Smt. Bhemeshwari Vs Ramsharan Painkra

¶1

1 FA(MAT) No. 60 of 2020

¶2

2025:CGHC:12035-DB

¶3

AMIT PATEL

¶4

Digitally signed by AMIT PATEL

¶5

NAFR

¶6

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶7

FA(MAT) No. 60 of 2020

¶8

Smt. Bhemeshwari W/o Shri Ramsharan Painkra, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Village Mayurnacha (Bagmada), Tahsil- Patthalgaon, District- Jashpur, Chhattisgarh

¶9

--- Appellant

¶10

Versus

¶11

Ramsharan Painkra S/o Late Shri Shyam Sai Painkra, Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Mayurnacha (Bagmada) Tahsil- Patthalgaon, District- Jashpur, Chhattisgarh

¶12

--- Respondent

¶13

For Appellant : Mr. J. K. Saxena, Advocate.

¶14

For Respondent : Mr. Manoj Chouhan, Advocate.

¶15

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey J. &

¶16

Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput J. Judgment on Board

¶17

Per, Rajani Dubey , Judge

¶18

11.03.2025

¶19

The appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 29.11.2019 passed by learned learned Family Court, Jashpur (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 07-A/2018, whereby the application filed under Section 27 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 for decree of divorce by the

¶20

2 FA(MAT) No. 60 of 2020

¶21

respondent/husband has been allowed and marriage between the parties has been dissolved.

¶22

The brief facts of the case is that the respondent/husband had filed a petition under Section 27 of Special Marriage Act, 1954 before the Family Court, Jashpur for grant of decree of divorce. The respondent/husband has stated in the divorce petition that the marriage of appellant and respondent was solemnized on 28.02.2011 before the Additional Collector and Marriage Officer, Jashpur and the Marriage Registration Certificate No. 136/2011 was issued on 28.02.2011. It was pleaded right from the beginning by the respondent/husband that the appellant is not living with him and the appellant/wife has deserted him. On several occasions, the social meeting was convened and the respondent/husband made several efforts to bring back the appellant/wife in his house, but she did not turn up in his house and thereby deprived the respondent/husband from matrimonial life. Therefore, the respondent/ husband filed the petition for decree for divorce. After serving notice, the appellant/wife had filed her written statement, whereby she denied the outrageous allegations leveled against her and submitted that the respondent/husband has developed physical relationship with her and sexually exploited her since last four years from 2007-08 to 2010-11 and he had tried to kill her by administering poisonous substance and on the basis of report of appellant/wife, the respondent/husband was prosecuted under Section 307 of IPC and during the course of trial, he made compromise with the appellant/wife in order to get acquitted of the criminal offence. The respondent/husband had performed marriage with the appellant/wife only to get acquittal of the criminal offence, but after marriage, he has

¶23

3 FA(MAT) No. 60 of 2020

¶24

never kept her in his house. The respondent/husband had convened fake social meeting and thereafter, he had filed a petition for decree of divorce and the same was dismissed by the Court on 23.09.2016, therefore the second divorce petition is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶25

Learned Family Court after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, allowed the application filed by respondent/husband under Section 27 of Special Marriage Act, 1954 before the Family Court, Jashpur for grant of decree of divorce. Hence, this appeal has been filed by the appellant/wife.

¶26

Learned counsel for the appellant/wife submits that the impugned judgment dated 29.11.2019 passed by learned Family Court is illegal, perverse, erroneous and contrary to the law, therefore, it is liable to be quashed, learned Family Court has erred in granting decree of divorce in favour of the respondent/husband without any conclusive proof of cruelty by the appellant/wife. Learned Family Court has failed to appreciate this fact that the appellant/wife has always shown readiness and willingness to live with the respondent/husband and she does not want to desert him and she wants to perform the matrimonial obligations. He further contended that the learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the respondent/husband has not made any efforts to bring back the appellant/wife in her matrimonial home, which itself indicated that the respondent somehow wants to dissolve the marriage, learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the respondent/husband has developed physical relationship with her and sexually exploited her since last four years and he had tried to kill her by administering poisonous substance and on the basis of report of

¶27

4 FA(MAT) No. 60 of 2020

¶28

appellant, the respondent was prosecuted under Section 307 of IPC and during the course of trial, he made compromise with the appellant/wife in order to get acquitted of the criminal offence. Learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the respondent had performed marriage with the appellant only to get acquittal of the criminal offence, but after marriage, he had never kept her in his house and it also failed to appreciate this fact that the respondent/husband has not filed an application under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights and he somehow only wants to get the decree of divorce, so that he can perform marriage with another woman. Learned Family Court did not appreciate the oral and documentary evidence properly and thereby gave wrong findings . Thus, the impugned judgment and decree in the case is liable to be set aside. He further submits that the learned Family Court has not awarded any permanent alimony in favour of the appellant/wife as the appellant/wife has no source of income to meet her ends and to look after herself, so, respondent/husband may be directed to give permanent alimony to the appellant/wife.

¶29

Learned counsel for the respondent/husband supported the impugned judgment and submits that learned Family Court after minutely appreciated the oral and documentary evidence, rightly passed the decree in favour of the respondent/husband, therefore, the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Family court is well merited, which do not call any interference by this Court.

¶30

We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record with utmost circumspection.

¶31

5 FA(MAT) No. 60 of 2020

¶32

It is an admitted position before the learned trial Court that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 28.02.2011 before the Additional Collector and Marriage Officer, Jashpur, District- Jashpur (C.G.) and since 28.02.2011, the appellant/wife is living separately in her parental home. It is not disputed that the appellant/wife had filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. in which, learned trial Court had directed to the respondent/husband to pay Rs. 2,000 per month as a maintenance to the appellant/wife.

¶33

It is clear from record of the learned trial Court that the learned trial Court framed four issues on the basis of pleadings of both the parties. Important Issues No. 1 and 2 are as under:-

¶34

" वाद न ि �ष ् क ्ቧ� "

¶35

1. कया ् , व ्ቧ� 2011 स े वादीएव त ि �वान ि द�ीप ृ थक-प ृ थक " हां! ्माण ቚ ि �� .

¶36

न ि �वासकररह े ह एव ं दो�ो ं क े बीचम ें ववान ै ि हक ?

¶37

स ं बधस ं थान ् ि प��ही ं हएह ु

¶38

"

¶39

1. कया ् , वादीएव त ि �वान ि द�ीकापत ि �-पत ् �ीक े रपम ू " हां! ्माण ቚ ि �� दाम ् पतयजीव�स ् ं पान ि द�न ि कयाजा�ास ं भव�ही ं हो� क े कार�वादीन ि ववाहन ि वच ् छ े दकीआ ्ሺ न ि 2 ा2 कर� े का ? ”

¶40

अत ि धकारीह

¶41

It is vivid from record of the learned trial Court that before trial Court, the respondent/husband examined himself as (PW-01) and witness Jainath Sai as (PW-02) and appellant/wife examined herself and two other witnesses namely Chaitu Ram and Moti Prasad in her defence. All witnesses admitted this fact that before the marriage, the appellant/wife and the respondent/husband had love affair between them and their marriage was solemnized before the Registrar of Marriage, Jashpur and all witnesses have also admitted this fact that FIR was lodged by the appellant/wife for offence under Section 307 of IPC against the respondent /husband, in which compromise was done

¶42

6 FA(MAT) No. 60 of 2020

¶43

between the parties and it is also admitted by all witnesses that since 2011, the appellant/wife is living separately with her parents. It is further admitted fact by all witnesses that some social meeting was convened, in which the agreement was executed between the parties. Appellant/wife admitted in para 8 of her cross-examination that after the marriage, she neither lived with the respondent/ husband nor she made marital relationship with the respondent and she further stated that respondent/husband never made any attempt of gathering with her, however after some time a social meeting was convened by the respondent/husband. In para 12 of her cross-examination, she admitted this fact that the appellant/wife and the respondent/husband are living separately since nine years. Chaitu Ram and Moti Prasad have also admitted this fact that social meeting was convened, in which both parties have not shown any readiness and willingness to live together and they are living separately since nine years.

¶44

Learned trial Court has also minutely appreciated statements of all witnesses and finds that the appellant/wife was living separately since 2011 and she never shown any readiness and willingness to live together with the respondent/husband and the respondent/ husband had convened a social meeting. Learned trial Court has decided both issues in favour of the respondent/husband and passed the decree of divorce. As a result, we do not find any merit in the appeal filed by the appellant/wife warranting interference in the impugned judgment and decree as the findings arrived by the the trial Court are based on factual aspects and evidence on record, which cannot be disturbed. Hence, the appeal of appellant /wife is hereby dismissed.

¶45

7 FA(MAT) No. 60 of 2020

¶46

As regards permanent alimony, appellant/wife has filed an affidavit as per this Court’s order dated 27.03.2023 and submitted that she has no source of income to meet her ends and to look after herself and on the other hand, respondent/husband did not file an affidavit in compliance of the Court’s order. Therefore, in the given facts and circumstances of the case, a permanent alimony of Rs.10,000,00/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Only) is awarded in favour of the appellant/wife. The respondent/husband is directed to pay a total sum of Rs.10 lacs as permanent alimony to the appellant/wife within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.

¶47

Let a decree be drawn accordingly.

¶48

Sd/-

¶49

Sd/-

¶50

(Rajani Dubey) (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Judge

¶51

AMIT PATEL

Smt. Bhemeshwari v. Ramsharan Painkra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Bhemeshwari v. Ramsharan Painkra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sheetal Patil Vs Sandeep Patil

Suraj Prakash Sahu Vs Smt. Suman Prabha Sahu

Raipur Development Authority Vs Mr. Lakesh Chandrakar

Rajkamal Chandrakar Vs Smt. Nisha Chandrakar

A. Somshekhar Vs Smt. a. Sandhya

Vimla @ Bimla Devi Jain Vs Bajrang Lal Jain