated warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.

In view of the foregoing discussions and having regard to the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decisions referred to hereinabove, we are of the considered view that the appellant/applicant failed to establish that she was treated with “cruelty” and “deserted” by the respondent /non-applicant (husband).

Accordingly, the appeal, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. Impugned judgment and decree is hereby affirmed.

Let a decree be drawn accordingly.