Dismissed

Smt. Tikeshwari Chouhan v. Shri Anil Chouhan

Chhattisgarh HC8 Dec 2022FA(MAT)/50/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed the wife's appeal against a divorce decree granted to her husband on grounds of mental cruelty. The court held that the wife's persistent behavior, including threats and refusal to live with in-laws, justified the divorce. Alimony of Rs. 10,000/month was awarded to the wife.

What did the court decide?

Divorce decree affirmed; wife to receive Rs. 10,000 per month maintenance.

Smt. Tikeshwari Chouhan Vs Shri Anil Chouhan — Matrimonial and Divorce | Chhattisgarh HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

F.A. (MAT) No. 50 of 2019

¶5

Judgment Reserved on : 18.11.2022

¶6

Judgment Delivered on : 08.12.2022

¶7

Smt. Tikeshwari Chouhan, W/o Shri Anil Chouhan, aged about 32 years, D/o Shri Ashok Singh Thakur, R/o Gali No. 9, Vivakanand Ashram, Tahsil & District Raipur (C.G.)

¶8

---Appellant/Defendant

¶9

Versus

¶10

Shri Anil Chouhan, S/o Shri Laxman Singh Chouhan, aged about 34 years, R/o Senior M.I.G. 49, Kabir Nagar, Raipur, Tahsil & District Raipur (C.G.)

¶11

---- Respondent/Plaintiff

¶12

For Appellant : Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Adv.

¶13

Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. Chandravanshi

¶14

CAV JUDGMENT

¶15

Per N.K. Chandravanshi, J.

¶16

Present appeal has been preferred by the appellant/wife against the judgment & decree dated 17.10.2019 passed by First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur in H.M.A. No. 322/15 whereby application filed by respondent/husband seeking divorce under Section 13 (1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (henceforth “The Act, 1955”) was allowed in favour of

¶17

¶18

respondent/husband.

¶19

Facts of the case, in brief, are that an application under Section 13 (1) (i-a) of the Act, 1955 was filed by the respondent/husband for grant of decree of divorce before Family Court, Raipur pleading inter alia that his marriage was solemnized with the appellant/wife on 17.05.2011 according to Hindu rites and rituals, but after marriage attitude and behaviour of wife was not good and respectful towards husband and his parents. She always used to quarrel and abuse on petty issues along with them. After 10 days of their marriage, marriage of younger sister of husband was scheduled to be held and on the said occasion relatives were coming, at that time, wife started quarreling with them to live separately. Paternal house of wife is also at Raipur, hence, she used to go there without informing husband and despite several efforts to bring her back, she did not return for many days. After about 4-5 months of their marriage, she went to her paternal home without informing them and when she was talked over telephone by husband, she got angered and used filthy language and also threatened to commit suicide, then husband somehow managed to bring her back. On 25.04.2012, she again quarreled with husband to live separately from his parents and threatened to implicate them in dowry case and send them to jail. She also refused to celebrate their first wedding anniversary on 17.05.2012, as at that time she was at her parental home. On

¶20

¶21

assurance given by the parents of wife, that she will not quarrel and also not compel to live separately, husband brought her back on 30.05.2012, but after few days, she again started quarreling on petty issues with her husband and mother-in-law and also insisting to live separately. Whenever husband tried to explain her not to do such type of act, she threatened to commit suicide by saying that “you always keep your parents' side”. When mother-in-law did not permit her to keep fast, as she (wife) was pregnant at the relevant point of time, then wife quarreled with her in front of husband and his father. Thereafter, wife did not talk with husband for many days and due to her such attitude, mother of husband was compelled to do household work, as wife did not do the said household work. Firstly when the husband & his family members has made complaint to her father about her such attitude & behaviour, then her brother came and took her at parental house, while going, the wife threatened to kill their child. From December, 2012 to June, 2013, wife did not return, hence, husband made complaint (Ex.P-1) at Police Station Amanaka, Raipur on 12.06.2013.

¶22

2.1. On being given intimation (Ex.P-2) under Section 155 of the Cr.P.C., husband made complaint on 22.06.2013 (Ex.P-3) at Mahila Police Station, Raipur. On the same day, wife delivered female child and when the said fact was informed to the husband, he went to the Hospital to meet them, but she refused to come back with him. Despite being asked by husband, wife did not

¶23

¶24

permit him to celebrate birth of child by organizing function at his house.

¶25

2.2. After first phase of counseling held between 6.7.2013 to 12.8.2013, on 18.08.2013, wife alongwith her parents and brother came to the house of husband and her parents threatened, that if they will not keep their daughter, then she would commit suicide by ablazing herself in front of all, thereafter, her parents left her at her matrimonial home. Feeling aggrieved & dissatisfied with the allegation made by her parents, husband returned Centro Car, which he had received in the marriage. After 1 or 2 months, wife again started quarelling to live separately from her in-laws and threatened them to commit suicide and also kill their daughter by slamming. On 17.03.2014, she again started compelling husband to live separately in the separate house, otherwise she will commit suicide, therefore, they started living separately in a room situated at outside of parental house of husband. It is further alleged that on 27.10.2014, wife again insisted to live in separate rented house and imprecate husband and cut her hand by blade and was going to jump from roof with an intention to end her life. On being informed, her parents and police personnel came and explained her. After coming back from police station, wife again asked to take rented house, thereafter, as per her wish, on 27.10.2014 husband left her at her parental home and on 30.10.2014, he made complaint (Ex.P-4) to Mahila Police Station, thereafter, again

¶26

¶27

counseling held between 17.11.2014 to 18.02.2015, wherein counsellors explained them. On 31.12.2014, wife quarreled with husband and abused his parents and imprecated them, who had gone to pilgrimage. Thereafter, on many times like on 15.1.2015 & 15.2.2015, wife quarreled with husband and his family members and also imprecated them.

¶28

2.3. On 27.03.2015, a Durga Ashtimi Puja was organized by mother of husband. On that day also, wife quarreled with them, abused them and also damaged the articles of Puja. On being informed, police came there and explained the wife. On same day i.e. on 27.03.2015, wife left her matrimonial home alongwith their daughter without informing husband. Since then, she has left the company of husband and residing at her parental home, despite repeated efforts, she did not return. Hence, the husband filed the aforesaid application under Section 13 (1) (i-a) of the Act, 1955 seeking divorce.

¶29

In reply, wife/appellant denied all the allegations levelled against her and has pleaded that neither she has quarreled with husband nor her mother-in-law nor pressurized him to live separately from her in-laws, rather husband used to ask her to bring golden chain and bracelet from her parents. It is alleged that husband and his family members used to scold her over petty issues and assaulted her also. It is also alleged that her in-laws used to pressuriz her to give dowry articles, which she received in

¶30

¶31

her marriage, in the marriage of sister of her husband and when she refused to do so, then her mother-in-law humiliated and quarreled with her. It is further alleged by the wife that she was tortured physically and mentally by her husband and in-laws, even, she was not provided proper treatment at the time of birth of her child, therefore, she had come to her parental home and her child was born while residing there. Appellant/wife further pleaded that husband had made false complaints many times against her at police station only to create false evidence against her. Thus, husband and his family members themselves have harassed her physically & mentally and have filed application for divorce, on false and fabricated grounds.

¶32

Learned Family Court, after framing issues on the basis of pleadings of the parties and after affording due opportunity of hearing to them, has granted decree of divorce in favour of respondent/husband on the ground of cruelty meted out to him by the appellant/wife. Hence, this appeal.

¶33

Learned counsel for the appellant/wife would submit that the learned Family Court has granted decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty but respondent/husband has not taken such plea in his petition. It is further submitted that in order to prove cruelty, the husband has pleaded alleged inappropriate conduct and behavior of wife but the same has not been proved by adducing any concrete evidence, rather husband himself does not want to keep

¶34

¶35

her with him, therefore, he created atmosphere, by which, wife was compelled and forced to live at parental house. Husband and his mother used to torture her physically and mentally on various counts, only because wife refused to give her L=h/ku in the marriage of her sister in law. Thus, matrimonial offence is committed by husband and as per matrimonial jurisprudence, the party, who is guilty of committing matrimonial offence, cannot be termed as aggrieved party to grant decree of divorce. In the instant case, wife is always ready to live with her husband but husband has categorically denied in his statement to keep her with him.

¶36

5.1 It is further submitted that, after granting decree of divorce vide judgment dated 17.10.2019, on very next day i.e. on 18.10.2019 appeal was filed by the wife and vide order dated 18.11.2019, effect & operation of the impugned judgment & decree was stayed by this Court, despite that husband performed second marriage on 23.11.2019. This conduct shows that husband himself is not ready to keep wife with him and has filed divorce petition on false and fabricated grounds. It is further submitted that although cruelty has not been proved by the husband, despite that if alleged inappropriate conduct and behaviour of wife are seen, then it is evident from the facts narrated by husband in his pleadings and counselling papers Ex.P-10 (Page 59 to 61), that there are two sets of alleged dispute between the parties, firstly before first set of

¶37

¶38

counselling held between 6.7.2013 to 12.8.2013, and secondly, second set of counseling held between 17.11.2014 to 18.02.2015. It is submitted that after first set of counseling, on 18.8.2013, wife went to her matrimonial home and then till 27.10.2014, both were resided together and enjoyed matrimonial life. Thus, husband had condoned and forgiven wife's alleged misconduct / behaviour. Therefore, alleged misconduct or behaviour prior to 27.10.2014 could not be taken into consideration to assume cruelty on the part of wife, as counselling papers dated 12.01.2015 & 18.02.2015 (page 61) do not show any matrimonial offence committed by wife, which could be termed as cruelty up to the level for granting decree of divorce. In this regard, he placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the cases of Dr. N.G. Dastane v. Mrs. S. Dastane 1 and R. Balasubramanian v. Smt. Vijaylakshmi 2.

¶39

5.2. Learned counsel for the appellant/wife further argued that dispute between husband and wife were normal domestic dispute, which happens in families of such financial status, as parties in the instant case have. In this regard, he relied in the case of Gurbux Singh v. Harminder Kaur 3 , wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has held that mere trivial irritations, quarrels, normal wear and tear of married life which happens in day to day life in all families would

¶40

1 1975 (2) SCC 326

¶41

2 AIR 1999 SC 3070

¶42

3 AIR 2011 SC 114

¶43

¶44

not be adequate for grant of divorce on the ground of cruelty. Hence, it is prayed that appeal may be allowed by setting aside the judgment & decree of the trial Court.

¶45

On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent/husband would submit that after marriage on 17.05.2011, marital life of husband & wife was not well and ultimately on 27.03.2015, wife has deserted the husband, in between, their married life was neither well nor peaceful, as since beginning wife used to quarrel with husband and his mother and frequently used to go to her parental home without informing them. When, it was objected, she abused them and also threatened to send them behind the bar in dowry case. She also threatened many times to commit suicide, because she always used to pressurize husband to live separately from his old aged parents, whereas respondent/husband is only son of his parents, due to such offensive and arrogant behaviour, husband had made four written complaints at police station on various dates. It is further submitted that after first set of counselling held between 6.7.2013 to 12.8.2013, they lived together, despite that her conduct and behaviour did not change towards them and she again returned in her earlier offensive and arrogant attitude, threatened them to commit suicide and cut her hand by blade & due to pressure created by her, respondent left her to her parental home. On being complaint made by respondent/husband, again counseling held

¶46

¶47

between them, despite that she did not change her behavour and after making quarrel and assaulting and abusing husband and his mother, she left her matrimonial home on 27.03.2015 along with their daughter. Despite various efforts made by husband, conduct and behaviour of the wife did not change and she did not return matrimonial home, due to which husband sufferred various mental and physical torture, which has been proved by him by adducing oral and documentary evidence. Therefore, there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order warranting interference of this Court in the instant appeal, as such, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

¶48

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record with utmost circumspection.

¶49

It is evident from the record that marriage between the parties was held on 17.05.2011 and appellant/wife is residing separately from her husband since 27.03.2015. In this regard, husband – Anil Chouhan (PW-1) has alleged her inappropriate conduct and behaviour by stating that she frequently used to go to her parental home without informing them and live there for long time. On being asked about the same, she used to misbehave & abuse in filthy language. He has further deposed that wife always insulted the respondent/husband and his parents, as she always insisted him to live separately from his parents by threatening him to implicate them in dowry case and to commit suicide. Husband (PW-1) has further deposed that looking to her persistent such

¶50

¶51

conduct and behaviour, he had made complaint on 12.6.2013 (Ex.P-1) at Police Station Amanaka, Raipur. But, police did not take any action and give written information under Section 155 of the Cr.P.C. (Ex.P-2), thereafter, he again made written complaint on 22.6.2013 (Ex.P-3) at Mahila Police Station, Raipur mentioning several misconduct and misbehaviour of wife.

¶52

Statement of husband – Anil Chouhan (PW-1) would go to show that pursuant to the aforesaid complaints, counseling was held between 6.7.2013 to 12.08.2013 in Family Reconciliation Centre. Thereafter, they lived together, but after few months, she again started quarreling with husband and mother in law and insisted husband to live separately from his parents, else she threatened, to commit suicide. To save matrimonial life, husband lived separately alongwith wife in the same house, despite that her conduct and behaviour did not change and she further insisted him to take rented house at different place. When husband refused to do so, then she attempted to commit suicide by cutting her hand and also going to jump from roof. On being informed by husband to the parents of the wife & Police on 27.10.2014, they came and explained her not to do such type of act, despite that her conduct & behaviour did not change and as per her wishes, husband left her at her parental house. In this regard, he again made complaint (Ex.P-4) on 30.10.2014 at Mahila Police Station, Raipur. Again counseling was held between 17/18.11.2014 to 18.02.2015.

¶53

¶54

Thereafter, they again lived together but her attitude did not change and even many times she imprecated husband and his parents.

¶55

9.1 Husband – Anil Chouhan (PW-1) has further deposed that, on 27.03.2015 when husband had gone to attend Durga Ashtmi puja organized by his mother, then wife went there and quarreled with them and also ransacked the articles of Puja. On that day also, on being called, police had come and explained the wife, despite that she left her matrimonial home on same day without informing husband. On 2.4.2015, husband again made written complaint (Ex.P-7) to Police Station Kabir Nagar, Raipur but police gave written intimation vide Ex.P-8 under Section 155 of the Cr.P.C. suggesting him to take shelter of the Court. In the crossexamination also, husband has stated that wife insisted him to live separately from his parents and always quarrel on petty issues. Evidence shows that as per wishes of wife, they lived separately for few months from his parents, despite that, conduct and behavior of the wife did not change.

¶56

Statement of husband – Anil Chouhan (PW-1) is well supported by his father – Laxman Singh Chouhan (PW-2). Though husband and his father have admitted in their cross-examination that wife has never made complaint against them but appellant/wife – Smt. Tikeshwari Chouhan herself has admitted in her examination-in-chief that once she had injured herself with an

¶57

¶58

intention to end her life. She has also admitted in her cross-

¶59

examination (In paragraph 25) that on the issue of living separately, quarrel took place between them. She has also admitted in paragraph 27 of her cross-examination that she quarreled with her husband but she specifically admitted that quarrel always happened with her mother-in-law. She has admitted that on 29.5.2012, her parents and others had gone to the house of husband and assured them that she will live in her matrimonial home well. Thus, aforesaid admissions of respondent/wife also corroborates the statements of husband (PW-1) and his father (PW-2), respectively about persistent misconduct and misbehaviour of wife.

¶60

Counseling papers (Ex.P-10) [Page 59 to 61] and written complaints made by husband to the police dated 12.6.2013 (Ex.P-1), dated 22.06.2013 (Ex.P-3), dated 30.10.2014 (Ex.P-4) & dated 2.4.2015 (Ex. P-7) also support the statement of husband and his father about persistent misbehaviour and threat to commit suicide given by wife/appellant for about two years. Husband – Amit Chouhan (PW-1) and his father Laxman Singh Chouhan (PW-2) have also stated that they had informed about such inappropriate behaviour of wife to her maternal uncle – Salik Singh Thakur, through whom their marriage was settled. Hence, he may have a good defence witness from side of the appellant/wife but he has not been examined by her. Appellant/wife except herself has

¶61

¶62

not adduced any witness in support of her defence.

¶63

The Supreme Court in V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat (Mrs.) (1994) 1 SCC 33 held that mental cruelty in Section 13(1)(i-a) can broadly be defined, as that, conduct which inflicts upon the other party such mental pain and suffering as would make it not possible for that party to live with the other. In other words, mental cruelty must be of such a nature that the parties cannot reasonably be expected to live together. The situation must be such that the wronged party cannot reasonably be asked to put-up with such conduct and continue to live with the other party. It is not necessary to prove that the mental cruelty is such as to cause injury to the health of the petitioner. While arriving at such conclusion, regard must be had to the social status, educational level of the parties, the society they move in, the possibility or otherwise of the parties ever living together in case they are already living apart and all other relevant facts and circumstances which it is neither possible nor desirable to set out exhaustively. What is cruelty in one case may not amount to cruelty in another case. It is a matter to be determined in each case having regard to the facts and circumstances of that case. If it is a case of accusations and allegations, regard must also be had to the context in which they were made.

¶64

The Supreme Court in Samar Ghosh Versus Jaya Ghosh

¶65

(2007) 4 SCC 511 has indicated the illustrative cases wherein the

¶66

¶67

inference of mental cruelty can be drawn. Para 101 is relevant and quoted below:

¶68

“101. No uniform standard can ever be laid down for guidance, yet we deem it appropriate to enumerate some instances of human behaviour which may be relevant in dealing with the cases of “mental cruelty”. The instances indicated in the succeeding paragraphs are only illustrative and not exhaustive :

¶69

(I)	On consideration of complete matrimonial life of the parties, acute mental pain, agony and suffering as would not make possible for the parties to live with each other could come within the broad parameters of mental cruelty.
(ii)	On comprehensive appriasal of the entire matrimonial life of the parties, it becomes abundantly clear that situation is such that the wronged party cannot reasonably be asked to put up with such conduct and continue to live with other party.
(iii)	Mere coldness or lack of affection cannot amount to cruelty, frequent rudeness of language, petulance of manner, indifference and neglect may reach such a degree that it makes the married life for the other spouse absolutely intolerable.
(iv)	Mental cruelty is a state of mind. The feeling of deep anguish, disappointment, frustration in one spouse caused by the conduct of other for a long time may lead to mental cruelty.
(v)	A sustained course of abusive and

¶70

¶71

	humiliating treatment calculated to
	torture, discommode or render miserable life of the spouse.
(vi)	Sustained unjustifiable conduct and behaviour of one spouse actually affecting physical and mental health of the other spouse. The treatment complained of and the resultant danger or apprehension must be very grave, substantial and weighty.
(vii)	Sustained reprehensible conduct, studied neglect, indifference or total departure from the normal standard of conjugal kindness causing injury to mental health or deriving sadistic pleasure can also amount to mental cruelty.
(viii)	The conduct must be much more than jealousy, selfishness, possessiveness, which causes unhappiness and dissatisfaction and emotional upset may not be a ground for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty.
(ix)	Mere trivial irritations, quarrels, normal wear and tear of the married life which happens in day-to-day life would not be adequate for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty.
(x)	The married life should be reviewed as a whole and a few isolated instances over a period of years will not amount to cruelty. The ill conduct must be persistent for a fairly lengthy period, where the relationship has deteriorated to an extent that because of the acts and behaviour of a spouse, the wronged party finds it extremely difficult to live with the other party any longer, may amount to mental cruelty.
(xii)	Unilateral decision of refusal to have

¶72

¶73

	intercourse for considerable period
	without there being any physical incapacity or valid reason may amount to mental cruelty.
(xiii)	Unilateral decision of either husband or wife after marriage not to have child from the marriage may amount to cruelty.
(xiv)	Where there has been a long period of continuous separation, it may fairly be concluded that the matrimonial bond is beyond repair. The marriage becomes a fiction though supported by a legal tie. By refusing to sever that tie, the law in such cases, does not serve the sanctity of marriage; on the contrary, it shows scant regard for the feelings and emotions of the parties. In such like situations, it may lead to mental cruelty.”

¶74

Applying the above legal propositions, if we see the pleadings & evidence surfaced on record of instant case and consider the whole matrimonial life of parties, then we find that after few months of marriage, marital life of husband and wife did not go well due to persistent quarrelsome conduct and behaviour of wife, as she not only quarrelled and insulted her husband to live separately but she also abused and humiliated his parents. She also threatened to implicate them in dowry case and to commit suicide. Due to all these disputes, she used to leave her matrimonial home again and again, as a consequence, husband made various written complaints at police station; counseling was also held between them at Family Reconciliation Centre, there

¶75

¶76

also husband made complaint about her such conduct and behaviour. After counseling between 6.7.2013 to 12.8.2013, she again started living alongwith her husband since 18.8.2013 but she did not change her attitude and arrogance and again started insisting husband to live separately, due to this, they lived separately in the same house but it goes worthless. Wife herself has admitted that at times she quarreled with husband but her quarrel always happened with her mother-in-law. She has also admitted that quarrel had taken place with regard to live separately from her in-laws and once she had cut her hand with intention to end her life. Due to such conduct and behaviour, husband had made four complaints against her on various dates and counseling again held between them in between 17.11.2014 to 18.02.2015 (Ex.P-10 page 60-61) wherein she had assured that she will not threat to commit suicide but she remained with her earlier attitude and, therefore, husband again had made complaint (Ex.P-7) to the police narrating her entire conduct & misbehaviour.

¶77

Thus, husband -Anil Chouhan (PW-1) has proved about continuous misconduct and misbehaviour of wife on various counts, towards him and also towards his parents. Continuous harrassment by wife to husband to live separately from his parents and to fulfill her such wish persistently giving threat to commit suicide, which compelled husband to make various complaint against her. In this regard husband has narrated various incidents. Hence, it could not

¶78

¶79

be said that they are mere trivial irritations, quarrels or normal wear and tear of married life, because it happened between the parties for about two years. Such conduct and behaviour of wife for such a long period, of-course constitute physical and mental cruelty by her against respondent/husband, as held by the Apex Court in the case of Samar Ghosh (Supra). Because with such persistent misbehave and threat given by wife, how peaceful married life may go on.

¶80

Although, in case of Dr. N.G. Dastane (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that decree of divorce may be refused on the ground of cruelty, if the same has been condoned by person, who alleges the cruelty being committed against him/her. But, in the instant case, after counseling in the year 2013, both the parties again resided together and since conduct and behaviour of wife did not change and she again started and continued her earlier attitude, humiliating husband and his parents and also pressurizing him to live separately and commit suicide and, therefore, husband has again made two written complaints vide Ex.P-4 & P7 about her such conduct and behaviour, hence, it cannot be said that after condonation of earlier marital offence of wife, she lived peaceful life with husband. In the case of Dr. N.G. Dastane (supra), Hon'ble Apex Court has also observed in paragraph 58 that,…... 'Condonation' under Section 23(1)(b) therefore means conditional forgiveness, the implied condition

¶81

¶82

being that, no further matrimonial offence shall be committed. In the instant case, it is apparent from evidence available on record that even on the assumption that respondent/husband had condoned the cruelty / matrimonial offence of wife, but appellant/wife by her subsequent conduct violated the conditional forgiveness, thereby she revived the original cause of action against her, hence, arguments advanced on behalf of appellant/wife in this regard has no substance.

¶83

Thus, considering the overall facts, as has been proved by the husband against wife, we are of the opinion that the trial Court has not committed any error in granting decree of divorce in favour of husband on the ground of cruelty meted out to him by appellant/wife.

¶84

Accordingly, the FAM, being devoid of substance, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. A decree be drawn-up accordingly.

¶85

Now coming to grant of alimony to wife, as per affidavit filed by the appellant/wife, she is getting Rs.4,000/- and her daughter is getting Rs.1,500/- per month from husband in a maintenance proceedings under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. after settlement in Lok-Adlat held between them, vide order dated 08.12.2018, thereafter, an application has also been filed seeking enhancement of the maintenance amount. She has also stated in her deposition that she is not having any property in her own

¶86

¶87

name. The respondent/husband has also filed affidavit, wherein he has stated that he has no property of his self ownership, rather they are having two houses & one plot, but the same are in the name of his father & mother and he is running only a photocopy shop to earn his livelihood.

¶88

Thus, considering the overall financial status and other circumstances of both the parties and in order to avoid further litigation between them, it would be appropriate for us to grant alimony of Rs. 10,000/- per month to the wife. Accordingly, it is directed that respondent/husband shall pay maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month to the appellant/wife, which she is entitled to receive through the court below.

¶89

Sd/Sd/(Goutam Bhaduri) (N.K. Chandravanshi) Judge Judge

¶90

Amit /-

¶91

¶92

Smt. Tikeshwari Chouhan v. Shri Anil Chouhan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Tikeshwari Chouhan v. Shri Anil Chouhan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kamta Sahu Vs Smt. Mamta Sahu

Mamta Sahu Vs Kamta Prasad Sahu

Tokendra Kumar Janghel Vs Uttam And Anr.

Sirajuddin Ansari Vs Irfan Ahmad

Smt. Chameli Kaushik Vs Smt. Koushilya Bai Patel

Swati @ Rani Vs Parasram @ Akash Dewangan