Dismissed¶36

Smt. Chaitali Das v. B. K. Das

Chhattisgarh HC5 Feb 2026FA(MAT)/200/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Divorce-cruelty appeal, Chhattisgarh High Court Bilaspur, FA(MAT) No. 200 of 2023, decided 06.02.2026 (neutral citation 2026:CGHC:6812-DB, NAFR). Appellant-wife Chaitali Das vs respondent-husband B.K. Das; marriage 16.02.1997, separation since 03.05.2018; Section 13(1)(ia) Hindu Marriage Act cruelty not established; wife left home after husband's 2015 retirement; son Sourabh Das (DW-2) not examined though best witness; witnesses included Mitali Basu (PW-02), Rashmi Lal (PW-03), V. Someshwar Rao (DW-03); Family Court order dated 14.06.2023 upheld; appeal dismissed, parties to bear own costs.

What did the court decide?

No relief to the appellant; the appeal is dismissed and the Family Court order dated 14.06.2023 stands; parties shall bear their own costs and decree be drawn accordingly. ¶36

Smt. Chaitali Das Vs B. K. Das — Matrimonial and Divorce | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief to the appellant; the appeal is dismissed and the Family Court order dated 14.06.2023 stands; parties shall bear their own costs and decree be drawn accordingly.

¶36

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dated 14.06.2023 of the learned Family Court, Bilaspur rejecting the appellant-wife's application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for a decree of divorce is legal, valid and correct. +1 more

¶18

Court's answer

The Family Court's finding that cruelty on the part of the respondent-husband is not established is a correct finding of fact based on evidence and is neither perverse nor contrary to the record.

¶35

Ratio / Principle

There is no evidence available on record to show that at any point of time the respondent-husband subjected the appellant-wife to any kind of physical or mental cruelty.

¶35

Key takeaways

It is proved that the appellant herself left the respondent and started living separately; due to her own fault she is not entitled to obtain a decree of divorce.ratio¶35
No illegality or perversity is found in the impugned order dated 14.06.2023 (Annexure-P/01) passed by the learned Family Court, and consequently the appeal filed by the appellant-wife is dismissed.ratio¶36

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Chhattisgarh High Court (Division Bench: Ramesh Sinha, CJ and Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J.; per Ramesh Sinha, CJ) in FA(MAT) No. 200 of 2023, decided 06.02.2026: Wife's appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 against the Family Court, Bilaspur order dated 14.06.2023 rejecting her Section 13 Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 divorce petition. Held: no evidence showed the respondent-husband subjected the appellant-wife to physical or mental cruelty; the allegation of imputations on her character could not be relied upon since she left only after his retirement; it is proved she herself left the matrimonial home (after 03.05.2018) to live at her sister's house, and due to her own fault she was not entitled to a decree of divorce; her son, the best witness who lived with her, was not examined. The Family Court's finding of fact was held correct, neither perverse nor contrary to record. Appeal dismissed; parties to bear their own costs.

¶1

Page No.1 of 6 IN FA(MAT)-200-2023

¶2

Digitally SAIFAN signed KHAN bySAIFAN KHAN

¶3

2026:CGHC:6812-DB

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

FA(MAT) No. 200 of 2023

¶7

Smt. Chaitali Das W/o Shri B.K. Das, Aged About 51 Years Occupation Naukari Vyakhyata Govt. Ucchtar Madhyamik Shala Devrikhurd Bilaspur Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh Present AddressGayatri Mandir Chouk, Gangaram Bada Vidhyanagar, Gali No. R-05 Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)

¶8

... Appellant

¶9

Versus

¶10

B. K. Das S/o Late Shri B.N. Das, Aged About 63 Years R/o Flat No. 407 Ambatower Phess 01, Vinoba Nagar Dipupara, Varsha Narsing Ke Samne Bilaspur Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

¶11

... Respondent

¶12

[Cause-title taken from Case Information System (CIS)]

¶13

For Appellant : Mr. Abdul Moin Khan, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. RS Marhas and Ms. Shweta Mishra, Advocates

¶14

Division Bench

¶15

Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice and Hon'ble Mr. Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge

¶16

Judgment on Board (06.02.2026)

¶17

Per: Ramesh Sinha, CJ

¶18

1. In this appeal filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, the appellant- wife is calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of impugned order dated 14.06.2023 (Annexure-P/01), passed by the learned Family Court, Bilaspur, whereby her application filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking a

¶19

decree of divorce has been rejected.

¶20

Page No.2 of 6 IN FA(MAT)-200-2023

¶21

2. The facts of the case, in short, is that the marriage of the appellant was solemnized with the respondent on 16.02.1997 and, out of the said wedlock, they were blessed with two issues. However, after year 2015, disputes arose between the parties and it is alleged by the appellantwife that the respondent-husband started harassing her mentally and physically and, pursuant to which, she made complaints to the police authorities and, ultimately, started residing separately since 03.05.2018. Thereafter, on 19.06.2018, the appellant-wife filed an application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the learned Family Court, Bilaspur seeking a decree of divorce and dissolution of her marriage with the respondent. But, the learned Family Court vide impugned order dated 14.06.2023 rejected the said application of the appellant-wife on the ground that no ground enumerated under Section 13(1)(ia) of Act of 1955 with regard to cruelty has been established by the appellant-wife and, therefore, no order for dissolution of her marriage with the respondent can be passed. Aggrieved, the instant appeal has been preferred.

¶22

3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the learned Family Court is absolutely unjustified in rejected the application of the appellant-wife for dissolution of her marriage with the respondenthusband by recording findings which are perverse and contrary to the record. He also submits the appellant-wife was subjected to cruelty by the respondent-husband and they are not residing together since 03.05.2018. Learned counsel vehemently argued that there has been no resumption of cohabitation and conjugal rights between the parties

¶23

Page No.3 of 6 IN FA(MAT)-200-2023

¶24

and there is no possibility of their reunion. Hence, the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court dated 14.06.2023 deserves to be set aside and the application filed by the appellant seeking a decree of divorce is liable to be allowed.

¶25

4. Per-contra , learned counsel appearing for the respondent supported the impugned order and prays for dismissal of this appeal.

¶26

5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection.

¶27

6. In the case at hand, according to the appellant-wife, the respondent-husband retired from service in the year 2015 and, after his retirement, he began physically and mentally harassing her, started using filthy and abusive language, and began threatening to kill her. He also started doubting her character and, by accusing her of having an illicit relationship with her real sister’s husband and used to assault her too. Thereafter, by threatening to kill her, he drove her out of the house. Since then, she has been living separately from the house along with her younger son. However, as per the stand of respondent- husband, after his retirement, the appellant-wife started behaving badly with him, taunting him repeatedly, and pressurizing him to continue working even after retirement. When he stated that he wanted to serve his aged mother, the appellant-wife objected and insisted that he should not serve his mother. Regarding this issue, the appellant-wife used to say that he should return only after his mother dies. The respondent-

¶28

Page No.4 of 6 IN FA(MAT)-200-2023

¶29

husband never subjected the appellant-wife to any physical or mental cruelty, nor did he ever make any allegation against her character.

¶30

7. Though, it is the contention of the appellant-wife that she left her matrimonial home taking her younger son with her, but before the family Court she did not produce any evidence with regard to the same. Even, either her younger son was cited as witness nor brought to the witness box to prove the said contention. Indeed, the appellant examined only her sister Mitali Basu (PW-02) as a witness and also examined oneSmt. Rashmi Lal as PW-03. Further, from the statement of Smt. Rashmi Lal (PW-03), it does not appear that the respondent- husband ever made any allegation against the character of the appellant-wife in her presence. Similarly, V. Someshwar Rao (DW-03) also stated in support of the respondent-husband that after the retirement of the respondent from service, the appellant-wife used to taunt and mentally harass him. It has also been stated by the said witness that the behavior of the appellant-wife towards the respondent-husband and his children was not good. The respondent-husband never doubted the character of the appellant-wife, rather the appellant-wife used to instigate him against her brother-in-law and sister, which resulted in disputes in the respondent’s household. It was further stated that the appellant-wife used to prevent the respondent- husband from serving his mother and do any work for her. Thereafter, because of all these issues, disputes arose, and ultimately, without any plausible reason, the appellant-wife left the matrimonial home and went to live at her sister’s house. Moreover, the main allegation made by the appellant-wife is that the

¶31

Page No.5 of 6 IN FA(MAT)-200-2023

¶32

respondent-husband used to abuse her with filthy language, threaten her to kill and used to assault her. However, there is no evidence in support of these allegations. The best possible witness would have been her son, who lived with her, as per her own statement, but no evidence of the son has been recorded for the reasons best known to the appellant-wife.

¶33

8. As such, in view of the aforesaid evidence available on record, it clearly transpires that the appellant-wife herself started residing in the house of her sister Mitali Basu by her own. The appellant and the respondent lived together as husband and wife for about 20 years, and after respondent’s retirement, in the year 2018, the appellant left him and started living at her sister Mitali Basu’s house. Though, it is the statement of the appellant that the respondent used to doubt her character by suspecting her of having an illicit relationship with her sister’s husband, but the same cannot be relied upon for the simple reason that had it been such a situation existed, she could have left the respondent even before his retirement. Even otherwise, as per the respondent-husband, it is clear that after retirement he started serving his mother and wanted to continue doing so, which was not acceptable to his wife (the appellant herein), and because of this issue, she left the matrimonial home. It is proved from the statement of appellant’s sister that the appellant left the respondent and started living with her. This fact is also supported by the statements of her son Sourabh Das (DW-2) and witness V. Someshwar Rao (DW-3). Further, from the statement of the appellant (PW-01) itself, it is clear that she does not wish to maintain

¶34

Page No.6 of 6 IN FA(MAT)-200-2023

¶35

any relationship with her mother-in-law and does not know anything about her. From all these facts, it is evident that the appellant herself left the respondent and has been living separately from him and there is no evidence available on record to show that at any point of time the respondent-husband subjected the appellant-wife with any kind of physical or mental cruelty. Consequently, the learned Family Court clearly recorded a finding that cruelty on the part of the respondenthusband is not established and, since, it is proved that appellant herself left the respondent and started living separately, therefore, due to her own fault, she is not entitled to obtain a decree of divorce, which finding, in the considered opinion of this Court is correct finding of fact based on evidence and same is neither perverse nor contrary to the record.

¶36

9. Accordingly, in view of above discussion, we do not find and illegality or perversity in the impugned order dated 14.06.2023 (Annexure-P/01) passed by the learned Family Court and, therefore, the present appeal at the instant of the appellant-wife is liable to be and is hereby dismissed .

¶37

10. Parties shall bear their own cost and decree be drawn accordingly.

¶38

sd/sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice

¶39

s@if

Smt. Chaitali Das v. B. K. Das

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Chaitali Das v. B. K. Das

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mahendra Banjare Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Heeradhan @ Heeradhar Pawle, Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Manoj Kumar Verma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Jonson Khalxo

Aman Rajpal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rohit Kumar Lader Vs State of Chhattisgarh