Rajesh Gupta Vs Santoshi

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:10074-DB

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

FA(MAT) No. 188 of 2022

¶6

1 - Rajesh Gupta, S/o Prabhudutt Gupta, Aged About 60 Years, R/o Gram Ranka Jhalmala, Tahsil Berla, District- Bemetara Chhattisgarh.

¶7

versus

¶8

1 – Santoshi, W/o Rajesh Gupta, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Gram Ranka Jhalmala, Tahsil- Berla, District- Bemetara Chhattisgarh Currently Residing At Gram Muchhamalda, Tahsil Bilaigarh, District Balodabazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.

¶9

--- Respondent

¶10

With

¶11

FA(MAT) No. 189 of 2022

¶12

1 - Rajesh Gupta, S/o Prabhudutt Gupta, Aged About 60 Years, R/o Gram - Ranka Jhalmala, Tahsil - Berla, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh

¶13

--- Appellant

¶14

Versus

¶15

1 – Santoshi, W/o Rajesh Gupta, Aged About 49 Years, R/o Gram - Ranka Jhalmala, Tahsil Berla, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh, Currently Residing At

¶16

2

¶17

Gram - Muchhamalda, Tahsil Bilaigarh, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara,

¶18

Chhattisgarh

¶19

--- Respondent

¶20

For Appellant	: Ms. Shrijita Kesharwani on behalf of Mr. R.K.
	Kesharwani, Advocate
For Respondent	: Mr. Anway Tiwari, Advocate

¶21

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey

¶22

Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput

¶23

Judgment on board

¶24

Per Rajani Dubey, Judge

¶25

28.02.2025

¶26

Since the parties in both the cases are same, therefore, both the appeals are being heard together and are decided by this common judgment.

¶27

The appeal i.e. FA(MAT) No.188/2022 has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 10.05.2022 passed by learned Family Court, Balodabazar, District- Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) in H.M.A. No. 97A/2021 whereby the application filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act by the respondent/wife has been allowed and decree for restitution of conjugal rights has been passed in favour of the respondent/wife.

¶28

The appeal i.e. FA(MAT) No. 189/2022 has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 10.05.2022 passed by the learned Family Court, Balodabazar, District- Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) in H.M.A. No. 08-A/2022 whereby the application filed under Section 13[1] (ia) (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act by the appellant/husband for grant of divorce, has been dismissed.

¶29

3

¶30

In FA(MAT) No. 188/2022 - Admitted facts of the case are that the marriage between the appellant/husband and the respondent/wife was solemnized on 06.05.1992 in accordance with Hindu rites and rituals at Village- Muchhamalda, Tahsil- Bilaigarh, District- BalodabazarBhatapara.

¶31

The brief facts of the case as have been pleaded by the wife before the Family Court, are that after the solemnization of marriage, the appellant/husband had started torturing the respondent/wife physically and mentally on account of infertility of the respondent. She further alleged that the appellant and his parents had restricted her from meeting her parents. In the year 2012, when the brother of the respondent came to know that she is being beaten and tortured by the appellant, therefore, the brother of the respondent tried to make him understood then the behaviour of the appellant/husband with the respondent/wife remained good for a few days, but after some time, the husband again started harassing the wife by beating her. It has been pleaded that in the year 2014, both her sisters and their husbands visited her village but the appellant had restricted the respondent to meet her sisters and after many requests, he agreed to let her go and meet them. In the year 2015, father and aunt of the respondent visited the appellant and advised him to live peacefully and to treat her well. She further alleged that there were several meetings held between families and the society for the same reasons and the appellant agreed to treat her respectfully each time but later the appellant again started physically torturing the respondent.

¶32

On 18/03/2020, the appellant had physically abused the respondent and ousted her of the house and left her outside for the

¶33

4

¶34

whole night. Later, in the morning, the respondent, through the Sarpanch of Ranka-Jhalmala, called her sister and her brother-in-law and she went to Village-Muchhamalda along with them and since then, she is residing at her maternal house. Meanwhile, the parents of the respondent had suggested the appellant to reside at Village Muchhamalda with the respondent but the appellant had denied and he had not kept her with dignity. Thereafter, the respondent/wife had sent a registered notice through her Advocate on 01/07/2020 and 25/08/2021. The appellant had replied to the first notice on 27/07/2020 stating that he is ready to perform his duties as a husband but after sending the reply, the appellant did not come to take the respondent back to his house.

¶35

It has been pleaded that she has been residing with her old father at Village- Muchhamalda and further that being a 50 year old woman, the respondent is unable to maintain herself financially, hence, she had submitted a separate application under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the Learned Family Court, Balodabazaar, Distt. Balodabazar Bhatapara [C.G.] demanding an amount of Rs. 50,000/- as the cost of the petition as well as the monthly amount of Rs. 10,000/- as maintenance by the appellant to be paid to her. She further pleaded that without any reason, she was ousted from her inlaws house on 18/03/2020 and since then, she is residing with her old father at Village- Muchhamalda, Tahsil Bilaigarh and, therefore, she sought a decree for restitution of conjugal rights in her favour.

¶36

The appellant/husband admitted the undisputed facts and denied the adverse allegations made against him in the application and countered the allegation through the written statement. The appellant/husband

¶37

5

¶38

had contended that the respondent/wife had never cared of his old and ill parents and every time provoked him for living separately from them. She wanted to live at Bemetara or Simga. It was alleged that the respondent/wife tried to commit suicide by pouring kerosene over her body. On account of difficulties related to fertility, the respondent was living in frustration and made false allegations against the appellant. Parents of the appellant are unable to walk and in the first week of May 2007, they were bedridden. The appellant himself used to do all their work. The respondent does not cooperate with the appellant in any way. As per her habit, she used to go to the maternal home. On 10.05.2007 also, the respondent went to her maternal home without permission and consent of the appellant and does not want to return to him. Therefore, in such a situation, it is not possible for both the parties to live a married life together. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of her application for restitution of conjugal rights.

¶39

Learned Family Court after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, allowed the application filed by wife under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights. Hence, this appeal i.e. FA(MAT) No. 188/2022 has been filed by the appellant/husband.

¶40

In FA(MAT) No. 189/2022- Admitted facts of the case are that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 06.05.1992 in accordance with Hindu rites and rituals at Village- Mucchmalda, TehsilBilaigarh, District- Baloda-bazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) with the consent of the members of both the parties.

¶41

The pleadings made in the application are that after the marriage, both the parties had began to live together at the parental house of the appellant at Village- Raka- Jhalmal, Tahsil- Berla, District- Bemetara.

¶42

6

¶43

After completion of 4-5 years of their marriage, the respondent/wife had began to create a pressure upon the appellant/husband to live separately and while the appellant denied to live separately, eventually, the respondent/wife had began to threat the appellant that if the appellant would not live separately, then in consequence, she will register a criminal case against him under Section 498A of IPC. It is further pleaded that the respondent was unhappy with the appellant and his parents; therefore, she frequently visited her maternal house. The respondent is a quarrelsome and furious woman and she used to move to her maternal house very frequently without informing the appellant and his parents. On 08/05/2007, the respondent had a quarrel with parents of the appellant and then she went to her maternal house. Later, the respondent had sent a notice [through her Advocate) on 21/05/2007 to the appellant from her maternal house, against which, the appellant had also sent her a reply on 03/06/2007 through his Advocate. The respondent had never taken care of her parents-inlaw who are very old and ill and unable to do their daily chores by themselves. Instead, the appellant had always been looking over his parents by himself alone. Now, the father of the appellant has passed away and only his mother is residing with him. Yet, the respondent/wife had always created a pressure upon the appellant/husband to abandon his mother and reside with her [respondent] at Village- RakaJhalmala, Distt.- Bemetara. The respondent/wife had demanded for all the appliances she brought with her during marriage and looking to the ill treatment and ill-intentions of the respondent, the appellant had also delivered all the appliances to her maternal home. Since the respondent/wife was ill-treating her husband/appellant as well as her

¶44

7

¶45

in-laws and she had never taken care of her bedridden in-laws, the appellant himself alone took care of his parents.

¶46

The wife fabricated a false story and sent notices on 01-072020, 05-08-2021 and 21-05-2007 through her advocate with the intention of harassing the husband. The husband also replied to the notice dated 21-05-2007 through his advocate on 03-06-2007. The husband tried several times to keep the wife with him and lead a married life with her but she refused to live with him without any reason and to harass him, the respondent/wife fabricated a story and filed a suit against the appellant/husband before the Court under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The respondent has been living separately from the appellant for the last 6 years without any sufficient reason. Therefore, the marriage solemnized between the appellant and the respondent on 06-05-1992 be dissolved and a decree of divorce may be granted in his favour.

¶47

In her written statement, wife accepted the admitted facts and denying all adverse allegations made by the husband contended that the wife even today respecting the husband and his entire family, wants to live with the husband, but the husband himself puts the entire blame on the wife by saying that the wife has not had any child for the last 4-5 years. He started torturing her mentally and physically and started considering her physically incapable. The respondent/wife herself met many doctors through her brothers and got herself examined and treated. Even then, all the doctors did not find any deficiency in the respondent for not having children, rather it was the appellant who was found incapable of producing children. After the said report, the husband started torturing the wife even more and in

¶48

8

¶49

the year 2000, he took the wife along with her belongings in a matador and dropped her at her maternal home. Then, on being persuaded by the respondent’s parents and villagers, the appellant again brought the respondent back to his village Raka-Jhalmala. But even after returning, there was no change in the appellant’s behavior towards the respondent and he continued torturing her.

¶50

On 08-05-2007, when the appellant/husband beat up the respondent/wife a lot and ousted her of the house, the respondent called her relatives and sent a notice to the appellant on 21-05-2007 mentioning the true facts, to which the appellant replied and expressed no objection in keeping the respondent with him. Thereafter, the parents of the respondent, sister-brother-in-law, along with the main people of the society went to village Raka Jhalmala and after convincing the appellant/husband and his parents, left the respondent/wife back.

¶51

The respondent/wife was always ready to follow her duties/obligations and discharge her marital life. The appellant/husband used to harass the respondent/wife with extreme cruelty, therefore, the respondent/wife would leave the appellant/husband and go to her maternal home, but the respondent/wife was not ready to leave the appellant/husband, therefore, he is making the above false allegations against her. On 0707-2007, the appellant/husband inflicted extreme physical cruelty on the respondent/wife and got her signature on some blank papers. If the respondent/wife had executed any consent letter on 07-07-2007, then there would have been a reference of that date in the said consent letter. But the appellant/husband himself states that she had

¶52

9

¶53

mentioned going to her maternal home on 27-08-2008. The statement of mentioning going to her maternal home after one year, one month and 20 days, executed on 07-07-2007 automatically proves that the document is fake. If the appellant/husband is ready to keep the respondent/wife with him as his wife, then he does not oppose the said suit of the respondent/wife and does not file a case for divorce after the said suit. The appellant/husband himself has ousted the respondent/wife of the house by using extreme physical and cruelty towards her, due to which, the respondent/wife is compelled to live in her maternal home in village Muchhamalda, whereas the respondent/wife is ready to live with the appellant/husband as his wife even today. The respondent/wife is a 49-year-old woman having no issue. Her parents have also become very old and both the brothers of the respondent/wife have been living separately with their families for the last many years. In such a situation, the respondent/wife has no support or hope from any other member of the family for her livelihood in future. Therefore, she prayed for dismissal of the application filed by the appellant/husband.

¶54

11.After appreciating oral and documentary evidence, learned Family Court dismissed the application filed by the appellant/ husband under Section 13 1(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act. Hence, this appeal i.e. FA(MAT) No. 189/2022 has been filed by the appellant/husband.

¶55

In FA(MAT) No. 188/2022 and FA(MAT) No. 189/2022 , learned counsel for the appellant/husband submits that both the judgments passed by the learned trial Court are illegal, bad and against the facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, the impugned judgments and decrees in both the cases are liable to be set aside. She further

¶56

10

¶57

submits that the learned Family Court has failed to appreciate the statements of witnesses and passed the impugned judgment and decree without application of mind. The appellant has made clear allegations against the respondent with regard to the ill-treatment with his old parents who were suffering serious illness but the respondent did not take care of them and the appellant himself alone look after his old parents but this ground has not been properly considered by the learned Family Court. The learned Family Court has failed to analyse the statements of witnesses whereby the appellant clearly made allegations against the respondent that she had been creating a pressure upon the appellant to live separately from his old parents. She was insisting him to abandon his parents but this ground has not been considered by the learned Family Court. The respondent had failed to maintain the conjugal rights and deprived the appellant from his physical needs but this aspect has not been considered by the learned Family Court. Appellant clearly proves his case against the respondent and it is also clear from statement of the respondent/wife that she herself deserted the appellant/husband, therefore both the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the learned Family Court are liable to be set-aside.

¶58

Reliance has been placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rakesh Raman Vs. Kavita; 2023 LawSuit(SC) 443 and this Court’s judgments passed in the matter of Sumitra, wife of Sitaram Patel Vs. Sitaram Patel, Son of Ganga Ram; 2023 LawSuit (Chh) 98, and Satpal Singh S/o Gurubachan Singh Pahuja Vs. Preeti Pahuja W/o Satpal Singh Pahuja; 2024 LawSuit (Chh) 430.

¶59

11

¶60

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/wife strongly opposes the allegations levelled by the appellant/husband and submits that the respondent/wife has never deserted her husband/appellant and she is willing to live with her husband and therefore, she filed the application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights. Learned trial Court after minutely appreciating oral and documentary evidence in both the cases rightly allowed the application of the wife and dismissed the application of the husband. Therefore, both the appeals being without any merit are liable to be dismissed.

¶61

14.Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶62

It is an admitted position in both the cases that the marriage of the appellant/husband and the respondent/wife was solemnized on 06.05.1992 in accordance with Hindu rites and rituals at VillageMuchhamalda, Tahsil- Bilaigarh, District- Balodabazar- Bhatapara.

¶63

16.It has been submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that both the parties are living separately since 2020, therefore, a decree of divorce may be passed in favour of the appellant/husband on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage.

¶64

In para 5 of his cross-examination, the appellant/husband admitted that, “यहकह��सह�ह��क��हक� 4-5 स�ल��द��दह��क��द��द�� ज�� स�ह��हअ��ध��क�� ल�क��।यहकह��सह�ह� �कउसअ��ध� � � ��! ��क�स � �ज��द��ह�क��औ�घ�क�� क�� द��क��। In para 6, he admitted that, “ यहकह��सह�ह��क�� $ ��द��क��ख��स�&!क��क��दय��। In para 7, he also admitted that, “ यहकह��सह�ह��क��द��'��अ!��(स�)� 2021 � ��ज�गय��।यह

¶65

कह��सह�ह��क��द��'��ज�गय��य�क��(स� ��द�� स��+�

¶66

12

¶67

��ह��क�उ,�खक��।यहकह��सह�ह��कउ- ��(सक�ज�� '��ज क��द��क�अ��स��ख��स�&!क��क��दय�।यहकह��सह�ह��क�)� 2008 � ��द��(स��ज��क��द� � �घ�आक��ह�ह�। He further admitted that, “यहकह��सह�ह��क��द��क�'��य/य�य�लयक�स�0 द�1��य अ�धक��2 क3 �4��5��क��द�5�4�क��क��द��ह-��67�दक��द�8 �5�4� �कय�ह9!।”

¶68

Appellant/husband only filed consent letter (Ex.P/1) but it is clear that after this letter, respondent/wife lived with the appellant/husband and thereafter, the appellant/husband sent the respondent/wife to her parental home. Respondent/wife also filed several notices and appellant/husband also admitted this fact that in every notice, wife stated that she is willing to live with him and after she filed application under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights then the appellant/husband filed the application for divorce. The learned trial Court also minutely appreciated the oral and documentary evidence of both the parties and found that the appellant/husband has failed to prove cruelty and desertion against the respondent/wife and therefore, dismissed the application filed under Section 13[1] (ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act by the appellant/husband and allowed the application filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act by the respondent/wife.

¶69

19. After considering entire evidence available on record, this Court has no hesitation in accepting findings and approach of learned Family Court in both the cases, which appears to be valid and practical. Therefore, in considered opinion of this Court, the findings recorded by learned Family Court in both the cases are based on proper

¶70

13

¶71

appreciation of oral and documentary evidence and do not require any interference by this Court.

¶72

20. Consequently, both the appeals fail and are hereby dismissed . No order as to costs.

¶73

21. Let a decree be drawn up accordingly.

¶74

Sd/Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Judge

¶75

RUCHI YADAV Ruchi Digitally signedby RUCHI YADAV

Rajesh Gupta v. Santoshi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Gupta v. Santoshi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Union of India Vs Bharat Lal Patel

Union of India Vs Iradhar Prasad Sahu

Balram Kodwani Vs Smt. Reema Sahu W/o Shri Naresh Sahu

Union of India Vs Sunder Lal Sahu

Rajesh Jyushtin Toppo Vs Smt. Reshma Kujur

Manuraj Pachouri Vs Akhilesh Kumar Sahu