Dismissed¶33

Suraj Prakash Sahu v. Smt. Suman Prabha Sahu

Restitution of conjugal rights – S.9 Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Appeal under S.19(1) Family Courts Act, 1984

Chhattisgarh HC5 Mar 2025FA(MAT)/52/2024

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh High Court, Bilaspur; FA(MAT) No. 52 of 2024; decided 06/03/2025; Bench: Rajani Dubey & Sachin Singh Rajput (per Sachin Singh Rajput, J); restitution of conjugal rights; Section 9 Hindu Marriage Act 1955; Section 19(1) Family Courts Act 1984; cruelty allegations in written statement; surveillance and social media account closure; FIR u/s 498-A CrPC quashed (CrMP No. 2531/2023, dt. 11.12.2024); wife's subsequent divorce petition; Family Court judgment affirmed; appeal dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The Family Court's approach in rejecting the appellant/husband's application under Section 9 of the Act of 1955 by deciding the first two issues in negative appears to be fully justified. ¶32

Suraj Prakash Sahu Vs Smt. Suman Prabha Sahu — Matrimonial and Divorce | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

2025:CGHC:11058-DB

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

FA(MAT) No. 52 of 2024

¶6

Suraj Prakash Sahu S/o Shri Ganga Ram Sahu Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Risda, Police Station Baloda-Bazar, Tehsil And District- Baloda-Bazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.

¶7

versus

¶8

Smt. Suman Prabha Sahu W/o Suraj Prakash Sahu Aged About 26 Years R/o Risda, Police Station Baloda-Bazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh, Presently At D/o Hirau Ram Sahu Village Pipraud, Police Station- Navapara, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶9

... Respondent

¶10

For appellant : Ms. Sameeksha Gupta, Advocate For Respondent : Shri C.R. Sahu, Advocate

¶11

{Hon’ble (Smt.) Justice Rajani Dubey & Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput} (Order in Chamber dated 06/03/2025)

¶12

Per Sachin Singh Rajput, J

¶13

Parties herein, for convenience, shall be referred to as the appellant/husband and the respondent/wife.

¶14

This appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (henceforth “Act of 1984”) has been filed against the order dated 21.12.2023 passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Baloda Bazar in Case No. 38(A)/2023 by which the application filed by the appellant/husband under Section 9 of the

¶15

¶16

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (henceforth “Act of 1955”) has been rejected.

¶17

Brief facts: Marriage between the parties was solemnized on 19.02.2022 in village Pipraud, District Raipur as per the Hindu Rites and Rituals and thereafter they started living together at village Risda, District Baloda BazarBhatapara and performed their marital obligations. For about eight months the parties lived together happily but thereafter the respondent/wife started picking up disputes over trivial matters and in sequence of that on 26.12.2022 she called up her father and brother on phone and went away along with them to village Pipraud. On 31.12.2022 the appellant/husband went to Pipraud to take the respondent/wife back but she refused to accompany him. Her father however told the appellant/husband that 2-4 days thereafter he himself would drop the respondent/wife in her matrimonial home at village Risda. When the respondent/wife did not come back, the appellant/husband talked to her over phone but she assured him of being back after getting her name registered in the Employment Office. She however did not come back even after being informed about the death of uncle of the appellant/husband. As has been stated in the suit, on 05.02.2023 the respondent/wife along with her father and brother came to the house of the appellant/husband and after staying for a while forcefully took away all the gifts items received by her in marriage and since then she is living in her maternal home. It is pleaded that thereafter whenever he tried to bring her back she refused to live with him and carry on the marital obligations. The cause of action thus according to the pleading arose when on 05.02.2023 she left the house of the appellant/husband taking away all her gift items.

¶18

Barring admitted facts, the respondent/wife has denied all the pleadings

¶19

¶20

taken by the appellant/husband including the one that she ever lived a happy life with the appellant/husband at village Risda. She has stated that just 2-3 days after marriage the appellant/husband started behaving like a Ruler and in this process first of all he made her delete the contact numbers of her friends and the remote relatives. He even started using social media ID of the respondent/wife and thereafter in order to harass her he even closed her social media account. The appellant/husband is stated to have asked her not to talk to his friends or even to his younger brother. He used to keep watch as to whom she talked on phone and did not permit her to go anywhere alone, even to the roof top, and for that she felt suffocating. The appellant/husband also suspected her to have relations with another man and on account of his suspicion as to her character he got her social media account closed. This suspicious attitude of the appellant/husband is stated to have made her marriage life a miserable one. She has stated that after taking medicines, the appellant/husband used to have sex with her forcibly and against her will. He is also stated to have taunted her on several counts including one of her belonging to a poor family background and also for not bringing AC from her parents’ house. The mental harassment sometimes rose to such an extent that she started thinking of even committing suicide. She has thus made several allegations such as of abuses, beating, mental harassment etc. in the written statement against the appellant/husband.

¶21

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, learned Family Court framed the following three issues:-

¶22

(I) Whether the defendant has deprived the plaintiff of the marital bliss by deserting him without any reasonable and sufficient cause?

¶23

(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of restitution of conjugal rights?

¶24

¶25

(iii) Relief and cost?

¶26

After hearing the parties and considering the evidence of the witnesses, learned Family Court decided the first two issues in negative and while deciding the issue No.3, dismissed the suit of the appellant/husband filed under Section 9 of the Act of 1955 and directed the decree to be drawn accordingly. Hence this appeal.

¶27

Counsel for the appellant/husband submits that the judgment and decree passed by learned Family Court is perverse and not sustainable in the facts and circumstances of the case. She submits that the Court below has failed to appreciate the fact that the appellant/husband has always made efforts to bring back the respondent/wife and keep her with him but it is she who did not turn up. She further submits that looking to the material illegality and irregularity in the judgment and decree impugned, the same is required to be set aside by allowing the appeal.

¶28

On the other hand, counsel for the respondent/wife submits that the judgment and decree impugned being based on correct appreciation of the evidence on record is fully justified and there is no scope for any interference with the same.

¶29

During the course of argument, it has been brought to the notice of this Court that FIR has also been lodged by the respondent/wife against the appellant/husband and his family members under Section 498-A CrPC has been quashed by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 11.12.2024 passed in CrMP No. 2531/2023. In the said petition also it has stated by the appellant/husband that though he wants to keep the respondent/wife with him but she is not inclined to live with him. It is also informed that the

¶30

¶31

respondent/wife has also filed a petition for divorce against the appellant/husband.

¶32

In the written statement the respondent/wife has made number of allegations of dowry demand, abuses, beating, mental harassment by keeping her phone on surveillance, closing her social media account, by not permitting her to meet any of his friends, relatives and also not permitting her to get out alone including to the roof top. One of the allegations by the respondent/wife is that once the cruelty and harassment rose up to such an extent that she even though of committing suicide. It is also stated by her, that the appellant/husband used to say that for staying in his house, she would have to bear the abuses and taunts, but in such an atmosphere it was not possible for her to live with him. In these circumstances, the approach of the Family Court in rejecting the application filed by the appellant/husband under Section 9 of the Act of 1955 by deciding the first two issues so framed in negative appears to be fully justified. This conclusion of the Family in rejecting the said application further gets fortified by the subsequent filing of divorce petition by the respondent/wife.

¶33

Being this, the judgment and decree impugned do not seem to be contrary to the material available on record and therefore no other view that the one so taken, is required by this Court. Appeal thus being without any merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.

¶34

Sd/-

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

(Rajani Dubey) Judge

¶37

(Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge

¶38

Jyotishi

¶39

Digitally signed by AVANISH AVANISH JYOTISHI Date: JYOTISHI 2025.03.11 13:25:29 +0530