Dismissed

Rajesh Yadu v. Smt. Subhdra Ahir

Chhattisgarh HC5 Nov 2024FA(MAT)/148/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed an appeal filed by a husband seeking divorce on grounds of cruelty and desertion. The Court held that the appellant failed to prove that the respondent's postings and separation constituted cruelty, affirming the Family Court's decree.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; Judgment and decree of the Family Court affirmed.

Rajesh Yadu Vs Smt. Subhdra Ahir — Matrimonial and Divorce | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

1 / 6

2024:CGHC:43106-DB

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

FA(MAT) No. 148 of 2023

¶6

Rajesh Yadu S/o. Rewaram Yadu, Aged About 37 Years R/o. Village Rohra, Tahsil Simga, District - Baloda Bazar - Bhatapara Chhattisgarh

¶7

... Appellant

¶8

versus

¶9

Smt. Subhdra Ahir W/o. Rajesh Yadu, Aged About 36 Years R/o. Village - Telawat, Post Dhaneli, Tahsil And District Kanker Chhattisgarh

¶10

... Respondent

¶11

For Appellant : Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Deepak Kumar Singh, Advocate.

¶12

DB: Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey an d Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal

¶13

Judgment on Board

¶14

(0 6.11.2024)

¶15

Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, J.

¶16

This appeal has been preferred by the applicant/husband under Section 19(1) of the Family Court Act r/w Section 28 of Hindu Marriage Act, questioning the legality and propriety of judgment and decree dated 29.03.2023 passed by the learned Family Court, Baloda Bazar, District Baloda-BazarBhatapara (CG) in Civil Suit No.113-A/2022, whereby the

¶17

Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2024.11.11 18:14:07 +0530

¶18

2 / 6

¶19

claim of the appellant seeking dissolution of marriage/annulment of the same, has been dismissed.

¶20

Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the parties are Hindu, and the marriage between the parties took place on 12.03.2018 at Rajim District – Raipur (C.G.). The respondent is posted as a nurse at the Government Primary Health Center Telawat, North Bastar Kanker. After a few days of marriage, the respondent left her matrimonial house to join her duty at Kanker. The appellant is also posted in the Health Department at Village Rohra, District – Baloda BazarBhatapara. After a few days of marriage, a dispute arose between the parties and after the birth of the girl child, the respondent/wife started dispute regarding taking care of their child. It is further stated that the respondent/wife always wanted to live at her parental house, and she got transferred the services of the appellant/husband to a nearby place of her maternal home for which the appellant/husband has approached before this Hon’ble Court and got transfer back to service to District Balodabazar (C.G.). The respondent/wife also did not allow the appellants' parents to love their grandchild. The appellant/husband always tried to settle the dispute and also filed an application under Section 09 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights. The respondent/wife forced the appellant/husband to live separately from his parents and to create pressure upon the appellant she has also made a complaint against him and his family members at Kanker but after verifying the truth P.S. declined to register the FIR against the appellant and his family members. The respondent/wife has left the company of the appellant/husband and has been living separately for the last two years i.e. from 12.10.2020 and also taken minor daughter Khushi along with her.

¶21

3 / 6

¶22

The respondent/wife has denied the allegations made by the appellant in her reply. She stated that due to the appellant/husband behaving indifferently towards the respondent/wife and daughter Khushi and not taking proper care of them, the respondent lives with her daughter at her workplace in village Korar and since there is no one to take care of her, she has kept her old mother with her. Thus, the respondent has the responsibility of her daughter as well as her old mother. After marriage, she lived with the appellant in his family for a month and after the leave was over, the appellant happily dropped the respondent at her workplace korar and the appellant happily went to his home and both of them kept talking through phone. There was no conflict or dispute between them during the said period. She further stated that she is a government employee and is posted in the health department where she has to work 24 hours, due to which he naturally had to remain at her duty place, but despite this, whenever she got leave from the department she used to live with the appellant/husband and his family. She never asked the appellant to live in her maternal village Telavat. She does not live in Telavat and lives in her workplace Korar. She further stated that she never behaved cruelly with the appellant and his family members. The appellant himself got transferred to Kanker district in view of her (respondent) problem and after a few months, he got himself transferred back to his area without informing her. At that time, there was no dispute between them. She also stated in her reply that after the settlement between them and the assurance given by the appellant and his family members that they would not harass her by assaulting her and demanding dowry, she got her complaint back on the basis of consent. The marriage between them was solemnized on 12.03.2018 at a temple of Rajim and both of

¶23

4 / 6

¶24

them lived as husband and wife for the last time in Korar District Kanker from 26.04.2022 to 07.05.2022, after which the appellant abandoned her and their daughter and went back to his native village Rohra.

¶25

The learned trial Court, after considering the evidence led by the parties, concluded that the appellant/husband had not proved his case against the respondent/wife, therefore, the claim made by him on the basis of cruelty and desertion has been dismissed and being aggrieved with the same, the applicant-husband has preferred the instant appeal.

¶26

Learned counsel appearing for the applicant-husband submits that the judgment and decree passed by the learned Family Court is bad in law. After some dates of hearing the respondent/wife failed to appear before the learned trial Court despite several chances and reminders, therefore, on 27.03.2023 the trial Court declared respondent/wife ex-parte which shows that the respondent/wife is not interested in the proceeding. The learned Trial Court erred in not holding that the respondent/wife not appear in the witness box to prove her written submissions and the contents of the divorce application are proved in the absence of any rebuttal. He further submits that the learned trial Court erred in not holding that the pressure created by the wife upon the husband to leave his old age mother and father amounts to cruelty. The learned trial Court erred in not holding that the respondent/wife had left the company of the appellant/husband without any sufficient reason and also took minor daughter Khushi with her as the respondent/wife always wanted to reside at her parental house which also amounts to cruelty. The impugned judgment has been passed without considering the facts, circumstances and evidence available on records, therefore,

¶27

5 / 6

¶28

the judgment and decree dated 29.03.2023 is liable to be set aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed.

¶29

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the nonapplicant-wife, while supporting the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Family Court, submits that after due consideration of the evidence led by the parties, the Family Court has rightly passed the impugned judgment which does not call for any interference by this Court.

¶30

We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the entire record carefully.

¶31

Looking to the material available on record, it is clear that both parties are working in the health departments in different districts and knowing the fact that the respondent/wife is also a government servant the appellant/husband got married to the respondent/wife and when they blessed with a girl child some dispute arose between them in taking care as the respondent/wife is posted as a nurse at Govt. Primary Health Center Telawat, North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) whereas the appellant/husband is posted in the Health Department at village Rohra, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara, therefore, the respondent/wife is residing at her workplace which cannot amount to cruelty. The appellant/husband has failed to prove cruelty on the part of the respondent/wife and it is also not proved that the appellant/husband had filed application under Section 09 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal right, in the absence of any document thereof. On the basis of the averment made by both the parties the learned trial Court framed as many as four issues and decided all issues after going through the material available on record and held that the appellant/husband has failed to prove the cruelty by oral as well as documentary evidence, hence, rejected the

¶32

6 / 6

¶33

application filed by the appellant/husband for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty and desertion, which is based on the proper appreciation of the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record which does not call for any interference.

¶34

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant/husband is hereby dismissed affirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Family Court.

¶35

Sd/Sd/(Rajani Dubey) (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE JUDGE

¶36

H.L. Sahu

Rajesh Yadu v. Smt. Subhdra Ahir

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Yadu v. Smt. Subhdra Ahir

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

Gora Pallai Venkatgiri Vs Smt. Yernakula Meera

Harish Khatri Vs Smt. Nandini Khatri @ Laxmi

Union of India, Vs G.P. Khutey

Smt. Laxmi Sahu Vs Bhuneshwar Prasad Sahu

Komal Sahu Vs Nutan Singh Rajput

Smt. Saroj Vs Videsh Kumar