Allowed¶15

Tikamverma v. Smt. Lakshmi

Chhattisgarh HC8 Jan 2025FAM/174/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh High Court, Bilaspur; FAM No. 174 of 2018; decided 09/01/2025; divorce under Section 13 Hindu Marriage Act 1955; cruelty; desertion since 2009; false 498-A IPC complaint; acquittal on merits treated as cruelty to husband; unproved extra-marital affair allegations as mental cruelty; permanent alimony Rs. 15,00,000; Family Court Bemetara Civil Suit No.18-A/2013 judgment reversed; Rani Narasimha Sastry v. Rani Suneeta/Sunella Rani; Narendra v. K. Meena; Vjaykumar Ramchandra Bhate; Anjani Bhattacharya (Chhattisgarh).

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed; impugned judgment and decree of the Family Court, Bemetara set aside; decree of divorce granted dissolving the marriage dated 26/04/2007; husband directed to pay Rs. 15,00,000/- (expressed also as Rs. 15 lacs) as permanent alimony to the wife. ¶15

Tikamverma Vs Smt. Lakshmi — Matrimonial and Divorce | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶15

Issue for consideration

Whether the wife's report leading to the husband's criminal trial under Section 498-A IPC, in which he was acquitted on merits, amounted to cruelty meted out to the husband. +2 more

¶9

Court's answer

The husband was able to prove that he was falsely implicated and subjected to criminal trial under Section 498-A r/w Sections 323 IPC on a report made by the wife; since he was acquitted on merits of the allegation, it cannot be accepted that no cruelty was meted out to the husband.

¶14

Ratio / Principle

No plausible cause having been shown by the wife for not joining the husband's company and residing separately since 2009, desertion by the wife stands proved.

¶14

Key takeaways

Nothing on record proves the wife's allegation of the husband's extra-marital affair; only casual allegations were made, and such unproved allegations fall within the ambit of cruelty.ratio¶14
The impugned judgment and decree of the Family Court, Bemetara is set aside and a decree of divorce is granted dissolving the marriage dated 26/04/2007.ratio¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

FAM No. 174 of 2018 (CAV judgment delivered 09/01/2025) — Per Bibhu Datta Guru, J. (with Rajani Dubey, J.). Appeal by husband against the Family Court, Bemetara's dismissal of his divorce petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Held: (i) the husband having been acquitted on merits of the offence under Section 498-A IPC on the wife's report, it cannot be accepted that no cruelty was meted out to him (Rani Narasimha Sastry applied); (ii) the wife deserted the husband without plausible cause and has resided separately since 2009; (iii) the wife's allegation of the husband's extra-marital affair was unproved and only casual, and such allegations amount to mental cruelty (Narendra v. K. Meena and Vjaykumar Ramchandra Bhate relied on). The Family Court's judgment and decree dated 16/05/2018 were set aside, a decree of divorce was granted dissolving the marriage of 26/04/2007, and the husband was directed to pay Rs. 15,00,000/- as permanent alimony to the wife.

2025:CGHC:1452-DB

NAFR

RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2025.01.10 14:46:13 +0530

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

Judgment reserved on : 04/12/2024 Judgment delivered on: 09/01/2025

¶7

FAM No. 174 of 2018

¶8

1 – Tikam Verma S/o Kamelshwar Verma Aged About 30 Years Occupation - Cultivator , R/o Village Kodwa, Post - Mohbhattha, Tahsil And District Bemetara Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh

¶9

Appellant

¶10

versus

¶11

1 - Smt. Lakshmi W/o Tikam Verma Aged About 25 Years House Wife, R/o Village Gaduwa, Post - Keshtara Tahsil - Sajaand District Bemetara Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh

¶12

Respondent(s)

¶13

For appellant : Mr. Gyan Prakash Shukla, Advocate For : Mr. Amiyakant Tiwari and Ms. Mamta Patel, Respondent(s) Advocate

¶14

Hon'ble Smt. Rajani Dubey, Judge Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge

¶15

CAV JUDGMENT

¶16

Per Bibhu Datta Guru

¶17

The present appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 16/05/2018 passed by the Family Court, Bemetara in Civil Suit No.18-A/2013 whereby the petition filed

¶18

¶19

by the husband/appellant seeking divorce Under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was dismissed.

¶20

(a) The brief facts of the case as have been pleaded by the husband before the court below, are that the appellant/husband got married to the respondent / wife on 26/04/2007 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. The marriage was consummated and a son was born in the year 2009. It was pleaded that after marriage the respondent/wife seldom did normal household work at home and always used to relax and also did not cooked food for the appellant and his mother. The respondent's behavior was very rude towards his mother, she did not respect her as well as never interested to stay with the appellant and his mother and further always used to reside at her parental home. In the year 2009, when she was pregnant, she left her matrimonial home out of her own volition and born one child namely Prashant, in her parental home and she didn't even cared to inform the fact to the appellant.

¶21

(b) It was further pleaded that prior to the marriage the respondent /wife was mental patient and at the time of marriage her parents were suppressed the same with the Appellant and further she often said to sell out his properties, and stay in parental house and further after marriage, she was taking treatment for her mental disorder and physical illness. She even did not take medicine regularly as required for improvement of health. Appellant and his uncle time and again went to bring her but all efforts have gone vain. In the

¶22

¶23

year 2010 she threatened the appellant that she will implicate him in false cases and also threatened that she would commit suicide by giving other excuses. She used to attack on him. On 21/02/2011, the appellant had made report against the respondent/wife in Police Station- Saja but concerned police did not take any action against the respondent/wife. Due to unnatural behavior of the respondent / wife, the appellant also suffering from mental problem.

¶24

(c) It is further averred that the appellant and his parents had never demanded any dowry from the respondent/ wife. Since she always threatened to implicate in false dowry case and also made false report, upon which, a charge-sheet has been filed before the concerned court. She also filed application for domestic violence against the appellant. The appellant did not solemnized second marriage as allegation made by the respondent/wife. Further when the appellant and his family members went to see his son at her parental home and trying to bring her with his son then she misbehaved with the appellant and his parents and did not come. The appellant sent a registered notice but she denied to receive the same and further counseling was held on 27/06/2011 at Mahila Thana, Durg. The respondent/wife clearly stated that she doesn't want to go with the appellant and without any sufÏcient reason is living separately at her parental home. Hence, the appellant filed a Divorce petition against the respondent/wife on the ground of cruelty and desertion.

¶25

¶26

(d) The respondent/wife filed written statement and denied the contentions of the appellant and submitted that after the marriage, behavior of the appellant was not good and he used to consume liquor regularly and beat her. He was demanding dowry worth Rs. 4,00,000/-. It was also pleaded that the appellant had illicit relationship with another woman, therefore, she filed a complaint against the appellant, which is still pending before the competent court. She further submitted that she neither wanted to leave her matrimonial home nor treated him with mental cruelty and she living separately only on the ground of demanding of dowry and remarriage of the appellant. As such, the divorce petition has been filed on false allegations by the appellant to harass the respondent/wife mentally and financially. Hence, the same is liable to be rejected.

¶27

(e) The learned Family Court examined as many as 7 witnesses and also examined the material evidence available on record and ultimately, dismissed the application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Hence, this appeal has been filed by the Husband/appellant.

¶28

Learned counsel for the appellant/husband submitted that an FIR was lodged leveling false allegations against the husband and his entire family members, for which, a case was registered under section 498-A of IPC, thereby the appellant and his family members were put to harassment and also convicted under Section 498-A of the IPC vide order dated 11/09/2017 by the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class,

¶29

¶30

Bemetara. However, the same was challenged by the Husband/appellant before the Sessions Judge, Bemetara and the Sessions Judge, Bemetara vide its judgment dated 12/12/2018 acquitted the husband and his entire family members.

¶31

He further referred to the pleadings made by him in application for divorce as also the contents of reply filed by the respondent and would submit that because of false report made by the wife, husband's family members including him has to go mental suffering. The acquittal order would show that false allegations were made and because of false report and initiation of subsequent proceedings, the reputation of the appellant/husband was adversely affected in the society. Referring to acquittal order passed by the learned court below wherein the trial was conducted, he would submit that while acquitting the appellant along with all family members, the entire allegations were considered and the order was passed on merits. He further submitted that there has been irretrievable break down of marriage as the parties have been living apart since long which is admitted by the father of respondent that she is residing separately. He further submits that not only the complaint filed by the wife u/s 498-A came to be dismissed resulting into acquittal but also the complaint of bigamy filed u/s 494 IPC ended with dismissal. Therefore, if all the acts are taken into account, it would certainly amount to cruelty meted out by the wife. Referring to the judgment of Supreme Court in Rani Narasimha Sastry v. Rani Suneeta

¶32

¶33

Rani 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1595 he would further submit that in the like nature of cases, it is held that false accusations made by one spouse against the other would amount to cruelty. He also referred to the judgment passed by this Court in Anjani Bhattacharya v. Smt. Latika Arpita Bhattacharya ILR 2019 Chhattisgarh 2418 and would submit that the finding of the trial Court would be wrong.

¶34

Per contra , Mr. Amiyakant Tiwari and Ms. Mamta Patel, learned counsel appearing with the respondent/wife submitted that the appellant/husband tried to show that the wife was suffering from mental health and was forced to leave the house. Though, there is no any medical evidence in this regard. It has been submitted that the appellant was in illicit relations with one lady and had also performed marriage. Therefore, this conduct would show that from the day one, the appellant wanted to get rid of the wife on one pretext or the other. With respect to the report made u/s 498-A, they also submitted that the wife was subjected to cruelty and harassment and eventually the report was made. Even if the acquittal order was there, this would not completely exonerate the husband of any charge of cruelty and on the part of the husband, the allegation of respondent-wife being treated with cruelty still exists. Therefore, the Family Court has rightly passed the impugned judgment which does not call for any interference.

¶35

We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length.

¶36

¶37

It is an admitted position that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 26/04/2007 in accordance with Hindu Rites and Rituals. The appellant/husband filed an application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for decree of divorce against his wife/respondent. On the basis of pleadings made by the parties, the learned Family Court framed the following issues:-

¶38

क.्ቚ्቞			नि�ष्क्ቧ
1	क्या ्ቚति�वादी/अ�ावेनिदका ्ቛारा वादी/आवेदक को शारीरिरक,मा सक रूप से ्ቚ�ानि�� कर उसका स्वेच्छया अभि$त्याग कर निदया गया हैं?	े ू े ्ቚि "�हीं"
2	क्या ्ቚति�वादी/अ�ावेनिदका आवेदक/वादी ्ቛारा रूपयों की मांग पर शारीरिरक,मा�सिसक ्ቚ �ा��ा एवं आवेदक ्ቛारा अन्य मनिहला से निववाह कर ले�े के कारण आवेदक/वादी से पृथक् नि�वास कर रही हैं?	्ቛ ूं ं े ्ቛ ् ि े ि ेे े "हां"
3	क्या ्ቚति�वादी/अ�ावेनिदका आवेदक/वादी के निवरू्ቍ निववाह निवच्छेद की आ्ሺनि7 ्ቚा7 कर�े की अति8कारी हैं?	े िू्ቍ ि ि्े ्ሺि ्ቚ े ि "�हीं"
4	सहाय�ा एवं व्यय?	“वादी ि् निकया"	का वाद नि�रस्�

¶39

The learned Family Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence found that the respondent/husband failed to prove issues, therefore, the learned Family Court dismissed the suit for grant of decree of divorce.

¶40

Perusal of the pleadings would show that it is alleged by the husband that the allegations were made against him that he had illicit relations with one lady and had performed marriage with her. It has further been pleaded that the wife extended

¶41

¶42

threat and subsequently she has lodged report making false allegation against the appellant as well as his age-old parents stating that she was subjected to torture for demand of dowry. In reply, the wife alleged that she was subjected to torture physically and mentally both by the family members of the appellant/husband just after the marriage. On 30/05/2011, a report was made by the wife under Section 498-A of the IPC, after investigation, a charge-sheet was filed and the appellant was acquitted vide order dated 12/12/2018. the certified copy of order dated 12/12/2018 has been placed before this Court under Order 41 rule 27. It being the certified copy of a criminal case is taken into record. Inasmuch as it runs parallel to the pleading made by the husband that he was subjected to a trial under Section 498-A of the IPC. The judgment would be relevant to show that there was a trial resulting into acquittal. Perusal of the acquittal order dated 12/12/2018 would show that the learned Sessions Judge, Bemetara setaside the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Saja, District Bemetara, whereby the appellant/husband was convicted under Section 498-A of the IPC on the complaint made by the wife/respondent. The learned Sessions Judge adjudicated the trial under Section 498-A of the IPC by including the evidence led by the respondent/wife. Eventually, the finding arrived at was that the assault caused by the appellant/husband was not proved and this fact was also not proved that she was subjected to torture for demand of dowry of any threat.

¶43

¶44

Perusal of the pleading and evidence and the copy of the acquittal order dated 12/12/2018 would further show that the husband had to undergo trial which ultimately resulted in his acquittal. In the prosecution under Section 498-A of the IPC not only acquittal was recorded but observation was made that the assault was not caused by the husband which were alleged to be made by the wife, therefore, as has been held by Supreme Court, in the matter of Rani Narasimha Sastry Vs. Rani Sunella Rani reported in 2020 SAR (Civ) 122 can be applied in the facts of this case and when a person undergoes a trial in which he is acquitted on merits of the allegation of offence under Sections 498-A of IPC, leveled by the wife against husband, it cannot be accepted that no cruelty was meted out on the husband.

¶45

The another ground which is raised by the husband is about desertion by the wife that without any lawful cause she left the company and she is residing separately since 2009. The pleading made in the plaint and the reply when are considered would show that wife has made two-fold defence. One is that, husband has kept married with another lady and she was abused and assaulted. Further she made a categorical statement that the husband and his family members were demanding dowry, therefore, she left his company. The statement of the husband is that he wanted to take her back but she did not come back and refused to stay. It is also corroborated by the statement of Dheerpal Patel (PW-2). It is also apparent from the record that the husband/appellant had

¶46

¶47

sent a registered notice to the wife/respondent, but she refused to stay with the appellant.

¶48

Now coming back to the allegation of extra marital affairs, the wife pleaded that the husband has married with another lady and had kept with him. In the cross-examination of the husband, at para 18, suggestion was made that he is in a relation with lady named Human Bai, on which, the appellant/husband denied the same.

¶49

In a matter of extra marital affair allegation, the Hon'ble Supreme Court dealing with the said issue in the matter of Narendra Vs. K. Meena reported in AIR 2016 SC 4599 reiterated the view taken in the matter of Vjaykumar Ramchandra bhate Vs. Neela Vijaykumar Bhate, reported in AIR 2003 SC 2462 and held that when the assassination of character is made by either of the parties it would constitute a mental cruelty for which a claim for divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 would be sustainable. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus at para

¶50

"13.... The position of law in this regard has come to be well-settled and declared that levelling disgusting accusations of unchastity and indecent familiarity with a person outside wedlock and allegations of extra marital relationship is a grave assault on the character, honour. reputation, status as well as the health of the wife. Such aspersions of perfidiousness attributed to the wife, viewed in the context of an educated Indian wife and judged by Indian conditions and standards would amount to worst form of insult and cruelty in law, warranting the

¶51

¶52

claim of the wife being allowed. That such allegations made in the written statement or suggested in th course of examination and by way of cross-examination satisfy the requirement of law has also come to be firmly laid down by this Court. On going through the relevant portions of such allegations, we find that no exception could be taken to the findings recorded by the Family Court as well as the High Court. We find that they are of such quality, magnitude and consequence as to cause mental pain, agony and suffering amounting to the reformulated concept of cruelty in matrimonial law causing profound and lasting disruption and driving the wife to feel deeply hurt and reasonably apprehend that it would be dangerous for her to live with a husband who was taunting her like that and rendered the maintenance of matrimonial home impossible."

¶53

Taking into totality of the pleadings of the evidence, we are of the view that the husband was able to prove that he was falsely implicated in the case and was subjected to criminal trial under Section 498-A r/w Sections 323 and had to undergo a trial on a report made by the wife. Further, no plausible cause has been shown by the wife not to join the company and she is residing separately since 2009, the desertion by the wife was also proved. With respect to the illicit relation, nothing is on record to show that the allegation so levelled by the wife against husband that he is having an extra-marital affair outside the marriage was proved and only casual allegations was made, therefore, that would also be within the ambit of cruelty.

¶54

¶55

Under the circumstances, the impugned judgment and decree of learned Court below is liable to be and is hereby set-aside and we grant a decree of divorce in favour of husband to dissolve the marriage dated 26/04/2007 by decree of divorce.

¶56

Now coming to grant of permanent alimony to wife, it is apparent from the facts and pleading that the appellant is a cultivator, therefore, it would be appropriate for us to grant Rs. 15,00,000/- towards permanent alimony to the wife/respondent. Accordingly, the appellant/husband is directed to pay an amount of Rs. 15 lacs to the wife/respondent as permanent alimony.

¶57

Let a decree be drawn up accordingly.

¶58

Sd/Sd/(Rajani Dubey) (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Judge

¶59

Rahul

Tikamverma v. Smt. Lakshmi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tikamverma v. Smt. Lakshmi

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

Karan Kumar Tejwani Vs Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Rajnandgaon

Preetam Sethiya Vs Smt. Panavati Sethiya

Hemant Lunkad Vs Smt. Alka Bapat

Kamar Ali Memon @ China and Another Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shekhar Gupta Kaveri Shah Vs Smt. Meena Singh

Mahendra Kumar Sen Vs Smt. Sarita Sen