Allowed

Ritesh Kumar Nag v. Smt. Sihendri Kashyap

Chhattisgarh HC13 Jun 2023FA(MAT)/73/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh allowed the husband's appeal against the Family Court's dismissal of his divorce petition. Finding that the wife left the marital home seven days after marriage without return and failed to resume ties, the Court granted a decree of divorce under Section 27(1)(b) and ordered monthly maintenance.

What did the court decide?

Decree of divorce granted and monthly maintenance of Rs. 7,500/- ordered to be paid by the appellant to the respondent.

Ritesh Kumar Nag Vs Smt. Sihendri Kashyap — Matrimonial and Divorce | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

FA(MAT) No. 73 of 2020

¶5

Ritesh Kumar Nag S/o Sakul Ram Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Barsur Near Bus Stop Barsur, District Dantewada Chhattisgarh. ---- Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Smt. Sihendri Kashyap W/o Ritesh Kumar Nag Aged About 33 Years D/o Piluram Kashyap, R/o Village Mardum Tahsil Lohandiguda, District Bastar Chhattisgarh, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh --- Respondent

¶8

For Appellant : Shri Karan Kumar Baharani, Advocate For Respondent : Shri Malay Shrivastava, Advocate

¶9

Hon’ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri &

¶10

Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal

¶11

Judgment on Board

¶12

Per Goutam Bhaduri, J.

¶13

13.06.2023

¶14

The present appeal is against the order dated 30.01.2020 passed by the Family Court, Bastar, Jagdalpur in Civil Suit No. 18-A/2018 wherein the suit filed by the husband/appellant under Section 27 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 was dismissed.

¶15

2. Brief facts of this case are that the parties got married on 07.08.2013. The allegations have been made that after a week of the marriage, the non-applicant/wife went to bring her belongings to her parental home and thereafter she did not return. Subsequently, the husband states that he made several calls but the wife did not receive the same. The husband thereafter served a notice on 04.01.2018 for

¶16

¶17

restitution of conjugal Rights but despite that, instead of resuming the matrimonial ties, certain threats were extended to the appellant/ husband. The husband further states that the wife also refused to have physical relation with her therefore the act of the wife amounts to cruelty coupled with desertion. On this ground an application under the Special Marriage Act 1954 was preferred.

¶18

3. In reply to the allegation, the wife contended that she was subjected to mental and physical torture as such she did not resume her matrimonial ties and instead of resolving the issue, the wife was tortured. She admitted the fact that she started living at her parental home and she would be able to resume the matrimonial ties when the honor and dignity is assured to be restored to her during stay.

¶19

4. On the basis of the rival pleadings, learned Family Court framed issues of cruelty and desertion and the finding was held in negative resulting into dismissal of the divorce petition. Being aggrieved by such order, the instant appeal.

¶20

5. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the marriage took place between the parties on 07.08.2013 and after seven days of the marriage, the wife left the matrimonial home on 15.08.2013 on the pretext that she was going to bring back her belongings from the paternal home but she never returned, which itself proves the desertion. He would further submit that the allegations were also attributed that the husband is living with another lady named Lovely but no proof was placed that also amounts to cruelty apart from the fact that the wife refused to have physical relations with the husband. He submits that the learned court below has failed to take

¶21

¶22

into account all these aspects therefore the wrong findings have been arrived at.

¶23

6 . Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the statement of the wife would reveal that since the husband was in relation with other lady outside the marriage, mental cruelty was meted out and therefore she was forced to leave the matrimonial home. He refers to the averments of the return and submits that the wife was willing to go back to her matrimonial home provided her honour and dignity is restored. He submits that before the court below, the husband has failed to prove the fact of desertion or cruelty consequently the order of the court below is well merited, which does not call for any interference.

¶24

7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the records.

¶25

8. On behalf of the husband, he examined himself as P.W.1 and one Brijpal Singh as P.W.2. Pleading and the statement would jointly reveal that after the marriage on 07.08.2013, the wife left the matrimonial home on the pretext of bringing her belongings from her paternal home and thereafter she never returned. According to the statement of the husband, she stayed with him only for 7 days and after seven days of the marriage that is w.e.f., 14.08.2013 she is in the company of her father. The records reveal that a notice was served to wife on 04.01.2018 vide Ex.P-1 to restore the matrimonial ties to resume the company with the husband.

¶26

9. In reply to such notice, the allegations were denied and instead

¶27

¶28

it was stated that she does not want to join back. A perusal of the reply before the Family Court shows that marriage and service of notice was admitted, instead the special pleading was made that she would join back the company of husband in case her honour/dignity is restored. The evidence of the husband states that despite service of notice, she did not resume matrimonial ties. In cross-examination of the husband though suggestions were given that non-applicant wife wanted to resume the matrimonial home but such suggestion is not corroborated by her conduct which shows when the husband has served notice to the wife to resume the matrimonial ties, it was replied by the wife in negative. Furthermore, the statement of wife would show that the allegation has been attributed that the husband has kept another lady named Lovely. Except these bald statements, no evidence has been placed to corroborate the same and no sufficient cause has been shown to resume the matrimonial ties after service of notice to wife on 04.01.2018. The wife further admits the fact that she did not allow the physical relation with her by the husband. Considering the over-all evidence, it appears that after seven days of marriage, the wife left the matrimonial home whereas in the statement the wife alleges that husband has kept another lady in his house. It is not a case or evidence was placed that within seven days of marriage, such things happened.

¶29

10. In reply to the notice of resuming the matrimonial relation, no sufficient reasons have been assigned which is corroborated by the conduct of the wife that she had never made any effort to join the company of the husband after 2013. Therefore, by the conduct of wife, it can be assumed that she has deserted the appellant/husband for a

¶30

¶31

continuous period of not less than 02 years before the petition for divorce was presented in March 2018 before the Family Court. In view of this fact, we are unable to agree with the finding arrived at by the Family Court and we are inclined to grant decree of divorce to the husband under Section 27(1)(b) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954. In the result, the marriage solemnized on 07.08.2013 between the parties shall stand dissolved by a decree of divorce.

¶32

11) In respect of alimony, it has been stated that the evidence of the husband would show that he was getting salary of Rs. 30,000/per month in the year 2019. During the course of hearing before this Court, it is submitted that the wife is also working as Angan Baadi Worker and is getting salary of Rs.10,000/- per month and the statement would reveal that at the time of evidence she was getting a salary of Rs. 4,000/-. In this back ground, in order to avoid further multiplicity of proceedings, we deem it appropriate that Rs.7,500/- per month be paid by way of maintenance to the wife henceforth towards alimony. Accordingly, the husband shall pay an amount of Rs.7,500/as monthly maintenance to the wife.

¶33

12) It is made clear that as and when salary is reciprocally increased, subsequently the amount of maintenance shall also be increased proportionally to the extent of increase of percentage in future salary, which the wife would be entitled to receive.

¶34

Sd/Sd/(Goutam Bhaduri) (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Judge

¶35

Rao / Suguna

Ritesh Kumar Nag v. Smt. Sihendri Kashyap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ritesh Kumar Nag v. Smt. Sihendri Kashyap

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

Sudheer Tiwari Vs Smt Prerna Tiwari

Kejuram Vs (Deleted) Surja Bai (Dead)

Hitesh Dawra Vs Mrs. Navya Dawra @ Shweta Dewani

Maheshwar Das Manikpuri Vs State of Chhattisgarh

L.D. Masulkar Vs Smt. Uttara

Manoj Kumar Sharaf Vs Smt. Sarita Sharaf