Dismissed¶41

Smt. Sunita Dewangan v. Basant Kumar Dewangan

Chhattisgarh HC4 Mar 2025FAM/13/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Res judicata; maintainability of second divorce petition; rejection of plaint; Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of CPC; Section 151 of CPC; Sections 9, 13 and 13(1-a)(1-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act; Section 19(1) Hindu Marriage Act appeal; Family Court Dhamtari; Civil Suit No. 43-A/2022; Civil Suit No. 99-A/2012; cruelty and desertion; restitution of conjugal rights; Chhattisgarh High Court Division Bench; decided 05.03.2025; NAFR; 2025:CGHC:10673-DB.

What did the court decide?

None; the appeal was dismissed and the trial court record was directed to be sent back immediately to the concerned trial court. ¶41

Smt. Sunita Dewangan Vs Basant Kumar Dewangan — Matrimonial and Divorce | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the appeal was dismissed and the trial court record was directed to be sent back immediately to the concerned trial court.

¶41

Issue for consideration

Whether the husband's second divorce petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act on the same grounds as his earlier dismissed suit (registered as Civil Suit No. 99-A/2012) was maintainable, i.e., whether the learned Family Court correctly rejected the wife's application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) read with Section 151 CPC founded on res judicata.

¶27

Court's answer

The learned trial Court rightly appreciated the provision contained under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC in accordance with the facts of the case, having heard both parties and considering the facts of the previous case and the present case, in dismissing the appellant/wife's application.

¶39

Ratio / Principle

The impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is based on proper consideration of the arguments of both the parties and need not be corrected; consequently the appeal is dismissed.

¶41

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur (Division Bench; per Rajani Dubey, J.; Sachin Singh Rajput, J.), 05.03.2025, FAM No. 13 of 2024 (NAFR; neutral citation 2025:CGHC:10673-DB). Appeal under Section 19(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act by the wife against the order dated 21.02.2024 of the learned Family Court, Dhamtari in Civil Suit No. 43-A/2022, rejecting her application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) read with Section 151 CPC seeking rejection of the husband's divorce petition under Section 13(1-a)(1-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act on the ground of res judicata, the husband's earlier suit on the same ground (registered as Civil Suit No. 99-A/2012) having been rejected on 04.01.2016. Held: the learned trial Court rightly appreciated the provision contained under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC in accordance with the facts of the previous and present case; the impugned order is based on proper consideration of the arguments of both the parties and need not be corrected. Appeal dismissed; interlocutory application(s) disposed of.

2025:CGHC:10673-DB

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

FAM No. 13 of 2024

¶6

1 - Smt. Sunita Dewangan, W/o Shri Basant Kumar Dewangan, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Tree House Kamal Vihar, Pachpedi Naka, Through- (Miraj Construction) Rajesh Kumar Dewangan (Engineer), Raipur (C.G.)

¶7

... Appellant

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - Basant Kumar Dewangan, S/o Shri Chandrika Prasad, Aged About 41 Years, R/o Ekta Nager, District Dhamtari (C.G.)

¶10

... Respondent

¶11

For Appellant	: Mr. Prem Shankar Dubey, Advocate
For Respondent	: Ms. Aditi Singhvi, Advocate

¶12

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey

¶13

Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput

¶14

Judgment on board

¶15

Per Rajani Dubey, Judge

¶16

05.03.2025

¶17

The matter is listed today for orders on I.A. No. 01/2024, application for grant of stay. However, with the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally.

¶18

¶19

The appeal filed under Section 19 (1) of Hindu Marriage Act has been filed by the appellant/ wife against the order dated 21.02.2024 passed by learned Family Court, Dhamtari (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 43-A/2022 whereby the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of CPC by the wife, has been rejected.

¶20

Brief facts of the case are that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 11.02.2010 in accordance with Hindu rites and rituals in Raipur, Police Station- DD Nagar, Tehsil and District- Raipur (C.G.). After the marriage ceremony, the appellant/wife started living in her husband's house in village Salud, District Durg (Chhattisgarh) where they were living a happy life. After some time, the respondent and his family members became rude towards the appellant/wife.

¶21

During this time, the respondent started living with the appellant in a rented house in Dhamtari district where he was employed. The respondent used to work in a poultry farm. Before marriage, he told her family members that he was the manager of the poultry farm and used to earn Rs. 30,000/- per month. But when she started living with the respondent in Dhamtari, she was informed by him that he works as a clerk in a poultry farm where his salary is Rs. 5,000/-.

¶22

After some time, she got pregnant while living with the respondent. During her pregnancy, medical expenses and other expenses were being borne by her brother who works as a civil engineer in private construction work. Thereafter, she went to her parental home. Before the birth of the child, the respondent/husband had come to the appellant's maternal home with his mother and father to take her in the same condition, however he went back after being persuaded a lot. After the birth of the son, while the physical condition

¶23

¶24

of the appellant/wife was not good, the respondent/husband was talking about going back to Dhamtari. Looking at the physical condition, it was decided among the enlightened people of the society that after three months, the appellant/wife would go with her to her house, but before three months had passed, the respondent/husbnad, making various allegations, had submitted an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Family Court, District Dhamtari (C.G.) for restitution of conjugal rights. Without conducting a full hearing, he had submitted an application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Family Court, District Durg, which was rejected by the Family Court on 04.01.2016. Thereafter, under the application form submitted under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, till 17.06.2022, no information letter was sent by the respondent/husband regarding taking the appellant/wife with him, nor did he ever come to the house to take her, and in the meantime, he never came to see the child either. The appellant/wife has never refused to go to her in-laws' house and till date is trying to save her marital relationship.

¶25

Learned counsel for the appellant/wife submits that the respondent/husband filed application under Section 13(1-a)(1-b) of Hindu Marriage Act before the learned Family Court for decree of divorce. Before this application, the appellant/husband filed application which was registered as Civil Suit No. 99-A/2012 on same ground before learned Family Court which was rejected by learned Family Court on 04.01.2016 and now respondent/husband again filed application for divorce on same ground which is not maintainable. Therefore, the appellant/wife filed application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 of CPC for rejection of application of

¶26

¶27

plaintiff/husband on the ground of res judicata but the learned Family Court wrongly dismissed the application of the appellant/wife. The impugned order is arbitrary, illegal, bad in law as well as facts of the case. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be dismissed.

¶28

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/husband supports the impugned order and submits that the learned trial Court minutely appreciated the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC and also after appreciating the arguments of both the parties and facts of previous and present case, dismissed the application of the appellant/wife. Therefore, the impugned order is well merited and do not call for any interference by this Court.

¶29

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

¶30

It is clear from the impugned order and record of learned trial Court that the appellant/husband filed application under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act on 02.05.2022 on the ground of cruelty and desertion. Appellant/wife filed application under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) read with Section 151 of CPC on the ground that previous application filed by the husband has already been dismissed by Family Court which was registered as Civil Suit No. 99-A/2012 and now husband filed application for divorce on same ground which is not maintainable.

¶31

Learned trial Court after hearing counsel for the parties, dismissed the application of the appellant/wife by impugned order. Operative paras of impugned order dated 21.02.2024 reads as under:-

¶32

“09. ति�वा�ति�नी�की�ओरसे�अपनी�प्ቌ सेम्ቕ�नीम�म�नीनी�यन्य�यदृኋ᭘� �

¶33

ቦኍ�म��शा�र��शाम��बनी�मसे � �षशाम�� , 2007 (2) छቈኍ�सेगढ़लॉ% जजम�ट 230 प�शातिकीय�है), जिजसेम�अजि+त्यजनीकी�आ+�रपरतिवावा�है-तिवाच्छ चा�है�

¶34

¶35

गय�्ቕ �, तिवालॉ�बसे�तिवावा�हैतिवाच्छ की�य�तिचाकी�्ቚ स्�1�तिकीय�ज�नी�की�की�ई �- स्पኋ᭘�कीरणनीहै4 ति�य�गय�्ቕ की�वालॉआवा � कीकी�से�ቌኚयकी�आ+�रपरतिवावा�है तिवाघटनीकी� एकपी ्ቌ �यतिनणी �यएवा� ति8ቅኍ� तिवाचा�रणन्य�य�+�शाቛኋ�र�प�रिर�तिकीय� गय�वाहैगलॉ�है)।पति�की�प्ቌ म�प�रिर�तिवावा�हैतिवाघटनीकी�तिनीण�यवाति8ቅኍ�की� अप�स्�कीरति�य�गय�।इसे्ቚ कीरणम�वा��नी�की1 ट1म्बन्य�य�यलॉ�1ग�ቛኋ�र� प�रिर�आ��शाकी�ब��्ቚ ति�वा�ति�नी�की�से�्ቕ से1लॉहै�्ቕ��म्पत्यज�वानीसे1चा�रू रूपसे�चालॉ�नी�की�फी�्ቚ य�सेकीरनी��्ቕ�तिवाफीलॉहै�नी�की�ब��यहै्ቚ कीरणप�शा कीरनी�ब��हैAय� वा��की�रणतिनरी � रज�र�ह�नै �ब��य�ही ै), ऐसे�ቝኌस ् ति�म�उ्ሹ न्य�यदृኋ�᭘ की� �थयएव् ा� परिरቝኌस ् ति�य�� इस करणसी े� तिG है�नी�से�उ्ሹ न्य�य दृኋ᭘� की�लॉ�G्ቚ ति�वा�ति�नी�की�नीहै4 तिमलॉ��है)। 10. फीलॉ�I उपरवातिण तिवावा�चानीकी�आ+�रपरवा��नी�्ቚ ति�वा�ति�नी�ቛኋ�र� ቅኍJ र��पJण�आचारण एवा�अतिGत्यजनीहै � 1 तिनी+��रिर�सेमय�वाजि+ ��वाष�की� की�लॉ�वाजि+ से�अतिGत्सेजनी की�आ+�रपर उतिचा� वा�� की�रण की� यहै ्ቚकीरण ्ቚ स्�1� तिकीय� है), ज� तिवाचा�रण की� �Lर�नी से�्ቇ तिहै� से�ቌयኚ से� गण��ष1 की� आ+�र पर तिनीर�कीरण तिकीय� ज� सेकी�� है) इसेजिलॉय� इसे न्य�य�लॉय की� म� म� आ��शा आ��श ा 7 त ि नयम ी 11 ( घ ) ज ि सत े ि व ा ल ॉ ् ቚ त ि ቅ ኍ य� स�त े ि ह ै �� क� ी अ � ग � वा�� प्ቔ की� ग1ण��ष पर तिवाचा�र तिकीय� तिबनी� वा�� तिनीरस्� तिकीय� ज�नी� न्य�यसे�ग� ्��ቚ नही 4ै ह�नै ी� �्ቕ � वा�� की� वा�� तिवजा ि+ ቛ�र�ኋ वाजिज नही 4ै ह�नै ी� से� ्ቚति�वा�ति�नी� की� ओर से� प�शा

¶36

आवा � नी अ � ग � आ��श ा 7 त ि नयम ी 11 ( घ ) ज ि सत े ि व ा ल ॉ ् ቚ त ि ቅ ኍ य� स�त े ि ह ै �� त ि नरस ी � ् तिकीय� ज�� है)।

¶37

��नी1से�र ्ቚति�वा�ति�नी� ቛኋ�र� प�शा आवा � नी अ � ग � आ��शा 7 तिनीयम 11 (घ)

¶38

व्य.्ቚ .से�. की� तिनीर�कीरण तिकीय� ज�� है)।"

¶39

In view of above, it is clear from the impugned order that the learned trial Court rightly appreciated the provision contained under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC in accordance with the facts of the case and after

¶40

¶41

hearing the arguments of both the parties and considering the facts of previous case and present case, dismissed the application of appellant/wife. Hence, this Court finds that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is based on proper consideration of arguments of both the parties and need not be corrected. Hence, the appeal is liable to be and is hereby dismissed .

¶42

The trial Court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial court concerned for compliance and necessary action.

¶43

Interlocutory application(s), if any, stands disposed of.

¶44

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

¶45

Ruchi

¶46

RUCHI YADAV Digitally signed by RUCHIYADAV

Smt. Sunita Dewangan v. Basant Kumar Dewangan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sunita Dewangan v. Basant Kumar Dewangan

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

Smt. Shashi Bhuwal @ Shashi Thakur Vs Praveen Kumar Bhuwal

Amit Kumar Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Jitendra Kumar Dewangan Vs Smt. Neeti Dewangan

M/S. Rajat Builders Vs Smt. Kusum Kothari

Suraj Prakash Sahu Vs Smt. Suman Prabha Sahu

Raipur Development Authority Vs Mr. Lakesh Chandrakar