Allowed

Smt. Sandhya Goswami v. Ayodhya Puri Goswami

Chhattisgarh HC4 Dec 2014FAM/117/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appeal against a divorce decree granted by the Family Court. It set aside the judgment due to insufficient evidence of desertion and cruelty and directed the trial court to decide the matter afresh after providing complete opportunity for evidence.

What did the court decide?

Judgment and decree of the trial court set aside; case remanded to trial court to be decided afresh after providing complete opportunity for evidence.

Smt. Sandhya Goswami Vs Ayodhya Puri Goswami — Matrimonial and Divorce | Chhattisgarh HC (2014)

¶1

) t 1^ftu I-'

¶2

•ply|8U:i^^—"w".,.^..-,.-,.-—.%m©^

¶3

m THg^lIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, AT BILASPUR F.AfMl.NO.(H/2Qll

¶4

APPELLANT :- Smt. Sandhya Goswami W/o Ayodhya (Defendant Wife^ Puri Goswami aged about 36 years presently residmg at Village Pandhi P.S Seepat Tehsil & District Bilaspur {C.G}.

¶5

VEKSTJS

¶6

RESPONDE :- Ayodhya Puri Goswami S/o Late tPlaintiff Husband) Jeevrakhan Goswami R/o Chunchuni ^-*f\°^^ Colony—"^ Aadarsh.^^.. Nagar.^^^,, Ku smunda ^^.^ ?^6..^<^'>'^<t<<^ present Address : D.M.<.Q Quarter ^.^^<S':^'^^^.">a.^"^^' ' \ No. 19 Sub Area Maiiager~. Oftice ^^ 9^''^y'.^"\° Kusmunda.. . S.E.CL^.-„. Post„ Office ^^•"•^^^" A-2&" ^ Kusraunda District Korba (C.G).

¶7

FIRST APPEAL UNDER SECTION 19 (It OF THB

¶8

FAMDLY COURTACT, 1984

¶9

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶10

Coram: HON'BLE MR. T.P.SHARMA & HON'BLE MR. I.S.UBOWEJA, JJ.

¶11

First Appeal (M) No. 117 of2011

APPELLANT

Smt. Sandhya Goswami

fDefendant Wife)

Versus

RESPONDENT

Ayodhya Puri Goswami

fPlaintiff Husbandt

(Appeal under Section 19(1) ofthe Family Courts Act, 1984)

¶20

Appearance : ^ ^! ^ gi |jg jy g . Mr. S.N. Ng;|M|Mp|y|i'ffir tWi||||ll|:lgt.

¶21

Mr. Shivl|ri| EffiWy, Advocate fbrfh8Je||bn|©nt.

¶22

ORDER I

¶23

(Dated-4th December, 2014)

¶24

PerT.P.Sharma,J.:-

¶25

By this appeal undffi ^e||i@n|p(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, the appeltant has challenQect tliejliegality and propriety of the judgment and decree diated O^ 4ff-'2Q passe€^by the Judge, Family Court, Korba in Civil Suit No. 82-A/20Q8fcWher|by the trial Court has decreed the suit for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce filed on behalf of the respondent.

¶26

As per plaint allegation, marriage between the parties solemnized on 22.06.1999, they resided together. One daughter born out of the matrimonial relation. After sometime of marriage, the appellant left her matrimonial house and is residing in her parents' house. She has deserted the respondent and also committed torture & cruelty and also launched false prosecution. On the basis of such cruetty and desertion, petition for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce has been filed by the respondent.

¶27

By filing written statement, appellant has denied the adverse allegation and has pleaded that she has neither deserted nor committed torture and cruelty inter alia respondent has committed torture and cruelty and has deserted her.

¶28

After providing opportunity of hearing to the parties, learned Court below has decreed the suit for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce.

¶29

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment^{impugnedandrecordof trialCourt.}

¶30

In order to iub^^t|aNN||p|le| has examined himself andi dipffsed^^^^^^^^t appellant has desei<ed|l hirn^^ also committed llirture and cruelty and also launched false prose||!||^ Appellant has denied aforesaid a)Ieg|itjQn arlOTeposed that responderrl: has committed torture and crueltyia|i|||h|s|d^serted her. Appellant has examined Mahesh Puri Goswajnil (DW-2), Gulshan Puri Goswami (DW-3) and Urmila Tiwari (DW^jrisuppprt (?f her pleading and evidence.

¶31

In the lightof evidencrQfWe appellant and her witnesses, evidence of respondent only does not appear to beconclusive in nature. Both the parties have leveled charges against each other. They require to substantiate the pleading by adducing credible and accepted evidence. This is matrimonia! dispute and it is only observed that appellant's residing in her parents' house has been considered as desertion by the trial Court. This is not a proved case of cruelty or illicit relation or entrance of third person between the parties.

¶32

¶33

¶34

In these circumstances, Court below is under obligation to provide complete opportunity to the parties for amicable settlement. Evidence of respondent himself is not sufficient to prove the factum of desertion. We

¶35

(. ^... ^y

¶36

are unable to uphold the judgment, decreeing the suit for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce.

¶37

¶38

Consequently, the appeal is allowed. Judgment and decree passed by the Court below is hereby set aside. Court below is directed to provide complete opportunity of hearing and adducing evidence to the parties and to decide the case afresh. Parties shall remain in attendance before the trial Court on 08th January, 2015.

¶39

Sd/Inder Singh Uboweja Judge

¶40

Sd/T.P. Sharma Judge

Smt. Sandhya Goswami v. Ayodhya Puri Goswami

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sandhya Goswami v. Ayodhya Puri Goswami

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Laxmi Kiran Mahant Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Anr.

Smt.anju Sahu And Ors. Vs Officer Incharge And Ors.

Chandresh Bhoi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Triloknath Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Prem Yadav and Another Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Kumar Patel and Anr. Vs State of Chhattisgarh